- This topic has 514 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2008,13:51) Hi kejonn White Eagle flys at dawn. Red squirrel is envy. Beware.
Am I making more sense than the fundies?
Stuart
At least one of them is becoming very confusing. More and more cryptic with every response.Hi KJ,
Yes.
And over 500 are witnesses to the fact.
Perhaps you would need to have been there, but would you have believed then?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,14:26) Hi KJ,
Yes.
And over 500 are witnesses to the fact.
Perhaps you would need to have been there, but would you have believed then?
So says one of the people who never saw the resurrected Jesus (Paul). Now that's a reliable witness.Hi KJ,
Paul is a proven servant of God whom God used to use prolifically.
You can only claim some form of servitude.
Your witness?How is Paul proven? Because he wrote some letters to Gentiles, smoothing over their lack of belief in odd doctrines?
Besides, I don't need a witness because I am not looking for any to follow me. I just offer my beliefs and opinions, based on how I feel about a God who is not a super human, but an all-good God who created everything.
Hi KJ,
Paul worked many miracles in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
He brought many to the foot of the cross to empower them for eternity.Are you good enough to judge the goodness of God?
Hi KJ,
Paul suffered for his faith.
He was not ashamed of the gospel.
But you would rate yourself above this servant?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,15:11) Hi KJ,
Paul worked many miracles in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
He brought many to the foot of the cross to empower them for eternity.Are you good enough to judge the goodness of God?
Not the goodness of God, just the fallacy of a book written by humans about God. I don't have any problem judging books.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,15:19) Hi KJ,
Paul suffered for his faith.
He was not ashamed of the gospel.
But you would rate yourself above this servant?
Although I am not in prison — thanks to freedom of religion that I enjoy in the US — I would dare say that fundamentalist Christians who ridicule my belief in God are on no stronger standing than myself.I do not rate myself higher or lower than any other human. I'm not out for glory, nor do I look for shame. Paul was a human like you or I, no greater than any other person in history.
Do you worship Paul now too?
Hi KJ,
God was in Christ and in Paul and is shown in the sacred writings.
Belief is optional but has huge advantages.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,15:47) Hi KJ,
God was in Christ and in Paul and is shown in the sacred writings.
Belief is optional but has huge advantages.
What advantages? A promise of something that may or may not come to pass? How is that advantageous?I'll agree with that, and believe in both lines. However, I know you believe that God is defined by the bible and it is that view of God we must have faith in. So I can only agree with those two lines at face value.
Hi KJ,
That is a start.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.Hi KJ:
Relative to your statement below:
Quote Quote (942767 @ Mar. 23 2008,14:16)
Hi KJ:Relative to these statements below:
Quote
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 22 2008,20:33)
Hi KJ:As you say the Ten Commandments are mostly common sense, but do men who do not know God live by them?
Do people who “know” God live by them either? I can tell you through personal experience that the answer is an overall “no”. Most of the Christians I know are just people who say they have certain beliefs. For the most part the rest of their lives are little different than good, moral non-Christians.
People that profess to be Christians and are not living the life are not Christians but hypocrites, but you are not the judge and neither am I. God knows all things.
Standard answer. Can't tell you how often I've heard it, in one variation or the other. Basically, people who say that others do not do as they are are not Christians.
I am not the example to follow for someone who professes to be Christian. Jesus is the example.
And about your comment below:
Quote Quote
And relative to this:Quote
Quote
There are many things in the OT that are difficult to understand.They are not difficult to understand unless you are trying to make the biblical view of God into something that it is not. Our modern minds cannot fathom primitive superstition.
I know who he is through personal experience, and I love him and appreciate him for who He is and what He means to me. Quote
Jhn 14:7 ¶ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.Relative to this:
Quote
Quote
Of course, it was not a sin for a woman to have her period. We know that is a natural process. And so, the question is why was she considered unclean relative to entering the temple. We must remember that they did not the nice fancy showers and hot tubs etc. that we have in modern society. It was because there might be contagious diseases that could be present when she was in this condition.Lev 15:28 'When she becomes clean from her discharge, she shall count off for herself seven days; and afterward she will be clean.
Lev 15:29 'Then on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and bring them in to the priest, to the doorway of the tent of meeting.
Lev 15:30 'The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So the priest shall make atonement on her behalf before the LORD because of her impure discharge.'“Sin offering”? Why would a woman need a “sin offering” unless the “discharge” was considered a sin? You are being apologetic.
God, you and I know that a woman's period is a natural process and is not a sin. There may have been another reason for the sin offering, but no, common sense tells me that there has to be another reason.
What place has “common sense” in scripture?!? Are you saying that you disbelieve in the inerrancy of scripture and that “common sense” overrules those parts that don't make sense?
I am saying that you are jumping to conclusions saying that this scripture is saying that it is a sin for a woman to have a period. We know that it is not since it is a natural process. But there may have been sins that were committed while the woman was in the state of being ceremonially unclean. You are making statements regarding these types of scriptures without first asking God for understanding.
No, it is not a sin for a woman to have a period. It wasn't a sin then and it isn't a sin now. Doesn't common sense tell you that?Quote (942767 @ Mar. 24 2008,16:24) Hi KJ: Relative to your statement below:
Quote Quote (942767 @ Mar. 23 2008,14:16)
Hi KJ:Relative to these statements below:
Quote
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 22 2008,20:33)
Hi KJ:As you say the Ten Commandments are mostly common sense, but do men who do not know God live by them?
Do people who “know” God live by them either? I can tell you through personal experience that the answer is an overall “no”. Most of the Christians I know are just people who say they have certain beliefs. For the most part the rest of their lives are little different than good, moral non-Christians.
People that profess to be Christians and are not living the life are not Christians but hypocrites, but you are not the judge and neither am I. God knows all things.
Standard answer. Can't tell you how often I've heard it, in one variation or the other. Basically, people who say that others do not do as they are are not Christians.
I am not the example to follow for someone who professes to be Christian. Jesus is the example.
So by this statement, are you saying that those who do not live just as Jesus did are not Christians? Wow, that reduces the number from millions to a handful perhaps.
Quote And about your comment below: Quote Quote
And relative to this:Quote
Quote
There are many things in the OT that are difficult to understand.They are not difficult to understand unless you are trying to make the biblical view of God into something that it is not. Our modern minds cannot fathom primitive superstition.
I know who he is through personal experience, and I love him and appreciate him for who He is and what He means to me. Quote
Jhn 14:7 ¶ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.Relative to this:
Quote
Quote
Of course, it was not a sin for a woman to have her period. We know that is a natural process. And so, the question is why was she considered unclean relative to entering the temple. We must remember that they did not the nice fancy showers and hot tubs etc. that we have in modern society. It was because there might be contagious diseases that could be present when she was in this condition.Lev 15:28 'When she becomes clean from her discharge, she shall count off for herself seven days; and afterward she will be clean.
Lev 15:29 'Then on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and bring them in to the priest, to the doorway of the tent of meeting.
Lev 15:30 'The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So the priest shall make atonement on her behalf before the LORD because of her impure discharge.'“Sin offering”? Why would a woman need a “sin offering” unless the “discharge” was considered a sin? You are being apologetic.
God, you and I know that a woman's period is a natural process and is not a sin. There may have been another reason for the sin offering, but no, common sense tells me that there has to be another reason.
What place has “common sense” in scripture?!? Are you saying that you disbelieve in the inerrancy of scripture and that “common sense” overrules those parts that don't make sense?
I am saying that you are jumping to conclusions saying that this scripture is saying that it is a sin for a woman to have a period. We know that it is not since it is a natural process. But there may have been sins that were committed while the woman was in the state of being ceremonially unclean. You are making statements regarding these types of scriptures without first asking God for understanding.
No, it is not a sin for a woman to have a period. It wasn't a sin then and it isn't a sin now. Doesn't common sense tell you that?
Common sense certainly tells me that, and that is why I brought it to your attention! To show you that what you find in the bible often goes against common sense and this is a clear example.To say she might have committed a sin while on her period is a copout. This passage is concerning her period alone and it is quite obvious that whoever wrote this passage saw a woman's period as sinful. You keep forgetting that we are talking about an ancient people who viewed women as second class. Very similar to Muslims in the Middle East today.
Nick,
If God's plan for salvation is not about man who is it about? Why would God create us? What you say is scripture turns out to be this:1. Because of Adam we are born in sin.
2. Because of Sin and the fact we are weak we are destined to damnation or destruction.
3. Through Christ's sacrifice if and only if, we believe and are born again in spirit and water we can achieve resurrection and life instead of destruction.So life is one big pass or fail test filled with inequities of birth and circumstances with the results of eternal life or destruction. Yet my proposal that life is like school and we each have roles and lessons assigned to us for our own evolution is foolish and misguided. It may not be right but it seems a more logical system then what you propose. Your view of God is like that of the pagans, full of human emotions and evidently human shortcomings (see my thread on the OT depiction of God), I like to view God as something beyond jealousy and mistakes, who loves unconditionally all his creation without picking favorites, who set up a universe that runs on laws and logic that men may study and see his hand.
Also for the last time the concept of reincarnation is not the same as Hinduism, please read my previous post on this. It is a concept not a belief system. I don't have any proof on whether it is true but it certainly would make a more workable and ethical system for souls then your one life all or nothing take. I don't know what death may bring, I don't know what is truth but the question was what would I propose and reincarnation, true or false, seems like a more equitable and workable system.
But yes, it is not according to scripture, the scripture that never changes or is misinterpreted because it was inspired by the Almighty or so we are told by who, the Emperor Constantine, many a Catholic Pope, wait but the Pope is from the Whore… so they must be wrong, but they said its God's word so …. Well let me not think, I have the book and the book says only truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
