PDA

View Full Version : Devote our lives to jesus???


Pages : 1 [2]

MasterOfPuppets
04-05-2007, 01:33 AM
its not. not for me atleast. i guess it depends on what people are taught. how can americans in the south today still believe that "black" folks are still inferior??? how can neo nazis believe jews are inferior???

its all explained in sociology
people aren't born to hate.they are taught to hate, and its being passed down from generation to generation . children don't see color or religion as a factor when choosng friends.

MasterOfPuppets
04-05-2007, 01:50 AM
Well, then you don't know as much about Christianity as you previously mentioned if you are asking that question. Study some Christian world history for that one.

well if you have the answer,why not just go ahead and enlighten me? if you don't have an answer,why reply at all? unless your making an attempt to antagonize me or you don't actually know the answer....

MasterOfPuppets
04-05-2007, 02:12 AM
^^^True, the first part does make sense, although I'm not saying that I agree or disagree completely. God's time is supposed to be different than our time.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

but god didn't right the bible,so why would a human write days,if it was actually thousands of years ? was this a dictation? did god tell these people what to write?

polamalufan43
04-05-2007, 05:50 AM
but god didn't right the bible,so why would a human write days,if it was actually thousands of years ? was this a dictation? did god tell these people what to write?

God only inspired them to write, what he actually inspired them with, we have no clue.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

stlrtruck
04-05-2007, 07:49 AM
First we have to realize that God has infinite time when it comes to days. I think that's been covered very well in the last few posts. He created the days for man's purpose and thus in our definition, we can not begin to fathom what a world would be like without time. We, as humans, live within the confines of 24 hours.

Second, the bible was written by man but it was by men lead by the spirit. Therefore, we can only begin to summize what they mean by days. Are they talking days as in time or days as in what was before God created time. That's a question to ask God when I get to heaven - but I'm sure by then it will be something low on the list of things to do!

Finally, I came across these 7 videos on youtube.com. The first is a splash painting video. Very cool to watch transpire. The other 6 are Jesus Christ: Fact or Fiction. I hope that you will take the time to watch them, listen, and make your own choices. For, as previously stated, I can not change your mind in a forum, nor do I wish to get involved in hostile debate but instead to create curiosity and also to listen to others that my faith would be tested, that I would research what others bring up.

VIDEO LINKS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M4_IlbaZHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkScXHLpGnE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcvqX1XhP3A&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-_hBgJWkHI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclO_sehz8g&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGkl6B6NmOs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L07AsqAPvlo&mode=related&search=

Stainless Steel
04-05-2007, 07:55 AM
well if you have the answer,why not just go ahead and enlighten me? if you don't have an answer,why reply at all? unless your making an attempt to antagonize me or you don't actually know the answer....
I wasn't trying to antagonize you. I was pointing you in a direction that would be of help. Christian world history is a subject matter that volumes of books have been written. The smallest of these would give you the answer. Since you asked that question, there are many more things you could understand better if you would study the whole subject. It would be of service to you for me not to answer your question and point you in the area that would help you learn much more. For that matter, reading a non-fiction book about Da Vinci (not the Da Vinci Code) would be of great help.

However, if you would like the short cut, Tony Hipchest did a great job of answering you. You are concerning yourself with European artist's interpretation of Jesus.

I was talking to a 16 year old Hispanic about this a few years ago. He was quite concerned about Jesus being white. I informed him that the real Jesus had a skin color much closer to his than to mine. That blew him away and gave him a different outlook on Jesus. I then informed him that the skin color really doesn't matter. We are all loved equally by God.

stlrtruck
04-05-2007, 08:30 AM
Just to be fair, there are some other videos that are responses to the 6 videos I posted. I didn't not watch them after the first couple of minutes because I feel the director of them is sarcastic and demeaning to his counter-part and to the Christian faith. While I don't mind people attempting to disprove Christ, I believe that it can be done respectively.

Stainless Steel
04-05-2007, 08:37 AM
Just to be fair, there are some other videos that are responses to the 6 videos I posted. I didn't not watch them after the first couple of minutes because I feel the director of them is sarcastic and demeaning to his counter-part and to the Christian faith. While I don't mind people attempting to disprove Christ, I believe that it can be done respectively.
I saw part one of the responses. I agree about the sarcasm and lack of respect. Besides, the one I saw did nothing but rehash old material I have read and refuted before. I love the way the one guy looks over the top of his glasses to talk to the camera and talks down to the listener. That is surely a good way to win friends and influence people!

Stainless Steel
04-05-2007, 08:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLyFZ5QBYuY&mode=related&search=

I like this series too. It details a lot of stuff that I learned for ordination. It can be a bit dry for those who don't care, but contains a lot of details of Christian history that are important for people to know.

Mosca
04-05-2007, 09:11 AM
Tom...

Interesting part of your quote.

We as Christians are to show all people respect. In our eyes, every human is made in God's image. As a result, I must respect all humans (I think we have had that discussion somewhere else).


And Preacher, an interesting part of yours. Is it because you must? I think not. You show other people respect because it's what you do. I don't consider belief and decide to give or withhold respect, and neither do you. Your nature is a respectful one. Most of us would be that way regardless.

however, peers, has to be defined as to when and where. If I walk into a seminar for atheists, I won't, nor should I be seen as a peer. When I have decisions to make, I go to my peers, which are my Christian friends. If I have a non-christian friend who is a expert in the area, I will take his/her advice, but I will bounce it off other Christians because they ALONE hold my moral/spiritual look on life (not saying that Christians are less moral, just that even if they are more moral, it is for different reasons).

However, in an affinity group, which this board is, my peers are all my Steeler buddies. In that fact, it is paramount to all Christians to treat everyone with love.

I struggled looking for a word, and came up with "peers". It was inexact, and I apologize. "Equality" is too strong for what I meant, and "peers" and "respect" are too weak for the relationship I was trying to express. I must be getting Alzheimers, I still can't come up with it. What I meant is that I get the feeling that some Christians look on non-Christians and atheists as inferior. And that occurs in reverse as well, I'd agree. My point was, and I know you'll agree with me, that that is wrong.

Without putting words in Wedo's mouth, I can understand where he is coming from. We beleive that there is an eternal hell for all who do not accept Jesus. In that vein, it is our hope and desire that you all who do not believe will come to believe in Jesus because we want to spend eternity with you!

Yep, I understand and accept where wedo is coming from. I have many close friends who share his passion, and in the same manner. However, I don't think it's too out of line to ask him for some consideration, that especially in a forum of otherwise strangers his message might not be accepted with the same joy with which it was given. Proselytizing is a touchy subject, in that it stems from certaintude. Christians are certain that it is alright for them, because they believe in their religion as the word of God. But it is not right for anyone else. This becomes a problem for 1) Those who do not believe in god, and 2) those of other beliefs who also believe that theirs is the word of God. That was the original complaint of ParkerFan, I think (and not to put words in his mouth, but that's how I read it).


Tom

Mosca
04-05-2007, 09:16 AM
Just to be fair, there are some other videos that are responses to the 6 videos I posted. I didn't not watch them after the first couple of minutes because I feel the director of them is sarcastic and demeaning to his counter-part and to the Christian faith. While I don't mind people attempting to disprove Christ, I believe that it can be done respectively.

Agreed.


Tom

stlrtruck
04-05-2007, 10:36 AM
And Preacher, an interesting part of yours. Is it because you must? I think not. You show other people respect because it's what you do. I don't consider belief and decide to give or withhold respect, and neither do you. Your nature is a respectful one. Most of us would be that way regardless.

I agree with you. We don't have to show people respect. God doesn't say we must do anything. He gives us the free will to choose what to do. However, we are commanded that if we have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then we would love them like Christ loves. I think the difference between those who truly believe that commandment and those that are just respectful is that it is about who they are doing it for and why.



I struggled looking for a word, and came up with "peers". It was inexact, and I apologize. "Equality" is too strong for what I meant, and "peers" and "respect" are too weak for the relationship I was trying to express. I must be getting Alzheimers, I still can't come up with it. What I meant is that I get the feeling that some Christians look on non-Christians and atheists as inferior. And that occurs in reverse as well, I'd agree. My point was, and I know you'll agree with me, that that is wrong.

I agree. Refer back to the first response. Christians, like others, get this better than thou or as I call it the "Holier Than Thou" mentality and it destroys their witness to non-believers. And I can truly understand why non-believers wouldn't want anything to do with Christ based on those antics.


Yep, I understand and accept where wedo is coming from. I have many close friends who share his passion, and in the same manner. However, I don't think it's too out of line to ask him for some consideration, that especially in a forum of otherwise strangers his message might not be accepted with the same joy with which it was given. Proselytizing is a touchy subject, in that it stems from certaintude. Christians are certain that it is alright for them, because they believe in their religion as the word of God. But it is not right for anyone else. This becomes a problem for 1) Those who do not believe in god, and 2) those of other beliefs who also believe that theirs is the word of God. That was the original complaint of ParkerFan, I think (and not to put words in his mouth, but that's how I read it).

I've seen in this world, that if you are Christian others think that you hate other people because they don't believe in Christ as the Savior. If a person is a true Christian and believes the word of God. They will share their message with others in a respectful manner, giving witness by their words and actions and the love of Christ that they pour out without casting judgment on the non-believer regardless of their faith in something or nothing else.

Unfortunately, as with everyone, people allow the selfishness of themselves to take over and their message, regardless of content, is lost!

Mosca
04-05-2007, 11:29 AM
stlrtruck,

Thanks for the good dialogue. I think that good people don't need any other reason to be respectful toward others, but I know what you mean as well.


Tom

stlrtruck
04-05-2007, 11:47 AM
stlrtruck,

Thanks for the good dialogue. I think that good people don't need any other reason to be respectful toward others, but I know what you mean as well.


Tom


You're welcome and I appreciate that we can discuss our differences without resulting to adolescent actions/words (because I have seen it happen).

Preacher
04-05-2007, 02:42 PM
MOSCA....

I would answer your post to me... But Stltruck did an excellent job. I would just be repeating him.

However, I too thank you for the respect you show towards me, my fellow beleivers, and my faith.

Of course, someday I hope you, "Come to Christ" as we have. Again, that is because I want to spend eternity with you. However, regardless of whether that day happens or not, I will always enjoy your posts... well most of them...

I can't beleive you said you were a closet Bengals fan!!







. I can't tell a lie, he didn't really say that... he said he was a BROWNS FAN!!!!! :toofunny:

Elvis
04-05-2007, 08:23 PM
show me in the bible where it says evolution or adaption doesnt exist.

those who are so pro darwinism, and so anti- creationism are usually those who havent even taken the time to read a simple book called the bible, yet put in the time to understand and study the philosophy behind it. wther you like it or not, believe it or not, the fact is, the old testament is one of the oldest pieces of literature known to man. you would think we would be educated on that for that reason alone. studying shakespeare is todays equivalent of watching soap operas. good to know schools got their priorities in order though :thumbsup:

i can only suggest to not rely on only what you have been told.

"search and ye shall find"

i dont know if this is the case with you or not. but i find it hilarious to get into a debate about the bible, only to find someone hasnt even read the book. i would never try to force anyone to go out and read the bible but i would definitely recommen it as a great book, just like i would recomment "fastimes at ridgemont high" as an excellent movie.
Tony.. you show me where in the Bible that is says that there is Evolution or what you call adaption. They are Not in there brother. When the schools around our nation decided to take prayer out of school that is when things started really going bad in my mind for our great nation. Now, given time they will have "In God We Trust" taken off the U.S. money.. This nation in my opinion only "Is going to hell in a breadbasket". When the U.S. as a nation takes God out of everything that it is trying to do as we speak, then God is gonna look down on us and say"....." I cant say it, because I might offend my heavenly father.. but he Aint Gonna Like It.. I promise you that.
God Doesnt Believe In Athiest
Elvis

tony hipchest
04-05-2007, 09:30 PM
Tony.. you show me where in the Bible that is says that there is Evolution or what you call adaption. They are Not in there brother.

ok. the word "evolution" isnt in there, but the process is- (the bible clearly spells out the fundamentals of evolution long before the "theroy of evolution":

1)11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

2)20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

3)24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

4)26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

5) 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

as you can see these ancient texts perfectly scripted the path of evolution thousands of years ago, long before mankind had a scientific mind. i like verse 29 cause it represents when man learned (was given the power of) agriculture, farming and to domesticate animals 5000-6000 years ago.

now i agree the whole planet is going to hell in a handbasket. Gods greatest creation hasnt figured out how to take care of Gods 2nd greatest creation. and it is true we as americans are kicking God out of everything. schools, court, etc. but were not kicking him off of our currency. after all money is god in america.

the phrase in bold suggests man was there as just a creature but not yet in the Lords likeness. but man is the crux of evolution just as he is the crux of the creation.

Preacher
04-05-2007, 10:08 PM
Tony.. you show me where in the Bible that is says that there is Evolution or what you call adaption. They are Not in there brother. When the schools around our nation decided to take prayer out of school that is when things started really going bad in my mind for our great nation. Now, given time they will have "In God We Trust" taken off the U.S. money.. This nation in my opinion only "Is going to hell in a breadbasket". When the U.S. as a nation takes God out of everything that it is trying to do as we speak, then God is gonna look down on us and say"....." I cant say it, because I might offend my heavenly father.. but he Aint Gonna Like It.. I promise you that.
God Doesnt Believe In Athiest
Elvis

Wedo...

A couple of things.

you show me where in the Bible that is says that there is Evolution or what you call adaption. They are Not in there brother

The problem with arguments about that scripture that state that since it is not there, it did not happen, is that the argument is fallacious on many accounts. First, the scriptures were not meant to give a scientific account of all the world. Now, where the bible specifically touches on science for reasons of science, it take it over anything else. The bible is clear about 7 days of creation. As someone else pointed out, yom is the hebrew for day, which measures a period of time. The context of creation is evening and morning, the first day. Thus, those are 24 hour periods. Therefore I do not believe in cross-speciesial evolution.

However, there is nothing in the bible prohibiting adaption. Do you not think God would put in his wonderful creation the ability to adapt to changing enviroments after sin? Part of his mercy to us before the fall was creating people and animals which can adapt to thier enviroment. We see evidence of it everyday. New breeds of dogs are created all the time by crossing other breeds. Those new breeds are smaller, bigger, warmer, colder, less hair, more hair, etc. based on the enviroment they are in. While man is now doing it, natural selection did it in the wild. Think about the Ark. Do you seriously think that over a MILLION different types of animals were in the Ark? Of course not. There was a representitive group from each. SO there wasn't two dogs, two wolves, two foxes, etc. there were just two canines. Just two felines, etc. Thus, adaption is not anathema to scripture.

When the schools around our nation decided to take prayer out of school that is when things started really going bad in my mind for our great nation. Now, given time they will have "In God We Trust" taken off the U.S. money.. This nation in my opinion only "Is going to hell in a breadbasket". When the U.S. as a nation takes God out of everything that it is trying to do as we speak, then God is gonna look down on us and say"....." I cant say it, because I might offend my heavenly father.. but he Aint Gonna Like It.. I promise you that.

What we do need to remember is that we never were a "Christian nation." Theologically, there is no such thing as a christian nation. Christianity can ONLY be experienced at a personal level through Jesus Christ, and corporately within the church. A nation can not be christian because a nation can not accept Jesus as its personal Lord and savior. The history of this country and Christianity is circumspect as well. In the 1700's many churches and denominations were persecuted, including the Baptists. If you are in Pennsylvania, then you should know that William Penn was one of the first to establish a place were Baptists could go and not be persecuted. In the 1800's, the Ivy league schools were horrible to christians. Just a hundred or so years after they were founded to train pastors, many of these schools saw students literally beat up and thrown (Physically) off campus by other students because they were Christians. The myth of the U.S. as a Christian nation is just that... a myth. Yes, God did bless with two Great Awakenings, but those both were massive, intercontinental happenings. Is it true that God has raised up America to bring about certain things in this world? Absolutely. But don't forget, God also raised up Babylon, Assyria, Rome, and even a Jackass to speak to a prophet.

God Doesnt Believe In Athiests

I understand what your saying. However, the problem with posting bumper sticker theology is that it usually offends without ever offending for the right reason. If I offend because I tell someone that Jesus is the only way to heaven, then that is simply too bad. That is the truth of the matter. However, if I offend because I screamed at person that they are going to burn in hell (You didn't do that, I am just using it as an example), then I have offended not by what I have said, but by the WAY I have said it. The fact is, we as Christians have to be MORE careful in what we say, more thoughtful in the way we say it, and more innocent in how we come across PRECISELY because the only way we want someone offended is because the bare facts of the Gospel offended them.

Under that pattern of thought, posting things such has "God doesn't beleive in Athiests" offends not by sharing the Gospel, but by being offensive in the WAY it is said. I know... we have a lot of sayings as Christians that we use... We shorthand our beliefs into common phrases such as "turn or burn" "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" etc. While those are all theologically correct, they do NOTHING for advancing the kingdom of the Lord. They just show that christians can be ugly smartasses like the rest of the world, and that is precisely what we need to stay away from.

Preacher
04-05-2007, 10:18 PM
the phrase in bold suggests man was there as just a creature but not yet in the Lords likeness. but man is the crux of evolution just as he is the crux of the creation.


Tony...

I gotta disagree with you there...

Hermenuetical principle does not allow for such interpretations. The context of the passages is evening and morning... which are 24 hour periods. There is nothing in the text that gives a person any reason to move beyond the normal use of language and therefore, interpretation.

As such, because everything was being created in days 1-3, the earth, the sky, etc... there is no reason to see days 4-6 as an elongated period of time. Furthermore, there is no reference to man before day 6. The way the narrative reads, all of creation is almost done... then man is created as the crowing achievement of creation.

there is no textual evidence whatsoever for a Gap theory, or for allowing a massive amount of time to be interpreted as a single day. Actually, in Hebrew, if they wanted to say that it took a long time, they would have used the number 40. 40 means a LONG LONG TIME in Hebrew. Just as we would say.. yeah, we will be there in a couple of minutes, and we may mean two, or we may mean 5. So 40 can be used in the same way. As such, to interpret the verses how you would desire, 40 years for this and 40 years for that would be the proper writing... but it is not there. It is evening and morning.

Furthermore, God made man in HIS image and in HIS likeness, as such, we were made in the image of perfection. Perfection can not evolve. Perfection CAN adapt to other enviroments to continue perfection, but not evolve into a higher being.

tony hipchest
04-05-2007, 10:22 PM
preacher, this is always something that confused me:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

light and dark were created on the 1st day, but the sun and the moon werent created til the 4th day. a day or "yom" is measured by the earth spinning and facing the sun. there are 3 days that werent measured by the typical "day" as dictated by the sun.

tony hipchest
04-05-2007, 10:43 PM
adam and eve had 2 children: cain and abel....

16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.


.... yet it says cain lay with his wife, not cain lay with Eve. there had to be human beings around who had not been created in Gods image.

and in the previous verse:

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

who is this "anyone" the LORD speaks of? with what is given with the literal word, i can only assume 3 things.

-cain was reproducing and populating the earth with his mother and daughters.

-cain was married to one of Gods female angels (God does mention "our" image and likeness, when adam and eve were created.

-cain (after banishment from eden), bred with humans who had evolved but were not created "in our image, in our likeness".

Preacher
04-05-2007, 10:51 PM
Sure Tony... I disagree with you... and you come out with the BIG GUNS!!! :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

Truthfully, those are excellent questions... Questions that take time to answer, which at this point, I don't have... Let me get back to you after Easter ok?

And don't let me forget to!!! PM me to remind me!!

tony hipchest
04-05-2007, 11:45 PM
Sure Tony... I disagree with you... and you come out with the BIG GUNS!!! :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

Truthfully, those are excellent questions... Questions that take time to answer, which at this point, I don't have... Let me get back to you after Easter ok?

And don't let me forget to!!! PM me to remind me!!


lol. one of my favorite debates in the bible is where peter and paul discuss the eating of pork.

and of course i dont look at this as a debate. i look at this as a dialogue to continue my quest for knowledge and insight. its not about me being right or wrong. God will accept me regardless if i believe dinosaurs never walked the earth with man. theres only 1 thing that matters. that is why what happened in the new testament figuratively erased the old testament.

this is why ive never understood an athiest point of view. it is always a closed door "there is no answer, if it cant be proven" or "i have nothing to prove to you" point of view.

to me, that is the easy way out. there never seems to be a 2 way dialogue and ones viewpoint is always hidden behind scientific discovery,as if mankind to this point is actually smart enough to come up with the answers of the universe. shit, man isnt even smart enough to biologically keep their planet alive (yes i have wondered to myself if the planet is a giant organism with a bunch of parasites living off of it)

Preacher
04-05-2007, 11:50 PM
lol. one of my favorite debates in the bible is where peter and paul discuss the eating of pork.

and of course i dont look at this as a debate. i look at this as a dialogue to continue my quest for knowledge and insight. its not about me being right or wrong. God will accept me regardless if i believe dinosaurs never walked the earth with man. theres only 1 thing that matters. that is why what happened in the new testament figuratively erased the old testament.

this is why ive never understood an athiest point of view. it is always a closed door "there is no answer, if it cant be proven" or "i have nothing to prove to you" point of view.

to me, that is the easy way out. there never seems to be a 2 way dialogue and ones viewpoint is always hidden behind scientific discovery,as if mankind to this point is actually smart enough to come up with the answers of the universe. shit, man isnt even smart enough to biologically keep their planet alive (yes i have wondered to myself if the planet is a giant organism with a bunch of parasites living off of it)

LOL...

Yeah... whether you know Jesus as Lord and savior... that is the key. The rest is discussion... well, more then that as it does create background and help us to understand scripture.

HometownGal
04-06-2007, 07:19 AM
Guys - can you please adjust your font? Those big letters are murderous on the eyes!

Thanks! :smile:

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 07:30 AM
I agree that a nation can not be a Christian nation but if you look at the foundation of the USA, it was founded on Christian principles. Whether people want to believe it or not, it's there.

Tony, I like your questions, and I wish I would have brought my bible to work this morning. However, I'm interested to see what Preacher responds with so I hope he puts me on the distribution list when he responds to you.

I'm also amazed at how many people choose to reference the Old Testament a lot more than the New Testament. If my understanding is correct, we are no longer under the laws of the Old Testament because Jesus saved us from them. So the Old Testament, IMHO, is more of a reference used to help us understand things better, because those people lived through some rough times. But the New Testament is what we should use for living our lives, for being Christ-like.

verks36
04-06-2007, 08:15 AM
I have a confession to make

Like a am Christian and i go to church 2 times a week. Like i dont really bielive that he really rose from the dead. Like i dont understand how someone can rise from the dead.
I dont know but like when i go to church i just feel like i am sitting there and not learningn anything. But i do bielve in jesus.

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 09:09 AM
Sometimes the things that happen can not be explained in a physical sense and the mind has a hard time understanding them. This is where blind faith comes in.

However, it takes more than believing in Jesus Christ - you also have to accept him as Lord and Savior. Because even Satan believes in Jesus Christ. I also think that there is to be repentance of sins.

As for church, it is not a building but the people that gather and if those people aren't feeding your spiritual needs - you may want to find a church that will (just my opinion).

Mosca
04-06-2007, 10:40 AM
LOL...

Yeah... whether you know Jesus as Lord and savior... that is the key. The rest is discussion... well, more then that as it does create background and help us to understand scripture.

Preacher, that reminds me of one of my favorite Flannery O'Connor stories, "The Enduring Chill", where the putatively dying Asbury asks for a Jesuit priest (thinking he will get an enlightened, educated theologist) so that he can discuss matters of thology; and the Jesuit he gets, a half blind, half deaf moralist, rejects discussion and thunders at him, "WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!"

verks36, your journey is your own. I struggled with the same thoughts and feelings, and came up with my answer. You have to do that and come up with yours. It's an inner journey.

Tony, I know what you mean about being dissatisfied with the atheist stance; all I can answer is that it works for me. It's not so much a "prove it" position as it is "what you see is what you get", and then you try to see as much as you can. If that allows for the possible existence of a creator then that might make it agnostic, I guess, but to me the distinction is minor. I like reading your interpretation of some problematic scripture.


Tom

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 11:08 AM
Preacher, that reminds me of one of my favorite Flannery O'Connor stories, "The Enduring Chill", where the putatively dying Asbury asks for a Jesuit priest (thinking he will get an enlightened, educated theologist) so that he can discuss matters of thology; and the Jesuit he gets, a half blind, half deaf moralist, rejects discussion and thunders at him, "WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!"

verks36, your journey is your own. I struggled with the same thoughts and feelings, and came up with my answer. You have to do that and come up with yours. It's an inner journey.

Tony, I know what you mean about being dissatisfied with the atheist stance; all I can answer is that it works for me. It's not so much a "prove it" position as it is "what you see is what you get", and then you try to see as much as you can. If that allows for the possible existence of a creator then that might make it agnostic, I guess, but to me the distinction is minor. I like reading your interpretation of some problematic scripture.


Tom

Mosca, I have a question for you. You mention that it's a "What you see is what you get" type thing for you. If this is so, then if the Lord came to you in some way, form, or fashion, would you then believe? Would it require constant visual interaction with him or just once?

And if the answer to those questions is yes, then I ask have you ever asked him to show himself to you?

Just curious.

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 11:18 AM
adam and eve had 2 children: cain and abel....



.... yet it says cain lay with his wife, not cain lay with Eve. there had to be human beings around who had not been created in Gods image.

and in the previous verse:



who is this "anyone" the LORD speaks of? with what is given with the literal word, i can only assume 3 things.

-cain was reproducing and populating the earth with his mother and daughters.

-cain was married to one of Gods female angels (God does mention "our" image and likeness, when adam and eve were created.

-cain (after banishment from eden), bred with humans who had evolved but were not created "in our image, in our likeness".
here is an article pertaining to yor question...

The concept of a Pre-Adamic race is the idea that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This hypothesis has been promoted by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa 331?363 AD) and Calvinist Theologian Isaac de La Peyr?re (1596-1676) are two notable examples.



We will look at two popular facets of the Preadamite Hypothesis: the hypothesis as it was proposed by Isaac de La Peyr?re, and the form which it takes in the ?Gap Theory? (also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation). According to La Peyr?re, God created the Gentiles on the sixth day when He said, ?Let us make man in our image? (Genesis 1:26). He did not create the Jews until after the seventh day, His day of rest. At some point after the seventh day, God created Adam, the father of the Jews.



La Peyr?re cited Scripture to support his hypothesis. Cain?s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17) are all interpreted as evidence that another race of men coexisted with Adam and his family.



La Peyr?re subsequently reinterpreted other passages of Scripture in light of his peculiar understanding of the Genesis account. Consider a very familiar passage, Romans 5:12-14 (I?ve added bold emphasis to highlight a key phrase): ?Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.?



This passage is traditionally interpreted as meaning that death began with Adam?s sin and reigned unchecked among men (even among those who haven?t actually eaten the forbidden fruit, those who have sinned but not ?in the likeness of the offense of Adam?) until the Law was given to Moses. La Peyr?re interpreted this passage another way. According to La Peyr?re, the Pre-Adamic Gentiles sinned against God, but in a manner less egregious than Adam (which is why Adam?s sin brought death while there?s didn?t). They merely sinned against God?s moral will. Adam sinned against His Law. Adam disobeyed God?s prohibition by eating the forbidden fruit. He broke what La Peyr?re called the Law of Paradise. Thus, according to La Peyr?re, the Pre-Adamic Gentiles were those who ?had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.?



I?m sure by now you can see how misinterpreting one or two passages of Scripture can lead to all kinds of warped perceptions. The Scriptural problems with La Peyr?re?s interpretations are manifold.



First, Adam is called the ?first man? (1 Corinthians 15:45). This is inconsistent with the idea that God created men before Adam. Second, according to La Peyr?re the Gentiles were to live outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam enjoyed paradise (a privilege which came with the responsibility of obeying the Law of Paradise ? not eating the forbidden fruit). Genesis 2:5-8 however says quite plainly that before God created ?the man whom He had formed,? the very same man which He placed in the garden, there were no men upon the Earth to cultivate the ground. Third, God created Eve for Adam because he was alone, there was no one else like him around (?It is not good for the man to be alone? but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him? Genesis 2:18, 20). Fourth, Adam named his wife Eve ?because she was the mother of all the living? (Genesis 3:20). The list goes on but these passages should suffice to refute La Peyr?re?s misinterpretation.



As for Cain?s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17), Adam was almost 130 years old by the time that Cain killed Abel (Adam had Seth, his next son after Abel?s death, at about 130; Genesis 4:25; 5:3). And we know that Adam had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:3). At 130 he could have had grandkids and great-grandkids by the time that Cain killed Abel. Cain had plenty of family members to be afraid of after killing his brother.



He apparently married a family member (a necessity back then) at some point before Abel?s murder. It?s gross to us today but incest wasn?t outlawed by God until the Law of Moses. It may have been around that time that generations of degenerative genetic mutations began to take a toll on our DNA. God outlawed incest for our protection. It became (and remains) dangerous for close relatives to procreate because of shared genetic defects which become expressed in their children causing severe deformities and other problems.



As for Cain founding a city, if he lived to be the average age back then, he probably lived to be about 900 years old. By the time he died his family would have been a small city. If Cain had a kid at the age of 30, and his kid had a kid at the age of 30 and so on, Cain could have produced 30 generations by the time he died (30 generations times 30 years each equals 900 years).



The Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation takes a somewhat different approach to the Pre-Adamic race theory. According to the Gap Theory, an unspecified amount of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 during which God created a Pre-Adamic race of men who lived upon the Earth until God destroyed them in judgment. Other extinct creatures, like the dinosaurs for example, are said to have also lived during this time. Afterwards God remodeled the Earth in six days. He created Adam on the sixth day and the rest is history. Some say that Satan?s fall occurred at some point during the ambiguous gap.



A ?mistranslation? has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, ?Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.? Proponents of this view emphasize the word ?replenish.? They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what the English says in our translations, the Hebrew word is male? and it simply means to fill or to be full. Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means to fill. They chose ?replenish? because in 17th Century Elizabethan English ?replenish? meant ?to fill? (similar to how in modern English the word ?replete? doesn?t mean to ?abound again,? it simply means ?abundant? or ?abounding?). Language is not static, it?s dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today ?replenish? means ?to fill again.? It didn?t mean the same thing in 17th Century England. Nearly all modern translations translate male? as simply ?fill? in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).



Proponents of this view respond by pointing that God said to Noah after the flood, ?Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [male?] the earth? (Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the Earth after the flood. Can?t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the exact same thing ? that Adam was to repopulate the Earth after God?s judgment? The fact is that regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah?s flood, God didn?t tell Noah to ?refill? the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said ?refill? that would have been something, but since He just said ?fill? that argument falls flat.



The real problem with the Gap Theory is that it places human mortality (Pre-Adamic human mortality) before Adam?s sin. The Bible is quite clear that death entered in through Adam?s sin. ?For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive? (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Regardless of whether or not you believe in animal mortality before sin, the Bible is quite explicit about human mortality before Adam?s sin. There wasn?t any. To deny this is to deny a central Christian doctrine.

Recommended Resource: Biblical Creationism by Henry Morris.

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 11:36 AM
Tony, I know what you mean about being dissatisfied with the atheist stance; all I can answer is that it works for me. It's not so much a "prove it" position as it is "what you see is what you get", and then you try to see as much as you can. If that allows for the possible existence of a creator then that might make it agnostic, I guess, but to me the distinction is minor. I like reading your interpretation of some problematic scripture.


Tomthanks mosca. i guess i am satisfied with the aithiest stance cause ultimately, either side relies on a great deal of faith and belief. neither side can be proved, and both sides still leave tons of questions unanswered that will probably never be answered.

theres just things i dont understand about the athiest stance. i cant be fully informed in my belief if i dont atleast try to understand the whole picture. thi biggest thing ive never understood is how you meet some people who disagree with a book that they have never even read themselves. i cant say i agree or disagree with war and peace, cause ive never actually read it. on the flipside, i can agree with many of darwins theories because i have actually read and studied them.

things and true meanning often get lost in the debate, whether its creation vs. evolution or whether Jesus was white, black, longhaired or shorthaired. no truth would change if Jesus was white or black, red or yellow.

i cannot accept an athiests stance when they throw out a blanket statement like all Christians believe Jesus was a white blue eyed man when they dont take the time to understand the iconogrophy of Christ through history. since i am most studied in the italian rennaisance i will use the example that churches were covered with frescos depicting biblical scenes. the majority of people didnt know how to read or write. many people learned of the biblical stories through these pictures and through verbal communication, so of course the images are gonna reflect themselves.
its like if italian artists who never seen people from the far east, were asked to paint budda, im pretty sure he would come out looking white too.

perhaps ive strayed from my point but ive allways tried to break down walls and barriers in my understanding, and alot of athiests ive encountered (not you) seem to want to put up road blocks at every turn. i dont understand this.

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I have a confession to make

Like a am Christian and i go to church 2 times a week. Like i dont really bielive that he really rose from the dead. Like i dont understand how someone can rise from the dead.

Wow. That is a major part of the Christian faith. If you would like to go into a PM with me, we could engage in friendly talk about this.

Mosca
04-06-2007, 12:17 PM
Tony, I think that part of the disconnect comes from asking the question differently. Instead of asking "Is there a creator" and then trying to prove or disprove it, an atheist will start by asking "what is the nature of creation" and then seeing where that leads.

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 12:27 PM
Tony, I think that part of the disconnect comes from asking the question differently. Instead of asking "Is there a creator" and then trying to prove or disprove it, an atheist will start by asking "what is the nature of creation" and then seeing where that leads.
Yes, but how objectively and honestly would an atheist look at the "nature of creation" when it clearly points to a design? When an atheist looks at the eye, all he sees are the flaws in the creation of the eye. They fail to see that there may be reasons for creating the eye the way it is that they have overlooked. They are TRYING to eliminate the possibility of God in their minds.

I look at the eye and ask "How in the world COULD the details of the eye be as they are without a Designer.

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 12:32 PM
Yes, but how objectively and honestly would an atheist look at the "nature of creation" when it clearly points to a design? When an atheist looks at the eye, all he sees are the flaws in the creation of the eye. They fail to see that there may be reasons for creating the eye the way it is that they have overlooked. They are TRYING to eliminate the possibility of God in their minds.

I look at the eye and ask "How in the world COULD the details of the eye be as they are without a Designer.

I was looking for words to make this same statement - and I was wondering why I couldn't come up with them. You stole them from me (LOL).

Mosca
04-06-2007, 12:36 PM
Yes, but how objectively and honestly would an atheist look at the "nature of creation" when it clearly points to a design? When an atheist looks at the eye, all he sees are the flaws in the creation of the eye. They fail to see that there may be reasons for creating the eye the way it is that they have overlooked. They are TRYING to eliminate the possibility of God in their minds.

I look at the eye and ask "How in the world COULD the details of the eye be as they are without a Designer.


Huh? I'm not talking about "they". I'm talking about ME. I didn't come to my conclusions by listening to anyone other than myself. No one talked me into my beliefs.

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 12:53 PM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest;235217]thanks mosca. i guess i am satisfied with the aithiest stance cause ultimately, either side relies on a great deal of faith and belief. neither side can be proved, and both sides still leave tons of questions unanswered that will probably never be answered.

theres just things i dont understand about the athiest stance. i cant be fully informed in my belief if i dont atleast try to understand the whole picture. thi biggest thing ive never understood is how you meet some people who disagree with a book that they have never even read themselves. i cant say i agree or disagree with war and peace, cause ive never actually read it. on the flipside, i can agree with many of darwins theories because i have actually read and studied them.

things and true meanning often get lost in the debate, whether its creation vs. evolution or whether Jesus was white, black, longhaired or shorthaired. no truth would change if Jesus was white or black, red or yellow.

i cannot accept an athiests stance when they throw out a blanket statement like all Christians believe Jesus was a white blue eyed man when they dont take the time to understand the iconogrophy of Christ through history. since i am most studied in the italian rennaisance i will use the example that churches were covered with frescos depicting biblical scenes. the majority of people didnt know how to read or write. many people learned of the biblical stories through these pictures and through verbal communication, so of course the images are gonna reflect themselves.
its like if italian artists who never seen people from the far east, were asked to paint budda, im pretty sure he would come out looking white too.

perhaps ive strayed from my point but ive allways tried to break down walls and barriers in my understanding, and alot of athiests ive encountered (not you) seem to want to put up road blocks at every turn. i dont understand this.[/QUOTE

]i cannot accept an athiests stance when they throw out a blanket statement like all Christians believe Jesus was a white blue eyed man when they dont take the time to understand the iconogrophy of Christ through history.

i'm assuming this was directed at me,since i ask the question. which was simply a question,not a statement and it certainly wasn't meant to disprove that christ exsists.i don't see how you got "all christians...." out of

why is jesus always depicted in pictures and movies as being a caucasion with long hair and a beard? i wouldn't think there were to many white guys in the middle east back then.

and i understood your reply of 14th century artist...etc. but i was thinking more of todays hollywood. take the "p assion of christ" film for example. they take the time and budget to try to be authentic and true to the time frame,but yet they still used the white guy. they manage to find middle eastern actors for other films, so why not have one to play the part of jesus?

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 12:55 PM
Huh? I'm not talking about "they". I'm talking about ME. I didn't come to my conclusions by listening to anyone other than myself. No one talked me into my beliefs.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. The "they" I am referring to are the atheists whom I have engaged, not you in particular. I don't know about your thoughts on this. You made a statement about atheists in general. So did I in my statement.

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 12:56 PM
I was looking for words to make this same statement - and I was wondering why I couldn't come up with them. You stole them from me (LOL).
Sorry to have stolen your fire. :smile:

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 01:17 PM
Huh? I'm not talking about "they". I'm talking about ME. I didn't come to my conclusions by listening to anyone other than myself. No one talked me into my beliefs.
thats also my sentiments.no one can talk you into or out of blind faith.you either believe or you don't. i've logged more time in my life in church hearing about christ than i have in school hearing about evolution. as far as i've always been told,christ is something you feel in your heart,not something you get an understanding from out of a book.and quite frankly i've never felt it in my heart so i'm not going to be a hypocrite about it and say i believe just to satisfy others, who knows maybe some day something may happen too change my heart and way of thinking.till then i just be me and treat people the same way i exspect them to treat me.

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 01:27 PM
Sorry to have stolen your fire. :smile:

It's all good! :bouncy:

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 01:28 PM
till then i just be me and treat people the same way i exspect them to treat me.

Unfortunately, not everyone, both Christians and non-Christians, hold that same view.

How much better would this world be if everyone, regardless of faith/belief, at least treated others decently and with respect and love.

Mosca
04-06-2007, 01:33 PM
Unfortunately, not everyone, both Christians and non-Christians, hold that same view.

How much better would this world be if everyone, regardless of faith/belief, at least treated others decently and with respect and love.

Cheers to that, my friend. :cheers:


Tom

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 02:20 PM
]i cannot accept an athiests stance when they throw out a blanket statement like all Christians believe Jesus was a white blue eyed man when they dont take the time to understand the iconogrophy of Christ through history.

i'm assuming this was directed at me,since i ask the question. which was simply a question,not a statement and it certainly wasn't meant to disprove that christ exsists.i don't see how you got "all christians...." out of

why is jesus always depicted in pictures and movies as being a caucasion with long hair and a beard? i wouldn't think there were to many white guys in the middle east back then.

and i understood your reply of 14th century artist...etc. but i was thinking more of todays hollywood. take the "p assion of christ" film for example. they take the time and budget to try to be authentic and true to the time frame,but yet they still used the white guy. they manage to find middle eastern actors for other films, so why not have one to play the part of jesus?it wasnt directed at you and i shouldve used another example. yours was just the 1st that came to mind, and i did understand it as a question and not an accusation.

probably a better example of the point i was trying to make is when ive heard non believers say "the bible says for men to not have long hair, yet Jesus had long hair." this statement is wrong on 2 accounts.

1) its based on artists renditions of what Jesus mightve looked like.
2) it actually says for men to not wear their hair "like that of a woman", (which i would interpret as more condeming of cross dressers than it is of metalheads.)

another example is those who say the bible contradicts itself with the "eye for an eye" vs. the "turn the other cheek".

and another blanket statement that all Christians have to be anti- capital punishment where Jesus clearly says "give unto ceasar what is ceasars" in regards to paying taxes, as he explains that Christians are expected to follow the laws of their land.

it seems alot of non believers use examples like this without understanding the context in which they were written, which was my main point that i cant accept a viewpoint that the non believer doesnt even understand or have any factual basis for themselves.

arguing out of their ass i like to call it. kinda like listening to a racist try to explain why black people are inferior. its complete hogwash, with no sense, logic, or reasoning behind it

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 02:42 PM
no one can talk you into or out of blind faith.I REALLY do not like the term "Blind faith". While faith is vital to trust without seeing, there certainly are verifications to the faith you have shown when you take a "leap of faith". In other words, God is faithful to verify, in many different ways, that you have made the right choice.

The feeling in the the heart is one way this happens, but it isn't the only way. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you "fake it" and say you do. You would only being making a show. That is something we have too much in the church already. That is what has caused others to see us as hypocrites also because they see the inconsistencies of those in the church.

As I have heard it: Sitting in a church does not make one a Christian any more than sitting in a garage

polamalufan43
04-06-2007, 03:13 PM
I REALLY do not like the term "Blind faith". While faith is vital to trust without seeing, there certainly are verifications to the faith you have shown when you take a "leap of faith". In other words, God is faithful to verify, in many different ways, that you have made the right choice.

The feeling in the the heart is one way this happens, but it isn't the only way. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you "fake it" and say you do. You would only being making a show. That is something we have too much in the church already. That is what has caused others to see us as hypocrites also because they see the inconsistencies of those in the church.

As I have heard it: Sitting in a church does not make one a Christian any more than sitting in a garage

Personally, i on't really understand blind faith. Like I get what it means but the details are kinda fuzzy for me.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 03:25 PM
Personally, i on't really understand blind faith. Like I get what it means but the details are kinda fuzzy for me.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:doesnt really understand blind faith.





















lol. its just a way of describing faith in something that cant be seen or proven.

polamalufan43
04-06-2007, 03:27 PM
doesnt really understand blind faith.



lol. its just a way of describing faith in something that cant be seen or proven.

WRONG THREAD TONY!!! lol

Ok, that's what I thought. But, I thought there were other details, my bad, wrong info I guess.
In that case, maybe the faith isn't meant to be proven. After all, that's kinda what faith is right??

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 03:31 PM
it seems alot of non believers use examples like this without understanding the context in which they were written, which was my main point that i cant accept a viewpoint that the non believer doesnt even understand or have any factual basis for themselves.
and this is limited to non-believers? how many denominations are there that fall under the classification as "christain"? all,of which vary in thier interpretaion and teachings .i was raised in a protestant church which according to them,catholics are going to hell because they accept drinking and gambling (bingo) which is a big no no for protestants.thats just one viewpoint from 2 denominations that are miles appart.so who is right in thier understanding and factual basis ? they both can't be right.maybe thier both wrong,who knows?

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 03:52 PM
and this is limited to non-believers? how many denominations are there that fall under the classification as "christain"? all,of which vary in thier interpretaion and teachings .i was raised in a protestant church which according to them,catholics are going to hell because they accept drinking and gambling (bingo) which is a big no no for protestants.thats just one viewpoint from 2 denominations that are miles appart.so who is right in thier understanding and factual basis ? they both can't be right.maybe thier both wrong,who knows?

i didnt set any limitations, but YES.... my point was limited to non believers because i was making a point about non believers i have encountered. :hunch:. i have already covered this in previous posts in this thread explaining how I (me, personally, myself,) like to see all sides of the story.

but your point is taken. catholisism is definitely a strange animal. very ritualistic, and there are many things ive seen that ive never read in the bible. personally, i will never pray to mary or the saints, and i will never feel obligated to confess my sins to a strange man in the booth.

Mosca
04-06-2007, 03:56 PM
it seems alot of non believers use examples like this without understanding the context in which they were written, which was my main point that i cant accept a viewpoint that the non believer doesnt even understand or have any factual basis for themselves.

arguing out of their ass i like to call it. kinda like listening to a racist try to explain why black people are inferior. its complete hogwash, with no sense, logic, or reasoning behind it

Tony, wouldn't you also say that many Christians have this very same misunderstanding of science and the scientific process? Just the confusion of the meanings of "theory" and "hypothesis" is a good place to start.

I agree with MOP, for all the time I've spent on science and scientific reading, I've probably spent as much or more time in church and on Christian reading. I've read both the Bible and Origin; how many of the Christians in this thread can say that?


Tom

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 03:58 PM
i've never looked at a bible other than the king james version,so i'm curious as to just how they vary and to what degree?

Mosca
04-06-2007, 03:59 PM
i didnt set any limitations, but YES.... my point was limited to non believers because i was making a point about non believers i have encountered. :hunch:. i have already covered this in previous posts in this thread explaining how I (me, personally, myself,) like to see all sides of the story.

but your point is taken. catholisism is definitely a strange animal. very ritualistic, and there are many things ive seen that ive never read in the bible. personally, i will never pray to mary or the saints, and i will never feel obligated to confess my sins to a strange man in the booth.

LOL, that was my brand of Christianity. Prolly 'splains a lot.


Tom

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 04:01 PM
i was raised in a protestant church which according to them,catholics are going to hell because they accept drinking and gambling (bingo) which is a big no no for protestants.thats just one viewpoint from 2 denominations that are miles appart.so who is right in thier understanding and factual basis ? they both can't be right.maybe thier both wrong,who knows?
I had a youngster that was quite into doctrinal issues say in a childish toon, "I'm right and you're wrong and your going to hell." Unfortunately, some people do not grow up. I DO teach the right and wrong beliefs of differing denominations. HOWEVER, I do not condemn people to hell for going to those churches. There are dangers in some beliefs, but judgment of individuals is up to God and not me.

In other words, it is like differences between Steelers fans. We may make our points, but we are rooting for the same team. :wink02:

Elvis
04-06-2007, 04:08 PM
PLEASE CANCEL THIS THREAD BEFORE I SNAP!!!!
JOHN 3:16
"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE"
PSALM 18:30
" AS FOR GOD, HIS WAY IS PERFECT: THE WORD OF THE LORD IS TRIED: HE IS A BUCKLER TO ALL THOSE THAT TRUST IN HIM"
JOHN 15:18 & 20
" IF THE WORLD HATE YOU, YE KNOW THAT IT HATED ME BEFORE IT HATED YOU"
" REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I SAID UNTO YOU, THE SERVANT IS NOT GREATER THAN HIS LORD"

I'm finished here!!!
Jesus Saves
Elvis

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 04:16 PM
so whats to "snap" about? i'd think you would want to offer insight into the conversation.

Livinginthe past
04-06-2007, 04:21 PM
PLEASE CANCEL THIS THREAD BEFORE I SNAP!!!!


Feel free to take a permanent break from this thread if it disturbs you so much, its been made clear before that open, respectful debate is encouraged on this forum.

If you do decide to return - here's some advice - 'screaming' Bible scripture in multicolored, oversized text is not going to win anybody over - it shows a lack of debating ability.

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 04:24 PM
Tony, wouldn't you also say that many Christians have this very same misunderstanding of science and the scientific process? Just the confusion of the meanings of "theory" and "hypothesis" is a good place to start.

I agree with MOP, for all the time I've spent on science and scientific reading, I've probably spent as much or more time in church and on Christian reading. I've read both the Bible and Origin; how many of the Christians in this thread can say that?


Tomi would definitely say that, and this brings me back to my point (which was not an accusation against anyone here). my whole purpose of being involved in this thread is not because i am trying to convert or change anyones point of view; as i said before, i am trying to understand the various stances. i actually thought i was pretty clear on this.

just like i cant accept some bogus non believers arguments based on their own ignorance, i dont accept that i have no right to "do this in rememberance of me" and participate in holy communion because i am not catholic.

maybe MOP can clarify his point on elephants and wooly mammoths. does he believe that being Christian precludes one from believing they were related?

Stainless Steel
04-06-2007, 04:28 PM
so whats to "snap" about? i'd think you would want to offer insight into the conversation.
Yes, please take part. It is obviously a differing view. It isn't healthy to bottle it all in. If you don't constructively take part here, your Sunday School Class will probably pay for it. :wink02: You can do it in way that would not violate the COC.

fansince'76
04-06-2007, 04:28 PM
I'm finished here!!!

Is that a threat or a promise?

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 04:35 PM
PLEASE CANCEL THIS THREAD BEFORE I SNAP!!!!
JOHN 3:16
"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE"
PSALM 18:30
" AS FOR GOD, HIS WAY IS PERFECT: THE WORD OF THE LORD IS TRIED: HE IS A BUCKLER TO ALL THOSE THAT TRUST IN HIM"
JOHN 15:18 & 20
" IF THE WORLD HATE YOU, YE KNOW THAT IT HATED ME BEFORE IT HATED YOU"
" REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I SAID UNTO YOU, THE SERVANT IS NOT GREATER THAN HIS LORD"

I'm finished here!!!
Jesus Saves
Elvis before its closed, please answer me this. can i eat bacon on my burger and did cain do the nasty with his mom?

i see no problem with the discussion of this thread and atleast it has shifted from all the religious icons and messages in your posts. (and if this thread is closed i think i would feel compelled to start another to continue the dialog)

Mosca
04-06-2007, 04:42 PM
Now, I think I'm pretty accepting of who you are, wedo... but how come no one is allowed to rain on your thread, but you're allowed to rain on this one?

MasterOfPuppets
04-06-2007, 04:43 PM
i would definitely say that, and this brings me back to my point (which was not an accusation against anyone here). my whole purpose of being involved in this thread is not because i am trying to convert or change anyones point of view; as i said before, i am trying to understand the various stances. i actually thought i was pretty clear on this.

just like i cant accept some bogus non believers arguments based on their own ignorance, i dont accept that i have no right to "do this in rememberance of me" and participate in holy communion because i am not catholic.

maybe MOP can clarify his point on elephants and wooly mammoths. does he believe that being Christian precludes one from believing they were related?

my point was elephants and mammoths shared the same common ancestors at one point in time. so if thats believable then why is it impossible to believe that humans and apes also shared a common ancestor.

augustashark
04-06-2007, 04:56 PM
It is good Friday and he did rise again 3 days later......

Happy Easter.

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 04:59 PM
my point was elephants and mammoths shared the same common ancestors at one point in time. so if thats believable then why is it impossible to believe that humans and apes also shared a common ancestor.its not impossible. you dont think all Christians are anti evolution do you? (im thinking you dont)

and i will be blunt to both sides of the fence. In my heart i trully believe that God really doesnt care what i think about the relatives of monkeys or elephants, because that is not what really matters. ( those who know scripture, will understand why i brought up the analogy of peter and paul arguing about eating the swine.)

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 05:02 PM
It is good Friday and he did rise again 3 days later......

Happy Easter.shouldnt we argue if 3 days from now really isnt monday? :jammin:

Livinginthe past
04-06-2007, 05:26 PM
Slightly eerie timing but I just finished watching a program on Discovery Channel about possible scientific explantions for Biblical events.

There was a section on the 10 plagues and possible (the documentary made it seem likely) scientific explanations for various outbreaks and their part in a 'chain reaction' of events.

When they attempted to explain the parting of the red sea they claimed that the translation of the term 'yam suph' was mistaken and that it actually means 'reed sea' - which in turn would mean a far greater likelihood of 'dry path' to naturally occur.

Others have adopted the idea that the Israelites took a central route and crossed a shallow lake north of the Red Sea called the Reed Sea. The term in Hebrew is yam suph. Yam means "sea," and suph is generally thought to mean "reeds," "rushes" or possibly "seaweed." That is why some versions of the Bible call it "the Sea of Reeds" or "Reed Sea" instead of the Red Sea. (See Exodus 15:4 in the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and Jerusalem Bible.)

It was all very interesting, especially in the light of this thread catching alot of peoples imaginations.

The basic thrust seemed to be that there was a scientific explanation for things that were documented by the Bible, but rather than disproving the existence of a 'Higher being' it could be seen as evidence that He could manipulate the world in such a way.

Food for thought.

A link to the Wikipedia page on this subject, including some fairly scathing critcism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 05:53 PM
Slightly eerie timing but I just finished watching a program on Discovery Channel about possible scientific explantions for Biblical events.

There was a section on the 10 plagues and possible (the documentary made it seem likely) scientific explanations for various outbreaks and their part in a 'chain reaction' of events.

When they attempted to explain the parting of the red sea they claimed that the translation of the term 'yam suph' was mistaken and that it actually means 'reed sea' - which in turn would mean a far greater likelihood of 'dry path' to naturally occur.



It was all very interesting, especially in the light of this thread catching alot of peoples imaginations.

The basic thrust seemed to be that there was a scientific explanation for things that were documented by the Bible, but rather than disproving the existence of a 'Higher being' it could be seen as evidence that He could manipulate the world in such a way.

Food for thought.

A link to the Wikipedia page on this subject, including some fairly scathing critcism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decodedi have seen this episode and all the episodes discovery does on biblical events. (they show them every year for easter weekend) they pretty much show how a strong wind (the breath of God) could separate the waters for the jews and cease as the egyptians were crossing. the plagues such as the frogs and the rivers of "blood' are also acurrately explained.

another good one is on soddom and gamorrah and how the fire and brimstone that rained on them was an actual event. for years these stories were written off as fabricated mythical events that only existed in the authors imagination, and now scientifid and archaelogical evidence is proving these stories of the bible to be accurate, historical records. king david and noahs ark was long believed to be myths no more real than zeus, yet modern science has given the stories much more support than blind faith alone.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-06-2007, 05:56 PM
PLEASE CANCEL THIS THREAD BEFORE I SNAP!!!!
JOHN 3:16
"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE"
PSALM 18:30
" AS FOR GOD, HIS WAY IS PERFECT: THE WORD OF THE LORD IS TRIED: HE IS A BUCKLER TO ALL THOSE THAT TRUST IN HIM"
JOHN 15:18 & 20
" IF THE WORLD HATE YOU, YE KNOW THAT IT HATED ME BEFORE IT HATED YOU"
" REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I SAID UNTO YOU, THE SERVANT IS NOT GREATER THAN HIS LORD"

I'm finished here!!!
Jesus Saves
Elvis

Sorry brother but I think you are expressing the wrong attitude:

Romans chapter 10 verse 8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15) And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16) But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Look at this thread as a chance to put forth a truth..unmuddied..undiluted...and able to follow the dictates of your belief.....The reaction of others has NEVER been the ruler by which you gauge your Christian walk...but rather its the depth of your obediance to God.

I love to read Preachers reactions..his peace is very apparant in his replies.

Livinginthe past
04-06-2007, 06:11 PM
i have seen this episode and all the episodes discovery does on biblical events. (they show them every year for easter weekend) they pretty much show how a strong wind (the breath of God) could separate the waters for the jews and cease as the egyptians were crossing. the plagues such as the frogs and the rivers of "blood' are also acurrately explained.

another good one is on soddom and gamorrah and how the fire and brimstone that rained on them was an actual event. for years these stories were written off as fabricated mythical events that only existed in the authors imagination, and now scientifid and archaelogical evidence is proving these stories of the bible to be accurate, historical records. king david and noahs ark was long believed to be myths no more real than zeus, yet modern science has given the stories much more support than blind faith alone.

Yeah, they mentioned the hail of 'fire and ice' - the general analysis of this was that it had to be a miracle, or fabricated, because it couldn't happen in the real world.

Then they discovered that the exact thing had happened before and had been documented (as you say).

Hopefully i'll catch another one soon, it was a real eye opener.

Suitanim
04-06-2007, 06:18 PM
Courtesy of the Dandy Warhols...the lyrics are apropos:

In my good good morning
Im up before the sun can bring,
Early morning, and everyone
Like a shiny thing.

All my angels appear
Before my window saying
Good morning
In my good morning

In my good, good morning
I feel before my thoughts all spring.
Am I conscious or
Is this my unconscious being
No more like a dream than a
God before my conscious saying
Good morning in my good morning?

In my good, good morning
Im up before the sun can bring,
Early morining, and everyone like a shiny
Thing.
No more like a dream, then a God before
My conscious saying
Good morning in my good morning

tony hipchest
04-06-2007, 06:20 PM
i've never looked at a bible other than the king james version,so i'm curious as to just how they vary and to what degree?dude. ditch the king james version! i understood so much more when i read the bible in actual english. i would suggest a study bible used in colleges.

i took the "new testament as literature" class and my professor would get up on the chalkboard and write in the hebrew and greek text the books of the bible were originally written in, in fact he worked on the translation of some of the dead sea scrolls.

a study bible is like reading in a modern language and has footnotes to show you all indescrepancies in languages, translation, and other unknowns. what alot of people dont take into account is that some of the books of the new testament are spoke in Jesus' native tongue of aramaic, whereas pauls books and letters were passed on to a greek or roman audience.

stlrtruck
04-06-2007, 10:05 PM
The only problem I've found with translated bible editions is that they can sometimes construe the true meaning of the words that were originally used and the meaning of it is lost!

I've got a New King James Version and when I compare it to a bible a friend has that has several different translations, it really shows how different they can be.

But I do agree, get a study bible, that will help.

MasterOfPuppets
04-07-2007, 01:24 AM
dude. ditch the king james version! i understood so much more when i read the bible in actual english. i would suggest a study bible used in colleges.

i took the "new testament as literature" class and my professor would get up on the chalkboard and write in the hebrew and greek text the books of the bible were originally written in, in fact he worked on the translation of some of the dead sea scrolls.

a study bible is like reading in a modern language and has footnotes to show you all indescrepancies in languages, translation, and other unknowns. what alot of people dont take into account is that some of the books of the new testament are spoke in Jesus' native tongue of aramaic, whereas pauls books and letters were passed on to a greek or roman audience.
can you finf a study bibke in a bookstore?

Mosca
04-07-2007, 08:24 AM
If you want a fun time, compare your study bible to the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic translations). Then you can see how subtle differences in meaning can lead to big differences in understanding. Passage by passage they will seem close enough, but the overall picture and tone are very different.

edit: I had to look it up. The Catholic Bible in English is the Douay-Rheims. We were always taught it was the Latin Vulgate, but what it is is the English translation of the St Jerome bible. I know Preacher has more info on this, and can probably correct my mistake better than I can.


Tom

tony hipchest
04-07-2007, 04:45 PM
can you finf a study bibke in a bookstore?yeah, or amazon (theres actually quite a few and i got mine required for class at a used college bookstore). it was the NRSV- The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version. like i said, my professor had read original texts written in their original tongue and worked on translating dead sea scrolls, so i trust this is as an accurate translation into modern english that you can get.



Editorial Reviews

Book Description
Countless students, professors and general readers alike have relied upon The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha for essential scholarship and guidance to the world of the Bible. Now the Augmented Third Edition adds to the established reputation of this premier academic resource. A wealth of new maps, charts, and diagrams further clarify information found in the scripture pages. In addition, section introductions have been expanded and the book introductions have been made more uniform in order to enhance their utility. Of course, the Augmented Third Edition retains the features prized by students, including single column annotations at the foot of the pages, in-text background essays, charts, and maps, a page number-keyed index of all the study materials in the volume, and Oxford's renowned Bible maps. This timely edition maintains and extends the excellence the Annotated's users have come to expect, bringing still more insights, information, and approaches to bear upon the understanding of the biblical text.

every book of the bible has an intro to provide the backdrop and the context in which the book or letter was written (which even by themselves are worth a read because it gives a historical perspective). the footnotes are excellent and will tell you if theres confusion in translation, or if 1 word can mean two things and stuff like that. it makes a world of difference actually understanding the scriptures, and it reads much more like a book you would read today. after studying this one, i would probably get a headache trying to go back and read the KJV.

Preacher
04-07-2007, 10:23 PM
I had a youngster that was quite into doctrinal issues say in a childish toon, "I'm right and you're wrong and your going to hell." Unfortunately, some people do not grow up. I DO teach the right and wrong beliefs of differing denominations. HOWEVER, I do not condemn people to hell for going to those churches. There are dangers in some beliefs, but judgment of individuals is up to God and not me.

In other words, it is like differences between Steelers fans. We may make our points, but we are rooting for the same team. :wink02:

I agree with you... as long as we are talking about the minors.

Then there are the majors...

Salvation by Jesus alone, Jesus being God, The Trinity, etc. Those are doctrines which inform whether a person is or is not a brother or sister in Christ.

MasterOfPuppets
04-08-2007, 01:54 AM
I agree with you... as long as we are talking about the minors.

Then there are the majors...

Salvation by Jesus alone, Jesus being God, The Trinity, etc. Those are doctrines which inform whether a person is or is not a brother or sister in Christ.

preacher,from this statement i'm assuming you believe the father,son and holy ghost are one.which is what i was taught being a protestant may i ask what denominination it is you you teach? i'm just curious bevause i know some denominations believe they werer 3 seperate entities.

Stainless Steel
04-08-2007, 05:25 AM
I agree with you... as long as we are talking about the minors.

Then there are the majors...

Salvation by Jesus alone, Jesus being God, The Trinity, etc. Those are doctrines which inform whether a person is or is not a brother or sister in Christ.
We are on the same page preacher. :thumbsup:

stlrtruck
04-09-2007, 02:25 PM
preacher,from this statement i'm assuming you believe the father,son and holy ghost are one.which is what i was taught being a protestant may i ask what denominination it is you you teach? i'm just curious bevause i know some denominations believe they werer 3 seperate entities.

I'm not sure it has to do with denominations but rather teachings. I belong to a non-denominational church that is biblically based on it's teachings. So they're view is that if the bible says it, that's it. They follow the guidelines of an Acts church (read the first part of the Book of Acts). Therefore, the bible speaks of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being the Trinity. They are 3 different but at the same time the same!

polamalufan43
04-09-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm not sure it has to do with denominations but rather teachings. I belong to a non-denominational church that is biblically based on it's teachings. So they're view is that if the bible says it, that's it. They follow the guidelines of an Acts church (read the first part of the Book of Acts). Therefore, the bible speaks of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being the Trinity. They are 3 different but at the same time the same!

I think it depends, cause some denominations teach differently in general, there are those few who are let's just say lutheran, but believe more on the methodist side of things. I guess that's how I'll put it. Honestly, I think the idea of three in one is pretty much the normal for most Christian denominations, but i could be wrong.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

stlrtruck
04-09-2007, 08:37 PM
I think it depends, cause some denominations teach differently in general, there are those few who are let's just say lutheran, but believe more on the methodist side of things. I guess that's how I'll put it. Honestly, I think the idea of three in one is pretty much the normal for most Christian denominations, but i could be wrong.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

I've never ventured down the road of denominations. I just don't understand how people can add or subtract from the scripture (that's what I gather that some denominations do to the bible - BUT I definitely could be wrong).

I tried it once but all I got out of it was the bungles suck (but that's a different thread).

Stlrs4Life
04-09-2007, 09:22 PM
preacher,from this statement i'm assuming you believe the father,son and holy ghost are one.which is what i was taught being a protestant may i ask what denominination it is you you teach? .


I'm Catholic and we believe the same.

Preacher
04-10-2007, 12:44 AM
Wow... MOP.. Great question

The orthodox view of the trinity for ALL Christians was set early in the life of the church. We beleive that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father are one and the same, yet three distinct personalities.

Some may use the idea of water. It can be frozen as a solid, melted as a liquid, or heated to be steam, but it is all still water. However, that doesn't go far enough.

God is Water, steam, and liquid all at the same time, yet still one person... if you follow the illustration.

In other words. We beleive there is only ONE God. Not three, yet there are three distinct personalities. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

to quote the Baptist Faith and Message, which does a good job of explaining this, "The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

Preacher
04-10-2007, 12:53 AM
I've never ventured down the road of denominations. I just don't understand how people can add or subtract from the scripture (that's what I gather that some denominations do to the bible - BUT I definitely could be wrong).

I tried it once but all I got out of it was the bungles suck (but that's a different thread).

your right, some denomination do that, but it is not because they are a denomination. It is because the people have lost the desire to truly seek and follow Jesus Christ. There are non-denom. churches that will do the same thing.

The biggest difference between a non-denom. church and a denominational church is that a non-denom. church has the ability to make complete independant decisions about everything. However, that also leaves it with little or no accountability.

Denom. churches are so vastly different, no one can paint it with the same brush stroke. For instance, Many denom. churches have the leadership of the denom. telling them what they can or can not do, who their pastor will be, etc. Or there is a give and take between the two. However, most Baptist denominations (mine especially, being a southern Baptist), as the Assembly's of God and others, have complete autonomy. By that I mean that my church answer only the the Lord Jesus Christ. We follow only our convictions of scripture. Now, we choose to gather with other churches and together produce a document called the Baptist faith and message. But that is a confession of what we beleive, not a demand to beleive it in order to be Baptist.

There is accountablity as well. If a church changes doctrine or practice to be against scripture, such as teaching that Jesus is not God, or teaching that homosexuality is okay before God, they will no longer be allowed in the fellowship of the other churches.

That is why I prefer churches that have complete autonomy, but are still denominational. It seems to be the best of both worlds. But that of course, is my BIASED opnion!

Stainless Steel
04-10-2007, 05:37 AM
Well put, preacher. I use the water illustration quite often too.

The other thing you mentioned earlier, that goes with the trinity is Jesus being God. I believe that is the major doctrine that determines whether a religion is a cult or not. There are of course other issues too.

stlrtruck
04-10-2007, 08:55 AM
your right, some denomination do that, but it is not because they are a denomination. It is because the people have lost the desire to truly seek and follow Jesus Christ. There are non-denom. churches that will do the same thing.

The biggest difference between a non-denom. church and a denominational church is that a non-denom. church has the ability to make complete independant decisions about everything. However, that also leaves it with little or no accountability.

Denom. churches are so vastly different, no one can paint it with the same brush stroke. For instance, Many denom. churches have the leadership of the denom. telling them what they can or can not do, who their pastor will be, etc. Or there is a give and take between the two. However, most Baptist denominations (mine especially, being a southern Baptist), as the Assembly's of God and others, have complete autonomy. By that I mean that my church answer only the the Lord Jesus Christ. We follow only our convictions of scripture. Now, we choose to gather with other churches and together produce a document called the Baptist faith and message. But that is a confession of what we beleive, not a demand to beleive it in order to be Baptist.

There is accountablity as well. If a church changes doctrine or practice to be against scripture, such as teaching that Jesus is not God, or teaching that homosexuality is okay before God, they will no longer be allowed in the fellowship of the other churches.

That is why I prefer churches that have complete autonomy, but are still denominational. It seems to be the best of both worlds. But that of course, is my BIASED opnion!

Thanks for giving some clarification on the matter. It really helps.

polamalufan43
04-10-2007, 02:27 PM
Thanks for giving some clarification on the matter. It really helps.

Yeah, it helped me as well.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

MasterOfPuppets
04-10-2007, 03:23 PM
Yeah, it helped me as well.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:yep, same here! i even went to one of them assembly of god churches and didn't know the differences.isn't it nice to know that if you need spiritual advise or information we have preachers brain to pick? you da man preach!! :thumbsup:

Preacher
04-10-2007, 03:43 PM
yep, same here! i even went to one of them assembly of god churches and didn't know the differences.isn't it nice to know that if you need spiritual advise or information we have preachers brain to pick? you da man preach!! :thumbsup:


:wave::wave::sofunny::sofunny::toofunny::toofunny: :toofunny::toofunny::sofunny::sofunny::wave::wave:

Thanks!!

polamalufan43
04-10-2007, 03:47 PM
:wave::wave::sofunny::sofunny::toofunny::toofunny: :toofunny::toofunny::sofunny::sofunny::wave::wave:

Thanks!!

Thanx for your help. And I'm guessing we'll need it in the near future:smile:

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

MasterOfPuppets
04-10-2007, 04:04 PM
preacher,i was just wondering...are southern baptist churches accurately portraid on television? by that i meen alot of singing ,and dancing and the big choir. the church i went to was pretty hum drum so to speak and the congregation all looked so serious or bored sitting on thier hands. but the tv portraid southern baptist congregation are very vocal in there praises and songs,it just looks like a much more enjoyable exsperience than what i was accustomed too.

GBMelBlount
04-10-2007, 09:20 PM
your right, some denomination do that, but it is not because they are a denomination. It is because the people have lost the desire to truly seek and follow Jesus Christ. There are non-denom. churches that will do the same thing.

The biggest difference between a non-denom. church and a denominational church is that a non-denom. church has the ability to make complete independant decisions about everything. However, that also leaves it with little or no accountability.

Denom. churches are so vastly different, no one can paint it with the same brush stroke. For instance, Many denom. churches have the leadership of the denom. telling them what they can or can not do, who their pastor will be, etc. Or there is a give and take between the two. However, most Baptist denominations (mine especially, being a southern Baptist), as the Assembly's of God and others, have complete autonomy. By that I mean that my church answer only the the Lord Jesus Christ. We follow only our convictions of scripture. Now, we choose to gather with other churches and together produce a document called the Baptist faith and message. But that is a confession of what we beleive, not a demand to beleive it in order to be Baptist.

There is accountablity as well. If a church changes doctrine or practice to be against scripture, such as teaching that Jesus is not God, or teaching that homosexuality is okay before God, they will no longer be allowed in the fellowship of the other churches.

That is why I prefer churches that have complete autonomy, but are still denominational. It seems to be the best of both worlds. But that of course, is my BIASED opnion!

Preach, don't understand, If you believe and follow the bible, why is there a separate message that your church(es) produces? Realize not a demand, but not sure why it is needed? Is that a separtae interpretation? (Like Jehovah's?) Also (though not gay) understand homosexuality wrong in this example. but shouldn't we allow all to hear the word of God, love the sinner, hate the sin, and let God be the judge...Oh, you said not to teach that it is right, OK. Respect you, new at this, just asking. Still asking about first part.

GBMelBlount
04-10-2007, 09:25 PM
preacher,i was just wondering...are southern baptist churches accurately portraid on television? by that i meen alot of singing ,and dancing and the big choir. the church i went to was pretty hum drum so to speak and the congregation all looked so serious or bored sitting on thier hands. but the tv portraid southern baptist congregation are very vocal in there praises and songs,it just looks like a much more enjoyable exsperience than what i was accustomed too.

Ha Ha. Growing up going to a Congregational church in Trumbull CT. It was so boring, If you stuck a lump of coal up your ....in two weeks you'd have a diamond. Now my wife & I go to an Assemblies of God church..bible...period..but we have a half hour of singing before the hour+ worship/teaching. I can't believe I subjected myself to the first...forgive me God!!!

Stainless Steel
04-11-2007, 08:45 AM
All very interesting posts.

It is an interesting study to see how the different denominations got here. Some were brought over from Europe. Some split off from other denominations due to doctrinal, social, or other issues. (The denomination I am a part of split over the slavery issue because the main denomination would not take a stand against slavery.) Some church divisions get so big that they can no longer stay together and another church is formed. Some independent churches simply spring up because a group of people see a need for a gospel message in an city or village. Some divisions happen because the message of the original church gets warped and change for the better can not happen from within. Some divisions happen for good reasons. Some happen over pathetic reasons.

Within denominations, the style of worship will vary so the experience will be different. Some will use contemporary worship music, others will never get beyond the piano and organ. Some will excite you or annoy you (depending on your preference) , others will bore you to death.

I have worked with many churches and I have worked in many non-church related functions. I am amazed at how much more nasty secular groups can get. People may get critical over churches divisions, but I have seen far worse elsewhere.

GBMelBlount
04-11-2007, 09:35 PM
All very interesting posts.

It is an interesting study to see how the different denominations got here. Some were brought over from Europe. Some split off from other denominations due to doctrinal, social, or other issues. (The denomination I am a part of split over the slavery issue because the main denomination would not take a stand against slavery.) Some church divisions get so big that they can no longer stay together and another church is formed. Some independent churches simply spring up because a group of people see a need for a gospel message in an city or village. Some divisions happen because the message of the original church gets warped and change for the better can not happen from within. Some divisions happen for good reasons. Some happen over pathetic reasons.

Within denominations, the style of worship will vary so the experience will be different. Some will use contemporary worship music, others will never get beyond the piano and organ. Some will excite you or annoy you (depending on your preference) , others will bore you to death.

I have worked with many churches and I have worked in many non-church related functions. I am amazed at how much more nasty secular groups can get. People may get critical over churches divisions, but I have seen far worse elsewhere.

Wow SS, isn't that amazing. Christains for the most part are no different than anyone else. Just saved, by their belief in JC who died for our sins so that we could have a chance for eternal life. At least for the many who believe this. The differences between different christain churches are numerous. I guess each has to find their own match but again, acording to my beliefs, JC is the key!

GB

Stainless Steel
04-11-2007, 10:41 PM
I guess each has to find their own match but again, acording to my beliefs, JC is the key!

GB
He IS the key, for sure. He is the starting point.

I belonged to a Christian bulletin board for a while. However, I found it to be very negative. Sad!

stlrtruck
04-12-2007, 07:17 AM
He IS the key, for sure. He is the starting point.

I belonged to a Christian bulletin board for a while. However, I found it to be very negative. Sad!

He is the ALPHA and OMEGA!!!

Preacher
04-12-2007, 01:48 PM
He IS the key, for sure. He is the starting point.

I belonged to a Christian bulletin board for a while. However, I found it to be very negative. Sad!

Yep... I stay away from Christian bulletin boards. Too many people on those boards do not understand that thier opinions are OPINIONS, and not the very words of God.

tony hipchest
04-12-2007, 02:17 PM
Yep... I stay away from Christian bulletin boards. Too many people on those boards do not understand that thier opinions are OPINIONS, and not the very words of God.Wow. Christian bb's?

here we have trolls who sign up with names such as "big bens bike helmet" or "bens wired jaw shut" or "squeelerssuk".

so my question is if Christian boards have trolls who use "beelzebub", "lucifers hot fart", or "judas rules" as screen names?

(oh, and one more serious philosophical question, is lava and magma the devils diahrea? :sofunny: )

stlrtruck
04-12-2007, 02:28 PM
Wow. Christian bb's?

here we have trolls who sign up with names such as "big bens bike helmet" or "bens wired jaw shut" or "squeelerssuk".

so my question is if Christian boards have trolls who use "beelzebub", "lucifers hot fart", or "judas rules" as screen names?

(oh, and one more serious philosophical question, is lava and magma the devils diahrea? :sofunny: )


Tony, great questions - made me laugh, hysterically!

polamalufan43
04-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Tony, great questions - made me laugh, hysterically!

Wow Tony, I'd consider going into theology....
~Polamalufan43:tt02:

MasterOfPuppets
04-12-2007, 03:47 PM
Wow. Christian bb's?

here we have trolls who sign up with names such as "big bens bike helmet" or "bens wired jaw shut" or "squeelerssuk".

so my question is if Christian boards have trolls who use "beelzebub", "lucifers hot fart", or "judas rules" as screen names?

(oh, and one more serious philosophical question, is lava and magma the devils diahrea? :sofunny: )
you're a serious thinker dude. you gotta rank right up there with aristotle and the other greats. :jammin:

Preacher
04-12-2007, 06:46 PM
Tony..

I am SERIOUSLY starting to wonder about you!

:wink02::wink02: :sofunny::sofunny:

Stainless Steel
04-12-2007, 10:41 PM
Wow. Christian bb's?

here we have trolls who sign up with names such as "big bens bike helmet" or "bens wired jaw shut" or "squeelerssuk".

so my question is if Christian boards have trolls who use "beelzebub", "lucifers hot fart", or "judas rules" as screen names?

(oh, and one more serious philosophical question, is lava and magma the devils diahrea? :sofunny: )

:sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

Actually, these types get a lot of attention because the boards consider them opportunities for a witness. The negativity I got was from the Christians pushing their little unbiblical doctrine. i.e. I was told I wasn't a Christian because I didn't speak in tongues. :blah:

Preacher
04-12-2007, 10:58 PM
:sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

Actually, these types get a lot of attention because the boards consider them opportunities for a witness. The negativity I got was from the Christians pushing their little unbiblical doctrine. i.e. I was told I wasn't a Christian because I didn't speak in tongues. :blah:

ROTFL... I ain't even touching that one!!!

tony hipchest
04-13-2007, 12:13 AM
:sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

Actually, these types get a lot of attention because the boards consider them opportunities for a witness. The negativity I got was from the Christians pushing their little unbiblical doctrine. i.e. I was told I wasn't a Christian because I didn't speak in tongues. :blah:so there are trolls on Christian message boards? too funny. not that i would ever do this but im just imagining the reaction of signing up on one as "Tony DeMon".

again, not that i would ever do something that disrespectful, i just find it funny people actually go out of their way to troll a religious board.

i went to church on my own accord as a kid (usually just walked to the closest one) and i attended a pentacostal church for about a year. i always found the whole "speaking in tongues" thing a bit odd. another case of people taking one phrase in the bible way too literal. kinda like the "shakers" handling serpents and dancing with snakes. to each their own i guess.

Stainless Steel
04-14-2007, 10:46 AM
again, not that i would ever do something that disrespectful, i just find it funny people actually go out of their way to troll a religious board.
There are plenty of people out there that hate Christianity. They will do anything they can to try to make life miserable for us, including trolling. They are driven by hatred. It's like a "Steelerssuck" web site and board. They go out of their way to vent.

MasterOfPuppets
04-14-2007, 01:34 PM
There are plenty of people out there that hate Christianity. They will do anything they can to try to make life miserable for us, including trolling. They are driven by hatred. It's like a "Steelerssuck" web site and board. They go out of their way to vent.
probably A.C.L.U. members....:coffee:

Stainless Steel
04-14-2007, 01:41 PM
True that.

polamalufan43
04-14-2007, 01:51 PM
There are plenty of people out there that hate Christianity. They will do anything they can to try to make life miserable for us, including trolling. They are driven by hatred. It's like a "Steelerssuck" web site and board. They go out of their way to vent.

Yeah, that's the unfortunate truth.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Mosca
04-14-2007, 08:19 PM
There are plenty of people out there that hate Christianity. They will do anything they can to try to make life miserable for us, including trolling. They are driven by hatred. It's like a "Steelerssuck" web site and board. They go out of their way to vent.

Now see, I don't understand that. If I expect to be left alone to live my life as I see fit, then I have to allow you the same. Otherwise, all my claims for my own beliefs are undermined by emotion and irrationality toward others. And those are the exact things that I ask to be free of.


Tom

tony hipchest
04-14-2007, 08:37 PM
while i made jokes and light of the situation, my question was serious. while i had a feeling it was true, i kinda hoped there werent trolls on Christiam bb's.

religion is taken far more seriously than football, and unfortunately it only makes sense their bb's would be more flooded with trolls than this one.

GBMelBlount
04-14-2007, 08:51 PM
With all the arguments & judgement between christians over their different beliefs, and the unchristian conduct of alot of christians, I can understand why some people are so turned off by christianity & christians. It's a shame. More christians need to walk the walk. DON'T judge christianity ONLY by the conduct of people who say they are christians. Just because there are some poor christian examples doesn't make christinaity wrong.

Stainless Steel
04-15-2007, 06:49 AM
Now see, I don't understand that. If I expect to be left alone to live my life as I see fit, then I have to allow you the same. Otherwise, all my claims for my own beliefs are undermined by emotion and irrationality toward others. And those are the exact things that I ask to be free of.


Tom
I don't mind good healthy discussion of issues. It helps to either see the other's view or strengthen my own beliefs. However, trolling is not appreciated.

Stainless Steel
04-15-2007, 06:51 AM
With all the arguments & judgement between christians over their different beliefs, and the unchristian conduct of alot of christians, I can understand why some people are so turned off by christianity & christians. It's a shame. More christians need to walk the walk. DON'T judge christianity ONLY by the conduct of people who say they are christians. Just because there are some poor christian examples doesn't make christinaity wrong.
Well put. I expect my claims to Christianity to be accepted, not disallowed due to another's blunders.

polamalufan43
04-15-2007, 07:25 AM
With all the arguments & judgement between christians over their different beliefs, and the unchristian conduct of alot of christians, I can understand why some people are so turned off by christianity & christians. It's a shame. More christians need to walk the walk. DON'T judge christianity ONLY by the conduct of people who say they are christians. Just because there are some poor christian examples doesn't make christinaity wrong.

Well said and I completely agree.
There are some people in the world ho calim to be Christians, but the true extent of their faith is unknown.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Mosca
04-15-2007, 10:23 AM
I don't mind good healthy discussion of issues. It helps to either see the other's view or strengthen my own beliefs. However, trolling is not appreciated.

Agreed completely. The reason I posted in this thread wasn't to convince anyone, but to help them understand that there are good people in the world who are not Christian and who don't feel the need to be saved. Why bother to tweak and provoke Christians? I like Christians just fine, they seem like good people to me.

And, what you believe is totally different from who you are. I would guess that there are a heck of a lot of Christians in prisons. Faith is no guarantee of strength or morality, just like lack thereof is no predictor of a life of malfeasance.


Tom

Preacher
04-15-2007, 10:39 AM
Agreed completely. The reason I posted in this thread wasn't to convince anyone, but to help them understand that there are good people in the world who are not Christian and who don't feel the need to be saved. Why bother to tweak and provoke Christians? I like Christians just fine, they seem like good people to me.

And, what you believe is totally different from who you are. I would guess that there are a heck of a lot of Christians in prisons. Faith is no guarantee of strength or morality, just like lack thereof is no predictor of a life of malfeasance.


Tom

Interesting you use those words. In Christianity... at least orthodox christianity, there is no such thing as good people. You see, we beleive that every human being has broken thier relationship with God. As such, we are all depraved. Now, depravity doesn't mean that we are all plotting rape and murder every minute of the day. Rather, it means that in our very hearts and souls, we choose to break our relationship with God through our thoughts and actions. As such, no person can be good. Not Mother Theresa, not Ghandi, heck, not even the Grand Poobah of nothingness in the blast furnace himself... Mr. Tony Hipchest. (:sofunny:)

As a result, the Christian beleif is that our broken relationship with God is an absolute the world over, with every human being. Thus, whether one feels like it or not, every person needs to be forgiven by God of thier actions which broke that relationship (the actions are what christians call sin).

Now, Tom...

Please don't read this (and you are VERY fair in the way you assess and answer posts, so I doubt you do read it this way) as me saying that you are the evil person and christians are as pure as the wind driven snow. It is my beleif that we are all in the same boat... all needing the same thing. Thus, I see us as equals.

Can people do good things? Absolutely. I know some great people who are not Christians. People who would bend over backwards to help others. I have a feeling Tom, that you are one of them. However, the push in the faith is not how we fair in relation to ourselves or each other, but how we measure up to God's righteousness. The short answer is, we don't. As such, that is why he chose to fulfill His own righteous standards by preparing a way for His creation to one again have a relationship with Him.

Mosca
04-15-2007, 11:16 AM
Preach, don't worry, I know what you mean. It's a different understanding of the word. Since I don't have the larger context that you do, when I say "good" I mean what people generally mean; someone who tries to get along, who nets out with more positive than negative. When you say "good" you are speaking in absolutes. So in order for us to understand each other, we really do need this communication; you need to remind me of the difference in perspective and why it is there. Thanks.


Tom

Stainless Steel
04-15-2007, 05:13 PM
Now, getting beyond doctrinal issues, we must get to the heart of this thread, which is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, with the result being a devotion to Jesus Christ. It is also vital in the Christian walk. Without this, you find nothing more than going through the motions. You find dead churches.

GBMelBlount
04-15-2007, 08:18 PM
God bless you Mosca. I know many good non-christians, and some TERRIBLE (& still self righteous, judgmental and condescending) christians. I have gave gone to church most of my life and never really believed. I remember my dad would scream at us the entire way to church and the entire way home. Our neighbors would wave to him & he would ignore them because he didn't like them...great christian. For many it is a leap of faith in order to believe. I am too analytical. And I can honestly say I have done some terrible things in my life and most people are probably better people than me to this point. Then it hit me through the help of my wife & I realized that I didn't believe that anything as complex and amazing as we are could have randomly evolved from a single cell organism. Also, there is too much verifiable sources that support Jesus, his miracles, his death & resurrection to believe it wasn't true. Plus, if we evolved from apes, what happened to everything in between? It is real, do your homework. Jesus died for our sins so that we can have an opportunity for eternal life.

Preacher
04-16-2007, 12:26 AM
Preach, don't worry, I know what you mean. It's a different understanding of the word. Since I don't have the larger context that you do, when I say "good" I mean what people generally mean; someone who tries to get along, who nets out with more positive than negative. When you say "good" you are speaking in absolutes. So in order for us to understand each other, we really do need this communication; you need to remind me of the difference in perspective and why it is there. Thanks.


Tom

Hey Mosca... I understand what yo mean by good... and it that sense, I agree. there are lots of people who do good things.

And thank you for being honest in your how you discuss and debate in this... It is SO appreciated and refreshing!! :thumbsup:

Stainless Steel
04-17-2007, 11:40 AM
Well, preacher and GB, we just killed this thread. lol