Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in? Isaiah talks about God coming with "vengeance" and "divine retribution." And the prophet says that the result of God’s coming with "divine retribution" is that "the lame leap like a deer," "the eyes of the blind are open." All kinds of good things happen. It sounds like a "happy" vengeance. The coming of God is the happiest of all events because he comes to "save you." God comes to tackle a sinful world – not by destroying it, but by saving it. The words of Isaiah the Old Testament prophet were fulfilled when Jesus came and died for the sins of the world. Jesus did the only thing to sin that really helps. He paid the penalty for it. He washed it away in his blood shed on the cross.
The whole world can rejoice because the promised Savior has come with vengeance to free us from the guilt of our sin. With eyes and ears opened to the good news of Jesus, we jump and shout for joy because his salvation gushes into our hearts with life-giving power and hope.
Prayer: Oh, Lord, our God, I thank you for coming to save this sinful world by offering yourself for me and the sins of the whole world. Help me to see your salvation and rejoice in it every day. Amen.
Didn't this already happen when He was carted off tonight from Kentucky's Commonwealth Stadium with concussion like symptoms? There's blood running through his veins, you say? Now that's a revelation indeed.
(No disrespect to God or Christians or any other religion intended.)
G_Force saidStrengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in?
Because god is a figment of the imagination. Just as real as Poke'mon or the Ninja turtles.
G_Force saidStrengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in?
Because god is a figment of the imagination. Just as real as Poke'mon or the Ninja turtles.
G_Force said A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
G_Force saidStrengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in? Isaiah talks about God coming with "vengeance" and "divine retribution." And the prophet says that the result of God’s coming with "divine retribution" is that "the lame leap like a deer," "the eyes of the blind are open." All kinds of good things happen. It sounds like a "happy" vengeance. The coming of God is the happiest of all events because he comes to "save you." God comes to tackle a sinful world – not by destroying it, but by saving it. The words of Isaiah the Old Testament prophet were fulfilled when Jesus came and died for the sins of the world. Jesus did the only thing to sin that really helps. He paid the penalty for it. He washed it away in his blood shed on the cross.
The whole world can rejoice because the promised Savior has come with vengeance to free us from the guilt of our sin. With eyes and ears opened to the good news of Jesus, we jump and shout for joy because his salvation gushes into our hearts with life-giving power and hope.
Prayer: Oh, Lord, our God, I thank you for coming to save this sinful world by offering yourself for me and the sins of the whole world. Help me to see your salvation and rejoice in it every day. Amen.
l cant believe the most of u guys are saying, thisjust makes me think about the fact of being gay and if its good or bad to God's eyes. l hope u to know him someday and be thankfull for all He had given to us.
G_Force saidStrengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in? Isaiah talks about God coming with "vengeance" and "divine retribution." And the prophet says that the result of God’s coming with "divine retribution" is that "the lame leap like a deer," "the eyes of the blind are open." All kinds of good things happen. It sounds like a "happy" vengeance. The coming of God is the happiest of all events because he comes to "save you." God comes to tackle a sinful world – not by destroying it, but by saving it. The words of Isaiah the Old Testament prophet were fulfilled when Jesus came and died for the sins of the world. Jesus did the only thing to sin that really helps. He paid the penalty for it. He washed it away in his blood shed on the cross.
The whole world can rejoice because the promised Savior has come with vengeance to free us from the guilt of our sin. With eyes and ears opened to the good news of Jesus, we jump and shout for joy because his salvation gushes into our hearts with life-giving power and hope.
Prayer: Oh, Lord, our God, I thank you for coming to save this sinful world by offering yourself for me and the sins of the whole world. Help me to see your salvation and rejoice in it every day. Amen.
You're a beautiful man, G_Force. Be ever wonderful
Regarding the second coming every generation have proclaimed that God is coming in their time and even the in Jesus time, they believed Jesus was returning in their time , and that is why they preach as if the world was ending . so here is the reality check.
RyanReBoRn saidIt's good to see that spite is alive and well in the gay community this fine morning (not).
Very beautiful post, G_Force. Don't let the hate get you down.
The HATE is what's been coming non-stop from the so-called Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and what not for the last 2,000 years (at least), RyanReBoRn. What the other posters have put up here is called "humor".
2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
RyanReBoRn saidIt's good to see that spite is alive and well in the gay community this fine morning (not).
Very beautiful post, G_Force. Don't let the hate get you down.
The HATE is what's been coming non-stop from the so-called Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and what not for the last 2,000 years (at least), RyanReBoRn. What the other posters have put up here is called "humor".
And that's exactly it. You're basing your opinions of true, loving Christians on the actions of "so-called" Christians, people who are so caught up in their own misguided hatred that they can't see what the true massage of their faith is. That message, btw, is faith expressing itself as love.
You'd think with how gay people are often lumped together with child molesters and polygamists that gay people themselves would at least be hesitant to do the same to other groups of people but you'd be wrong.
Also, I can't speak for the Muslim faith as I know nothing about it.
I'm sorry but if being a good loving person who cares for other people and causes no harm to others is not good enough for "God" then he/she/its not worth paying attention to. If what is required is parking your ass in church and beating a bible then it appears to me to be a rather childish god at that and once again not worth paying attention to. Like Bill Joel says "I'd rather laugh with the sinners then cry with the saints."
I forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
It's important that it be exposed for the malarkey that it is. False belief systems are a plague upon civilization and the source of the vast majority of evil within it. It's important it be exposed for what it is: nonsense, brainwashing / indoctrination, with no basis in any fact, with far to many contradictions to even be plausible.
The Religious Nuts would pitch a fit if folks were spreading stuff on the other side of the fence. When a nut posts something here, they're fair game.
If I said a house was on fire, you'd say where. If you then found out it wasn't true, and that, in fact, it wasn't on fire, you'd call me a nut, or maybe even put me in jail for false alarms. That's exactly what these nuts do. It's just that anytime someone invokes "God" all rules of common sense and creditability seem to get thrown out.
I've heard about "God"'s coming for decades. Pick your date. Guess what. He ain't showed up. The nuts are nuttier than ever.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. - Matthew16:28
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. - Mark 9:1
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. - Mark 13:30
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. - Luke 9:27
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. - Luke 21:32
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. - 1 Peter 1:20
But the end of all things is at hand. - 1 Peter 4:7
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. - 1 John 2:18
Please pray that the original poster will gain some common sense and logic, and not be so crazy as to think he knows God's schedule (ROFL). If God can give him intelligence to understand that he isn't coming, then, there, you have something.
lilZ saidI forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
RyanReBoRn said And that's exactly it. You're basing your opinions of true, loving Christians on the actions of "so-called" Christians, people who are so caught up in their own misguided hatred that they can't see what the true massage of their faith is.
Well, that brings up the issue of who gets to decide what a "real" Christian is? Fundamentalists are fond of dismissing anyone who doesn't believe in a literal and inerrant Bible as "not a real Christian" (i.e. anyone who doesn't share their orthodoxy and doctrine).
More liberal and mainstream churches demure that fundamentalists don't represent "real" Christianity.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. - Mark 9:1 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. - Luke 9:27 and who is to say that this is not the case?
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. - Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. - Luke 21:32 What generation is He talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex, you would get it.
lilZ saidI forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
It's insecurity.
No, it's not. Frustration maybe, but not insecurity.
As someone who's been on both sides of this issue, it aggravates me that I was brought up to believe, and take seriously, the fanciful and absurd beliefs of the Christian church.
That some people still credulously believe all of this without the faintest interest in healthy skepticism is a little bit sad and bewildering. Blind allegiance without questioning is unhealthy. It's human manipulation by the powerful at its worst. It's what lead nearly 1,000 people to relocate and live in a commune in Jonestown, Guyana, eventually lining up to commit suicide at the orders of their religious leader.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
RyanReBoRn said And that's exactly it. You're basing your opinions of true, loving Christians on the actions of "so-called" Christians, people who are so caught up in their own misguided hatred that they can't see what the true massage of their faith is.
Well, that brings up the issue of who gets to decide what a "real" Christian is? Fundamentalists are fond of dismissing anyone who doesn't believe in a literal and inerrant Bible as "not a real Christian" (i.e. anyone who doesn't share their orthodoxy and doctrine).
More liberal and mainstream churches demure that fundamentalists don't represent "real" Christianity.
So who is a "real" Christian?
The one's who follow Jesus Christ's command to Love God and/by loving our neighbors as our selves. After all, if you can't follow such a simple command of the person your religion is named after, any further discussion of being real or not real is pointless. Is it not?
Loving your neighbor, of course, does not at all require you to sit in a church at any time or even to "Bible thump" if you don't want to, Akula. Required Church attendance is a modern thing designed more for an attempt to control the masses than to teach people about the Bible.
lilZ saidI forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
It's insecurity.
No, it's not. Frustration maybe, but not insecurity.
As someone who's been on both sides of this issue, it aggravates me that I was brought up to believe, and take seriously, the fanciful and absurd beliefs of the Christian church.
That some people still credulously believe all of this without the faintest interest in healthy skepticism is a little bit sad and bewildering. Blind allegiance without questioning is unhealthy. It's human manipulation by the powerful at its worst. It's what lead nearly 1,000 people to relocate and live in a commune in Jonestown, Guyana, eventually lining up to commit suicide at the orders of their religious leader.
So you're trying to turn them away from faith but what are you offering them? Do you believe in spirit? Do you believe in anything? If so, are you offering that? The OP provided scripture from the bible that speaks about being redeemed. He offered something to whoever comes upon his post. Those of you that object to this scripture, what have you offered in the way of peace and redemption?
Bravo Global well said and if god so wanted us to be blind lemmings we would all be simpletons (like fundamental christians), it's rather insulting to say there is a god then not use the brains it gave to question a book written by humans.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
Now you are taking my response out of context. I reorderd your posts because several of your quotes from the bible were dealing with the same thing.
None of the scriptures that you quote are ambiguous to me. They do become ambiguous if you however only pick a part of the verse and decide to use it. I enjoin you to look at the verese and the parts of the passage in their entirety.
Blackguy4you said Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. - Mark 9:1 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. - Luke 9:27 and who is to say that this is not the case?
Maybe I'm being dense, but are you arguing both pre- AND postmillennially?
lilZ saidI forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
It's insecurity.
No, it's not. Frustration maybe, but not insecurity.
As someone who's been on both sides of this issue, it aggravates me that I was brought up to believe, and take seriously, the fanciful and absurd beliefs of the Christian church.
That some people still credulously believe all of this without the faintest interest in healthy skepticism is a little bit sad and bewildering. Blind allegiance without questioning is unhealthy. It's human manipulation by the powerful at its worst. It's what lead nearly 1,000 people to relocate and live in a commune in Jonestown, Guyana, eventually lining up to commit suicide at the orders of their religious leader.
Yea, some people take it to the extremes. But you know what? It's THEIR belief. Were we not all created with freewill to not do what we want? Can we not believe in what we want to? I'm not saying that religions can be downright nuts, but isn't it their right to CHOOSE what/who to believe in? I don't see anyone with a gun pointed to your head saying, believe in God, or DIE. No, you have everything set in front of you, all the information you need to form your own beliefs. And you did. You don't see me here bashing you for it, do you? No. I'll tell you what I do see, though, and that's someone who must not be secure enough in their own beliefs that they have to try to discredit any other belief out there.
lilZ saidI forgot how disrespectful and downright rude some of you are when it comes to other peoples religions. You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
It's insecurity.
No, it's not. Frustration maybe, but not insecurity.
As someone who's been on both sides of this issue, it aggravates me that I was brought up to believe, and take seriously, the fanciful and absurd beliefs of the Christian church.
That some people still credulously believe all of this without the faintest interest in healthy skepticism is a little bit sad and bewildering. Blind allegiance without questioning is unhealthy. It's human manipulation by the powerful at its worst. It's what lead nearly 1,000 people to relocate and live in a commune in Jonestown, Guyana, eventually lining up to commit suicide at the orders of their religious leader.
So you're trying to turn them away from faith but what are you offering them? Do you believe in spirit? Do you believe in anything? If so, are you offering that? The OP provided scripture from the bible that speaks about being redeemed. He offered something to whoever comes upon his post. Those of you that object to this scripture, what have you offered in the way of peace and redemption?
In a nutshell
2Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
It's not so bad that it's THEIR belief but, understand, it's when they try to indoctrinate others with it, and it's clearly false, and when they use it as a vehicle of oppression and hatred that they are both a danger and a menace.
E.g., the young men that flew into The World Trade Center were honoring THEIR belief. Arguably, these nuts constitute a clear and present danger to society in THEIR BELIEF, whatever that false belief system might be. Same thing with the witch hunts.
Religion / falsehoods have a long standing premise of being based on falsehoods. It's a poison that infects the minds of young people who are forced into it, and it's a poison that is the basis for much evil in civilization.
THEIR BELIEF is often a real danger to regular people.
If I came forth and said the earth was square, I'd get called a nut. Folks with these false belief systems deserve no less.
Yea, some people take it to the extremes. But you know what? It's THEIR belief. Were we not all created with freewill to not do what we want? Can we not believe in what we want to? I'm not saying that religions can be downright nuts, but isn't it their right to CHOOSE what/who to believe in? I don't see anyone with a gun pointed to your head saying, believe in God, or DIE. No, you have everything set in front of you, all the information you need to form your own beliefs. And you did. You don't see me here bashing you for it, do you? No. I'll tell you what I do see, though, and that's someone who must not be secure enough in their own beliefs that they have to try to discredit any other belief out there.
if it were a simple case of I believe in this and you believe in that so lets agree on disagreeing it would be great but its not. Its I believe in this and if you don't your wrong. You WILL follow what I believe in and I WON"T respect your beliefs. That's why people on here get upset when people start spouting off religious dogma. Sorry its the real world
Now you are taking my response out of context. I reorderd your posts because several of your quotes from the bible were dealing with the same thing.
None of the scriptures that you quote are ambiguous to me. They do become ambiguous if you however only pick a part of the verse and decide to use it. I enjoin you to look at the verese and the parts of the passage in their entirety.
Ah, I think I see; you're interpreting the passages as referencing the Transfiguration, rather than the Second Coming, correct? You should maybe say so, rather than being patronizing. I was raised Christian, and have read the Bible many times, thanks. Telling me The Truth will become clear if I just read scripture probably won't render a different result.
Leaving aside Paul's letters, where he clearly believes he's living in the end times, go back to Mark 8 and it's obvious (to me ) Jesus is talking about The Judgment, not his resurrection.
chuckystud saidIt's not so bad that it's THEIR belief but, understand, it's when they try to indoctrinate others with it, and it's clearly false, and when they use it as a vehicle of oppression and hatred that they are both a danger and a menace.
E.g., the young men that flew into The World Trade Center were honoring THEIR belief. Arguably, these nuts constitute a clear and present danger to society in TIER BELIEF, whatever that false belief system might be. Same thing with the witch hunts.
Religion / falsehoods have a long standing premise of being based on falsehoods. It's a poison that infects the minds of young people who are forced into it, and it's a poison that is the basis for much evil in civilization.
THEIR BELIEF is often a real danger to regular people.
Point taken. Although I still do believe it's disrespectful to ridicule and even sometimes laugh at ones beliefs. I mean, I could laugh at all of you... because you believe in nothing, or wait... is the weight bench your god?
joeyveras said So you're trying to turn them away from faith but what are you offering them? Do you believe in spirit? Do you believe in anything? If so, are you offering that? The OP provided scripture from the bible that speaks about being redeemed. He offered something to whoever comes upon his post. Those of you that object to this scripture, what have you offered in the way of peace and redemption?
I'm not offering any spiritual guidance and have no interest in doing so. Proselytizing is not my thing. I loathe it in fact.
But that's not to say I don't think people would benefit by breaking free of the silliness that is religion. There's a lot of that peace you're looking for when you're not living your life beholden to and cowed by some set of concocted dogma.
So many people have been brainwashed to think they need "redemption" and that they're awful people who need a savior. That's an invented notion.
Be a good person. Treat others well. Act with class and character. You don't need redemption or religion.
Yea, some people take it to the extremes. But you know what? It's THEIR belief. Were we not all created with freewill to not do what we want? Can we not believe in what we want to? I'm not saying that religions can be downright nuts, but isn't it their right to CHOOSE what/who to believe in? I don't see anyone with a gun pointed to your head saying, believe in God, or DIE. No, you have everything set in front of you, all the information you need to form your own beliefs. And you did. You don't see me here bashing you for it, do you? No. I'll tell you what I do see, though, and that's someone who must not be secure enough in their own beliefs that they have to try to discredit any other belief out there.
if it were a simple case of I believe in this and you believe in that so lets agree on disagreeing it would be great but its not. Its I believe in this and if you don't your wrong. You WILL follow what I believe in and I WON"T respect your beliefs. That's why people on here get upset when people start spouting off religious dogma. Sorry its the real world
Sorry, I don't see any of that here. All I see are some of you trying to say that we are wrong if we CHOOSE to believe in God. I don't see it the other way around. No where in here do I see someone trying to FORCE their beliefs... on any of you. So, like I said... if you don't agree with Christianity, then stay the hell out of the threads. It's THAT simple.
Sorry lilZ that's a crock this is not a little isolated thread, its a post on a gay site and many many of us have been abused by religious types. Now if YOU don't like it go post on a religious site, you won' t see any of us there. As for no one is forcing their beliefs on us I call BULLSHIT on that when religious groups dump tens of millions to deny my bf and I the right to marry then ya they are FORCING their beliefs on others PERIOD!
joeyveras said So you're trying to turn them away from faith but what are you offering them? Do you believe in spirit? Do you believe in anything? If so, are you offering that? The OP provided scripture from the bible that speaks about being redeemed. He offered something to whoever comes upon his post. Those of you that object to this scripture, what have you offered in the way of peace and redemption?
I'm not offering any spiritual guidance and have no interest in doing so. Proselytizing is not my thing. I loathe it in fact.
But that's not to say I don't think people would benefit by breaking free of the silliness that is religion. There's a lot of that peace you're looking for when you're not living your life beholden to and cowed by some set of concocted dogma.
So many people have been brainwashed to think they need "redemption" and that they're awful people who need a savior. That's an invented notion.
Be a good person. Treat others well. Act with class and character. You don't need redemption or religion.
Alot of people do need religion because it helps guide them to their spiritual core. And in fact you are proselytizing. You just happen to be attempting to convert people into non-believers.
Akula saidSorry lilZ that's a crock this is not a little isolated thread, its a post on a gay site and many many of us have been abused by religious types. Now if YOU don't like it go post on a religious site, you won' t see any of us there. As for no one is forcing their beliefs on us I call BULLSHIT on that when religious groups dump tens of millions to deny my bf and I the right to marry then ya they are FORCING their beliefs on others PERIOD!
Apparently I'm not getting my point across. You're right, those religious groups that denied you and your boyfriend the right to marry, ARE RIGHT HERE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. If you want to bitch about a religion, THEN MAKE A F*CKING THREAD FOR IT. No where in this subject do I see, "Why do you hate Christianity?", "What are your thoughts on religions?", "Why don't you have a God?". Etc, etc, etc....
I would submit that if you don't want scrutiny, you should go to a site where discussion is more one-sided / oppressive where all the views will be supported, no matter how absurd. I.e., a religious site where everyone is indoctrinated to the same false belief system.
If you post to a main stream site, you should expect main stream interaction, particularly when it comes to outlandish ideas.
If you post to a main stream site, where some folks have clearer thinking skills, you should expect that they let you know you're nuts.
In no other part of their lives do folks throw out all common sense, and rationale, as with these false belief systems. It's completely prudent to publicly question ideas that have no basis in fact and that are well beyond any level of common sense. It's what keeps crazies in check.
Akula saidSorry lilZ that's a crock this is not a little isolated thread, its a post on a gay site and many many of us have been abused by religious types. Now if YOU don't like it go post on a religious site, you won' t see any of us there. As for no one is forcing their beliefs on us I call BULLSHIT on that when religious groups dump tens of millions to deny my bf and I the right to marry then ya they are FORCING their beliefs on others PERIOD!
You're right. People do use religion to defend their bigotry all the time. But is that reflected in the scripture from the OP? I don't see the connection.
UH OHHHHHH !!!! You second comers (those who believe in the second coming) have a problem with how he's coming back. You see Pat Robertson and preacher Hagee, who our good christian Political leaders love to take advice from have a different idea of how, when and where Jesus is coming back. These two say he's coming back right after the great battle of Armagedden to set up his new kingdom (new Jerusalem) in the actual Jerusalem and soon !!! As soon they say as armageddon gets started, and they actively promote the wars around the middle east to promote his quick return. Makes sense eh !!!!! stir the shit to bring about world confligration so jesus will come back to end it, what a nifty a belief system and all to bring about the end of this wicked world so Jesus can come back and make it all better. Hell !!! whats holding us back boys, lets join up with the fight to bring about Armagedden So jesus can come save us from ourselves. LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sign up right here_______________________________ Better yet !!! be very afraid of such right wingers, warn and educate people to be careful what christian beliefs they buy into.
Now you are taking my response out of context. I reorderd your posts because several of your quotes from the bible were dealing with the same thing.
None of the scriptures that you quote are ambiguous to me. They do become ambiguous if you however only pick a part of the verse and decide to use it. I enjoin you to look at the verese and the parts of the passage in their entirety.
Ah, I think I see; you're interpreting the passages as referencing the Transfiguration, rather than the Second Coming, correct? You should maybe say so, rather than being patronizing. I was raised Christian, and have read the Bible many times, thanks. Telling me The Truth will become clear if I just read scripture probably won't render a different result.
Leaving aside Paul's letters, where he clearly believes he's living in the end times, go back to Mark 8 and it's obvious (to me ) Jesus is talking about The Judgment, not his resurrection.
No, I was not referring to the transfiguration at all. And my apologies if you think I'm being patronizing that was not my intent.
But you have taken a part of a verse and attempted to prove a point with it. If you have read the bible you would know full well that you should not do this. Since to do so oft leads to complete and invalid interpretations
Let's take Mark 9:1
The full verse says: And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
He could have been referring to Himself. But just suppose He wasn’t? Just suppose He meant that some people would remain alive. Some people believe that John was not going to die. Even some of the disciples believed that as well. Just supposed this is the case? What of it?
Where do you get that Mark 8 was talking about judgement? I don't see this do you mind pointing out the verse or verses
joeyveras saidAnd in fact you are proselytizing. You just happen to be attempting to convert people into non-believers.
No, but I can see why you want to paint it as a moral equivalency. It's the same as when religious people say atheism is a religion itself. It's a calculated fallacy. Challenging people to question shaky and illogical beliefs is not proselytizing. If so, then the entire Socratic method could be called proselytizing.
Ah, I think I see; you're interpreting the passages as referencing the Transfiguration, rather than the Second Coming, correct? You should maybe say so, rather than being patronizing. I was raised Christian, and have read the Bible many times, thanks. Telling me The Truth will become clear if I just read scripture probably won't render a different result.
Leaving aside Paul's letters, where he clearly believes he's living in the end times, go back to Mark 8 and it's obvious (to me ) Jesus is talking about The Judgment, not his resurrection.
No, I was not referring to the transfiguration at all. And my apologies if you think I'm being patronizing that was not my intent.
But you have taken a part of a verse and attempted to prove a point with it. If you have read the bible you would know full well that you should not do this. Since to do so oft leads to complete and invalid interpretations
Let's take Mark 9:1
The full verse says: And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
He could have been referring to Himself. But just suppose He wasn’t? Just suppose He meant that some people would remain alive. Some people believe that John was not going to die. Even some of the disciples believed that as well. Just supposed this is the case? What of it?
Where do you get that Mark 8 was talking about judgement? I don't see this do you mind pointing out the verse or verses
One can suppose whatever they wish, I don't have a problem with personal beliefs, except when they enter the public sphere as dogma that is meant to be taken literally, in a fundamentalist way. When Jesus speaks allegorically, it's usually noted in the narration, or by his use of parables. Sometimes I think there is little ambiguity that context doesn't change, and Mark 9:1 is an example.
Mark 8:34--38 (end of Ch. 8 ): 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed. 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
chuckystud saidIt's important that it be exposed for the malarkey that it is. False belief systems are a plague upon civilization and the source of the vast majority of evil within it. It's important it be exposed for what it is: nonsense, brainwashing / indoctrination, with no basis in any fact, with far to many contradictions to even be plausible.
The Religious Nuts would pitch a fit if folks were spreading stuff on the other side of the fence. When a nut posts something here, they're fair game.
If I said a house was on fire, you'd say where. If you then found out it wasn't true, and that, in fact, it wasn't on fire, you'd call me a nut, or maybe even put me in jail for false alarms. That's exactly what these nuts do. It's just that anytime someone invokes "God" all rules of common sense and creditability seem to get thrown out.
I've heard about "God"'s coming for decades. Pick your date. Guess what. He ain't showed up. The nuts are nuttier than ever.
Wow, Chucky, you really have a dislike for "false belief systems" a phrase which seems to be unique to your posts. There ARE a lot of things done in the name of religion where had marred human history. It is no joke to say that the Popes of Rome were the most evil monsters ever to have trod on this planet. Millions of men, women and children were tortured to death under the rule of the Popes, especially in the Spanish Inquisition, for no other crime than to have some doubt over the infallibility and teachings of the Church. The Crusaders too, were deplorable, invading the Holy Land and burning the Jews alive who lived there. Then at another thread I wrote that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian, but a Roman Catholic. Quite a few RJ members here threw up their hands in apparent horror at such a statement, referring mainly that Roman Catholicism is Christian. No it is not. Adolf Hitler had up to six million Jews slaughtered for no other reason than that they were of an inferior race to himself and did not embrace Catholicism. Hitler even held out the alternative "Convert or Die" policy, which failed to convince any of the Jews. Hitler had the authority from the Pope to slaughter the Jews. This authority was based on the Council of Trent, where every "heretic" was cursed by God, and therefore deserve to be slain. Today the Muslims hold terror to the Western world, especially the UK and the USA, with the intention to wipe out Israel and to convert the world to Islam. True Christianity is NOTHING of the stuff mentioned above. Simply put, a Christian believer is someone who had placed his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and had experienced a new birth in is heart (seat of the will, emotions etc.) - just as G_Force was trying to explain in his OP. Chucky, you mention "false belief systems" but have you ever read the Bible for yourself? Have you read the intensely accurate prophecies written to Israel in expectation of their Messiah? (eg Isaiah 53) Have you ever had a man-to-man talk with a genuine Christian to find out why he believes in what he believes in? Have you ever allowed him to show the parts of the Bible which had influenced and changed his life? And who are you to hold judgement over the Bible if you have never read it? Or run down the churches if you have never been involved with them? It looks to me, Chucky that your bias is not based on accurate information, but rather what some bigoted geeks had told you.
joeyveras saidAnd in fact you are proselytizing. You just happen to be attempting to convert people into non-believers.
No, but I can see why you want to paint it as a moral equivalency. It's the same as when religious people say atheism is a religion itself. It's a calculated fallacy. Challenging people to question shaky and illogical beliefs is not proselytizing. If so, then the entire Socratic method could be called proselytizing.
I don't want to paint any picture. I just call it the way I see it. You make it sound like people don't question the bible even in their faith. Just because someone is a Christian or Muslim or Buddist, etc doesn't mean the person automatically gets everything on the spot. Understanding is obtained through prayer/meditation/introspection and not everyone is at the same level.
Ah, I think I see; you're interpreting the passages as referencing the Transfiguration, rather than the Second Coming, correct? You should maybe say so, rather than being patronizing. I was raised Christian, and have read the Bible many times, thanks. Telling me The Truth will become clear if I just read scripture probably won't render a different result.
Leaving aside Paul's letters, where he clearly believes he's living in the end times, go back to Mark 8 and it's obvious (to me ) Jesus is talking about The Judgment, not his resurrection.
No, I was not referring to the transfiguration at all. And my apologies if you think I'm being patronizing that was not my intent.
But you have taken a part of a verse and attempted to prove a point with it. If you have read the bible you would know full well that you should not do this. Since to do so oft leads to complete and invalid interpretations
Let's take Mark 9:1
The full verse says: And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
He could have been referring to Himself. But just suppose He wasn’t? Just suppose He meant that some people would remain alive. Some people believe that John was not going to die. Even some of the disciples believed that as well. Just supposed this is the case? What of it?
Where do you get that Mark 8 was talking about judgement? I don't see this do you mind pointing out the verse or verses
One can suppose whatever they wish, I don't have a problem with personal beliefs, except when they enter the public sphere as dogma that is meant to be taken literally, in a fundamentalist way. When Jesus speaks allegorically, it's usually noted in the narration, or by his use of parables. Sometimes I think there is little ambiguity that context doesn't change, and Mark 9:1 is an example.
Mark 8:34--38 (end of Ch. 8 ): 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed. 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
You are correct, one can suppose whatever they wish . Just like you and I are doing
I will continue to suppose that you have taken the passages out of context. I will continue to suppose that Mark 8 still has nothing to do with judgement. Not any of the verses you have quoted.
The verses from Mark 8 that you have quoted speak to me of making Christ the center of one's life.
" ...steady the knees that give way...he will come with a vengeance...water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs."
I had similar experience this morning. He kept saying "Oh God" too...
lilZ said You know, if you don't agree with the whole Christianity thing, then why not stay OUT of the forums that deal with it?
I come on here to tease Blackguy4you, mainly.
LOL- oh is that why? well you know, one of these days i shall hold you down and have my wicked way with you. we'll see how much teasing you can do then... and since you are a heathen no amount of prayers are gonna help you
PHLmuscle8 saidSo you say Isaiah described God's coming as:
" ...steady the knees that give way...he will come with a vengeance...water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs."
I had similar experience this morning. He kept saying "Oh God" too...
Very cool.
This thread's starting to go in the right direction.
chuckystud saidIt's important that it be exposed for the malarkey that it is. False belief systems are a plague upon civilization and the source of the vast majority of evil within it. It's important it be exposed for what it is: nonsense, brainwashing / indoctrination, with no basis in any fact, with far to many contradictions to even be plausible.
The Religious Nuts would pitch a fit if folks were spreading stuff on the other side of the fence. When a nut posts something here, they're fair game.
If I said a house was on fire, you'd say where. If you then found out it wasn't true, and that, in fact, it wasn't on fire, you'd call me a nut, or maybe even put me in jail for false alarms. That's exactly what these nuts do. It's just that anytime someone invokes "God" all rules of common sense and creditability seem to get thrown out.
I've heard about "God"'s coming for decades. Pick your date. Guess what. He ain't showed up. The nuts are nuttier than ever.
Wow, Chucky, you really have a dislike for "false belief systems" a phrase which seems to be unique to your posts. There ARE a lot of things done in the name of religion where had marred human history. It is no joke to say that the Popes of Rome were the most evil monsters ever to have trod on this planet. Millions of men, women and children were tortured to death under the rule of the Popes, especially in the Spanish Inquisition, for no other crime than to have some doubt over the infallibility and teachings of the Church. The Crusaders too, were deplorable, invading the Holy Land and burning the Jews alive who lived there. Then at another thread I wrote that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian, but a Roman Catholic. Quite a few RJ members here threw up their hands in apparent horror at such a statement, referring mainly that Roman Catholicism is Christian. No it is not. Adolf Hitler had up to six million Jews slaughtered for no other reason than that they were of an inferior race to himself and did not embrace Catholicism. Hitler even held out the alternative "Convert or Die" policy, which failed to convince any of the Jews. Hitler had the authority from the Pope to slaughter the Jews. This authority was based on the Council of Trent, where every "heretic" was cursed by God, and therefore deserve to be slain. Today the Muslims hold terror to the Western world, especially the UK and the USA, with the intention to wipe out Israel and to convert the world to Islam. True Christianity is NOTHING of the stuff mentioned above. Simply put, a Christian believer is someone who had placed his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and had experienced a new birth in is heart (seat of the will, emotions etc.) - just as G_Force was trying to explain in his OP. Chucky, you mention "false belief systems" but have you ever read the Bible for yourself? Have you read the intensely accurate prophecies written to Israel in expectation of their Messiah? (eg Isaiah 53) Have you ever had a man-to-man talk with a genuine Christian to find out why he believes in what he believes in? Have you ever allowed him to show the parts of the Bible which had influenced and changed his life? And who are you to hold judgement over the Bible if you have never read it? Or run down the churches if you have never been involved with them? It looks to me, Chucky that your bias is not based on accurate information, but rather what some bigoted geeks had told you.
why are you trying to discredit chucky's false belief system?
You are correct, one can suppose whatever they wish . Just like you and I are doing.
I will continue to suppose that you have taken the passages out of context. I will continue to suppose that Mark 8 still has nothing to do with judgement. Not any of the verses you have quoted.
The verses from Mark 8 that you have quoted speak to me of making Christ the center of one's life.
Yes, we're supposing. I'm mostly arguing against literal interpretation. If you're not, we're at stalemate.
Not "judgment," THE Judgment. The Second Coming, the End Times. Your interpretation seems to be a spiritual argument, not a historical one.
G_Force saidStrengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way: say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with a vengeance: with divine retribution he will come to save you." Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. - Isaiah 35:4-7a
A child is molested. One group of people tries to annihilate another. Terrorists kill the innocent. Some question: Why doesn't God step in ... if there is a God? I can add to that. There are plenty of people who sin against God without fear of punishment. There are people who laugh at the idea of facing God's judgment for their sins. Why doesn't God step in?
Because god is a figment of the imagination. Just as real as Poke'mon or the Ninja turtles.
You are correct, one can suppose whatever they wish . Just like you and I are doing.
I will continue to suppose that you have taken the passages out of context. I will continue to suppose that Mark 8 still has nothing to do with judgement. Not any of the verses you have quoted.
The verses from Mark 8 that you have quoted speak to me of making Christ the center of one's life.
Yes, we're supposing. I'm mostly arguing against literal interpretation. If you're not, we're at stalemate.
Not "judgment," THE Judgment. The Second Coming, the End Times. Your interpretation seems to be a spiritual argument, not a historical one.
I cannot read the bible and pre-supposes what it's going to say. It says what it says. I'm arguing for taking the bible exactly as is. There are times what is meant is to be taken literally, there are times when it is obviously not. Obviously we know full well when to do one or the other.
The only place in Mark 8 that talks about the second coming of Christ is Mark 8:38 " If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
I don't see how you could link anything in Mark 8 beyond this, to the second coming.
And if you are taking V38 and thinking that Christ is saying that He is going to return ( his second coming) while those people who he were talking to were still alive, then methinks you have misunderstood the verse
The scripture does not support this. And no amount of literal interpretation could get it to say this
To me, it simply saying that He will likewise be ashamed of anyone in His generation and in any generation who has been ashamed of Him.
. . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
noren said . . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
if a person back then caused a stir and said stir caught the attention of the Romans, then very bad things could happen to that person . . . the causal chain is simple to understand . . .
you, however, have the soul of a thug and an ideologue . . .
if a person back then caused a stir and said stir caught the attention of the Romans, then very bad things could happen to that person . . . the causal chain is simple to understand . . .
you, however, have the soul of a thug and an ideologue . . .
further threats to me will not be tolerated . . .
i really wish i could beat some sense into you, because talking is obviously futile.
but i know when to give up beating a proverbial dead horse
I cannot read the bible and pre-supposes what it's going to say. It says what it says. I'm arguing for taking the bible exactly as is. There are times what is meant is to be taken literally, there are times when it is obviously not. Obviously we know full well when to do one or the other.
The only place in Mark 8 that talks about the second coming of Christ is Mark 8:38 " If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
I don't see how you could link anything in Mark 8 beyond this, to the second coming.
And if you are taking V38 and thinking that Christ is saying that He is going to return ( his second coming) while those people who he were talking to were still alive, then methinks you have misunderstood the verse
The scripture does not support this. And no amount of literal interpretation could get it to say this
To me, it simply saying that He will likewise be ashamed of anyone in His generation and in any generation who has been ashamed of Him.
I'm taking 9:1 as saying he'll return while some of those present are still alive. I'm taking 8:38 as giving the context of The Judgment to the subsequent verse.
If it were obvious when to take a passage literally and when not to, there would be no sects, never mind what the allegorical passages mean.
I cannot read the bible and pre-supposes what it's going to say. It says what it says. I'm arguing for taking the bible exactly as is. There are times what is meant is to be taken literally, there are times when it is obviously not. Obviously we know full well when to do one or the other.
The only place in Mark 8 that talks about the second coming of Christ is Mark 8:38 " If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
I don't see how you could link anything in Mark 8 beyond this, to the second coming.
And if you are taking V38 and thinking that Christ is saying that He is going to return ( his second coming) while those people who he were talking to were still alive, then methinks you have misunderstood the verse
The scripture does not support this. And no amount of literal interpretation could get it to say this
To me, it simply saying that He will likewise be ashamed of anyone in His generation and in any generation who has been ashamed of Him.
I'm taking 9:1 as saying he'll return while some of those present are still alive. I'm taking 8:38 as giving the context of The Judgment to the subsequent verse.
If it were obvious when to take a passage literally and when not to, there would be no sects, never mind what the allegorical passages mean.
We would first have to determine what is meant by the kingdom of God. It doesn’t necessarily mean that this is referring to God’s kingdom that is to be established post rapture, post the millennial reign of Christ.
Scally saidRegarding the second coming every generation have proclaimed that God is coming in their time and even the in Jesus time, they believed Jesus was returning in their time , and that is why they preach as if the world was ending . so here is the reality check.
God does not say he's coming in our generation. It could be 100 years or even a 1,000 or more years yet. Nobody knows when. It will be totally unexpected and unpredictable. There's not a single person who will ever know ahead. Nobody knew when he would come the first time and nobody will know the second time either,
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
It's not hard to understand this at all. They really DID see the kingdom of God come. Jesus clearly said that his kingdom is NOT an earthly kingdom, but he rules in people HEARTS, and they SAW that rule come into their own hearts as well as the hearts of many others. I see Jesus ruling this kingdom today because it is a kingdom without end.
noren said . . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
you really should read the bible
Jesus never messed with the romans
Jesus didn't seek out his death. But since he is God, he KNEW ahead of time what they would do to him and he LET THEM do their evil deed and take his life from him to SAVE us. He layed his power aside TO BENEFIT US. Then he used his power again over death to bring himself alive again. And he does the same with us. He LETS us die. so he can bring our soul to heaven and then on the Last Day he will restore our life back again, but our life will be TOTALLY PERFECT then--no diseases, no sickness. no pain, but a TOTALLY HEALTHY PERFECT BODY. Then we won't need even a single hospital because there won't be even 1 single body sick again. We won't even need a single funeral home because nobody will ever die again. We won't even need a police force or any courtrooms because nobody will do any crime. We also won't need any armed forces any more because nobody will ever go to war again. Everyone will love everyone. I'm really looking forward to this. It will be really great. It will be a totally perfect and happy life FOREVER.
chuckystud saidIt's not so bad that it's THEIR belief but, understand, it's when they try to indoctrinate others with it, and it's clearly false, and when they use it as a vehicle of oppression and hatred that they are both a danger and a menace.
E.g., the young men that flew into The World Trade Center were honoring THEIR belief. Arguably, these nuts constitute a clear and present danger to society in THEIR BELIEF, whatever that false belief system might be. Same thing with the witch hunts.
Religion / falsehoods have a long standing premise of being based on falsehoods. It's a poison that infects the minds of young people who are forced into it, and it's a poison that is the basis for much evil in civilization.
THEIR BELIEF is often a real danger to regular people.
If I came forth and said the earth was square, I'd get called a nut. Folks with these false belief systems deserve no less.
You don't beleive God is real. I do. The proof I have is my own experience in my life. I will not deny what I have experienced. What the Bible says, I have experienced it.
chuckystud saidDon't forget that believing in ${diety} requires only faith, but, to believe in truth requires SCIENCE.
Almost always, truth-based systems are a better choice.
That's why they're called false belief systems: they have no basis in truth nor science.
FACTUAL AND OBJECTIVE SCIENCE DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD. ALL CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS TEACH OBJECTIVE SCIENCE BECAUSE OBJECTIVE SCIENCE IS IN HARMONY WITH GOD'S WORD. OBJECTIVE SCIENCE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE.
Some of you may think I am a fool, but someday you will see that I wasn't a fool after all. God never said what generation Jesus is coming back visibly to create a new heaven and a new earth where there will be NONE of the shit that we have today. But I do see the earth wearing out like a garment and it's time for a new one and GOD WILL GIVE US A NEW ONE IN HIS TIME, NOT OURS. I may be long dead before this ever happens, but MY BODY WILL COME OUT OF THE GRAVE BY THE POWER OF CHRIST'S WORD TO INHERIT THIS NEW AND PERFECT EARTH WHERE WE WON"T NEED ANY POLICE FORCE ANYMORE BECAUSE NOBODY WILL DO ANY CRIMES. AND THERE WON"T BE ANY NEED FOR ANY DOCTORS OR HOSPITALS BECAUSE NOBODY WILL EVER GET SICK AND DIE AGAIN. MY BODY WILL BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND IMMORTAL. AND IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE THIS,, JUST WAIT AND SEE WHEN IT HAPPENS. I KNOW MY BODY IS COMING BACK TO LIFE AGAIN AND WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN YOU WON"T BE ABLE TO DENY IT ANY LONGER.
chuckystud saidIt's not so bad that it's THEIR belief but, understand, it's when they try to indoctrinate others with it, and it's clearly false, and when they use it as a vehicle of oppression and hatred that they are both a danger and a menace.
E.g., the young men that flew into The World Trade Center were honoring THEIR belief. Arguably, these nuts constitute a clear and present danger to society in TIER BELIEF, whatever that false belief system might be. Same thing with the witch hunts.
Religion / falsehoods have a long standing premise of being based on falsehoods. It's a poison that infects the minds of young people who are forced into it, and it's a poison that is the basis for much evil in civilization.
THEIR BELIEF is often a real danger to regular people.
Point taken. Although I still do believe it's disrespectful to ridicule and even sometimes laugh at ones beliefs. I mean, I could laugh at all of you... because you believe in nothing, or wait... is the weight bench your god?
And you don't think atheists are trying to indoctrinate anyone? LOL
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
And these words were fulfilled. Those who heard Jesus speaks these words did see the kingdom of God come. It came to them and to many others and its still coming to many more today.
Blackguy4you said2 Peter 3:3-8 Understand this , that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
Well, if you want to get literal about it, it seems a little incongruous:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. - Matthew 23:36
What generation is he talking about? I'm sure if you were to quote the entire verses, which would put this particular sentence in contex you would get it.
Luke 9:27 is totally unambiguous, as is Mark 9:1.
If I missed a couple words in a couple of verses (Mark 9:1 reads, fully, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."), it's not to obscure the context. Why insist Jesus is being allegorical, rather than direct? "This" generation is who he was speaking to, it's reported, those who were alive and listening to the lecture.
And these words were fulfilled. Those who heard Jesus speaks these words did see the kingdom of God come. It came to them and to many others and its still coming to many more today.
I have to say I think the christian texts do indicate that Jesus' followers did believe that the end was near in their time.
But you guys are missing the obvious on this verse (mark 9:1). Mark (or whoever) wrote that verse and immediately followed by it's fulfillment right after that verse: The "some" that were to see the kingdom of God were Peter, James and John who 6 days later had a futuristic vision of Jesus in glowing "heavenly glory" while speaking to Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) Also Jesus himself is symbolically the Kingdom of God come with power.
Mark Chapter 9 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
5 Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters - one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
7 Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" 8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.
The same story is told in Luke and Matthew with the detail changed a little. But the story is told simply to prove to the early Christians (after the crucifixion) that Jesus was the messiah foretold by the Law and the Prophets, and his disciples had a vision of Jesus exalted in the kingdom of God before his actual death. There are actually multiple layers of symbolic meaning in that story if you read all the accounts.
But you guys are missing the obvious on this verse (mark 9:1). Mark (or whoever) wrote that verse and immediately followed by it's fulfillment right after that verse: The "some" that were to see the kingdom of God were Peter, James and John who 6 days later had a futuristic vision of Jesus in glowing "heavenly glory" while speaking to Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) Also Jesus himself is symbolically the Kingdom of God come with power.
Mark Chapter 9 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
I understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
Scally saidRegarding the second coming every generation have proclaimed that God is coming in their time and even the in Jesus time, they believed Jesus was returning in their time , and that is why they preach as if the world was ending . so here is the reality check.
God does not say he's coming in our generation. It could be 100 years or even a 1,000 or more years yet. Nobody knows when. It will be totally unexpected and unpredictable. There's not a single person who will ever know ahead. Nobody knew when he would come the first time and nobody will know the second time either,
Well thecnically that's not true.
it depends upon which coming we are talking about here. do you subscribe to a pre-trib or post trib view?
if you are talking about the rapture then i would agree that no one knows. however if you are talking about his return after the tribulation then people would know. he returns 3.5 years after the anti-christ desecrates the temple in jerusalem
Luckily we have a little time. She just called and was bumped from her flight and too bad for her that her bags were already on that first flight. She's going to be at the airport awhile.
But you guys are missing the obvious on this verse (mark 9:1). Mark (or whoever) wrote that verse and immediately followed by it's fulfillment right after that verse: The "some" that were to see the kingdom of God were Peter, James and John who 6 days later had a futuristic vision of Jesus in glowing "heavenly glory" while speaking to Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) Also Jesus himself is symbolically the Kingdom of God come with power.
Mark Chapter 9 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
I understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
but just because the early church interpreted it that way. was that truly the way it was supposed to be interpreted?
one of the passages that you made reference to talked about signs in the heavens, about earthquakes in diverse places, about nature rebelling, about wars and rumours of wars, about knowledge and evil increasing... and then would the end come... were those signs being fulfilled in those early church days? i would say not...
Luckily we have a little time. She just called and was bumped from her flight and too bad for her that her bags were already on that first flight. She's going to be at the airport awhile.
hence the reason you should always fly business as a minimum
blackguy4you had asked why was I trying to discredit Chucky's false belief system. ANSWER: For one wishes to serve God through faith in Christ, to be told that it's all a false belief system is not only an arrogant insult to our faith, but a rude indictment to all who made Christ the center of their lives, whether straight or gay. There were millions who gave their lives for the proclamnation of the Gospel and for the distribution and easy availability of the Bible. The Bible that sits by your bedside, only a few hundred years ago, when the Catholic Church reigned supreme, nobody who was not in the Clergy had access to a Bible. The Church at the time believed that the ordinary member of the public was not worthy or had the ability to read the Bible or interpret it for themselves. So the Church did this for them, and only the bits the Church wanted them to hear. Even today, in South American countries where Catholicism holds full sway, Bibles are burned by the Clergy as quickly as Protestant missionaries could hand them out. It took the courage of Erasmus and William Tyndale who, having access to Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts that by translation into English, made the Bible available to the public. This endeavour, along with many other reformers, cost them their lives, often by being burned alive at the stake, in full public view. The want of the Bible by the common man in the street became so widespread, that the Church had millions of people - women and children as well as the men, burned alive or tortured. Now let Chucky tell us, would he sacrifice his life to the stake in order to forward the gay cause in a hostile straight world? If a large group of Creationist mob were to persecute evolutionists, would Chucky, and those like him, undergo merciless torture for the truth of science?
But you guys are missing the obvious on this verse (mark 9:1). Mark (or whoever) wrote that verse and immediately followed by it's fulfillment right after that verse: The "some" that were to see the kingdom of God were Peter, James and John who 6 days later had a futuristic vision of Jesus in glowing "heavenly glory" while speaking to Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) Also Jesus himself is symbolically the Kingdom of God come with power.
Mark Chapter 9 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
I understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
The early church beleived a lot of wrong things about the Messiah. They thought he was going to come as a political Messiah, but God NEVER said that and neither did Jesus. Jesus had to correct the church's error and tell them that his kingdom IS NOT GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED IN A PHYSICAL WAY ON THIS EARTH AND NEVER WILL BE. His kingdom is SPIRITUAL not an earthly one..
NotThatOld saidblackguy4you had asked why was I trying to discredit Chucky's false belief system. ANSWER: For one wishes to serve God through faith in Christ, to be told that it's all a false belief system is not only an arrogant insult to our faith, but a rude indictment to all who made Christ the center of their lives, whether straight or gay. There were millions who gave their lives for the proclamnation of the Gospel and for the distribution and easy availability of the Bible. The Bible that sits by your bedside, only a few hundred years ago, when the Catholic Church reigned supreme, nobody who was not in the Clergy had access to a Bible. The Church at the time believed that the ordinary member of the public was not worthy or had the ability to read the Bible or interpret it for themselves. So the Church did this for them, and only the bits the Church wanted them to hear. Even today, in South American countries where Catholicism holds full sway, Bibles are burned by the Clergy as quickly as Protestant missionaries could hand them out. It took the courage of Erasmus and William Tyndale who, having access to Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts that by translation into English, made the Bible available to the public. This endeavour, along with many other reformers, cost them their lives, often by being burned alive at the stake, in full public view. The want of the Bible by the common man in the street became so widespread, that the Church had millions of people - women and children as well as the men, burned alive or tortured. Now let Chucky tell us, would he sacrifice his life to the stake in order to forward the gay cause in a hostile straight world? If a large group of Creationist mob were to persecute evolutionists, would Chucky, and those like him, undergo merciless torture for the truth of science?
oh dear - it wasn't a serious question. i was more poking fun at chuckles oft quoted "false belief system". i was being sardonic
EricLA saidGod's Coming.... and She's really pissed?
The correct answer was Will & Grace Jack:*pointing to button on shirt* it says "God's coming... And she's really pissed!" Karen: "It's funny cuz it's blasphemous "
Akula saidI'm sorry but if being a good loving person who cares for other people and causes no harm to others is not good enough for "God" then he/she/its not worth paying attention to. If what is required is parking your ass in church and beating a bible then it appears to me to be a rather childish god at that and once again not worth paying attention to. Like Bill Joel says "I'd rather laugh with the sinners then cry with the saints."
This is the very problem God came to solve. The fact of the matter is there isn;t any one who is ALWAYS good and loving 100% of the time, except God's divine Son. And God will not accept anything less from us than a perfect score. But the Bible teaches that God does accept the perfection of his Son and credits this perfection to ALL people without exception. There isn't a single soul (zip, not even one) who has been excluded from the salvation which Jesus earned on behalf of ALL people. You will not find a single verse in all of Scripture that exlcudes anyone from the salvation Jesus earned. When the Bible says Jesus died and saved ALL, it means ALL. without exception. Yes, Jesus even came to save murderers, adulterers, prostitutes. In fact Jesus said the protstitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the clergy because the prostitutes lovingly received him whereas the clergy did not and rejected him. Even the criminal on the cross next to Jesus received him and Jesus said his soul would enter heaven that very day. So, if salvation comes to us without anything we do or from any effort on our part, then why follow God's Law.at all? LOVE--that's the only thing that should motivate us--LOVE for God and LOVE for all people.
Christianity is a direct copy of the Mithraic religion that was 200 years its predecessor. You can look in up in the Encyclopedia of World Religions. Mithra died for the sins of humanity, had 12 apostles, a last supper and most of the other tenets that Christianity copied. Also, read Who Wrote the Bible. You must already know that there are over 200 direct contradictions in the New Testament alone. Please don't believe a religion just because it is commonly accepted without being researched.
Ghen saidOk, I put out flowers, and they are starting to wilt now.
Should I throw them and get new ones, or is he going to turn up soon?
Jesus says, "Nobody knows when he is coming. He says even he doesnt know when is he is coming according to his human nature. But God says he knows and so Jesus also knows according to his divine nature. Jesus says he will come like a thief in the night. In other words just like thieves don't announce ahead of time when they are coming, neither will Jesus. Nobody will be expecting it, when he comes. Jesus says he will come suddenly and unexpectedly. But that could be 50, 500, 1,000, or even 5,000 or more years yet. You could be dead for a long time before he comes,but when he does come, he will bring ALL the dead out of their graves. Jesus says, "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice."
Akula saidChristianity is a direct copy of the Mithraic religion that was 200 years its predecessor. You can look in up in the Encyclopedia of World Religions. Mithra died for the sins of humanity, had 12 apostles, a last supper and most of the other tenets that Christianity copied. Also, read Who Wrote the Bible. You must already know that there are over 200 direct contradictions in the New Testament alone. Please don't believe a religion just because it is commonly accepted without being researched.
I've researched it thorougly first hand myself and there is no 200 contradictions. That is the biggest lie ever being spread. I've looked at EVERYONE of these supposedly 200 contradictions and everyone of them is seen as a contradiction only because of a lack of knowledge and understanding or because they attempt to make a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
I'm not going to tell you what to beleive. You can believe anything you want--that is the ULTIMATE GLORY of this nation that allows you to beleive anything you want in your heart, as long as you live according to all city, state , and federal laws. As long as you do that, you can beleive absolutely anything you want--any thing at all.
noren said . . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
you really should read the bible
Jesus never messed with the romans
Kind of like how the Catholic Church never messed with Hitler?
I don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
Ghen saidOk, I put out flowers, and they are starting to wilt now.
Should I throw them and get new ones, or is he going to turn up soon?
Jesus says, "Nobody knows when he is coming. He says even he doesnt know when is he is coming according to his human nature. But God says he knows and so Jesus also knows according to his divine nature. Jesus says he will come like a thief in the night. In other words just like thieves don't announce ahead of time when they are coming, neither will Jesus. Nobody will be expecting it, when he comes. Jesus says he will come suddenly and unexpectedly. But that could be 50, 500, 1,000, or even 5,000 or more years yet. You could be dead for a long time before he comes,but when he does come, he will bring ALL the dead out of their graves. Jesus says, "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice."
You better put out some new flowers because if he doesn't come for another 1,000 years yet, I'd hate to have people look at wilting flowers for 1,000 years or more yet. Go get some new ones. It sure isn't going to hurt anyone to put out some new flowers, even if he does come soon. The last thing God wants you to be doing is sitting on your ass doing nothing. Jesus says he won't come until the gospel has reached everyone and the quicker we get that done, the quicker he will come. The only reason he hasn't come yet is because we are SO SLOW and it is taking us so long to do this. But probably the best invention to speed up this process is tthe world wide web. The gospel is now speading rapidly all over the world wide web. With just a click of the mouse I can communicate with a soul on the other side of the world right from my own home. How easy it is today to share the good news of the gospel with people all over the world from your very own home. Jesus says, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Once again beleivers are already preparing to celebrate this good news in the birth of our Savior.
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
G_Force just enjoys getting attention/reactions to his preaching posts.
G_Force saidThe fact of the matter is there isn;t any one who is ALWAYS good and loving 100% of the time, except God's divine Son. And God will not accept anything less from us than a perfect score. But the Bible teaches that God does accept the perfection of his Son and credits this perfection to ALL people without exception. There isn't a single soul (zip, not even one) who has been excluded from the salvation which Jesus earned on behalf of ALL people. You will not find a single verse in all of Scripture that exlcudes anyone from the salvation Jesus earned. When the Bible says Jesus died and saved ALL, it means ALL. without exception. Yes, Jesus even came to save murderers, adulterers, prostitutes. In fact Jesus said the protstitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the clergy because the prostitutes lovingly received him whereas the clergy did not and rejected him. Even the criminal on the cross next to Jesus received him and Jesus said his soul would enter heaven that very day. So, if salvation comes to us without anything we do or from any effort on our part, then why follow God's Law.at all? LOVE--that's the only thing that should motivate us--LOVE for God and LOVE for all people.
It’s been quite awhile since I last posted because I think the discussion quality here has degenerated significantly, in part because of your tasteless proselytizing, G_Force. However, I will poke my head out to say that this post has drastically improved my opinion of you. I think this notion that you’ve advanced that Christianity is necessary to love all people is somewhat odd, but it’s nice to know you aren’t so depraved you worship one of these petty little gods who dole out infinite punishments to people. Props.
noren said . . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
you really should read the bible
Jesus never messed with the romans
Kind of like how the Catholic Church never messed with Hitler?
feel free to extrapolate - how did Jesus mess with the romans?
Jesus preached a message of peace. of being good to your neighbours and being good citizens. about taking care of those who are less fortunate than yourselves. of how to be a model citizen. something that would benefit the jewish society and rome at large.
As I said many times before, beleive whatever you wish. But when preachers like Pat Robertson claim that the Scriptures teach that Jesus will establish a kingdon here on earth, he is directly contradiciting Jesus himself who in plain and direct words says that his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom Jesus says he will not have any kind of throne here on earth. He rules spiritually in people's hearts and his kingdom comes invisibly--NOT IN A VISIBLE WAY.
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
G_Force just enjoys getting attention/reactions to his preaching posts.
is he somehow holding a gun to someone's head demanding attention?
g_force, you bad man you, you very very bad man ...
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
G_Force just enjoys getting attention/reactions to his preaching posts.
is he somehow holding a gun to someone's head demanding attention?
g_force, you bad man you, you very very bad man ...
No he isn't. It is just like a car wreck one can't help but watch.
When a guy tells what he believes and why he beleives what he does, he is not proselytizing me or any one else. I listen to what he beleives and why he beleieves what he does. I may not agree with him, but that's fine. I don;t have a stroke because he believes something different than me. .
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
some of you guys truly amaze me
The problem is some don't like to hear what another person beleives and so rather than just turning to another topic that does interest them, they want to keep others from it as well. Instead of letting each individual make his own choice what to read or not read, they want to make this chocie for them. That is proselitizing from an atheistic view.
In response to the questions originally posed in this thread, Charlotte Bronte addressed God's sovereignty and inscrutability far better than I ever could in her novel, Villette.
"Some lives are thus blessed: it is God's will: it is the attesting trace and lingering evidence of Eden. Other lives run from the first another course. Other travelers encounter weather fitful and gusty , wild and variable - breast adverse winds, are belated and overtaken by the early closing winter night. Neither can this happen without the sanction of God; and I know that amidst His boundless works, is somewhere stored the secret of this last fate's justice: I know that His treasures contain the proof as the promise of its mercy." - Charlotte Bronte
I find it most unusal that guys who have no interest in spiritualityVOLUNTARILY come into a forum regarding spirituality. lol
That would be like a guy who has no interest in health and fitness, but then joins a gay site for this purpose and then complains because people are talking about health and fitness in it. lol
Why guys who have nothing good to say about spirituality, but enter into a forum about spirituality, I will NEVER understand.
kingjnthn saidl cant believe the most of u guys are saying, thisjust makes me think about the fact of being gay and if its good or bad to God's eyes. l hope u to know him someday and be thankfull for all He had given to us.
No... It is a sin... God has no place for you in heaven...You are doomed.
G_Force said I've researched it thorougly first hand myself and there is no 200 contradictions. That is the biggest lie ever being spread. I've looked at EVERYONE of these supposedly 200 contradictions and everyone of them is seen as a contradiction only because of a lack of knowledge and understanding or because they attempt to make a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
Do you deny that there are ANY contradictions in the New Testament? Because if so, that's a pretty bold assertion. There are some very clear contradictions which are beyond reconciliation.
Off the top of my head...
Where did Mary, Joseph and Jesus go immediately after Jesus' birth? To Egypt in order to flee Herod or to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth? The gospels disagree.
Did Judas hang himself? Or throw himself off a cliff?
Was it wise men who were guided to Bethlehem by a star? Or was it shepherds?
Did the women at Jesus' tomb tremble in fear and say nothing to anyone? Or were they overcome with joy and run to tell the disciples?
Was the temple veil torn just after Jesus died? Or while he was still on the cross speaking?
Many Christians are fond of dismissing such challenges by saying, "Oh, you just don't understand, you don't know the context/history/language of the Bible. But I was a student of the Bible at a prominent Christian university. I'm not intimidated by anyone else's knowledge of the Bible and I'm not satisfied by such dismissiveness.
And I'm very interested in your take, your attempt to reconcile, the above mentioned contradictions.
noren said . . . it seems pretty clear that Jesus was what we would call, in modern parlance, a blue suicide, i.e., he wanted the cops to snuff him out . . . I mean any sensible person back then surely knew that if you messed with the Romans you would pay for it . . . it's fairly typical cult leader behavior to seek your own death and the deaths of your inner circle . . . funny, that's how it turned out . . .
you really should read the bible
Jesus never messed with the romans
Kind of like how the Catholic Church never messed with Hitler?
feel free to extrapolate - how did Jesus mess with the romans?
Jesus preached a message of peace. of being good to your neighbours and being good citizens. about taking care of those who are less fortunate than yourselves. of how to be a model citizen. something that would benefit the jewish society and rome at large.
so where and how did he mess with the romans?
You had me until the last part about being a "model citizen." I suppose what I'm trying to ask is, "What happens if the nation whose rule you are under is behaving unethically?"
I would argue that Christianity, to a point, has a sort of inherent non-interventionism when it comes to matters of government. Perhaps that's the lead we should be following.
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
some of you guys truly amaze me
The problem is some don't like to hear what another person beleives and so rather than just turning to another topic that does interest them, they want to keep others from it as well. Instead of letting each individual make his own choice what to read or not read, they want to make this chocie for them. That is proselitizing from an atheistic view.
Not at all. I'm a Christian. I just find the crazy people who wait in the subways to hand out pamphlets or the Mormons who ring my doorbell, or the evangelicals who scream at the top of their lungs offensive. I feel as if they have taken something pure and beautiful, and made it cheap and dirty.
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
some of you guys truly amaze me
For starters, while entirely noneducational, "guy above you" threads lighten the mood in here. They also deal with subject matter that's at the very least relevant to the gay community. Sure, it's ridiculous stuff like whether or not you're a top or bottom, or whether you would go with the guy above you to a Cher concert, but at least it's on topic.
I didn't complain at the first ten or so of these threads I've seen, but no one would argue you should post about nuclear proliferation on a gardening site or that you should attempt to organize a protest against Planned Parenthood on a site dedicated to civil libertarianism.
I think antics like this are the exact things that put people off. This is not framed as a debate or a discussion. This is framed as, "Follow my lead."
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
some of you guys truly amaze me
For starters, while entirely noneducational, "guy above you" threads lighten the mood in here. They also deal with subject matter that's at the very least relevant to the gay community. Sure, it's ridiculous stuff like whether or not you're a top or bottom, or whether you would go with the guy above you to a Cher concert, but at least it's on topic.
I didn't complain at the first ten or so of these threads I've seen, but no one would argue you should post about nuclear proliferation on a gardening site or that you should attempt to organize a protest against Planned Parenthood on a site dedicated to civil libertarianism.
I think antics like this are the exact things that put people off. This is not framed as a debate or a discussion. This is framed as, "Follow my lead."
you are still jesting
i find spiritual topics of interest to me as a gay man. and i find those guys above you threads an insult. yet you find they "lighten" the mood. good for you. i however find them annoying and frustrating and contribute nothing to me as a gay man. i'm so glad there is something for everyone, don't you agree.
so what if people are put off? i find threads about celebrating buying from abercombie and fitch off putting. i find the innumerable threads about average looking white guys who are supposed to be hot off putting - but you know what i do? i pass them by and move on to the next topic.
i see no one holding a gun to your head. do what i do when i see a thread I don’t like…
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
surely you jest!
how healthy are those "guys above you threads"? i do not find them to be of any value and hence i do not post to them. but i also do not tell anyone not to.
we all have our interests. if prayer threads or spiritual topics are of no interest to you, it may be obvious, but it may bear pointing out that you can of your own free will ignore them.
some of you guys truly amaze me
For starters, while entirely noneducational, "guy above you" threads lighten the mood in here. They also deal with subject matter that's at the very least relevant to the gay community. Sure, it's ridiculous stuff like whether or not you're a top or bottom, or whether you would go with the guy above you to a Cher concert, but at least it's on topic.
I didn't complain at the first ten or so of these threads I've seen, but no one would argue you should post about nuclear proliferation on a gardening site or that you should attempt to organize a protest against Planned Parenthood on a site dedicated to civil libertarianism.
I think antics like this are the exact things that put people off. This is not framed as a debate or a discussion. This is framed as, "Follow my lead."
you are still jesting
i find spiritual topics of interest to me as a gay man. and i find those guys above you threads an insult. yet you find they "lighten" the mood. good for you. i however find them annoying and frustrating and contribute nothing to me as a gay man. i'm so glad there is something for everyone, don't you agree.
so what if people are put off? i find threads about celebrating buying from abercombie and fitch off putting. i find the innumerable threads about average looking white guys who are supposed to be hot off putting - but you know what i do? i pass them by and move on to the next topic.
i see no one holding a gun to your head. do what i do when i see a thread I don’t like…
pass it by
I think to label "guy above you" threads as insulting is just unwarranted.
I wasn't only talking about online forums either. If your intentions are to make the world a better place by Christianity's message being further facilitated, then you should be concerned by what people are put off by. You should worry about what tactics are being used to spread Christ's message. It's no shock that Christianity is in a current state of decline in this country the way many Christians behave.
It's not that I don't like the OP's threads. I'm actually offended by them in the same way that I'm offended by the people on the subway I referenced before. I think it makes the jobs of Christians who I do respect outrageously more difficult. So I regard responding to the OP's nonsense as being equally important as responding to phemt's attacks on Christianity. I interpret both of them as a threat to mainstream progressive Christianity and I'm not just going to leave them alone and ignore something that bothers me.
kingjnthn saidl cant believe the most of u guys are saying, thisjust makes me think about the fact of being gay and if its good or bad to God's eyes. l hope u to know him someday and be thankfull for all He had given to us.
No... It is a sin... God has no place for you in heaven...You are doomed.
Not true! This is the biggest lie there ever was. God has a place in heaven for ALL sinners. The very gospel of Christ proclaims that you are NOT doomed for your sins because Christ endured the wrath of God in your place and has secured a place in heaven for ALL sinners.
Sin is something that affects all people and I will be the last to condemn anyone for something they have little control over. Everyone has pet sins in their life that are not in total harmony with God's will. And certainly a Christian is not happy about himself when he has these sins in his life. But the presence of sin in our life only shows that we are normal human beings. True Christians do confess that they do sin in thought, word, and deed daily and are in need of God's forgiveness and they know and they beleive thay have it for Christ's sake.
Jealousy,anger, greed, lust are also sins which EVERYONE has in various degrees. No Christian is happy to have any of these sins in his life, but Christians know and confess they have them and Christians know and believe that ALL sin is forgiven by God by faith in Christ.
The Christian church has done more to drive gays away from God than anyone I know and that is a great disservice. Those in the church who do this need to get off their mighty high horse and realize that if it were not for the grace of God, they are no better and they are deserving of eternal death for their sins as much as anyone else.
styrgan said: "...being equally important as responding to phemt's attacks on Christianity"
My attacks on Christianity? Let's review my "attacks".
1) My main issue: "Gay Uncle Toms". These are gays who support churches teaching homosexuality is a sin, and in general pressing an anti-gay aganda. I have several times defended and supported Progessive liberal christians.
2) Church and State. "In God we Trust" dosn't belong on money.
3) Obnixous Preaching. I also find people yelling their faith at me on the streets and in public annoying.
I have stated on other posts that I admire people of faith when they help the poor etc. (i.e., social aganda/gospel). I totally reject the fear aspects of religion (i.e., you are going to hell if you don't believe like I do) though. There are far worst critics of religion on this site than myself.
G_Force said I've researched it thorougly first hand myself and there is no 200 contradictions. That is the biggest lie ever being spread. I've looked at EVERYONE of these supposedly 200 contradictions and everyone of them is seen as a contradiction only because of a lack of knowledge and understanding or because they attempt to make a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
Do you deny that there are ANY contradictions in the New Testament? Because if so, that's a pretty bold assertion. There are some very clear contradictions which are beyond reconciliation.
Off the top of my head...
Where did Mary, Joseph and Jesus go immediately after Jesus' birth? To Egypt in order to flee Herod or to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth? The gospels disagree.
Did Judas hang himself? Or throw himself off a cliff?
Was it wise men who were guided to Bethlehem by a star? Or was it shepherds?
Did the women at Jesus' tomb tremble in fear and say nothing to anyone? Or were they overcome with joy and run to tell the disciples?
Was the temple veil torn just after Jesus died? Or while he was still on the cross speaking?
Many Christians are fond of dismissing such challenges by saying, "Oh, you just don't understand, you don't know the context/history/language of the Bible. But I was a student of the Bible at a prominent Christian university. I'm not intimidated by anyone else's knowledge of the Bible and I'm not satisfied by such dismissiveness.
And I'm very interested in your take, your attempt to reconcile, the above mentioned contradictions.
I have explained every one of these seeming contradictions to so many people over and over again and when I have done so. they continue to beleive there are still contradictions, so I am going to save my breath because you aren't interested in reconciling these seeming contradcitions.
I will only address one of them to show you that there doesn't need to be a contradiction. Let me ask you one question regarding Judas's suicide. What makes you think it has to be one or the other-- hanging or thrown over a cliff. Just use your brain! Why can't you see that BOTH things add to the explanation of how Judas actually killed himself. He hung himself by throwing himself over a cliff. Both statements add to the manner of exactly how Judas killed himself. You listen to all these athesists try to convince you of contradictions when there is a proper understanding of it. Shepherds or wisemen being guided by a star? The Bible clealry says it was the wisemen, not the shepherds and the wisemen DID NOT come on the night of Jesus ' birth in the stable, but perhaps at least a year later to a HOUSE where they were living in Bethlehem. I can go on and on and explain every one of these properly, but I am going to save my breath.
LepusCalifornicus saidI understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
You left of the first part of what I said: I have to say I think the christian texts do indicate that Jesus' followers did believe that the end was near in their time.
But in any case the "interpretation" is actually from Origen (c. 185-254) not me 2000 years later:
" Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death." Matthew 16:28 Some refer these things to the going up - six days after, or, as Luke says, Luke 9:28 eight days - of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that "His face shone," etc., "they saw the kingdom of God coming with power." Mark 9:1
Beyond that there is no interpretation recorded other than the same account given by Mark, Matthew, and Luke which all relate a link between "the kingdom" and the vision I mentioned which is in context.
As far as "the kingdom" meaning "the end" or "the last judgment" there is no one meaning of that either. Speaking directly about this Luke writes: Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." He also predicts that disciples will die waiting for him, think the end is near when it is not, and expect him to establish "the kingdom" right away (Luke 19:11) when he actually is saying he will die and be gone for an undetermined period.
Paul and others likewise teach that "the kingdom" will come BEFORE a final judgment and the end, instead of after - 1 Cor 15:24, Rev 20:4, etc. So Paul changes his mind about the subject near the end of his life.
So there is no single teaching about "the kingdom" or "end time" much less other things even when the christian scriptures were written and later thrown together.
In either case, here is an interesting article and NPR broadcast on the subject of contradictions an discrepancies in the "Gospels": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895 Ironically, contradictions were ultimately not the reason the author became agnostic, but rather because he had a problem with suffering. (BTW, the "its the end of the world" view is expressed by the author in the transcript link)
G_Force said...I can go on and on and explain every one of these properly, but I am going to save my breath.
Why not do us all a favor and save your breath before you post things like this?
There are plenty of user forums available for people of faith. Why not go to those forums and try to convince them that gay men and women deserve entry into God's kingdom, vs. posting this kind of garbage in a gay forum?
G_Force said...I can go on and on and explain every one of these properly, but I am going to save my breath.
Why not do us all a favor and save your breath before you post things like this?
There are plenty of user forums available for people of faith. Why not go to those forums and try to convince them that gay men and women deserve entry into God's kingdom, vs. posting this kind of garbage in a gay forum?
He doesn't because they wouldn't tolerate his postings of half-naked pre-pubescent looking boys.
yo christians, take a look at these stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups. until u can reconcile with other believers when the shit's gonna go down, if ever, just take a back seat, won't u?
G_Force said...I can go on and on and explain every one of these properly, but I am going to save my breath.
Why not do us all a favor and save your breath before you post things like this?
There are plenty of user forums available for people of faith. Why not go to those forums and try to convince them that gay men and women deserve entry into God's kingdom, vs. posting this kind of garbage in a gay forum?
I do, but I have friends here, too, and I have every right to be in here as much as you. If you think what I believe is garbage, so be it. You are entitled to have that opinion and beleive anything you want. I DON'T tell you that should get out of here because I don't agree with you and so I expect the same consideration from you. I have been emailed many times on here by guys telling me how helpful my posts have been to them and that because of my posts they understand Scripture much better. You have such a closed mind which you are entitled to have and I will be the last guy to say you can not beleive what you do. Peace, bro!
chuckystud saidI'm inclined to believe that there's no talking any level of sense to some folks, and that some folks, are, quite simply NUTS.
Did you ever consider that others think the same about you? Peace, bro! You can beleive anything you want and you do not need to agree with me. Show that same consideration to others. I may think someone is nuts, too, with what they beleive, but I show consideration and keep such comments to myself. I don't rail on them in a public forum. If you really have a problem with someone, then deal with him privately or just ignore him. That is the best advice I can give you.
LepusCalifornicus saidI understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
You left of the first part of what I said: I have to say I think the christian texts do indicate that Jesus' followers did believe that the end was near in their time.
But in any case the "interpretation" is actually from Origen (c. 185-254) not me 2000 years later:
" Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death." Matthew 16:28 Some refer these things to the going up - six days after, or, as Luke says, Luke 9:28 eight days - of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that "His face shone," etc., "they saw the kingdom of God coming with power." Mark 9:1
Beyond that there is no interpretation recorded other than the same account given by Mark, Matthew, and Luke which all relate a link between "the kingdom" and the vision I mentioned which is in context.
As far as "the kingdom" meaning "the end" or "the last judgment" there is no one meaning of that either. Speaking directly about this Luke writes: Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." He also predicts that disciples will die waiting for him, think the end is near when it is not, and expect him to establish "the kingdom" right away (Luke 19:11) when he actually is saying he will die and be gone for an undetermined period.
Paul and others likewise teach that "the kingdom" will come BEFORE a final judgment and the end, instead of after - 1 Cor 15:24, Rev 20:4, etc. So Paul changes his mind about the subject near the end of his life.
So there is no one teaching about "the kingdom" or "end time" much less other things even when the christian scriptures were written and later thrown together.
In either case, here is an interesting article and NPR broadcast on the subject of contradictions an discrepancies in the "Gospels": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895 Ironically, contradictions were ultimately not the reason the author became agnostic, but rather because he had a problem with suffering.
[quote][cite]G_Force said[ ... I DON'T tell you that should get out of here because I don't agree with you and so I expect the same consideration from you. [/quote]
Oh, but you suggested that I leave the country because of my views on the Seperation of Church and State. I am well aware I have a minority view on issues like "In God We Trust" and other such issues. The Supreme court even disagreed with my view. I have just as much right to my minority view as the majority does to their. Never did I say I didn't want to live in a country where I sometimes disagree with the majority viewpoint.
You, however, said you didn't want to take part of any group inwhich the minority can overrride the views of the minority. You seem totally unaware, and don't even care, of the fact that we have a Constitutional Republic in the USA - not a simple majority rule Democracy. In a Constitutional Republic you see minority rights are protected against majority rights. The Supreme Court often strikes down rules passed by the majority of lawmakers because they deem those rules unconstitutional. A minority of law makers (legislative branch) can block the will of the majority via use of a filibuster.
If anyone should leave the country it is you! I say this not because I disagree with your views, but because you said you didn't want to take part of any group structured in the form of our government.
LepusCalifornicus saidI understand your interpreting it that way, but that wasn't the interpretation of the early Church, whose members thought Jesus was coming with the Last Judgment during their lifetimes. Paul (and whoever wrote the balance of NT epistles) thought likewise. It's only in light of 2000 years of The Judgment not having happened that apologetics is required. When Jesus speaks of the "Son of Man coming" and about the "kingdom of God," he's invariably speaking of the Last Judgment.
You left of the first part of what I said: I have to say I think the christian texts do indicate that Jesus' followers did believe that the end was near in their time.
But in any case the "interpretation" is actually from Origen (c. 185-254) not me 2000 years later:
" Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death." Matthew 16:28 Some refer these things to the going up - six days after, or, as Luke says, Luke 9:28 eight days - of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that "His face shone," etc., "they saw the kingdom of God coming with power." Mark 9:1
Beyond that there is no interpretation recorded other than the same account given by Mark, Matthew, and Luke which all relate a link between "the kingdom" and the vision I mentioned which is in context.
As far as "the kingdom" meaning "the end" or "the last judgment" there is no one meaning of that either. Speaking directly about this Luke writes: Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." He also predicts that disciples will die waiting for him, think the end is near when it is not, and expect him to establish "the kingdom" right away (Luke 19:11) when he actually is saying he will die and be gone for an undetermined period.
Paul and others likewise teach that "the kingdom" will come BEFORE a final judgment and the end, instead of after - 1 Cor 15:24, Rev 20:4, etc. So Paul changes his mind about the subject near the end of his life.
So there is no one teaching about "the kingdom" or "end time" much less other things even when the christian scriptures were written and later thrown together.
In either case, here is an interesting article and NPR broadcast on the subject of contradictions an discrepancies in the "Gospels": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895 Ironically, contradictions were ultimately not the reason the author became agnostic, but rather because he had a problem with suffering.
Christians have always thought the end of the world may come in their own generation because it is a real possiblity for every generation. The "end times" which Scripture speaks about is the time from Christ's ascension to the present. Christ's rule and the coming of the kingdom of God started when Christ was born, died, rose, and ascended to heaven. That kingdom is still continuing to come today in people's hearts as they come to faith in Christ as their Savior and this kingdom will continue for ALL ETERNITY. There will NEVER be an end to Christ's kingdom. It will continue forever. But Jesus does say that there will come a time when all life here on earth will come to an end. This is referred to in Scripture as "the Last Day" or "Judgment Day" when ALL who are in their graves will hear the voice of the Son of God and will come out of their graves. This is the day when ALL evil and ALL political and spiritual wars will come to an end and ALL will face judgment. The Scripture speaks of only 2 groups of people: believers and unbelievers (sheep and goats). Jesus says he will separate the 2 groups from each other--the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. The goats continually refused to come under Christ's rule and like the devil, they hate Christ and they continually want to fight against him and rebel against him and his rule over them. Therefore, there's only one thing that Christ can do in order to end all war and that is eternally separate them from himself and beleivers so that they can not keep waring against him and his people. This place reserved for the devil, all demons, and unbelievers who want to keep waring with God and Christ is called hell in the Scriptures. They will be eternally in bondage or prison there because they are evil, hateful, and harmful to God and his people. If they were ever allowed out , they would want to kill Christ and all his people, so they will remain in prison there forever, so that they can no longer terrorize and harm anyone. To be truthful, I can't wait for that day to come when there will no longer be any terrorism, war, and death and when I can walk the streets again at night without worrying about someone shooting your head off. Why do people like to be evil and hateful and cause harm to others? Do they get their thrill out of making someone's life miserable or by seeing how much pain they can cause someone or by blowing their head off, or what? I've never understood this mentality. I just don't get it. I want EVERYONE to have a fun and pleasant life, not see how much grief and harm I can cause someone. I would NEVER wish evil or want to harm even my worst enemy.
[quote][cite]G_Force said ... To be truthful, I can't wait for that day to come when there will no longer be any terrorism, war, and death and when I can walk the streets again at night without worrying about someone shooting your head off. Why do people like to be evil and hateful and cause harm to others? Do they get their thrill out of making someone's life miserable or by seeing how much pain they can cause someone or by blowing their head off, or what? I've never understood this mentality. I just don't get it. I want EVERYONE to have a fun and pleasant life, not see how much grief and harm I can cause someone. I would NEVER wish evil or what to harm even my worst enemy.
[/quote]
Why have people have been burnt for having heretical beliefs. Why have people been denied jobs and housing because of being gay. Why were people denied political office because of/or lack of personal religious beliefs. Why were Jehovah Witnesses attacked and had their Kingdom Halls burnt because their religion prevents them from pledging to symbols. If people are unaware (and interested) of the JW issue I am referring to below is a link about the Surpeme court case and another about the public's reaction towards JW.
Do you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? No, they don't enjoy it. It's not a pleasant job to do, but a job that has to be done to protect people from harm. Well, the highest authority (God) doesn't enjoy putting people in hell, either. This is not a pleasant job of his because he doesn't want anyone there and neither do I. But when people refuse to come under his rule as God and even deny that he exists and try to silence his word to us and are rebellious to him and want to hurt and harm his people out of hatred and envy, he's got no choice but to keep these people away from him and his people, so that they can no longer hurt and harm others with their hatred of him and his people. They are just continuously rebellious and harmful and they got to be kept separate from everyone else.
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? blah blah blah etc..
WOW. Where do you get off on being the authority of some make believe, father figure in the sky, adult imaginary friend BULLSHIT ? Who died and made YOU king ? What makes you think this is real or that anything written by people a long time ago with a serious agenda of controlling the population for their own wealth and power has any more than passing curiosity interest? The bible has no validity in making the crap you spew real. It was written by some of the few people that were literate in those times of extreme superstition and lack of communication and then was changed, re translated by people with their own agenda for wealth and power. Groups of religious leaders in funny clothes met and decided which chapters/books etc. should or should not be in the bible based on thier whims of the day... NO VALIDITY! not real
phemt said[quote][cite]G_Force said ... To be truthful, I can't wait for that day to come when there will no longer be any terrorism, war, and death and when I can walk the streets again at night without worrying about someone shooting your head off. Why do people like to be evil and hateful and cause harm to others? Do they get their thrill out of making someone's life miserable or by seeing how much pain they can cause someone or by blowing their head off, or what? I've never understood this mentality. I just don't get it. I want EVERYONE to have a fun and pleasant life, not see how much grief and harm I can cause someone. I would NEVER wish evil or what to harm even my worst enemy.
Why have people have been burnt for having heretical beliefs. Why have people been denied jobs and housing because of being gay. Why were people denied political office because of/or lack of personal religious beliefs. Why were Jehovah Witnesses attacked and had their Kingdom Halls burnt because their religion prevents them from pledging to symbols. If people are unaware (and interested) of the JW issue I am referring to below is a link about the Surpeme court case and another about the public's reaction towards JW.
Actaully I know why these things were done: The majority often feels to need to impose their beliefs and oppress minorites.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this, but there's even more reasons for this. Some people just refuse to be guided by God's law which speaks about the respect that we are to have for human life and they want to be God themself and if they decide they want to blow somebody up, they feel they have the right to do this themself. By doing this, they are usurping God's authority. This is pretty typical of people who do not want their lives governed by God's authority, so they take over this authority themself and seek to terrorize and kill others with their own authority rather than letting God have this authority. Some people just want to be the big boss, even over God himself.
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? blah blah blah etc..
WOW. Where do you get off on being the authority of some make believe, father figure in the sky, adult imaginary friend BULLSHIT ? Who died and made YOU king ? What makes you think this is real or that anything written by people a long time ago with a serious agenda of controlling the population for their own wealth and power has any more than passing curiosity interest? The bible has no validity in making the crap you spew real. It was written by some of the few people that were literate in those times of extreme superstition and lack of communication and then was changed, re translated by people with their own agenda for wealth and power. Groups of religious leaders in funny clothes met and decided which chapters/books etc. should or should not be in the bible based on thier whims of the day... NO VALIDITY! not real
I beleive it is real and I have the right in this country to believe it is real. You can have your own belief or no belief and I will have mine. Peace, bro!
phemt saidstyrgan said: "...being equally important as responding to phemt's attacks on Christianity"
My attacks on Christianity? Let's review my "attacks".
1) My main issue: "Gay Uncle Toms". These are gays who support churches teaching homosexuality is a sin, and in general pressing an anti-gay aganda. I have several times defended and supported Progessive liberal christians.
2) Church and State. "In God we Trust" dosn't belong on money.
3) Obnixous Preaching. I also find people yelling their faith at me on the streets and in public annoying.
I have stated on other posts that I admire people of faith when they help the poor etc. (i.e., social aganda/gospel). I totally reject the fear aspects of religion (i.e., you are going to hell if you don't believe like I do) though. There are far worst critics of religion on this site than myself.
I find it also equally annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public. But this forum is a spirirituality forum and anything dealing with spirituality is pertinent in this form whether I agree with the guy's view or not.
NotThatOld said< ... There ARE a lot of things done in the name of religion where had marred human history. It is no joke to say that the Popes of Rome were the most evil monsters ever to have trod on this planet. Millions of men, women and children were tortured to death under the rule of the Popes, especially in the Spanish Inquisition, for no other crime than to have some doubt over the infallibility and teachings of the Church. The Crusaders too, were deplorable, invading the Holy Land and burning the Jews alive who lived there. Then at another thread I wrote that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian, but a Roman Catholic. Quite a few RJ members here threw up their hands in apparent horror at such a statement, referring mainly that Roman Catholicism is Christian. No it is not. Adolf Hitler had up to six million Jews slaughtered for no other reason than that they were of an inferior race to himself and did not embrace Catholicism. Hitler even held out the alternative "Convert or Die" policy, which failed to convince any of the Jews. Hitler had the authority from the Pope to slaughter the Jews. This authority was based on the Council of Trent, where every "heretic" was cursed by God, and therefore deserve to be slain. Today the Muslims hold terror to the Western world, especially the UK and the USA, with the intention to wipe out Israel and to convert the world to Islam. True Christianity is NOTHING of the stuff mentioned above. Simply put, a Christian believer is someone who had placed his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and had experienced a new birth in is heart (seat of the will, emotions etc.) - just as G_Force was trying to explain in his OP. ...
I was one of the people who took issue with your claim that Catholics are not Christians. I admit I agree with several points you make in your critical view of the Catholic Church. But let us not forget that Protestants also had their fair shair of oppressing others also. In the America for example, It was Puritans (i.e. Protestants) burning witches in the US. Catholics were a small minority at the start of US history (in greater numbers in Maryland though). Most slave owners in the USA were Protestant and used the Bible to justify Slavery. Quakers were one, if not the only, early opponents to Slavery in early US history. Both Pope Leo X and Pople Paul III spoke out against the practice of Slavery as early as the 1500s. Besides the Quakers, what other Protestant groups were speaking out against Slavery? The KKK was/is also a Protestant group. Yes, the Catholic church has done some evil things, but so has Protestants. The Catholics and Protestants don't agree on all matters of Christianity - I know that. Catholics are Christians because their Church teaches Jesus as Savior. Take a look at a Catholic Cruifix you notice that it is a representation of Jesus drying on the cross to realize how important Jesus is for Catholics (I am aware of the "graven image" debate). I usually prefer to let Christians fight it out among themselves on who is the "real Christian" (they have a long history of doing that), but for myself it seems clear that Catholics should be classifed as Christian.
I find it also annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public.
I never seen an atheist yelling their beliefs at random people going about their day. If it has/does happen - yes that is annoying. It is annoying when any group yells their personal beliefs at people trying to go about their day -whatever group they are.
I find it also annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public.
I never seen an atheist yelling their beliefs at random people going about their day. If it has/does happen - yes that is annoying. It is annoying when any group yells their personal beliefs at people trying to go about their day -whatever group they are.
It happens all the time at work--almost everyday. Some have even been disciplined at work for doing this--both gay and Christian or other religious ridicule. Even a meeting was held and everyone was reminded of the section of the company's policy which deals with this. And we all were required to sign our agreement to the policy, which states an employee will be subject to disciplinary action (including termination) if the policy is not followed
I also think that Global Citizen's point need to answered, since he is certainly not the first one to say that "the Bible contradicts itself" - although I do find 200 in the New testament alone rather daunting, to say the least.
About Joseph, Mary and their Child leaving for Egypt after the visitation of the Wise Men, this is recorded in Matthew's account. In Luke's account, which is focused more on Mary than on Joseph's, all it says that "After obeying God in all his laws, they returned to Nazareth." This was the final settling place which agrees with Matthew's account. (Matthew 2:23 with Luke 2:39) No contradiction. Luke felt that it wasn't revelant to repeat Matthew's account of Herod's slaughter of the Innocents and their flight to Egypt.
Judas Iscariot hanged himself. - Matt 27:5 - There is no reference of him jumping off a cliff. In Acts, Peter said something about "his bowels gushing out after falling headlong." - Acts 1:18 - This gives me the impression that the branch of the tree from where he was hanging snapped under his weight. On the other hand, Peter's speech might have been just allegorical
The women at the tomb were afraid of the angel's appearing. Actually there were two angels there, but only one of them spoke to the women. When the angel delivered good news, and they were not threatened, their fears turned to joy and reported the matter to the disciples.
Matthew's account - 27:50-51 - and Mark's - 15:37-3 - seem to indicate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the tearing of the curtain in the Temple both took place at the same moment. If true, then what Luke says - 23:44-46 - does at first looks like he disagrees with Matthew and Mark's accounts. Did the curtain tear at the 6th hour when the sun stopped shining? Or did the biographer summerise the whole three hour period of events into one epoch - just as he did with the events of Jesus' early childhood? If he did - then Luke too would agree that the death of Jesus and the tearing of the curtain both took place simultaniously.
There are apparent contradictions which all can say in all honestly, I don't know. For example, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified at the third hour - 9.00 am - (15:25). But John says that on the 6th hour - midday - Jesus was still before Pilate. (19:14). There may be a rational explanation for this. But atheists and sceptics should not use this as a means to ridicule our faith or rip it apart. Especially if they cannot offer an alternative, solid explanation.
This is a great site but I know no matter how much you show what a joke religion is the hardcore believers will call us names or forgive us because we are uninlightened. Enjoy
I find it also annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public.
I never seen an atheist yelling their beliefs at random people going about their day. If it has/does happen - yes that is annoying. It is annoying when any group yells their personal beliefs at people trying to go about their day -whatever group they are.
It happens all the time at work--almost everyday. Some have even been disciplined at work for doing this--both gay and Christian or other religious ridicule. Even a meeting was held and everyone was reminded of the section of the company's policy which deals with this. And we all were required to sign our agreement to the policy, which states an employee will be subject to disciplinary action (including termination) if the policy is not followed
I don't EVER go and publicly express my religious beliefs in any public area that is not designated for this. But this spirituality forum is SPECIFICALLY designated for this.
G_Force said I find it also equally annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public. But this forum is a spirirituality forum and anything dealing with spirituality is pertinent in this form whether I agree with the guy's view or not.
I am not sure if that 2nd part was an add on edit or I missed it the first time. I agree with your "right" to post what ever you want in the Spirituality (or any forums) forums. My point is after having posted several Bible based posts you know the type response you are going to get on here. I think you enjoy getting people all bent out of shape. A large number of gay people have a knee jerk reaction against anything Christian especially proselytizing. Even if that is the case it is your "right" to do so. Eventhough I often disagree with what you post I have to admit your forums are much more intersting than those "the guy above your" topics. If Gay Chirstians are finding your posts helpful than I am glad for them. I just hope they would either support a gay accepting church, or make sure that they are a force for change if their church is still stuck in homophopia. NO More Gay Uncle Toms quietly supporting anti-homosexual churches.
I don't EVER go and publicly express my religious beliefs in any public area that is not designated for this. But this spirituality forum is SPECIFICALLY designated for this.
I have to admit I am surprised to hear that you don't publicly express your religious beliefs in public. Maybe these forums are just your way of having a chance to express yourself. Forums are a chance for all of us to "yell" out about what ever our little pet issue might be.
NotThatOld said I also think that Global Citizen's point need to answered, since he is certainly not the first one to say that "the Bible contradicts itself" - although I do find 200 in the New testament alone rather daunting, to say the least.
About Joseph, Mary and their Child leaving for Egypt after the visitation of the Wise Men, this is recorded in Matthew's account. In Luke's account, which is focused more on Mary than on Joseph's, all it says that "After obeying God in all his laws, they returned to Nazareth." This was the final settling place which agrees with Matthew's account. (Matthew 2:23 with Luke 2:39) No contradiction. Luke felt that it wasn't revelant to repeat Matthew's account of Herod's slaughter of the Innocents and their flight to Egypt.
Judas Iscariot hanged himself. - Matt 27:5 - There is no reference of him jumping off a cliff. In Acts, Peter said something about "his bowels gushing out after falling headlong." - Acts 1:1 - This gives me the impression that the branch of the tree from where he was hanging snapped under his weight. On the other hand, Peter's speech might have been just allegorical
The women at the tomb were afraid of the angel's appearing. Actually there were two angels there, but only one of them spoke to the women. When the angel delivered good news, and they were not threatened, their fears turned to joy and reported the matter to the disciples.
Matthew's account - 27:50-51 - and Mark's - 15:37-3 - seem to indicate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the tearing of the curtain in the Temple both took place at the same moment. If true, then what Luke says - 23:44-46 - does at first looks like he disagrees with Matthew and Mark's accounts. Did the curtain tear at the 6th hour when the sun stopped shining? Or did the biographer summerise the whole three hour period of events into one epoch - just as he did with the events of Jesus' early childhood? If he did - then Luke too would agree that the death of Jesus and the tearing of the curtain both took place simultaniously.
There are apparent contradictions which all can say in all honestly, I don't know. For example, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified at the third hour - 9.00 am - (15:25). But John says that on the 6th hour - midday - Jesus was still before Pilate. (19:14). There may be a rational explanation for this. But atheists and sceptics should not use this as a means to ridicule our faith or rip it apart. Especially if they cannot offer an alternative, solid explanation.
thanks for your post. it takes only a little brain and understanding to reconcile what may seem to be contradictions, but when fully considered can see how both statements actually ADD TO THE WHOLE PICTURE. It is the reason God chose 4 authors instead of just 1 to record what they visibly saw and heard as a testimony to divine truth. Each account is like a camera from a different view or ANGLE but it is capturing the same event. This is even done in football, so that we have a complete view of the play from different angles. When there is a disagrement about what really happened in a play, they will review ALL THE TAPES. From one camera it looked like the guy was out of bounds before he caught the pass, but from another camera it showed he was clearly inbounds. Is this a contradiction? No, both recorded the SAME PLAY, but from a different angle or perspective. Likewise , it is this way with the 4 gospels and the reason God gave us 4 so we have a COMPLETE PICTURE from different angles.
I do the same, when I do a shoot with a model. I shoot them from every angle and location and every type of expression and with every type of clothes and sometimes no clothes lol in order to give a total and complete picture of this person--all for the purpose of artistic expression and beauty. Each pictures can make him or her look totally different by the way it is composed, but it is the SAME MODEL in each picture.
I don't EVER go and publicly express my religious beliefs in any public area that is not designated for this. But this spirituality forum is SPECIFICALLY designated for this.
I have to admit I am surprised to hear that you don't publicly express your religious beliefs in public. Maybe these forums are just your way of having a chance to express yourself. Forums are a chance for all of us to "yell" out about what ever our little pet issue might be.
Many people ARE SEEKING answers to religious questions and since I have personally spent many years thoroughly going through the entire Bible page by page and verse by verse and even word by word, and not just from translation, but from the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and have carefully analyzed the 1 % of the Bible where there are variants in reading and I have found that in each case the variant reading DOES NOT CHANGE any essential doctrine or teaching and in most cases it is quite easy to determine the correct one based on where the manuscript came from and from what century it came from. In those cases where it can not be determined, I found the difference of no importance to my faith.
Maybe some Christians just beleive because that was what they were taught by their parents or some teacher or preacher without really analyzing what they heard, but not me. I dug into the Scriptures MYSELF and looked at the historical settings from where and when they were written and I can truthfully say that I am absolutely convinced now more than ever to their reliability.
If you haven't come to that conviction yourself, fine. You need to go with what you believe in your heart is right. If you don't do that, you will become a spiritual mess. You need to be convinced of it yourself. If you aren't, then beleive what you are convinced of. But don't close yourself to looking at the Scriptures. Keep looking at them and studying them and you just may find something there you never knew about before.
I find it also annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public.
I never seen an atheist yelling their beliefs at random people going about their day. If it has/does happen - yes that is annoying. It is annoying when any group yells their personal beliefs at people trying to go about their day -whatever group they are.
The yelling happens to me all the time, if I wear a cross or nail necklace or they see my Christian tattoos (the ichthus or Christian fish, the tribal eagle with the words "he will lift you up on eagle's wings", and the alpha and omega cross symbol with sun rays coming from the cross). I get BOTH reactions--yelling and ridicule and others who say "your tattoos are awesome. Where and when did you get them?" I have gotten both reactions at work and at the lake or beach. It immediatelty tells me who is a Christian and who is not. And I ignore or get away from anyone who finds it necessary to terrorize me or make fun of my faith.
G_Force said I find it also equally annoying when people yell their atheistic views at me on the streets and in public. But this forum is a spirirituality forum and anything dealing with spirituality is pertinent in this form whether I agree with the guy's view or not.
I am not sure if that 2nd part was an add on edit or I missed it the first time. I agree with your "right" to post what ever you want in the Spirituality (or any forums) forums. My point is after having posted several Bible based posts you know the type response you are going to get on here. I think you enjoy getting people all bent out of shape. A large number of gay people have a knee jerk reaction against anything Christian especially proselytizing. Even if that is the case it is your "right" to do so. Eventhough I often disagree with what you post I have to admit your forums are much more intersting than those "the guy above your" topics. If Gay Chirstians are finding your posts helpful than I am glad for them. I just hope they would either support a gay accepting church, or make sure that they are a force for change if their church is still stuck in homophopia. NO More Gay Uncle Toms quietly supporting anti-homosexual churches.
My church doesn't rail on people for every sin they struggle with. And our church on it's sign says , "We are a hospital for sinners, not a musuem of saints." Every one who enters through the doors of our church is a sinner. If you aren't a sinner, you don't need to come in , just like if you are not sick, you don't need to go to the hospital. The topic of homosexuality IS NOT THE FOCUS OF OUR CHRISTIAN. FAITH--CHRIST AND HIS LOVE FOR SINNERS IS THE FOCUS. Our sermons and Bible classes hardy ever have anything to do with homosexuaity because almost all of the Bible has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Any church who's mission is on homosexuality, either for or against it, is on a mission that IS NOT BIBLICAL. Nobody can come to know Christ's love for them and all sinners, if you are so wrapped up on this one topic, which is such a minor topic in Scripture to begin with. Jesus says NOTHING about it and neither should the church focus on something which is not a major part of the Bible. Those churches who do get so absorbed and wrapped up in this issue which IS NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN SCRPTURE are majoring in the minors and are NOT carrying out the mission which Christ wants it to do. Jesus did not get hung up on it and neither should the church. GET TO THE REAL MISSION OF THE CHURCH WHICH IS TO BE THE PROCLAMATION OF SALVATION THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS--THAT IS THE SOLE MISSION OF OUR CHURCH..
styrgan saidI don't want to deny anyone the right to post whatever they want here in the forums, but I personally think the OP's threads are completely non-productive. As a Christian and a progressive, I am not looking to curtail anyone's right to free expression.
But the subtitle of RealJock is "Gay Fitness Health & Life"
Granted, post-election and post-H8, we have extended the "Life" part of that into politics and religion, and I think having a debate about God and religion and spirituality can be awesome.
Yet I think people who post "prayers" in threads and attempt to use the forums as a means of preaching or of daily Christian reflections do not belong here. Personally, I have found that there is, in general, a direct negative correlation between expressiveness and genuineness in matters of spirituality.
G_Force just enjoys getting attention/reactions to his preaching posts.
I don't want nor do I need anyone's attention. If you are going to give anyone some attention, give it to Christ and his word, NOT ME, because I don't want your attention. I am not worthy to even wash his feet.
phemt saidstyrgan said: "...being equally important as responding to phemt's attacks on Christianity"
My attacks on Christianity? Let's review my "attacks".
I agree with all three of your positions. I am not interested in debating the content of your previous posts, although I'm pretty sure you're portraying yourself in the best possible light now. Either way, I only referenced you because the two other RJers whom I consider anti-Christianity I either really despise or really love.
I offer a thousand apologies if you don't think the shoe fits.
G_Force said ... Many people ARE SEEKING answers to religious questions and since I have personally spent many years thoroughly going through the entire Bible page by page and verse by verse and even word by word, and not just from translation, but from the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and have carefully analyzed the 1 % of the Bible where there are variants in reading and I have found that in each case the variant reading DOES NOT CHANGE any essential doctrine or teaching and in most cases it is quite easy to determine the correct one based on where the manuscript came from and from what century it came from. In those cases where it can not be determined, I found the difference of no importance to my faith.
Maybe some Christians just beleive because that was what they were taught by their parents or some teacher or preacher without really analyzing what they heard, but not me. I dug into the Scriptures MYSELF and looked at the historical settings from where and when they were written and I can truthfully say that I am absolutely convinced now more than ever to their reliability.
If you haven't come to that conviction yourself, fine. You need to go with what you believe in your heart is right. If you don't do that, you will become a spiritual mess. You need to be convinced of it yourself. If you aren't, then beleive what you are convinced of. But don't close yourself to looking at the Scriptures. Keep looking at them and studying them and you just may find something there you never knew about before.
It is impressive that you have studied the Bible so extensively. I've read the Bible (NRSV translation), but am no way an expert on the Bible. I am often amazed though how little several Christians seem to know of the Bible. I did not bring up any of the "apparent contradictions" because I don't feel I am have enough knowelge/understanding to debate the issue. Eventhough, sections of the Bible (especially certain teachings of Jesus) resonated with me, overall, I do not find the Bible that inspiring. Another issue I often find distrubing is how often self-proclaimed Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk (Not saying this applies you to). I am talking about people like Mr. "adulterer, married three times" Newt Gingrich talking about traditonal Christian family values as the reason he is against gay rights.
Many Christians know very little of the Bible because they haven't opened a Bible since they were maybe 13 in confirmation class. And what you study in sunday school and confirmation class or even hear in a sermon is baby food. At least 75% of the Bible is never addressed in sunday school, confirmation class, or even in a sermon becasue it is more meaty and difficult for many people to chew. But unless you are into regular and weekly adult Bible class, most of it will remain completely hidden to you. And it simply amazes me how many peope reject the Bible, but HAVE NEVER EVEN OPENED A BIBLE since they were a kid. That means you have never even heard or read 75% of what is in the Bible and you are rejecting 75% of what you haven't even read yourself They will read and listen to tons of stuff of what people have said and written ABOUT the Bible, but at least 75% of it, they have never read themself. So you are taking in OPINIONS about something that you have no first hand knoweldge yourself. That is how you get brainwashed and believe me there is a lot of brainwashed Christians and former Christians.
When you have accepted what others have said ABOUT the Bible rather then reading it for yourself, I can completely understand WHY there are so many different views of the Bible. If people would just read even SOME of the 75% that they have never read , they would quickly see that some of the things they may have been taught by a teacher, preacher, or by their parents is not really what the Bible says at all. And so by not reading it themself, they have this PERCEPTION of what they think the Bible says, but is not really what the Bible says at all.
There is so much illiteracy when it comes to the Bible because 75% of it HAS NEVER BEEN READ by most people. It's one thing to reject what you have read, but to reject it where you have never even read 75% of it, is being a fool and you are looking ONLY at what others have said ABOUT the Bible, but have not even even read 75% of it yourself.
You should not be surprised when many Christians do not walk the talk. Why? Because this is a fulfillment of Scripture, which says this WILL HAPPEN. This confirms that the Scriptures are inspired by God because only he could know that this would be the case. But MANY Christians DO walk the talk, NOT PERFECTLY, BECAUSE NO CHRISTIAN EVER WILL, but they sincerely want to and they try to. But as God teaches, we have 3 powerful enemies who are working against us-- our own sinful nature, which has been inherited from our first parents, the devil, (and don't fool yourself he is a real spiritual demon that can convince you to do things that when you are in your right mind you would not do), and the sinful world. I have done things both in my youth and even still today that I am ashamed of and really wonder why I did something so foolish. I still do things that in my heart I really don't what to do because I know it's not right, but all of sudden I find myself doing those things and it is frustrating. The good things I want to do, I often don't do, and the evil I don't want to do, that I do. If this sounds familar to you, that's exactly what the apostle Paul said about his own life and he's one of the major writers of the NT. If there is anyone who should walk the talk, it should be him who is writing the Bible, but he admits like me that he often doesn't.
That actually is the sign of a good Christian who has the humility to admit that there is a lot in his life that could be improved and that he is a horrible sinner who breaks God's laws countless times. Because then Jesus comes along and says, "chill out." Didn't I die on the cross for all the times you messed up? WHY ARE YOU DOWN ON YOURSELF, when I lived the perfect life you could not and bore the entire punishment for all the times you do mess up? And then I realize, he's right. I'm forgiven and because of his love and forgiveness,. I do sincerely try to do better next time. But it isn't long and my sinful nature, the devil, and sinful friends in the world are leading me right back into the same things that I really don't like doing or want to do. But a Christian needs to apply the gospel to himself and believe that he has forgiveness for each time he messes up. This is not a license to sin, but rather should help us to return God's love with love from ourself in appreciation for saving us through the work of his Son.
But many times people want to make something sinful that is not. Nowhere does it say anywhere in Scripture that a mere picture of nudity is sinful. The naked human body is not something that is sinful. If it causes you to lust, that is sinful, the Bible says. But I honestly don't look at nude pictures nor post nude pictures for the purpose of arousing lust. For me and I would hope for others, that it would lead to a healthy God-pleasing appreciation of our human sexuality and his creative beauty of the human body. I find that beauty not only in males but females as well and so I have come to appreciate model photography as beautiful art because I see models as having a beautiful talent and gift from God to create the most beautiful pictures, displaying God's creative hand. It has led me to appreciate my own sexuality, which I regard as a beautiful gift from him. So you will NEVER convince me that my model photography work is sinful, even if it displays some nudity. God nowhere in the Bible says that such things are sinful for a Christian. It is not.
I hope this helps you to understand better where I am coming from as a Christian.
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? No, they don't enjoy it. It's not a pleasant job to do, but a job that has to be done to protect people from harm. Well, the highest authority (God) doesn't enjoy putting people in hell, either. This is not a pleasant job of his because he doesn't want anyone there and neither do I. But when people refuse to come under his rule as God and even deny that he exists and try to silence his word to us and are rebellious to him and want to hurt and harm his people out of hatred and envy, he's got no choice but to keep these people away from him and his people, so that they can no longer hurt and harm others with their hatred of him and his people. They are just continuously rebellious and harmful and they got to be kept separate from everyone else.
Watch out all your Atheists, Buddhist and believers in other religions - God is going to send you to a burning hell pit for eternity to prevent you from hurting his people. That goes for people like Gandhi too. I am not excectly sure what harm Gandhi did, but I am sure it was horrible. Dosn't matter how you lived your live - if you don't submit and give honor to God you are as good as a cancer and as such you should be burnt in hell.
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? No, they don't enjoy it. It's not a pleasant job to do, but a job that has to be done to protect people from harm. Well, the highest authority (God) doesn't enjoy putting people in hell, either. This is not a pleasant job of his because he doesn't want anyone there and neither do I. But when people refuse to come under his rule as God and even deny that he exists and try to silence his word to us and are rebellious to him and want to hurt and harm his people out of hatred and envy, he's got no choice but to keep these people away from him and his people, so that they can no longer hurt and harm others with their hatred of him and his people. They are just continuously rebellious and harmful and they got to be kept separate from everyone else.
Watch out all your Atheists, Buddhist and believers in other religions - God is going to send you to a burning hell pit for eternity to prevent you from hurting his people. That goes for people like Gandhi too. I am not excectly sure what harm Gandhi did, but I am sure it was horrible. Dosn't matter how you lived your live - if you don't submit and give honor to God you are as good as a cancer and as such you should be burnt in hell.
This statement of yours isn't a statement inspired by the Holy Spirit, if you are defending Christ then please act like him.
John 3:17 - For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Paul and others likewise teach that "the kingdom" will come BEFORE a final judgment and the end, instead of after - 1 Cor 15:24, Rev 20:4, etc. So Paul changes his mind about the subject near the end of his life.
So there is no single teaching about "the kingdom" or "end time" much less other things even when the christian scriptures were written and later thrown together.
In either case, here is an interesting article and NPR broadcast on the subject of contradictions an discrepancies in the "Gospels": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895 Ironically, contradictions were ultimately not the reason the author became agnostic, but rather because he had a problem with suffering. (BTW, the "its the end of the world" view is expressed by the author in the transcript link)
I think Paul (and/or whomever) writes about "the kingdom" interchangeably as both present spiritual concept and future physical event, and we probably agree in large part about the phrase. But the difficulty and disagreement regarding its interpretation is why I posted about taking the Bible literally.
I do like Bart Ehrman, as well as Terry Gross, so I'm going to check out the NPR link when I get a chance; thanks.
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? No, they don't enjoy it. It's not a pleasant job to do, but a job that has to be done to protect people from harm. Well, the highest authority (God) doesn't enjoy putting people in hell, either. This is not a pleasant job of his because he doesn't want anyone there and neither do I. But when people refuse to come under his rule as God and even deny that he exists and try to silence his word to us and are rebellious to him and want to hurt and harm his people out of hatred and envy, he's got no choice but to keep these people away from him and his people, so that they can no longer hurt and harm others with their hatred of him and his people. They are just continuously rebellious and harmful and they got to be kept separate from everyone else.
Watch out all your Atheists, Buddhist and believers in other religions - God is going to send you to a burning hell pit for eternity to prevent you from hurting his people. That goes for people like Gandhi too. I am not excectly sure what harm Gandhi did, but I am sure it was horrible. Dosn't matter how you lived your live - if you don't submit and give honor to God you are as good as a cancer and as such you should be burnt in hell.
This statement of yours isn't a statement inspired by the Holy Spirit, if you are defending Christ then please act like him.
John 3:17 - For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Someone either accepts Jesus as their personal savior or they don't. If someone is ungrateful and don't accept God's gift of Salvation the person is left out of God's heavenly kingdom; If someone worships false God's, or deny the existence of the true God and his son Jesus Christ hell is what that person gets. It is like a hungry homeless man not accepting food from someone offering food. The gift of the food would ease the homeless man's hunger. If the homemless man is ungrateful and dosn't accept the food what should the homeless man expect, but to remain hungry? Understandability the guy having his gift turned down is going to be pissed at the homeless guy. It should come of no surprise if he follows the homeless guy into an alley and beats the crap out of the ungrateful one. It is the same way with God. It you do not accept his gift he is going to be pissed and beat the living hell out of you by sending you to hell.
Prayer, oh Lord, our God, we are like hungry homeless people. May we accept the bread and wine to feed our hungry spirit.
Note: I thought anyone would realize was I was making a parody - I am not Christian. Eventhough it is parody this is how I see the Christian message of "believe in Jesus as Savior or burn in hell for eternity".
G_Force saidDo you think the authorities enjoy putting people in prison? No, they don't enjoy it. It's not a pleasant job to do, but a job that has to be done to protect people from harm. Well, the highest authority (God) doesn't enjoy putting people in hell, either. This is not a pleasant job of his because he doesn't want anyone there and neither do I. But when people refuse to come under his rule as God and even deny that he exists and try to silence his word to us and are rebellious to him and want to hurt and harm his people out of hatred and envy, he's got no choice but to keep these people away from him and his people, so that they can no longer hurt and harm others with their hatred of him and his people. They are just continuously rebellious and harmful and they got to be kept separate from everyone else.
Watch out all your Atheists, Buddhist and believers in other religions - God is going to send you to a burning hell pit for eternity to prevent you from hurting his people. That goes for people like Gandhi too. I am not excectly sure what harm Gandhi did, but I am sure it was horrible. Dosn't matter how you lived your live - if you don't submit and give honor to God you are as good as a cancer and as such you should be burnt in hell.
This statement of yours isn't a statement inspired by the Holy Spirit, if you are defending Christ then please act like him.
John 3:17 - For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Someone either accepts Jesus as their personal savior or they don't. If someone is ungrateful and don't accept God's gift of Salvation the person is left out of God's heavenly kingdom; If someone worships false God's, or deny the existence of the true God and his son Jesus Christ hell is what that person gets. It is like a hungry homeless man not accepting food from someone offering food. The gift of the food would ease the homeless man's hunger. If the homemless man is ungrateful and dosn't accept the food what should the homeless man expect, but to remain hungry? Understandability the guy having his gift turned down is going to be pissed at the homeless guy. It should come of no surprise if he follows the homeless guy into an alley and beats the crap out of the ungrateful one. It is the same way with God. It you do not accept his gift he is going to be pissed and beat the living hell out of you by sending you to hell.
Prayer, oh Lord, our God, we are like hungry homeless people. May we accept the bread and wine to feed our hungry spirit.
Note: I thought anyone would realize was I was making a parody - I am not Christian. Eventhough it is parody this is how I see the Christian message of "believe in Jesus as Savior or burn in hell for eternity".
You are not seeing the Christian message quite right. We have all hurt others and also God by our thoughts, words, and actions. Therefore the whole human race is guilty before God and deserves eternal death because God said the wages of sin is eternal death. But God does not want anyone to persih so instead of sending us all to hell like we should , he chose not to punish us for our offences but instead punished his own Son for our sins. God HAS TO MAKE ATONEMENT for sin in order to remain true and just to his word. IF he just lets the world off the hook without making atonement he is an UNJUST God. It sounds unfair to punish his Son and it is unfair because Christ did nothing wrong to be punished. But Christ had so much love for the world that he chose of his own free will to take our punishment in our place and he also lived the perfect life that is required of each of us and this has now been credited to everyone. So, now even though we are not perfect, God sees you and me and everyone else in the world as perfect through faith in his Son. This is why this is called the gospel because the word gospel means "good news" and this is really good news for the entire world without exception because the entire world's sin has been atoned. But if YOU CHOOSE instead to be judged on YOUR OWN WORKS, rather than on the works of Christ,, then God will do exactly as you choose and judge you according to your works. If you have obeyed his law perfectly, he will let you into heaven, but if not and you choose not to accept Christ's payment on your behalf, then I guess you'll have to make the payment yourself because it has to be paid one way or another in order for God to remain just. But I'm not going to choose to be judged by my works because I know for a fact, I am guilty according to God's Law. Instead , I am going to plead the works and merits of Christ because I know I haven't kept his law perfectly but rather he has and he made the payment for sin for me.
G_Force said I have explained every one of these seeming contradictions to so many people over and over again and when I have done so. they continue to beleive there are still contradictions, so I am going to save my breath because you aren't interested in reconciling these seeming contradcitions.
That's OK. I've become accustomed to such brazen cop outs.
I will only address one of them to show you that there doesn't need to be a contradiction. Let me ask you one question regarding Judas's suicide. What makes you think it has to be one or the other-- hanging or thrown over a cliff.
The problem with that apologia is that the Bible, in the book of Acts, says Judas threw himself headlong over a cliff. Do you know anyone who has hung themselves by jumping headlong instead of jumping straight down? What would be the point of that?
And curious, isn't it, that one account says he hung himself with no mention of a cliff, and the other account says he jumped headlong off a cliff with no mention of a rope around his neck?
Many evangelical true believers, the apologists, have narrowed in on these pat answers to unanswerable questions about the Bible and are personally satisfied by the standard line. But you do realize that most people are still justifiably skeptical and recognize bullshit when they see it, right?
About Joseph, Mary and their Child leaving for Egypt after the visitation of the Wise Men, this is recorded in Matthew's account. In Luke's account, which is focused more on Mary than on Joseph's, all it says that "After obeying God in all his laws, they returned to Nazareth." This was the final settling place which agrees with Matthew's account. (Matthew 2:23 with Luke 2:39) No contradiction.
This is the kind of answer given to people who probably aren't familiar with the Bible, Jewish customs, and other important details.
In Luke it says Jesus was circumcised at the temple in Jerusalem eight days after he was born. In Matthew it says Jesus, Mary, and Joseph went to Egypt and stayed there until Herod's death.
Are you telling me that they went from Bethlehem to Egypt, then Herod died almost immediately, and word got to them in Egypt of his death, and they high tailed it to Jerusalem to be at the temple on the eighth day after Jesus' birth?
C'mon. That is too far fetched for anyone to seriously advocate.
The women at the tomb were afraid of the angel's appearing. Actually there were two angels there, but only one of them spoke to the women. When the angel delivered good news, and they were not threatened, their fears turned to joy and reported the matter to the disciples.
What about the account in Mark where it says "they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid"? It doesn't say they were afraid at first and then later told others. It says they were afraid and said nothing to anyone. Your explanation is putting words in the Bible that don't exist.
Matthew's account - 27:50-51 - and Mark's - 15:37-3 - seem to indicate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the tearing of the curtain in the Temple both took place at the same moment. If true, then what Luke says - 23:44-46 - does at first looks like he disagrees with Matthew and Mark's accounts.
Well, it doesn't just appear that way. Luke very clearly does differ in the account. Matthew and Mark indicate that the order of events was that Jesus dies and at that same moment the temple veil tears. Luke, however, indicates that the temple veil tears, then Jesus speaks and says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" and then he dies. Some will argue this is a minor difference, but for adherents of a literal and inerrant Bible, it poses a serious problem.
You know what Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Jupiter, Set, Thor, Apsu, Anat, Ah Puch, Enki and a plethora of other Gods that had millions of followers are pissed and want all the Christians to know that if they don't stop worshiping their false god they are going to rot in the underworld...so there. Have a nice day
About Joseph, Mary and their Child leaving for Egypt after the visitation of the Wise Men, this is recorded in Matthew's account. In Luke's account, which is focused more on Mary than on Joseph's, all it says that "After obeying God in all his laws, they returned to Nazareth." This was the final settling place which agrees with Matthew's account. (Matthew 2:23 with Luke 2:39) No contradiction.
This is the kind of answer given to people who probably aren't familiar with the Bible, Jewish customs, and other important details.
In Luke it says Jesus was circumcised at the temple in Jerusalem eight days after he was born. In Matthew it says Jesus, Mary, and Joseph went to Egypt and stayed there until Herod's death.
Are you telling me that they went from Bethlehem to Egypt, then Herod died almost immediately, and word got to them in Egypt of his death, and they high tailed it to Jerusalem to be at the temple on the eighth day after Jesus' birth?
C'mon. That is too far fetched for anyone to seriously advocate.
The women at the tomb were afraid of the angel's appearing. Actually there were two angels there, but only one of them spoke to the women. When the angel delivered good news, and they were not threatened, their fears turned to joy and reported the matter to the disciples.
What about the account in Mark where it says "they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid"? It doesn't say they were afraid at first and then later told others. It says they were afraid and said nothing to anyone. Your explanation is putting words in the Bible that don't exist.
Matthew's account - 27:50-51 - and Mark's - 15:37-3 - seem to indicate that the death of Jesus on the cross and the tearing of the curtain in the Temple both took place at the same moment. If true, then what Luke says - 23:44-46 - does at first looks like he disagrees with Matthew and Mark's accounts.
Well, it doesn't just appear that way. Luke very clearly does differ in the account. Matthew and Mark indicate that the order of events was that Jesus dies and at that same moment the temple veil tears. Luke, however, indicates that the temple veil tears, then Jesus speaks and says, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" and then he dies. Some will argue this is a minor difference, but for adherents of a literal and inerrant Bible, it poses a serious problem.
IYou are showing your lack of knowledge again probably because you read more about what people say ABOUT the Bible rather than reading the Bible yourself. When wise men came to see Jesus, Mary and Jospeh were not at the stable , but living in a house in Bethlehem. This happened when Jesus was at least a year or 2 old. That's why Herod had all the male babies who were 2 years old and younger killed. Jesus didn't get killed in that masacre because God warned Joseph and Mary of Herod's plot and told them to go to Egpyt. When Jesus was circumsized, he was only 8 days old. So, what your problem is with this, I have no clue. The 2 events are separted by at least a year later.
And yes, you can hang yourself head first, if you tie a rope around your neck and dive off a cliff. When you dive, your head goes first. Just read the words and you won't have a problem.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
And yes, you can hang yourself head first, if you tie a rope around your neck and dive off a cliff. When you dive, your head goes first. Just read the words and you won't have a problem.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
An additional problem is what Judas is supposed to have done with the money. Matthew says he threw it down in the temple, and after he hung himself the priests bought the field. Acts says Judas bought the field with it.
And yes, you can hang yourself head first, if you tie a rope around your neck and dive off a cliff. When you dive, your head goes first. Just read the words and you won't have a problem.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
An additional problem is what Judas is supposed to have done with the money. Matthew says he threw it down in the temple, and after he hung himself the priests bought the field. Acts says Judas bought the field with it.
What version of The Bible mentions a cliff?
no version mentions a cliff specificly, but could Judas have hanged himself headlong diving off a cliff. it's a possibility.
The 2 accounts of Judas' death are not a contradiction, but rather add to the whole account of what happened.
This is another one of those situations when the truth is not an either or, but both. To reconcile the seeming "contradiction" in these passages, the facts could also be reconstructed this way:
Apparently, the thirty silver coins were Judas'; Judas and not the priests owned them. So, even if it were the priests who bought the field, officially they bought it in Judas' name as the money was his. It was as if Judas himself bought the field with the priests as his agents in the purchase.
Judas, then hanged himself. Where? In Akeldama, the same field bought by the priests. After some time, his hanging body must have decomposed. Either that somebody tried to remove it from where it hang or it fell by itself, but what happened is that it fell headlong and, because the body was partially decomposed, it burst open in the middle and all his intestines spilled out.
We may not know exactly what happened, but the time is coming when we will know.. Hang on (pun intended) until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then we may clarify with both Matthew and Luke.
no version mentions a cliff specificly, but could Judas have hanged himself headlong diving off a cliff. it's a possibility.
The 2 accounts of Judas' death are not a contradiction, but rather add to the whole account of what happened.
This is another one of those situations when the truth is not an either or, but both. To reconcile the seeming "contradiction" in these passages, the facts could also be reconstructed this way:
Fundamentalist followers of all holy books resolve contradictions in the same fashion. The "facts" can be reconstructed a thousand ways if you're willing to accept any conjecture that allows an apparent contradiction to reconcile. This only makes sense if you begin with the premise that The Bible is infallible and literally true.
Contradictions and historical inaccuracies don't change the core message of love and forgiveness, and I think Christians are better served focusing on that message than the impending doom of Judgment Day, or fear of eternal damnation, or tilting at scientific windmills. It still resonates with me, and I lost my faith a long time ago.
crtrainer saidSomeone has been leaving dildos (those ones with the suction cups) on pews in our local Fundamentalist Churches - I think Satan is here and walking amongst us!
Seriously - Organized religion has done a lot of damage to some people. Talk about ASSAULTING innocent CHILDREN? If God is coming, that's fine with me - I have nothing to be ashamed of - And if he's not coming, that's ok too, because I take responsibility for myself anyway.
Jesus spent his entire ministry condemning the yeast of organized religion in his day and it resulted in his own crucifixion at the hands of organized religion. Jesus warned about following organized religion blindly because often they do not teach and preach what Jesus taught. He urges us to follow him, not organized religion.
G_Force said IYou are showing your lack of knowledge again probably because you read more about what people say ABOUT the Bible rather than reading the Bible yourself.
I've read the Bible cover to cover three times and attended a highly regarded Bible college. Try again, maybe with a little less condescending this time.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
Well you attempted to answer two of the contradictions, but those explanations stretch plausibility to the limit. Most rational people are going to say, "yeah, right".
I'll give you a slight benefit of the doubt in the account of fleeing to Egypt because the Bible does say Herod ordered boys under two years old killed. But that is not the same as the Bible saying Jesus, Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem for two years. If I'm wrong on that, please quote me the book, chapter, and verse that says they were living in Bethlehem.
To conflate that Herod's "two year olds" order means Jesus had to be two years old at the time is putting words into the Bible that don't exist. Most likely Herod didn't want to take any chances and gave his soldiers orders with a wide margin of error.
The Bible does not say they lived in Bethlehem, but only went there for the census (itself an implausible story, most likely concocted to make Jesus' birth congruous with prophesy).
Your apologia on the Judas contradictions is a common one, but certainly implausible.
You don't even attempt the others because you know as well as anyone that they are contradictions and simply can't be explained if you insist the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
G_Force said The 2 accounts of Judas' death are not a contradiction, but rather add to the whole account of what happened.
This is another one of those situations when the truth is not an either or, but both. To reconcile the seeming "contradiction" in these passages, the facts could also be reconstructed this way:
Apparently, the thirty silver coins were Judas'; Judas and not the priests owned them. So, even if it were the priests who bought the field, officially they bought it in Judas' name as the money was his. It was as if Judas himself bought the field with the priests as his agents in the purchase.
Or, instead of pondering some convoluted theory about how both accounts could be true and complimentary of each other, we could just face the fact that the Bible was written by men, based on oral traditions passed down over years and finally recorded in the versions in which the Bible authors had heard them.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
Well you attempted to answer two of the contradictions, but those explanations stretch plausibility to the limit. Most rational people are going to say, "yeah, right".
I'll give you a slight benefit of the doubt in the account of fleeing to Egypt because the Bible does say Herod ordered boys under two years old killed. But that is not the same as the Bible saying Jesus, Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem for two years. If I'm wrong on that, please quote me the book, chapter, and verse that says they were living in Bethlehem.
To conflate that Herod's "two year olds" order means Jesus had to be two years old at the time is putting words into the Bible that don't exist. Most likely Herod didn't want to take any chances and gave his soldiers orders with a wide margin of error.
The Bible does not say they lived in Bethlehem, but only went there for the census (itself an implausible story, most likely concocted to make Jesus' birth congruous with prophesy).
Your apologia on the Judas contradictions is a common one, but certainly implausible.
You don't even attempt the others because you know as well as anyone that they are contradictions and simply can't be explained if you insist the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
And it's not a cop out because even though I explain a lot of these things to you, you still beleive there is contradictions. I've explained 2 more to you and you still think there is contradictions, so why should I explain the others because you will still insisit there is contradictions.
Well you attempted to answer two of the contradictions, but those explanations stretch plausibility to the limit. Most rational people are going to say, "yeah, right".
I'll give you a slight benefit of the doubt in the account of fleeing to Egypt because the Bible does say Herod ordered boys under two years old killed. But that is not the same as the Bible saying Jesus, Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem for two years. If I'm wrong on that, please quote me the book, chapter, and verse that says they were living in Bethlehem.
To conflate that Herod's "two year olds" order means Jesus had to be two years old at the time is putting words into the Bible that don't exist. Most likely Herod didn't want to take any chances and gave his soldiers orders with a wide margin of error.
The Bible does not say they lived in Bethlehem, but only went there for the census (itself an implausible story, most likely concocted to make Jesus' birth congruous with prophesy).
Your apologia on the Judas contradictions is a common one, but certainly implausible.
You don't even attempt the others because you know as well as anyone that they are contradictions and simply can't be explained if you insist the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
Mary and Joseph with Jesus did reside in Bethlehem in a HOUSE after his birth in the stable. The wisemen did not visit Jesus at the stable on the night of his birth, but rather in a house in Bethlehem much later because Jesus is called a CHILD (in the original language the word is for a toddler). Matthew 2:11 specifically says they were in a HOUSE. The star the Wise Men followed appeared much later after his birth (perhaps even a whole year later or more) and it may have taken them even 6 months or more to get there because they traveled a LONG WAYS from Babylon without a car lol. And this is why Herod had all male babies killed in Bethlehem who were 2 years old or younger. Jesus was most likely at least a year old by this time and Herod thought he could possibly be even 2 years old by then. So Mary and Joseph stayed in BETHELHEM until God warned Jospeh in a dream of Herod's plot and told them to go t o Egypt and stay there until the death of Herod. When Herod died, God told them it was safe to go back.
You are listening to too many Christmas plays that have the wisemen coming to the stable on the night of Jesus' birth. The Bible says they did not go to the stable on the night of his birth, but rather a HOUSE in Bethlehem. And the Bible does not say there were 3 wisemen. It only says 3 GIFTS were presented Those 3 gifts could have been presented by a whole bunch of wisemen, not just 3. And Adam and Eve didn't necessarily eat an apple. It was some FRUIT, but probably NOT an apple.
This is how people ADD stuff to the Bible and take stuff away and then they say there is contradictions based on ASSUMPTIONS only
Your theory about the Bible is pure speculation. There is NOTHING in ancient writings that say the Bible is myths. This is your opinion and feeling.
G_Force said Mary and Joseph with Jesus did reside in Bethlehem in a HOUSE after his birth in the stable... So Mary and Joseph stayed in BETHELHEM until God warned Jospeh in a dream of Herod's plot and told them to go t o Egypt and stay there until the death of Herod. When Herod died, God told them it was safe to go back.
Not according to the book of Luke. Luke says Jesus was presented in the temple in Jerusalem eight days after his birth, and then says Jesus, Mary, and Joseph went to live in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.
Yes, they lived in Nazareth for awhile, but that doesn't mean that later they didn't live in Bethlehem at the time the Wise men came when Jesus was at least a year oild, if not older. His presentation in the temple is at 8 days old. The Wise Men visit and his flight into Egypt is at least a whole year later and you are ASSUMIING those events are at the same time when they obvioiusly are not at the same time.
If you are going to accuse the writers of the Bible of telling lies, then you better have some factual evidence to prove that. And you don't just say 1 or 2 of them are lying. You beleive all 4o of them are lying from over 1,000 years!!!! loll You are ASSUMIING so many things in the Bible when that may not be the case at alll I've also followed the principle NOT to accuse people of lying UNLESS you know from factual evidence, not just hearsay, that what they say is a lie.
If you are going to accuse the writers of the Bible of telling lies, then you better have some factual evidence to prove that. And you don't just say 1 or 2 of them are lying. You beleive all 4o of them are lying from over 1,000 years!!!! loll You are ASSUMIING so many things in the Bible when that may not be the case at alll I've also followed the principle NOT to accuse people of lying UNLESS you know from factual evidence, not just hearsay, that what they say is a lie.
i just wonder with all this emphasis on the truth of all the bible says if G force is so keen on 1 Cor 6:9-10. Or Romans 1:26-27. Or are we going to listen to some desperate wriggling on those verses too.
G_Force saidYes, they lived in Nazareth for awhile, but that doesn't mean that later they didn't live in Bethlehem at the time the Wise men came when Jesus was at least a year oild, if not older.
Again, you're putting words into the Bible that don't exist, and it's all because you cannot reconcile the conflicts in the Bible that are obvious to anyone who isn't drowning in blind faith.
You keep talking about how I'm "assuming" things about the Bible, but you're downright rewriting the thing just to avoid acknowledging that it's not the infallible and inerrant book your religion claims it is.
G_Force saidIf you are going to accuse the writers of the Bible of telling lies, then you better have some factual evidence to prove that. And you don't just say 1 or 2 of them are lying. You beleive all 4o of them are lying from over 1,000 years!!!!
Excuse me, but from what do you derive that accusation? I've accused all Biblical writers of lying? Really? Where?
Lostboy saidi just wonder with all this emphasis on the truth of all the bible says if G force is so keen on 1 Cor 6:9-10. Or Romans 1:26-27. Or are we going to listen to some desperate wriggling on those verses too.
no contradiction in those verses Romans 1:26-27 is law which shows that all people are guilty of sin and without the grace of God in Christ the whole world would be lost. But as the rest of Romans teaches, ALL have been saved by the life and work of Christ. Romans teaches that NO ONE can enter heaven by their good works because NO ONE lives the perfect life that God requires. So Romans 3:9 goes on to say that all are EQUALLY under sin and "there is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:9)
But then Romans goes on to say, "But now a righteousness from God, APART FROM LAW, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes THROUGH FAITH in Jesus Christ to ALL who beleive (all means ALL including gays). Because as Romans teaches all people are sinners, not just gays. But Romans teaches that all have been saved, including gays. "There is NO DIFFERENCE, for ALL have sinned and FALL SHORT of the glory of God and ARE JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS.
So as Romans clearly teaches even though ALL people are sinners, ALL have been redeemed by Christ. It doesnt say Christ redeemed all but gays. The Bible NOWHERE says that Christ does for all sinners except for gays.
The Bible clearly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that ALL people are sinners (not just gays, but even Christians are sinners--ALL means ALL). But ALL SINNERS have been redeemed and this is received by faith in Christ. As beleivers we now want to live as God wants, but as all beleivers know we never live completley as God wants us to, but rather each week in our worship services, we have a public confession of sins. EVERYONE FALLS SHORT, BUT EVERYONE HAS BEEN REDEEMED.
G_Force saidIf you are going to accuse the writers of the Bible of telling lies, then you better have some factual evidence to prove that. And you don't just say 1 or 2 of them are lying. You beleive all 4o of them are lying from over 1,000 years!!!!
Excuse me, but from what do you derive that accusation? I've accused all Biblical writers of lying? Really? Where?
You yourself said you don't beleive the Bible is true, so if it isn't true, it is a lie.
G_Force saidYes, they lived in Nazareth for awhile, but that doesn't mean that later they didn't live in Bethlehem at the time the Wise men came when Jesus was at least a year oild, if not older.
Again, you're putting words into the Bible that don't exist, and it's all because you cannot reconcile the conflicts in the Bible that are obvious to anyone who isn't drowning in blind faith.
You keep talking about how I'm "assuming" things about the Bible, but you're downright rewriting the thing just to avoid acknowledging that it's not the infallible and inerrant book your religion claims it is.
I;m not rewriting anything. I pointed the chapter and verse where it says they were living in a HOUSE and Jesus was a CHILD (toddler) not a baby. We don't know exactly when the wisemen came, but Jesus was no longer a baby in a stable. And even though they lived in Nazareth part of the time doesn't mean that latter they didn't move to Bethlehem in a house where the wise men came. The Bible clearly points this out. This event of the wisemen happened probably at least a year from his birth and maybe even longer because Herod thought he could be almost 2 years old already. People get so many wierd ideas because they listen to what people say ABOUT THE Bible rather than reading the Bible themself to see if what people have taught them is true. But MOST PEOPLE never read the Bible themself. They only read what people say ABOUT the Bible. But by not reading the WHOLE Bible yourself, (and you have to read all of it to properly understand it because just reading bits and pieces out of context will lead you to all sorts of wierd ideas.
One of the wierd ideas it has led people to is that God has singled out and excluded gay sinners, but if you are a str8 sinner, then you are ok. lol And these are even Christians who are saying this. It is ridiculous, if you just think about it. Why would God redeeem ONLY Str8 Christian sinners, but not gay Christian sinners? You are redeemed even before you are born and beleiving it is simply the hand that receives the GIFT given. Our life of love toward God and our fellow man is the way we say thanks for this MOST PRECIOUS GIFT,but our life of good works do not save us. It is only the fruit of our faith and it is what shows that we have faith, but salvation is ALWAYS AND ONLY by faith alone. Our good works is what we do to say "thanks" for this salvation GOD GAVE TO EVERYONE.
Many people have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible is full of errors because they listen to what people say ABOUT THE BIBLE rather than read ALL OF IT themself. But that is a sure fire way to get brainwashed.
G_Force said But by not reading the WHOLE Bible yourself, (and you have to read all of it to properly understand it because just reading bits and pieces out of context will lead you to all sorts of wierd ideas.
You've clearly not read what I've posted here. I've stated on this thread, and I'll state it again, that I've read the entire Bible, cover to cover, three times. Don't pull the condescending shtick on me. I'll put my knowledge of the Bible against yours any day.
G_Force saidMany people have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible is full of errors because they listen to what people say ABOUT THE BIBLE rather than read ALL OF IT themself. But that is a sure fire way to get brainwashed.
Quite to the contrary, when I listened to what other people (i.e. my pastor and Bible University professors) said about the Bible, I believed there were no contradictions and that the Bible was infallible and inerrant. It was only when I actually read it for myself, in its entirety that I noticed so many contradictory accounts of the same events that I concluded this book could not possibly be inspired by an all knowing God and be infallible as I'd always been told.
It was only then that I could conclude it was actually written by men, based on oral tradition. And there has been nothing I've seen since that revelation to convince me otherwise.
It also became clear to me that there was a somewhat loose conspiracy to pretend that there were no such contradictions as I'd found, and that there was a full fledged effort to distribute point by point apologia to explain away such contradictions. To the true believers, these weak explanations were sufficient. But to someone like me, with a skeptical nature, it was a muddling and pathetic attempt to retain a Wizard of Oz like power over gullible people.
G_Force saidBut by not reading the WHOLE Bible yourself, (and you have to read all of it to properly understand it because just reading bits and pieces out of context will lead you to all sorts of wierd ideas.
I'm wondering now if you've ever actually read the entire Bible yourself. Have you not noticed the contradictions I've pointed out? Have they not brought questions to your mind? How could they not?
Do you really believe in talking donkeys? Do you believe a dragon in the sky swiped its tail and plunged a third of the stars in the sky to earth? Do you really believe that ice is formed by the breath of God?
Or are these things metaphorical? And if so, what do you have to say to those who insist the Bible is to be taken strictly literally?
I'm wondering now if you've ever actually read the entire Bible yourself. Have you not noticed the contradictions I've pointed out? Have they not brought questions to your mind? How could they not?
G_force claims to read/study the Bible extensively(from a previous post of his): ... I have personally spent many years thoroughly going through the entire Bible page by page and verse by verse and even word by word, and not just from translation, but from the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and have carefully analyzed the 1 % of the Bible where there are variants in reading and I have found that in each case the variant reading DOES NOT CHANGE any essential doctrine or teaching and in most cases it is quite easy to determine the correct one based on where the manuscript came from and from what century it came from. ...
G-force may claim many things, but the superficiality of his cliched answers belies it.
This is what the texts say (NIV)
Romans 1:26-7 God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
If you want every word of the bible, stick those in your hat. And don´t try and pull a "the greek really says", or "in the culture" on me. I know exactly what the greek says, and exactly what happened in the culture.
G_Force saidBut by not reading the WHOLE Bible yourself, (and you have to read all of it to properly understand it because just reading bits and pieces out of context will lead you to all sorts of wierd ideas.
I'm wondering now if you've ever actually read the entire Bible yourself. Have you not noticed the contradictions I've pointed out? Have they not brought questions to your mind? How could they not?
Do you really believe in talking donkeys? Do you believe a dragon in the sky swiped its tail and plunged a third of the stars in the sky to earth? Do you really believe that ice is formed by the breath of God?
Or are these things metaphorical? And if so, what do you have to say to those who insist the Bible is to be taken strictly literally?
I've pointed out to you clearly in many of these cases why they are not contradictions, but you continue to believe there are contradictions.anyways. So like I said before there's no purpose in explaining any more to you when you've already closed your mind and will continue to believe there are contradicitions no,matter how many times someone explains these things to you.
Some things are metaphorical in the Bible. But the context always indicates when it is metephorical (i,e visions) Therefore,almost the entire book of Revelation is metephorical; because the Bible itself clearly states this is a VISION and visions are NEVER literal events, but ALWAYS metaphorical. So the events described in Revelation is not a literal war here on earth, but rather a spiritual war that is being fought in the heavenly. So when in John's vision it talks about 144,000 beleivers, this is not a literal number but a metaphorical number that is a multiple of 12. The 12 tribes of Israel (OT) multiplied by the 12 apostles equals 144,000, which then is a metaphorical number representing ALL of God's believers from both OT and NT which obviously is more than a literal 144,000. So in the VISION of Revelation when it says the dragon swiped its tail and plunged a third of the stars in the sky to the earth THIS IS METAPHORICAL. Why? Because the Bible clearly says this is metaphorical by telling us this is a VISION. VISIONS ARE NEVER TO BE INTERPRETED AS LITERAL EVENTS. The very definition of a vision is decribing an event that is not literal.
In the context of the BIble it is easy to see when Jesus speaks literal and when he speaks metephorical. The context aways indicates this clearly. For example when Jesus says, " I am the gate" or " I am the door" or "I am the light of the world", the context indicates that Jesus is not saying he is a literal door or a literal gate or a literal light, but this type of poetic speech is clearly. metephorical and there isn't any religion that claims these words of him are not metephorical. So it's really quite easy, if you just use your brain a little to know when the Bible is being metephorical and when it is being literal. So why interpet Genesis literal and Revelation figurativerly. It doesn't take a ot of brain to know why. The events of Genesis were not given in a VISION whereas the events in Revelation were. One just needs to use their brain a little and its really very easy to see when something is literal and when it is metaphorical. In the context of the talking donkey the text doesn't say this is a vision, but it says this is a real historical war and yes by direct intervention God can make a donkey talk when he needs to. He made the donkey, so it's not a hard thing for him to make a donkey talk either. Common sense tells you that to have a living and breathing donkey,, someone with great power had a role in this. Living and breathing donkeys just don't appear out of thin air by accident. lol It's just common sense to know that donkeys could never come into being without a powerful bring enabling this. For example, if I see a turtle on a fence post, common sense tells me, someone had to put him there, even if I didn't see anyone do it. I can't PROVE that anyone put him up there because no one saw it, but I am not wrong to beleive that someone did really put him there because common sense tells me this.
It's the very same reason why I believe there is a God. Common sense tells me this and for me to beleive otherwise would go against my common sense and I will not be stupid and beleive something else when my common sense tells me otherwise.
G_Force said I've pointed out to you clearly in many of these cases why they are not contradictions, but you continue to believe there are contradictions.
Well, you've made explanations but you've failed to make your case.
Lostboy saidG-force may claim many things, but the superficiality of his cliched answers belies it.
This is what the texts say (NIV)
Romans 1:26-7 God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
If you want every word of the bible, stick those in your hat. And don´t try and pull a "the greek really says", or "in the culture" on me. I know exactly what the greek says, and exactly what happened in the culture.
The grammar of Greek and Hebrew and the vocable meanings of their words do indicate how something should be understood. For example English has only 1 word for love but Greek has 3 different words describing 3 DIFFERENT.types of love. It is important to know what Greek word is being used when the english translation just says "love." Hebrew and Greek are very precise languages and indicate meaning much more clearly than english. In English we have to depend heavily on context, tone, and stye of writing and ,many others things to determine meaning, whereas in Hebrew and Greek, words are more like photographs and are filled with meanings by themselves.
For example our word "sin" is very bland and doesn't have the action movie picture that the Greek word does. The Greek word's picture is full of action and pictures archery and a person shooting an arrow at a target and "missing the mark." See how the language of Greek adds so much more meaning to a little word like "sin."
Another example are the words of Jesus on the cross when he says, "It is finished." If we didn't have the Greek, we might think Jesus is saying like a person who knows he has been defeated and would say, "I'm finished. I'm done for. I'm beat."
But the Greek word "tetelestai" and it's only1 word for our 3 words, but it is the same word that shop keepers put on a bill when it was paid for, the same as our words on a bill, "PAID IN FULL." So with that Greek word we now clearly see what he meant. "PAID IN FULL" What was paid in full? The punishment for sin was clearly PAID IN FULL by his death FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD. That simple word in Greek "tetelestai" is full of good news coming from the mouth of the one who is both the Son of God as well as the Son of Man. He's the 2nd Adam whom God promised to send when God spoke to the first Adam who brought the curse of sin and death upon us all. Romans says by one man sin and death came, but it also says by one man came forgiveness and life.
These passages i n Romans speak the truth that NO ONE can enter the kingdom of heaven by themselves because ALL ARE SINNERS, not just gays. Gays are only PART of the list. READ THE WHOLE LIST WHICH INCLUDES EVERYONE, not just gays and says no one will enter heaven by their own works because ALL ARE GUILTY of idolatry. EVen those who are not gay ARE ALSO SINNERS and IDOLATERS AND WILL NOT ENTER HEAVEN BY THEIR OWN WORKS. EVEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT GAY ARE ALSO SINNERS. The Bible NOWHERE says that gays are the only ones who are guilty of sin. It rather says EVERYONE IS. But it also says the gospel that, EVERYONE HAS BEEN REDEEMED. IT DOESN'"T SAY EVERYONE HAS BEEN REDEEMED EXCEPT GAYS. Read the clear words that little kids can understand, "For God so loved the world (yes the entire world, including gays) that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER (and yes God means whoever, including gays) believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.) ALL (including gays) HAVE ETERNAL LIFE RIGHT NOW. GOD DECLARES IT (that's what the word "justify means" God declares the ENTIRE WORLD FORGIVEN OF ALL SIN on the basis of what his Son did, WHY DO GAYS OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER DOUBT THESE WORDS OF GOD? HE MEANS WHAT HE SAYS when he says WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH. DON"T EVER DOUBT THIS PROMISE. IT IS TRUE FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD.
I just don't understand why people want to fight this universal gospel message that declares the ENTIRE WORLD OF ALL TIME FORGIVEN. Why does anyone doubt this? God says it. It is true.
I'm not gay (because I like sexual relations with women a lot lol), But I do have gay feelings sometimes, too, . I also have lust at times like EVERYONE ELSE AND DON"T KID YOURSELF THAT EVERYONE DOESN"T I also have greed at times just like EVERYONE ELSE AND DON"T KID YOURSELF THAT EVERYONE DOESN"T, And I also have hatred at times JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND DON"T KID YOURSELF THAT EVERYONE DOESN"T BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES AT TIMES. I ALSO HAVE LIED AT TIMES, (MOSTLY AS A KID WHEN I DIDN"T WANT TO GET CAUGHT AND GET A WHIPPING ON MY ASS, BUT DON"T KID YOURSELF THAT EVERYONE HASN"T LIED AT TIMES.
I have yet to see a soul who makes it through even 1 day without doing something that God doesn't want us to do or fails to do what he should do. There is no one who has kept ALL of God's law for even ONE DAY. much less his entire life. So you can quote all the passages you want about the sins of gays and I can quote a hundred more about the sins of ANYONE. Sin (ANY) sin excludes ALL from heaven, not just gays. If this is all the Bible said, we would ALL be in serious trouble. But the Bible also has the GOSPEL in it, which says ALL have been forgiven. Do works enter at all into your salvation. ABSOLUTELY NOT! But a person's atttitude toward wanting to listen and obey God DOES SHOW whether you believe you are forgiven for Christ's sake or not because anyone who truly believes that thtey are forgiven would love God for doing this for him and will have an attitude of love towards him and toward his fellow man, reflected in a desire of wanting to be more obedient. Obviously on this side of the grave we will NEVER BE perfectly obedient children of his, but the time is coming when sin will no longer have ANY CONTROL OVER US, when he raises our bodies from the dead and TOTALLY GIVES US A MAKEOVER with PERFECT BODIES AND PERFECT EMOTIONS AND WILLS THAT ARE TOTALLY AND 100% THE SAME AS GOD'S WILL.. The image of God that Adam lost for us will be COMPELTLEY AND 100% RESTORED AGAIN FOR ALL ETERNITY WITH THE INABILITY TO DO ANY SIN.
Paradise was lost, but paradise will be restored again and sin shall never separate us from God again. Believe it and don't doubt it, GOD WANTS ALL TO ENJOY THIS PERFECT LIFE .
G_Force said I've pointed out to you clearly in many of these cases why they are not contradictions, but you continue to believe there are contradictions.
Well, you've made explanations but you've failed to make your case.
I've clearly made it , but like I said before we even started this discussion, no matter how many explanations are given, some will be bullhead and say its a contradiction
You are entitled to believe whatever you want and so am I and that's what still makes "AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL." But we each will live with the consequences of our beliefs.
We can agree to disagree and still love each other. At least I hope you will agree with that!
... But we each will live with the consequences of our beliefs. ...
In other words - You are going to hell
If heaven is refused, what else is left? God is not going to drag any one into heaven by their balls against their will. Your gay master may drag you by your balls and force you to submit, but God WILL NOT. He will let you go your own way as you wish, but with a tear in his eye.
I have some other new self pics with my winter scene. which I could post, but I'm afraid I may lead some into sin by lusting after me.
They are not nude, so there is no reason to lust after me, but I am wearing only my snowman and penguin boxers. I sleep nude in the summer time, but too cold here to sleep nude. My cock and balls get chilly, so I sleep in boxers.
I'm taking pictures of people at the mall next month with this winter scene to make their Christmas cards. I love the winter scene for Christmas pictures because it has no religious aspect to offend anyone. But it does show the beauty of God's creation of snow and when you put the beauty of God's masterpiece, mankind, in it, it is truly a wonderful picture of God's love.
G_Force saidGod is not going to drag any one into heaven by their balls against their will... He will let you go your own way as you wish, but with a tear in his eye.
With a tear in his eye? More like with vengeance and a scowl just before he casts you into a burning lake of fire for all eternity. Nice guy.
G_Force said For example English has only 1 word for love but Greek has 3 different words describing 3 DIFFERENT.types of love. It is important to know what Greek word is being used when the english translation just says "love." Hebrew and Greek are very precise languages and indicate meaning much more clearly than english. In English we have to depend heavily on context, tone, and stye of writing and ,many others things to determine meaning, whereas in Hebrew and Greek, words are more like photographs and are filled with meanings by themselves.
Rubbish. You have been reading too much CS Lewis... or at least listening to people who have. The semantic domains of the words are different, but to theologise it into three different types of love is a jump. The rest ofthe post is full of pop etymology and second hand knowledge. Sorry to be blunt.
) Jesus is talking about The Judgment, not his resurrection.
