Watching The Catholic Church stuff

[darin]

I love the people of the catholic church. As an organization the Catholic Church has done more GOOD for this planet than perhaps any other organization...


Here's where I struggle - I'm unsure how to watch them; their ceremony and all that - and relate ANY of it to Christ. How can all THAT - the robes and strolling and order and propper and all that religion-stuff relate to the ministery of Christ Jesus. That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things. What am I missing?

[Voted4Reagan]

I love the people of the catholic church. As an organization the Catholic Church has done more GOOD for this planet than perhaps any other organization...


Here's where I struggle - I'm unsure how to watch them; their ceremony and all that - and relate ANY of it to Christ. How can all THAT - the robes and strolling and order and propper and all that religion-stuff relate to the ministery of Christ Jesus. That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things. What am I missing?

that is the question that keeps many of us from really getting behind the church.

When the church puts the people ahead of money and influence we'll be back.

[Syrenn]

I love the people of the catholic church. As an organization the Catholic Church has done more GOOD for this planet than perhaps any other organization...


Here's where I struggle - I'm unsure how to watch them; their ceremony and all that - and relate ANY of it to Christ. How can all THAT - the robes and strolling and order and propper and all that religion-stuff relate to the ministery of Christ Jesus. That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things. What am I missing?


I have always said....if THAT is poverty, ill take some please.

[glockmail]

Addressing cardinals in the frescoed Sistine Chapel the day after his election there, Jorge Bergoglio said the Church should be more focused on the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

"We can walk all we want, we can build many things, but if we don't proclaim Jesus Christ, something is wrong. We would become a compassionate NGO and not a Church which is the bride of Christ," he said, speaking in Italian without notes.
The first non-European pope in 1,300 years, Bergoglio's initial steps suggested he would bring a new style to the papacy, favoring humility and simplicity over pomp, grandeur and ambition among its top officials.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-pope-idUSBRE92D05P20130314

[avatar4321]

I've wondered about that. I have to ask, do the clergy still take vows of poverty? I only ask because I have a close friend who is a Catholic Priest. He is living alot nicer than I am. Personally, I dont have a problem when people live nicely, but sometimes I am asking myself, isnt he supposed to have vowed poverty?

I mean no offense to my Catholic friends here with this question. I just don't know it. If they aren't vowing poverty, I understand. But I thought they were. What exactly is poverty for priesthood standards anyway?

[KarlMarx]

You know the Catholic Church must be on the side of goodness and right (along with Evangelical Christians) when the Left aims all of its vitriol and hatred towards it.

Like Churchill said.. if you have enemies that means that somewhere along the line, you stood up for something.

[Kathianne]

I've wondered about that. I have to ask, do the clergy still take vows of poverty? I only ask because I have a close friend who is a Catholic Priest. He is living alot nicer than I am. Personally, I dont have a problem when people live nicely, but sometimes I am asking myself, isnt he supposed to have vowed poverty?

I mean no offense to my Catholic friends here with this question. I just don't know it. If they aren't vowing poverty, I understand. But I thought they were. What exactly is poverty for priesthood standards anyway?

Certain orders do, Franciscans I believe. Most do not take vow of poverty.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Certain orders do, Franciscans I believe. Most do not take vow of poverty.

I am not Catholic but I'll not criticize the Catholic church because it is the largest Christian church.. Has it perhaps gone astray a bit? MANY THINK YES IT HAS.. However that does not mean that it is not a Christian body. Christians must be more forgiving of perceived errors made by their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Catholic church believes in the TRINITY-- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That's enough for me to hold my tongue and let God be the judge. My advice is for others to follow that ...-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

I am not Catholic but I'll not criticize the Catholic church because it is the largest Christian church.. Has it perhaps gone astray a bit? MANY THINK YES IT HAS.. However that does not mean that it is not a Christian body. Christians must be more forgiving of perceived errors made by their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Catholic church believes in the TRINITY-- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That's enough for me to hold my tongue and let God be the judge. My advice is for others to follow that ...-Tyr

Not sure it really matters to God, but the Mormon church also believes in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as we call him.

[NightTrain]

I love the people of the catholic church. As an organization the Catholic Church has done more GOOD for this planet than perhaps any other organization...


Here's where I struggle - I'm unsure how to watch them; their ceremony and all that - and relate ANY of it to Christ. How can all THAT - the robes and strolling and order and propper and all that religion-stuff relate to the ministery of Christ Jesus. That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things. What am I missing?


I'm not Catholic either; their rites and traditions are very interesting to me because I recognize that they are very old. There is a lot of symbology that I am ignorant of that mean things - a dramatic sweep of the arm on a particular phrase, folding a blood-red silk cloth in a very particular fashion, then a white one, the candles, etc.

I was talking to my girlfriend about the Catholic rituals a few months ago, she was raised Episcopal and is familiar with much of it since the two branches are very closely related.

We were discussing why it is that it's always the Catholic or Episcopal church is approached for help with a demonic possession, instead of one of the many other branches of Christian faith. I've watched a lot of documentaries and read books about exorcism, and while some other branches were approached initially, almost invariably they are referred to the Catholics. Every one of the other ministers / priests / pastors of other branches that attempted exorcism failed, and the only thing I (as a non-practicing protestant) can see different is that the Catholics have a very strict ritual that they adhere to, and they take it very seriously indeed.

So my guess is that with the huge event of a new Pope, their age-old rituals carry power and meaning that isn't readily transparent to observers.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm not Catholic either; their rites and traditions are very interesting to me because I recognize that they are very old. There is a lot of symbology that I am ignorant of that mean things - a dramatic sweep of the arm on a particular phrase, folding a blood-red silk cloth in a very particular fashion, then a white one, the candles, etc.

I was talking to my girlfriend about the Catholic rituals a few months ago, she was raised Episcopal and is familiar with much of it since the two branches are very closely related.

We were discussing why it is that it's always the Catholic or Episcopal church is approached for help with a demonic possession, instead of one of the many other branches of Christian faith. I've watched a lot of documentaries and read books about exorcism, and while some other branches were approached initially, almost invariably they are referred to the Catholics. Every one of the other ministers / priests / pastors of other branches that attempted exorcism failed, and the only thing I (as a non-practicing protestant) can see different is that the Catholics have a very strict ritual that they adhere to, and they take it very seriously indeed.

So my guess is that with the huge event of a new Pope, their age-old rituals carry power and meaning that isn't readily transparent to observers.

Do you believe in that mumbo jumbo stuff some Catholics are alleged to do?

[NightTrain]

Do you believe in that mumbo jumbo stuff some Catholics are alleged to do?

Mumbo jumbo?

An exorcism is authorized by the Catholic Church after an investigation to rule out mental illness, drug use and other mundane causes. Most requests are dismissed.

[jafar00]

I love the people of the catholic church. As an organization the Catholic Church has done more GOOD for this planet than perhaps any other organization...

Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

[avatar4321]

Certain orders do, Franciscans I believe. Most do not take vow of poverty.

i did not know that.


Do you believe in that mumbo jumbo stuff some Catholics are alleged to do?

You mean the gifts of the Spirit? You really need to study the scriptures more.


Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

You mean the millions killed by Jihad? Because the crusades were a reaction to that invasion.

In other words, don't complain when your people get killed in a war you start.

At least they don't strap bombs to children... or behead people who disagree with them

Seriously people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[darin]

Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

Go fuck off in another thread - This thread is not for you.

[taft2012]

Here's where I struggle - I'm unsure how to watch them; their ceremony and all that - and relate ANY of it to Christ. How can all THAT - the robes and strolling and order and propper and all that religion-stuff relate to the ministery of Christ Jesus. That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things. What am I missing?

But you can picture Christ returning and hooping and hollering it up in a Baptist or Pentecostal church?

Or dancing with snakes and drinking arsenic?

Or being a televangelist in a suit?


I have always said....if THAT is poverty, ill take some please.

The Catholics have spent centuries spreading the word around the world. You will find impoverished churches in locales like Haiti, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. What you won't see in these places are pimped out ghetto preachers who cruise around Brooklyn in Rolls Royces, which I have seen. Or televangelists in mansions.

[darin]

But you can picture Christ returning and hooping and hollering it up in a Baptist or Pentecostal church?

Or dancing with snakes and drinking arsenic?

Or being a televangelist in a suit?



We can talk about all types of faiths and their traditions; but I'm refering to the opulence and ceremony - the look of 'royalty'.

[Voted4Reagan]

Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

we moved past the Crusades 600+ years ago.

It is Islam that still lives in that period.

and there are sex offenders in all religions Jafar, even in Islam.

How about all the women being raped by Islamic extremists in Africa?

How about the SS- Brigades formed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1940's that raped and murdered their way across Europe?

Do not hold Islam above reproach Jafar.

You will fail at it

[jimnyc]

Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

By that logic, the non-stop daily terrorism by a bunch of Muslims invalidates anything "good" that Islam does.

[glockmail]

...
So my guess is that with the huge event of a new Pope, their age-old rituals carry power and meaning that isn't readily transparent to observers.

As a practicing Catholic I can attest that the rituals can work. A very interesting read is Exodus 25-31, which describes exactly how the Tabernacle is to be constructed, its furnishings, consecration of priests and even how it is paid for and how much it costs.

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-pope-idUSBRE92D05P20130314


This is fantastic. Pope Francis will either accomplish a long-needed revival in the church, or someone will do away with him in short order. I will pray for the former.

[gabosaurus]

The Catholic Church has inner secrets that you don't want to know about.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/577856_10200419096256432_551520446_n.jpg

[tailfins]

As a practicing Catholic I can attest that the rituals can work. A very interesting read is Exodus 25-31, which describes exactly how the Tabernacle is to be constructed, its furnishings, consecration of priests and even how it is paid for and how much it costs.

All I can really say is that Fundamentalists may need Catholic help some time, so it's a good idea not to stir up anger. I wonder if "Don't ask, don't tell" will work. I hear some pretty hair curling stuff from the preacher about Catholicism, but understand there's a time and a place for it (Think Ecclesiastes 3).

[PostmodernProphet]

That is, I suppose, to ask - I simply cannot imagine Christ suddenly appearing as flesh and blood and getting into those things.

actually, I expect his reaction would be quite similar to the reaction he once had to the Sanhedrin......


As a practicing Catholic I can attest that the rituals can work. A very interesting read is Exodus 25-31, which describes exactly how the Tabernacle is to be constructed, its furnishings, consecration of priests and even how it is paid for and how much it costs.

isn't that the place Jesus said he would tear down and rebuild in three days?.........


But you can picture Christ returning and hooping and hollering it up in a Baptist or Pentecostal church?

if the Vatican is the Sanhedrin, the Fundamentalists can be the Pharisees.........


Do you believe in that mumbo jumbo stuff some Catholics are alleged to do?

/grins....did I just hear a Mormon complaining about Catholic "mumbo jumbo stuff"?...........


Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

thank god no children have ever been abused by a mullah....

{I have now attacked Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Mormans and Muslims.......did I miss anyone?......}

[aboutime]

thank god no children have ever been abused by a mullah....

{I have now attacked Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Mormans and Muslims.......did I miss anyone?......}


Only Yourself. And not one of us has any need to identify you. Common knowledge precedes.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

thank god no children have ever been abused by a mullah....

{I have now attacked Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Mormans and Muslims.......did I miss anyone?......}

Only the Great Turtle and my grandfather's faith in the "Happy Hunting Ground"...;)

Don't go there, the great 'Injun spirit Itchigummie has been known to return to earth simply to scalp such people for such careless insolence... :death:--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

thank god no children have ever been abused by a mullah....

{I have now attacked Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Mormans and Muslims.......did I miss anyone?......}

Atheists

[taft2012]

We can talk about all types of faiths and their traditions; but I'm refering to the opulence and ceremony - the look of 'royalty'.

How "royal" do Catholic clerics look during the Easter season when they are on their hands and knees washing the feet of congregants?

I've never seen Queen Elizabeth wash commoners' feet.

[PostmodernProphet]

Only Yourself. And not one of us has any need to identify you. Common knowledge precedes.....

I would love to hear where you believe I fall in the spectrum.....

here, I'll give you a clue....man, I love that article more everytime I read it.......
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=2


(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=2)

[tailfins]

But you can picture Christ returning and hooping and hollering it up in a Baptist or Pentecostal church?

Or dancing with snakes and drinking arsenic?

Or being a televangelist in a suit?

Old gospel Baptists don't "whoop and holler". You can hear a pin drop.

Can you picture THESE Baptists "whoop and hollerin'"? The below are German Baptists, but a Bible Baptist and other Fundamentalist would be just as conservative in worship:

Taking a photo illustrates they are not Amish nor Mennonite.

http://kweeklies.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2008/05/09/German-Baptist-6_t960.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

:laugh2::laugh2:
Atheists
I can't comment on how atheists think, because they don't.......


How "royal" do Catholic clerics look during the Easter season when they are on their hands and knees washing the feet of congregants?

I've never seen Queen Elizabeth wash commoners' feet.

do bishops still wear their red hats when they do that?........

[taft2012]

do bishops still wear their red hats when they do that?........

Here's the current Pope, then as a cardinal.

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/164430_10152668177640584_1981351321_n.jpg

Can we find any similar humbling postures demonstrated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

[PostmodernProphet]

Here's the current Pope, then as a cardinal.



is this typical?.....there have been a lot of comments about how this guy is different, rides the bus to work, etc........

/grins.....this one wore a red hat.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/cardinal-wuerl-washes-feet-faithful/

[taft2012]

is this typical?.....there have been a lot of comments about how this guy is different, rides the bus to work, etc........

/grins.....this one wore a red hat.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/cardinal-wuerl-washes-feet-faithful/

I don't think there's a rule a about it. Does washing feet, even with a skullcap on, still look royal to you? And anyway, how are skullcaps regal? You must *REALLY* hate Jews.


/grins.... so where's the pic of Jeremiah Wright washing feet?

[darin]

literally washing somebody's feet is sorta silly - and probably at odds with the illustration in the Bible.

Today's equivolent of washing somebody's feet is probably taking out their trash, buying their Latte, or shoveling their driveway. The point is more important than the act.

[taft2012]

literally washing somebody's feet is sorta silly - and probably at odds with the illustration in the Bible.

Today's equivolent of washing somebody's feet is probably taking out their trash, buying their Latte, or shoveling their driveway. The point is more important than the act.

I disagree, and nearly 2000 years of ecclesiastical review backs me up, and disagrees with you and your Monday thru Saturday roach exterminator and Sunday storefront church pastor.

However, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, I will accept photos of Reverend Wright taking out peoples' trash, buying their latte, or shoveling out their driveway.

I wait with great anticipation.

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-pope-idUSBRE92D05P20130314


If Pope Francis is true to his word in this article, then it will more true than ever that that which joins us, is far greater than that which separates us. I really wish Christians would keep that in mind when insulting each others' denominations.

[Abbey Marie]

I disagree, and nearly 2000 years of ecclesiastical review backs me up, and disagrees with you and your Monday thru Saturday roach exterminator and Sunday storefront church pastor.

However, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, I will accept photos of Reverend Wright taking out peoples' trash, buying their latte, or shoveling out their driveway.

I wait with great anticipation.


I actually know someone who is an exterminator, and preaches on Sundays. He also happens to be one of the most devout Christians I know, and a very good preacher.

[taft2012]

I actually know someone who is an exterminator, and preaches on Sundays. He also happens to be one of the most devout Christians I know, and a very good preacher.

I wouldn't dream of arguing otherwise.

Just as I am sure you wouldn't dream of arguing that his sermons have the historical insight and intimate knowledge of Christianity and its events that the Vatican does.

Protestantism unfortunately lives and dies with the published Bible. If God was dead, that would be a perfectly acceptable approach. But He lives.

[Abbey Marie]

I wouldn't dream of arguing otherwise.

Just as I am sure you wouldn't dream of arguing that his sermons have the historical insight and intimate knowledge of Christianity and its events that the Vatican does.

Protestantism unfortunately lives and dies with the published Bible. If God was dead, that would be a perfectly acceptable approach. But He lives.

Considering this is God's Word, there is no better guide to following Him. If you do not believe it is God's word, then you should not call yourself a Christian.

[Robert A Whit]

If Pope Francis is true to his word in this article, then it will more true than ever that that which joins us, is far greater than that which separates us. I really wish Christians would keep that in mind when insulting each others' denominations.

Wise words by you Abbey.

I have a few words that I hope also are called wise words.

Religions can unify. When they fight, they are not trying to unify. I do not accept that there are the Gods of Catholics, Gods of Mormons, Gods of Baptists, et. al.

The same God or Gods, (since it makes no sense for God to be party to restricting his type to but one, when even Jesus is proof he has more than one God,) created what we all enjoy.

Take my church for instance. We do not worship the Pope nor call him infallible. But it is my belief the man does holy work. so, why can't others grant our church president the same accord?

It is not atheists dividing religion, it is religion.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think there's a rule a about it. Does washing feet, even with a skullcap on, still look royal to you? And anyway, how are skullcaps regal? You must *REALLY* hate Jews.


/grins.... so where's the pic of Jeremiah Wright washing feet?

did you for some reason think I LIKED Jeremiah Wright?.....


your Monday thru Saturday roach exterminator and Sunday storefront church pastor.

how do you feel about tent makers?......

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

how do you feel about tent makers?......

I like Apostle Paul myself....;)
A man should ply his trade in my opinion....--Tyr


Wise words by you Abbey.

I have a few words that I hope also are called wise words.

Religions can unify. When they fight, they are not trying to unify. I do not accept that there are the Gods of Catholics, Gods of Mormons, Gods of Baptists, et. al.

The same God or Gods, (since it makes no sense for God to be party to restricting his type to but one, when even Jesus is proof he has more than one God,) created what we all enjoy.

Take my church for instance. We do not worship the Pope nor call him infallible. But it is my belief the man does holy work. so, why can't others grant our church president the same accord?

It is not atheists dividing religion, it is religion.

There is but one God, the father of Jesus Christ the Savior of the world.....That is the God of Abraham..
All others are false as is the main one called --Allah-- by it's cultified brainwashed members..-Tyr

[avatar4321]

act
/grins....did I just hear a Mormon complaining about Catholic "mumbo jumbo stuff"?...........


You have to remember he hasnt been going to church in a long time.


If Pope Francis is true to his word in this article, then it will more true than ever that that which joins us, is far greater than that which separates us. I really wish Christians would keep that in mind when insulting each others' denominations.

We should be uniting more. There is no point to insult one another's chosen faith.

[Robert A Whit]

There is but one God, the father of Jesus Christ the Savior of the world.....That is the God of Abraham..
All others are false as is the main one called --Allah-- by it's cultified brainwashed members..-Tyr

Actually, you admit to at least 2 GODs. If you are correct, Jesus is a false GOD.

I don't think that is correct. I think some confusion is over what GOD amounts to.

But back then, it was FALSE GODS that were not to be worshiped. We Mormons will not worship a false GOD of any sort. Allah only means GOD.

Jehovah Witness only call GOD Jehovah so to them, a lot of people get it wrong.

Notice many Christians allege even the Bible is to not be taken literally and is chock full of valuable lessons.

A reason for that idea in my opinion rests on the idea that things said in the Bible are in conflict.


You have to remember he hasnt been going to church in a long time.

His complaint was that someone complained about Catholic mumbo jumbo.

That is not me. I never spoke that way about Catholics.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, you admit to at least 2 GODs. If you are correct, Jesus is a false GOD.

I don't think that is correct. I think some confusion is over what GOD amounts to.

But back then, it was FALSE GODS that were not to be worshiped. We Mormons will not worship a false GOD of any sort. Allah only means GOD.

Jehovah Witness only call GOD Jehovah so to them, a lot of people get it wrong.

Notice many Christians allege even the Bible is to not be taken literally and is chock full of valuable lessons.

A reason for that idea in my opinion rests on the idea that things said in the Bible are in conflict.

The Trinity are the One and the Same , Robert. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only One God. Only one Father..

[Robert A Whit]

The Trinity are the One and the Same , Robert. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only One God. Only one Father..

I accept that is what you think.

Were this true, Jesus would not have talked to himself when on the cross. I believe GOD's GOD son is Jesus. I don't think GOD intended he to be in an exclusive club. Jesus proves this to me.

[darin]

I disagree, and nearly 2000 years of ecclesiastical review backs me up,

No you don't. You have nothing that backs up 'feet washing' as meaning anything other than cultural significance. Why did folks wash-feet back 2000 years ago? Because it was a meaningful action.

Today - especially for cameras - washing somebody's feet is pure showmanship. It's only done - in one's heart of hearts - as a way to show-off how 'holy' they are.

If you believe 'doing something' or 'following a rule' makes one Holy, I have x-many pages of New Testament telling - SCREAMING about our hearts; why we do something - as the central factor in our closeness to God.

You wash somebody's feet? You aren't doing them a lick of good. You humble yourself and care for another - doesn't matter WHAT the action is, but if your heart is humble and your intentions love-based - then and only then is whatever you are doing worth a shit.

That last bit? That is the essense of Christianity. That's loving God and your neighbor - which are the ONLY two things Christians really need to 'do'.



and disagrees with you and your Monday thru Saturday roach exterminator and Sunday storefront church pastor.

I have NO idea what that part means.

Want to know Christ? Stop being religious is probably the first step.

[tailfins]

No you don't. You have nothing that backs up 'feet washing' as meaning anything other than cultural significance. Why did folks wash-feet back 2000 years ago? Because it was a meaningful action.

Today - especially for cameras - washing somebody's feet is pure showmanship. It's only done - in one's heart of hearts - as a way to show-off how 'holy' they are.

If you believe 'doing something' or 'following a rule' makes one Holy, I have x-many pages of New Testament telling - SCREAMING about our hearts; why we do something - as the central factor in our closeness to God.

You wash somebody's feet? You aren't doing them a lick of good. You humble yourself and care for another - doesn't matter WHAT the action is, but if your heart is humble and your intentions love-based - then and only then is whatever you are doing worth a shit.

That last bit? That is the essense of Christianity. That's loving God and your neighbor - which are the ONLY two things Christians really need to 'do'.




I have NO idea what that part means.

Want to know Christ? Stop being religious is probably the first step.

Is it possible that it just doesn't matter? I know some youth group leaders that lead such things, others that think it's goofy. I'm not interested in it, but if others want to .... whatever floats their boat.

[RoccoR]

Robert A Whit, et al,

This is just one of those things that requires "faith."


I accept that is what you think.

Were this true, Jesus would not have talked to himself when on the cross. I believe GOD's GOD son is Jesus. I don't think GOD intended he to be in an exclusive club. Jesus proves this to me.

(COMMENT)

There is no real definition of a Supreme Being. So anytime you talk on a subject that has no definitions to the principle components (in this case, an entity with three partitions), there are no real logical assessment you can make. It is all faith. And faith doesn't require logic or tangibles, just manipulated dogma and rhetoric. Something for people to believe in.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Robert A Whit]

Robert A Whit, et al,

This is just one of those things that requires "faith."


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=624553#post624553)

I accept that is what you think.

Were this true, Jesus would not have talked to himself when on the cross. I believe GOD's GOD son is Jesus. I don't think GOD intended he to be in an exclusive club. Jesus proves this to me.



(COMMENT)

There is no real definition of a Supreme Being. So anytime you talk on a subject that has no definitions to the principle components (in this case, an entity with three partitions), there are no real logical assessment you can make. It is all faith. And faith doesn't require logic or tangibles, just manipulated dogma and rhetoric. Something for people to believe in.

Most Respectfully,
R

My comment did not attempt to define a Supreme Being so much as to use the Bible and it's words to pay attention to words reported to have been said by Jesus and the way he spoke to God. He spoke to God as his father.

It makes sense he and God were co equals. I am speaking of form though not authority nor power. I have no reason to posit that Jesus is not a God. And I suspect others who also did huge things in the name of God could also be GODs in their own right. Moses or Adam for instance.

[NightTrain]

Actually, you admit to at least 2 GODs. If you are correct, Jesus is a false GOD.

I don't think that is correct. I think some confusion is over what GOD amounts to.

But back then, it was FALSE GODS that were not to be worshiped. We Mormons will not worship a false GOD of any sort. Allah only means GOD.

Jehovah Witness only call GOD Jehovah so to them, a lot of people get it wrong.

Notice many Christians allege even the Bible is to not be taken literally and is chock full of valuable lessons.

A reason for that idea in my opinion rests on the idea that things said in the Bible are in conflict.



His complaint was that someone complained about Catholic mumbo jumbo.

That is not me. I never spoke that way about Catholics.

No, it was you that proclaimed Catholic Mumbo Jumbo.

You Mormons are pretty weird, and believe that about 100 years ago Jesus talked to your hooligan.

Mumbo Jumbo, lol.

[NightTrain]

Oh, and let's not forget that Mormons think it's A-OK to marry a bunch of 14 year old girls.

IMO, you Mormons are as twisted as Mohammed when it comes to polygamy and sexual child abuse.

[PostmodernProphet]

His complaint was that someone complained about Catholic mumbo jumbo.

That is not me. I never spoke that way about Catholics.

then I have bad news.....someone has been logging on with your account and posting under your name.....

[Robert A Whit]

then I have bad news.....someone has been logging on with your account and posting under your name.....

Ohhhh

I said alleged********

[red states rule]

I am sure there are many libs who are PO'd Obama was not elected Pope

I wonder if Obama is shocked he was not the guy selected?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz031513dAPR20130315124523.jpg

[taft2012]

No you don't. You have nothing that backs up 'feet washing' as meaning anything other than cultural significance. Why did folks wash-feet back 2000 years ago? Because it was a meaningful action.

Today - especially for cameras - washing somebody's feet is pure showmanship. It's only done - in one's heart of hearts - as a way to show-off how 'holy' they are.

So why doesn't Jimmy Swaggart humble himself and wash feet? It's an interesting theory.... Catholics began washing congregants' feet 2000 years ago because they knew that one day it would be an effective visual on mass media. :laugh:

It's a symbolic recreation of how Christ humbled himself. Just as very Catholic mass has a recreation of the last supper, as Christ directed; "Do this is in memory of me."

Does your church do that "in memory" of Him?


Considering this is God's Word, there is no better guide to following Him. If you do not believe it is God's word, then you should not call yourself a Christian.

Who said I don't believe in the Bible?:rolleyes:

The Bible is a good place to begin understand, but there is no place good to begin and end that understanding. If you live by the Bible then everything afterwards is inexplicable, suspect, and possible sacrilegious.

How then to explain the miracles at Lourdes? Fatima? If we lacked an international world-wide chruch to investigate verify/debunk miracles around the world, we'd be totally reliant on roach exterminators.

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

Yes, so they teach!


So why doesn't Jimmy Swaggart humble himself and wash feet? It's an interesting theory.... Catholics began washing congregants' feet 2000 years ago because they knew that one day it would be an effective visual on mass media. :laugh:

It's a symbolic recreation of how Christ humbled himself. Just as very Catholic mass has a recreation of the last supper, as Christ directed; "Do this is in memory of me."

Does your church do that "in memory" of Him?

(REFERENCE)



An action of Christ at the Last Supper (John 13:1-15), when he washed the feet of his disciples to teach them humility as a condition for the practice of charity. This was believed by some early Christians to have been a sacrament of the New Law. As part of the liturgy on Holy Thursday, following the Homily of the Mass, modern popes have performed this ceremony in St. Peter's, washing the feet of a certain number of poor men chosen to participate in the Maundy Thursday liturgy. The ritual is an optional part of the regular Holy Thursday liturgy.
SOURCE: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=37161

Most Respectfully,
R

[KarlMarx]

Tell that to the thousands of children abused by them and the cover up of that fact and to the millions killed by the crusades.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

As for children abused by Catholic priests, the Catholic Church has made great efforts to stop this stuff from happening. When you have a billion followers it stands to reason that you're going to have bad apples among them.

Now, what about Muslims and their conspiracy of silence with the Islamists who use violence as a means to get to their ends? What about the pervasive anti-semitism that Muslims seem to suffer from?

The crusades happened about 800 years ago not in the year 1215.

If I had the time and the inclination, I could come up with article after article that shows Muslim violence against Christians and other religions today.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

As for children abused by Catholic priests, the Catholic Church has made great efforts to stop this stuff from happening. When you have a billion followers it stands to reason that you're going to have bad apples among them.

Now, what about Muslims and their conspiracy of silence with the Islamists who use violence as a means to get to their ends? What about the pervasive anti-semitism that Muslims seem to suffer from?

The crusades happened about 800 years ago not in the year 1215.

If I had the time and the inclination, I could come up with article after article that shows Muslim violence against Christians and other religions today.

Allow me to provide that link as I have it handy.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Here is a sample...


<tbody>
Picture of the Week


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/shame-e-meets-w.jpg
East meets West in this shot from Egypt (taken shortly
before the Muslim Brotherhood's ascendency). Islamic values
in the formerly modern nation are slated to be enforced (http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/morality-police-getting-tasers/) by
'morality patrols' armed with with electric tasers and batons.








Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


<tbody>
2013.03.17 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - A 64-year-old Buddhist official is shot in the head by Muslim 'separatists'.


2013.03.16 (Basra, Iraq) - Jihadi car bombers take down ten Iraqis waiting at a bus station.


2013.03.16 (Landhi, Pakistan) - Sipah-e-Sahaba shoot a handicapped Shiite to death at a market.


2013.03.15 (Baiji, Iraq) - Nine Iraqis are massacred at point blank range by Mujahid gunmen.


2013.03.15 (Baqubah, Iraq) - al-Qaeda gunmen invade a home, tie a man and his three sons up and execute them in cold blood.


2013.03.15 (Ariel, Israel) - Two brutal rock attacks by Arabs leave a baby severely injured. Other victims include her two sisters, ages 6 and 4.

</tbody>


</tbody>

[darin]

So why doesn't Jimmy Swaggart humble himself and wash feet? It's an interesting theory.... Catholics began washing congregants' feet 2000 years ago because they knew that one day it would be an effective visual on mass media. :laugh:

Why would I care to speculate why Mr. Swaggart does anything or doesn't do anything. Religions of eons past do shit because they think it makes them holy, as if anyone would know God simply based upon what they do.



It's a symbolic recreation of how Christ humbled himself. Just as very Catholic mass has a recreation of the last supper, as Christ directed; "Do this is in memory of me."

Does your church do that "in memory" of Him?

Symbolic recreations are Religion, not Christianity - not Christ nor God. At no time does Christ mandate the rest of humanity do ANYTHING - he merely commanded people to not be assholes to God nor themselves, nor to Others. That's the central message of Christ. Habits and rituals and ceremony are only Man's attempt to prove-worthy, or are done of a sincere wish to please God.

You want to wash feet of the homeless? Go for it. More-meaningful would be 'maybe help FEED them'. ;) Just know its more important to really help or bless somebody than perform rituals for the sake, and wild hope, of having God think it's worth something or anything to Him.


Oh, and let's not forget that Mormons think it's A-OK to marry a bunch of 14 year old girls.

IMO, you Mormons are as twisted as Mohammed when it comes to polygamy and sexual child abuse.


*some* mormons. To lump honest people with pedophiles and creepy folk who pervert the name of their Faith is just as wrong as saying ALL muslims want to bomb our cities.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ohhhh

I said alleged********

sorry, you can't claim to be off the hook when you're already in the boat......

[glockmail]

...


isn't that the place Jesus said he would tear down and rebuild in three days?........... I believe he was referring to the management...

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe he was referring to the management...

uh.....no.......he was referring to the fact that after his death he would rise from the dead in three days.....and that thereafter he would be the focus of worship instead of the temple.......

[taft2012]

More-meaningful would be 'maybe help FEED them'..

Which the Catholics were doing as missionaries all over the world, coverting peoples to Christianity, while your English and German self-absorbed protestants were in Europe nailing their dopey little proclamations to church doors.

The only missionary work Protestants do nowdays is in places like the Philippines, South America, and Haiti, where they work to convert existing Christians away from Catholicism. There's no danger now, as there was in these places 400 years ago. So these little Christian dilletantes strut around in sanctimonious safety.

[avatar4321]

Want to know Christ? Stop being religious is probably the first step.

I humbly disagree. At least, I think we can get to know Christ better by being more religious. At least, religious as the Bible defines it:


Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Im sure you will probably agree with this though. So I doubt we are really disagreeing.


No, it was you that proclaimed Catholic Mumbo Jumbo.

You Mormons are pretty weird, and believe that about 100 years ago Jesus talked to your hooligan.

Mumbo Jumbo, lol.

Actually, we believe that Jesus still speaks to man. After all, if He isn't running His church, is it really His?


Which the Catholics were doing as missionaries all over the world, coverting peoples to Christianity, while your English and German self-absorbed protestants were in Europe nailing their dopey little proclamations to church doors.

The only missionary work Protestants do nowdays is in places like the Philippines, South America, and Haiti, where they work to convert existing Christians away from Catholicism. There's no danger now, as there was in these places 400 years ago. So these little Christian dilletantes strut around in sanctimonious safety.

Im sure those who publish "Voice of the Martyrs" Magazine would disagree with such a absurd claim. Im not even Protestant and I know they are doing a heck of alot more missionary work and risking their lives more than you are willing to acknowledge.

[red states rule]

Allow me to provide that link as I have it handy.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Here is a sample...


<tbody>
Picture of the Week



http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/shame-e-meets-w.jpg
East meets West in this shot from Egypt (taken shortly
before the Muslim Brotherhood's ascendency). Islamic values
in the formerly modern nation are slated to be enforced (http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/morality-police-getting-tasers/) by
'morality patrols' armed with with electric tasers and batons.








Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29



<tbody>
2013.03.17 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - A 64-year-old Buddhist official is shot in the head by Muslim 'separatists'.



2013.03.16 (Basra, Iraq) - Jihadi car bombers take down ten Iraqis waiting at a bus station.



2013.03.16 (Landhi, Pakistan) - Sipah-e-Sahaba shoot a handicapped Shiite to death at a market.



2013.03.15 (Baiji, Iraq) - Nine Iraqis are massacred at point blank range by Mujahid gunmen.



2013.03.15 (Baqubah, Iraq) - al-Qaeda gunmen invade a home, tie a man and his three sons up and execute them in cold blood.



2013.03.15 (Ariel, Israel) - Two brutal rock attacks by Arabs leave a baby severely injured. Other victims include her two sisters, ages 6 and 4.


</tbody>


</tbody>


Tyr the message that lady is sending on the beach is clear and no translator is needed.

[taft2012]

Im sure those who publish "Voice of the Martyrs" Magazine would disagree with such a absurd claim. Im not even Protestant and I know they are doing a heck of alot more missionary work and risking their lives more than you are willing to acknowledge.

Not even close to what was done years back.... coming ashore on Pacific islands riddled with cannibals. Approaching the natives in North and South America.

Going to Haiti today to convert Catholics to the "Church of Snake Handling and Arsenic Drinking" isn't nearly as dangerous as converting them to Christianity was hundreds of years ago.

[Abbey Marie]

Which the Catholics were doing as missionaries all over the world, coverting peoples to Christianity, while your English and German self-absorbed protestants were in Europe nailing their dopey little proclamations to church doors.

The only missionary work Protestants do nowdays is in places like the Philippines, South America, and Haiti, where they work to convert existing Christians away from Catholicism. There's no danger now, as there was in these places 400 years ago. So these little Christian dilletantes strut around in sanctimonious safety.


That is absolutely untrue.

[tailfins]

Which the Catholics were doing as missionaries all over the world, coverting peoples to Christianity, while your English and German self-absorbed protestants were in Europe nailing their dopey little proclamations to church doors.

The only missionary work Protestants do nowdays is in places like the Philippines, South America, and Haiti, where they work to convert existing Christians away from Catholicism. There's no danger now, as there was in these places 400 years ago. So these little Christian dilletantes strut around in sanctimonious safety.

You haven't visited an unassimilated Tupi tribe have you? Your very tone reeks of inquisition era snobbery.


Not even close to what was done years back.... coming ashore on Pacific islands riddled with cannibals. Approaching the natives in North and South America.

Going to Haiti today to convert Catholics to the "Church of Snake Handling and Arsenic Drinking" isn't nearly as dangerous as converting them to Christianity was hundreds of years ago.

The arsenic drinking is tempting God, a sin. Why is snake handling any different than washing feet? Snake handling illustrates faith while feet washing illustrates humility.

[revelarts]

Which the Catholics were doing as missionaries all over the world, coverting peoples to Christianity, while your English and German self-absorbed protestants were in Europe nailing their dopey little proclamations to church doors.
The only missionary work Protestants do nowdays is in places like the Philippines, South America, and Haiti, where they work to convert existing Christians away from Catholicism. There's no danger now, as there was in these places 400 years ago. So these little Christian dilletantes strut around in sanctimonious safety.

Not even close to what was done years back.... coming ashore on Pacific islands riddled with cannibals. Approaching the natives in North and South America.
Going to Haiti today to convert Catholics to the "Church of Snake Handling and Arsenic Drinking" isn't nearly as dangerous as converting them to Christianity was hundreds of years ago.

Not as dangerous as defying the Roman Church in Europe all those years ago either. a few spears and cannibals would be relief from the torture chambers and burning stakes of the inquisition the self-absorbed protestants endured, back in the good old days in Europe.

Look both Catholic and protestant missions had been heroic in many cases. The fact is that protestants missionary have consistently gone to unreached areas throughout history. China, Africa and areas in south American never reached by Catholics. many have died in the attempt. But when successful protestant missions have translated the Bible into the native languages of more peoples than any book in the world. Taft you just don't want to see it.
Some maravian protestants even sold themselves into slavery to preach to the slaves in South America when the plantation owners would not allow churches on their lands.
So Taft you simply have no idea of the history. And for recent news please look at the group Avatar mentioned the Voice of the martyrs and see what's going on.
http://www.persecution.com/

Concerning the bible. In the Good old days of the Church you talk about the RC Preist did not even allow the people to read it in the native language. if it weren't for the protestants you'd still be listening to Latin Only and believe that buying another Indulgence might get your grandma into heaven and that babies souls turn into fireflys. so you might want to give some credit where credit is due.
http://www.wycliffe.org/
Wycliffe a roman Catholic priest WANTED to and did translate the Bible into common language about 70 years before the reformation but he was fought all the way. And finally the RC church dug up his bones from his grave and burn them for his crime of translation. Most of the early reformation protestants were RC priest. So i don't no what your issue is.

Concerning Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Eddie Long etc i can name a Lot more than that. But I also could list a Lot of RC priest (some I couldn't becuase it's a RCC secret) every time i mention i the RC Church , If I wanted too.

Rev Wright? sooo he said "D@mn america" so he's a christian Heretic? I didn't know criticism of America was anti Christan or anti Catholic too. really?

"snake handling and arsenic drinking"
LOL yeah, that's what protestants are all about. I right after the Hymns in all the protestant chuches ive been to they pass the snakes with the collection plate. I'm disappointed when they run out of the GOOD Arsenic after communion. LOL.

"Exterminators" Well .. i... um... what are you talking about man?

Taft, kathianne says Protestants on this board are wrongly attacking Catholics as evil evil evil, but seems to me your doing that to protestants in a way that i've not seen anyone attack the RC church here.

It would be offensive if the attacks weren't so Archie Bunker like.

[revelarts]

Concerning Dancing and hollerin in church,
well it's not for everyone but..

Exodus
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

Samuel
4 Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, 15 while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

Psalm
3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.

Luke

37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:

38 “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19:36-38&version=KJV;NIV#fen-NIV-25770a)]

“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

31 Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”



Quiet solemnity and shouting both have a place, John the Baptist and the prophets where not Quiet parish priest who never raised there voices. And Jesus spoke to great multitudes at once. I'd gues he wan't hopping around like some preachers but. He didn't whisper.

[taft2012]

Taft, kathianne says Protestants on this board are wrongly attacking Catholics as evil evil evil, but seems to me your doing that to protestants in a way that i've not seen anyone attack the RC church here.


And if Kathianne is correct, why do you only step up to defend Protestantism and not Catholicism?

You've just exposed yourself as a Christian version of Jafar.

[darin]

Popular Christianity will not be fixed until people stop taking every account in the Bible as instructions for their behaviour today.

[tailfins]

Popular Christianity will not be fixed until people stop taking every account in the Bible as instructions for their behaviour today.

I've never heard of the Ten Suggestions. Please enlighten me.

[glockmail]

I have no doubt that the Lord works with protestant denominations. I know that He lives in the Catholic Church.

[darin]

I've never heard of the Ten Suggestions. Please enlighten me.

I don't follow jewish traditional law; the law has been fulfilled. The only commandents worth anything is Love God, and your Neighbor as yourself.

Just plain loonacy or ego that drives people to assume every command issued to every person in every story in the bible applies universally. The bible is not adequate in helping people know God. Knowing the bible, and following the precious rules contained therein only serve to offer a glimpse of God. It's being 'book smart' that will destroy a lot of people.

God much prefers heart-smart folks.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have no doubt that the Lord works with protestant denominations. I know that He lives in the Catholic Church.

/grins....


The only commandents worth anything is Love God, and your Neighbor as yourself.

uh, you realize Jesus said that was a summary of the Ten Commandments, right?......

[Abbey Marie]

uh, you realize Jesus said that was a summary of the Ten Commandments, right?......

One could say that it would be impossible to truly love God and others, while breaking any of the Commandments.

[darin]

uh, you realize Jesus said that was a summary of the Ten Commandments, right?......

The point is, What Jesus 'commanded' has NOTHING To do with doing or not-doing. Love cannot be faked, or done out of tradition.

If somebody does not feel love for God, no matter if they NEVER break a single commandment otherwise, their live is lived in vein.

And again - Christ fulfilled - or made full/complete/finished - the "Law of Moses".

The things there in the 10 commandments are awesome and wonderful - yet accomplishing the list speaks nothing to the person's knowing Christ.

edit - thus, the 10 commandments, or keeping of the same, ultimately means very little in terms of 'Look God, I kept your commandments!' - if you have not Love, you have nothing.

Further - Those never knowing the Bible, yet knowing God present a challenge to those who live and die by what they THINK the bible tells them to do. Those unschooled in modern christianity, thus, are doomed to hell - they must be. OR....OR God can absolutely know and commune with anyone he chooses, regardless of, or in absence of a white man preaching from his Bible.

[revelarts]

And if Kathianne is correct, why do you only step up to defend Protestantism and not Catholicism?

You've just exposed yourself as a Christian version of Jafar.

Frankly I think i've missed threads that do what Kathianne says that has gone on.
All i've seen is people talking about the the pedophile RC priest whenever news about Rome comes up. And the fact that's it been covered up and is still being covered up preist protected and transfers approved to new victims. the Fact that the outgoing head of the Church was a party to the cover ups and transfers has made it so that whenever many people see him they immediately think of pedophile priest. Every time Rome is in the news it's what comes up as top of conversation.

I don't condemn the whole church for that or accuse every priest but If thats what Kathianne is talking about. Sorry that can't be helped but so much until the mess is cleared. A new Pope without the taint is a great start. Any cardinals involved resigning would be good to. turning over records to parsihes and the authorities would be a righteous move. Among others.

But I'm not sure what kathianne read that upset her so much.

[PostmodernProphet]

And again - Christ fulfilled - or made full/complete/finished - the "Law of Moses".

dude....if you're going to quote it, quote the whole thing....


17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

it's the exact opposite of "they aren't worth anything"......

[Kathianne]

Frankly I think i've missed threads that do what Kathianne says that has gone on.
All i've seen is people talking about the the pedophile RC priest whenever news about Rome comes up. And the fact that's it been covered up and is still being covered up preist protected and transfers approved to new victims. the Fact that the outgoing head of the Church was a party to the cover ups and transfers has made it so that whenever many people see him they immediately think of pedophile priest. Every time Rome is in the news it's what comes up as top of conversation.

I don't condemn the whole church for that or accuse every priest but If thats what Kathianne is talking about. Sorry that can't be helped but so much until the mess is cleared. A new Pope without the taint is a great start. Any cardinals involved resigning would be good to. turning over records to parsihes and the authorities would be a righteous move. Among others.

But I'm not sure what kathianne read that upset her so much.

It was only Robert bringing me up recently for opinions I didn't post, well we all 'know' Robert. Now it's spreading and with this one I'll stand and say I'm no theologian, indeed, at present time I'm not that great of a Christian, though I know what that entails to some measure.

I don't care for anyone trying to say what they think I 'mean,' in a generalized manner.

[aboutime]

It was only Robert bringing me up recently for opinions I didn't post, well we all 'know' Robert. Now it's spreading and with this one I'll stand and say I'm no theologian, indeed, at present time I'm not that great of a Christian, though I know what that entails to some measure.

I don't care for anyone trying to say what they think I 'mean,' in a generalized manner.


Kathianne. If you don't mind a little levity here. Imagine how I, and my wife...both Presbyterian, are handling our two, grown son's who married Good Catholic ladies. And, before their weddings. Converted to Catholic.
Then two years later. Our first, second, third, fourth, and fifth grandchildren were born into the Catholic faith over ten years.

And people on this forum are having problems, wondering whether they would still support a child who might become gay, or a Catholic??

How terrible, and miserable some people INSIST their life is...just to feel sorry for themselves????

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. If you don't mind a little levity here. Imagine how I, and my wife...both Presbyterian, are handling our two, grown son's who married Good Catholic ladies. And, before their weddings. Converted to Catholic.
Then two years later. Our first, second, third, fourth, and fifth grandchildren were born into the Catholic faith over ten years.

And people on this forum are having problems, wondering whether they would still support a child who might become gay, or a Catholic??

How terrible, and miserable some people INSIST their life is...just to feel sorry for themselves????

You hit a 'tender point' for me, regarding the 'Presbyterian venue.'

My best friend til this day was one I made when I was 3. Lots of family problems between our families, religion and politics. Her grandfather gave the land for the Presbyterian Church in our city, then he and his son, (my friend's father), constructed the church. That happened before my friend or I were born, though not by much. When my friend and I were 7 and 8, she invited me to 'Vacation Bible School' at said church. When I was 'outed' at Catholic, inadvertently, and condemned in view of all the kids and teachers, I cried.

So did my friend. Her parents left that church, though they did have issues with Catholics, they felt their church was 'not Christian.' I guess how some of us feel when hearing about the 'protection' pedophile priests received. We don't agree, indeed, we condemn, as we've been doing for over a decade.

[avatar4321]

So did my friend. Her parents left that church, though they did have issues with Catholics, they felt their church was 'not Christian.' I guess how some of us feel when hearing about the 'protection' pedophile priests received. We don't agree, indeed, we condemn, as we've been doing for over a decade.

Unfortunately, there are alot of people who want to ignore the fact that a majority of the Catholic Church has indeed condemned the protection of pedophile priests for a long time. I tend to think that those are the ones who want to look like they care about the children, but care more about using it as an issue to attack Catholics for whatever reason they have to do so.

I see no reason to attack anyone's faith. I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in to encourage them to follow their faith and improve their life because of it.

We need to stop fighting within denominations. If I cannot convince someone my way is better, my job as a disciple of Jesus Christ is to lift them their own way.

[darin]

dude....if you're going to quote it, quote the whole thing....



it's the exact opposite of "they aren't worth anything"......

...and if you quote me quote the whole thing.

Merely keeping the 10 commandments doesn't amount to shit in terms of pleasing God. Because we are not saved nor condemned by anything we DO - we are both of those things based on who we are, as people. Our hearts. Christ fullfilled the law. Every bit has now been accomplished. We live under Grace. Yet many christians FEAR that idea because it means all their 'Being Holy and shit' is for one thing; for Ego.

[revelarts]

It was only Robert bringing me up recently for opinions I didn't post, well we all 'know' Robert. Now it's spreading and with this one I'll stand and say I'm no theologian, indeed, at present time I'm not that great of a Christian, though I know what that entails to some measure.

I don't care for anyone trying to say what they think I 'mean,' in a generalized manner.



Unfortunately, there are alot of people who want to ignore the fact that a majority of the Catholic Church has indeed condemned the protection of pedophile priests for a long time. I tend to think that those are the ones who want to look like they care about the children, but care more about using it as an issue to attack Catholics for whatever reason they have to do so.

I see no reason to attack anyone's faith. I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in to encourage them to follow their faith and improve their life because of it.

We need to stop fighting within denominations. If I cannot convince someone my way is better, my job as a disciple of Jesus Christ is to lift them their own way.

Some people do generalize, and some use any excuse to attack some groups,
but on the other hand some people assume any condemnation is a generalization and a cover for a general attack and "real" motives.

it's one of the reasons I -used to- make really long post.
To add caveats and assurances that just because i condemn this part here doesn't mean i think the another part or the whole is all bad.

Some people have a hard time making that distinction.
We often attach our identities and emotions to political views/parties and religious views/groups and are hard pressed to take much criticism without seeing the critisier as an enemy or a hater.

some people are blinded by there attachments to the point where well

If a person says 'I like dogs' or "I hate the way Cats do x." the a cat lovers starts a rant defending the all the virtues of Cats and finally says '"are you saying you HATE CATS!?!? and want all cats to DIE?!! and careing for a cat is wrong?!! is that what you Reeeeallly mean?!"
whoah ho ... No ones trying to ban all cats or says people shouldn't love cats. not what's intended.
it's just somethings about cats are just wrong :poke:.

[taft2012]

Frankly I think i've missed threads that do what Kathianne says that has gone on.

Well, that's rather convenient.

Sort of like when Jafar and Rocco only see Israel retaliate and plead ignorance of the original incident that Israel was retaliating for.

[revelarts]

Well, that's rather convenient.

Sort of like when Jafar and Rocco only see Israel retaliate and plead ignorance of the original incident that Israel was retaliating for.

You can smell just my guilt across the interwebs can't you.
Why did i know you were going to assume the worse?

[PostmodernProphet]

Merely keeping the 10 commandments doesn't amount to shit in terms of pleasing God.

never said they did, but they still serve an important purpose as a guide for moral living.....

[darin]

never said they did, but they still serve an important purpose as a guide for moral living.....

and I contend anyone needing a how-to for morality has heart-issues no amount of adherence can solve.

[revelarts]

and I contend anyone needing a how-to for morality has heart-issues no amount of adherence can solve.

as you implied, Jesus die for everyone because NO one Can keep the commandments. and our hearts are so corrupt that we ALL have "heart-issues" so we do need a rule book and daily nudges and pointers in the right path.
Follow you heart is never enough, our hearts are all bent to go off course, some more than others.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't follow jewish traditional law; the law has been fulfilled. The only commandents worth anything is Love God, and your Neighbor as yourself.

Just plain loonacy or ego that drives people to assume every command issued to every person in every story in the bible applies universally. The bible is not adequate in helping people know God. Knowing the bible, and following the precious rules contained therein only serve to offer a glimpse of God. It's being 'book smart' that will destroy a lot of people.

God much prefers heart-smart folks.

If the others were not worth anything, then we'd only have those. Jesus didn't say these were the only important ones. He said they were the MOST important. Slight difference.

[revelarts]

Follow your heart

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FvJj7SN9EWI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nXFFNdtieVc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Me and Mrs. Jones, we got a thing going on,
We both know that it's wrong
But it's much too strong to let it cool down now.
We meet ev'ry day at the same cafe,
Six-thirty I know she'll be there,
Holding hands, making all kinds of plans
While the jukebox plays our favorite song
Me and Mrs., Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Jones, Mrs. JoOOOOnes,...
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EFIOYizNBhc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[darin]

as you implied, Jesus die for everyone because NO one Can keep the commandments. and our hearts are so corrupt that we ALL have "heart-issues" so we do need a rule book and daily nudges and pointers in the right path.
Follow you heart is never enough, our hearts are all bent to go off course, some more than others.

nobody can successfully follow Christ based on pure instruction. None of the 'do this' or 'do that' (ANY commandments) will lead anyone to understand God.

My heart is not bent to go off course. My heart is bent towards God - and no instruction given as part of a since-fulfilled law will serve me.

Nobody, by there actions (adherence to The Law or otherwise) will know God.

That is to say, what we do is immesurably-less-important than who we are. Because what we do IS who we are. We don't first obey The Law, then learn to Love God and others. That's useless adheration to a Law (a law under which we have no obligation I might add). First love God and others. Don't worry too much about anything else because if we Love God and others, we won't need any nudging or pointers. When we love God and others, our actions will betray the love within.

Thus, I rightly say, the Ten Commandments do not matter to those who Love God. And because God loves us, the law he gave to Moses has been fulfilled. We now covenant with God based on - and purely upon - his GRACE. And grace makes life - spiritual and otherwise - unfair.

[revelarts]

nobody can successfully follow Christ based on pure instruction. None of the 'do this' or 'do that' (ANY commandments) will lead anyone to understand God.

My heart is not bent to go off course. My heart is bent towards God - and no instruction given as part of a since-fulfilled law will serve me.

Nobody, by there actions (adherence to The Law or otherwise) will know God.

That is to say, what we do is immesurably-less-important than who we are. Because what we do IS who we are. We don't first obey The Law, then learn to Love God and others. That's useless adheration to a Law (a law under which we have no obligation I might add). First love God and others. Don't worry too much about anything else because if we Love God and others, we won't need any nudging or pointers. When we love God and others, our actions will betray the love within.

Thus, I rightly say, the Ten Commandments do not matter to those who Love God. And because God loves us, the law he gave to Moses has been fulfilled. We now covenant with God based on - and purely upon - his GRACE. And grace makes life - spiritual and otherwise - unfair.


Amen for Grace
but the Heart well...
Jerimiah17:
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[darin]

Amen for Grace
but the Heart well...
Jerimiah17:
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

My heart is not. Jeremiah was speaking of Judah's sin; how they turned from God, and relating God's view on their wickedness. Removing scripture from context (and applying it to every circumstance) betrays the very intent of the author/speaker.

[revelarts]

My heart is not. Jeremiah was speaking of Judah's sin; how they turned from God, and relating God's view on their wickedness. Removing scripture from context (and applying it to every circumstance) betrays the very intent of the author/speaker.

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;
10 as it is written, There are none righteous, no, not one;
11 There are none that understand, There is none that seek after God;


Genesis 8
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.



I think that might cover us to DMP.

[darin]

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;
10 as it is written, There are none righteous, no, not one;
11 There are none that understand, There is none that seek after God;





To whom was that written in Romans, friend? What's the entire context? If none are really righteous, then nobody's prayers avail much, do they? Praying becomes pointless. Everyone has a selfish, evil heart until they Love God. Until they know God's love. NOT 'until they start obeying The Law of Moses'.



Genesis 8
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.



I think that might cover us to DMP.

God is very clear when he's talking about 'For all mankind'. People get into the habit of claiming every promise or curse, depending on what they want.

[revelarts]

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;
10 as it is written, There are none righteous, no, not one;
11 There are none that understand, There is none that seek after God;

Genesis 8
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

I think that might cover us to DMP.


To whom was that written in Romans, friend? What's the entire context?
everyone in the world. "all" Jews and gentiles.



If none are really righteous, then nobody's prayers avail much, do they? Praying becomes pointless.


so only the righteous can pray? you mean like the thief on the cross? and the women caught in adulteer?
What are you saying? I thought prayers are from fallen people, who are covered by the righteousness of Christ, to a Holy God. Like you were talking about via Grace eariler right?





God is very clear when he's talking about 'For all mankind'. People get into the habit of claiming every promise or curse, depending on what they want.

But in this particular case it does In fact seem to apply to all of mankind. the Flood was a curse to All of mankind and this is God saying he will not curse all of mankind like this again eventhough all of mankind thoughts are evil from their youth.
At least that seems to be an honest understanding of whats siad to me.

I guess i have to wonder DMP, do you ever sin?
or do you always do exactly what God wants you to do and say and think and feel with the love of God pouring out without any taint of corruption?

Romans 17 Paul talks about sin dwelling in Him, do you have that sometimes? or was that just for Paul and the rest of us?
c'mon man. That's what grace is for.

[darin]

everyone in the world. "all" Jews and gentiles.


Negative. Nobody wrote the bible thinking it was for the rest of mankind, forever.



so only the righteous can pray? you mean like the thief on the cross? and the women caught in adulteer?
What are you saying? I thought prayers are from fallen people, who are covered by the righteousness of Christ, to a Holy God. Like you were talking about via Grace eariler right?

You tell me - you quoted 'none are righteous' - and I quoted 'the prayers of a righteous man avail much'.

On the surface they contradict - when one takes into account the context, they make sense.



But in this particular case it does In fact seem to apply to all of mankind. the Flood was a curse to All of mankind and this is God saying he will not curse all of mankind like this again eventhough all of mankind thoughts are evil from their youth.
At least that seems to be an honest understanding of whats siad to me.

I guess i have to wonder DMP, do you ever sin?
or do you always do exactly what God wants you to do and say and think and feel with the love of God pouring out without any taint of corruption?

Romans 17 Paul talks about sin dwelling in Him, do you have that sometimes? or was that just for Paul and the rest of us?
c'mon man. That's what grace is for.

My sins are forgiven - as are yours. Things that are forgiven no longer remain. All sin is paid-for. I don't worry about "If I sinned" - I only worry about "where is my heart-where is my love?" Loving God, I am no longer bound by sin, much as Paul was not, nor others from history. Having my sin paid-for; having served as complete substitutional attonement, Christ freed mankind to live a life no longer bound by sin, unless they choose to be bound by sin. Even then, I doubt there is any worse 'punishment' for a sinful life than settling for less than God wants for us. Sometimes 'less than' is A LOT than, granted.

[PostmodernProphet]

and I contend anyone needing a how-to for morality has heart-issues no amount of adherence can solve.

well, that narrows it down to everyone in the world.....

[revelarts]

My sins are forgiven - as are yours. Things that are forgiven no longer remain. All sin is paid-for. I don't worry about "If I sinned" - I only worry about "where is my heart-where is my love?" Loving God, I am no longer bound by sin, much as Paul was not, nor others from history. Having my sin paid-for; having served as complete substitutional attonement, Christ freed mankind to live a life no longer bound by sin, unless they choose to be bound by sin. Even then, I doubt there is any worse 'punishment' for a sinful life than settling for less than God wants for us. Sometimes 'less than' is A LOT than, granted.

"...Loving God, I am no longer bound by sin..."
Ok i agree, but -no longer bound by or condemned for- are one thing
and -no longer sinning- is another, it seems to me.

I guess we'll disagree here but i'll leave with this last Comment from Jesus when a rich young man came to him and said
“Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him,
“Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; ..."

[darin]

"...Loving God, I am no longer bound by sin..."
Ok i agree, but -no longer bound by or condemned for- are one thing
and -no longer sinning- is another, it seems to me.

I guess we'll disagree here but i'll leave with this last Comment from Jesus when a rich young man came to him and said
“Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him,
“Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; ..."

...but God is Eternal. Any 'sin' has already been forgiven and forgotten by Him.

[aboutime]

Amazing thread here. Never have I ever seen so many self-proclaimed authorities come together to impress each other.

Would someone who has posted here on this topic please disclose which Seminary, or Vatican training gives you the authority to determine, and judge the beliefs, and faith of other human beings you claim to be so learned, and educated about?????

I know this is a forum. But all of you should just READ, and LISTEN to yourselves.

What a shame.

[jimnyc]

Amazing thread here. Never have I ever seen so many self-proclaimed authorities come together to impress each other.

Would someone who has posted here on this topic please disclose which Seminary, or Vatican training gives you the authority to determine, and judge the beliefs, and faith of other human beings you claim to be so learned, and educated about?????

I know this is a forum. But all of you should just READ, and LISTEN to yourselves.

What a shame.

Well, it is a debate site. We pick apart politicians and beliefs in that category as well. I know if I voice my opinion, it's just that, my opinion, and shouldn't be mistaken for an authority on a subject.

[PostmodernProphet]

Would someone who has posted here on this topic please disclose which Seminary, or Vatican training gives you the authority to determine, and judge the beliefs, and faith of other human beings you claim to be so learned, and educated about?????
well, I do have a Masters in Theology, but I haven't questioned anyone's belief or faith, I just pointed at the errors in their exegesis......

[Robert A Whit]

well, I do have a Masters in Theology, but I haven't questioned anyone's belief or faith, I just pointed at the errors in their exegesis......

Impressive. I knew I was smart to not try to get into a verse war with you. I passed when you wanted me to disclose gospels that contradict.

Without looking up the 4 gospels and studying them again, some of the discrepancy concerns the various accounts of Jesus on the Cross. I realize that the authors of the gospels memories were normally not perfect, but when putting on paper what happened in the most significant event of that era and probably all eras, one would think the 4 accounts would be perfect. If you are as you say, and I don't claim otherwise, surely you know of the discrepancies in the gospels? I would think you could rattle them off faster than I can.

[aboutime]

well, I do have a Masters in Theology, but I haven't questioned anyone's belief or faith, I just pointed at the errors in their exegesis......

Thanks for answering my question. See how easy it is when it happens?

[Robert A Whit]

I don't know about Avatar who like me is a Mormon, but I have attended some of the churches that I believe are called Christian churches by pretty much any of you. At least those churches were teaching just what some of you guys claim is correct and they did not like Mormons.

I was with my then lady friend and going to a church she picked out and liked the group going as well as the pastor who was teaching us from the Bible. (in Fremont, CA) (small close knit non denomination)

I got very nervous the day he ran down the Mormon church and called my church a cult.

So, been there, done it and heard it all. That is not, by far, the only non Mormon church I have gone to. One in Manteca, CA (substantial size with lots of entertainment; band, singers) and there I can't recall my church being run down but I can't recall them talking about Mormons anyway.

My point is this.

When some of you talk, you talk to the forum as if, since you are the Bible experts, we mere mortals who can't quote each verse of the Bible must be some pretty dumb posters.

And if we don't believe precisely what you do, we will as one poster said, who then whined over you guys being experts, burn in some lake of fire. I don't recall that being found in the NT. The other churches I attended I can't recall them talking that way either.

All I know is that I believe in GOD. Being a Mormon, the church realizes that GOD is not alone. GOD has many around him (Moses reports in Genesis that GOD created men in GODs image) so I don't see why in Heaven, GOD can't have plenty of GODS all over the place.

We worship Jesus who is not on Earth. Some allege Jesus was GOD. Well, that means GOD can do what GOD wants to do. If GOD wanted to be here today, GOD can. So, you would see a human.
A human GOD.

I don't get the arguing over this matter. I can't get into a verse fight.

Some of you can quote many verses. I just know what I believe and can reason out.

I think the Mormon teachings make the most sense.

I can't recall my church discussing this burning hell or lake of fire.

GOD can deal with we mortals as GOD sees fit. I honor GOD and Jesus.

I nor Avatar have told you guys you will burn in hell. I don't understand how decent people can put down on this forum we will go to this burning hell because you think you know something different? Who put you in charge of the gates of hell?

Who handed you the authority to call my church a cult?

Did GOD or Jesus tell you we are a cult? I don't think so.

You are clueless about our church. This church can also become your church. But I don't think if you don't join my church that you end up in hell. I may suspect your church is a cult but I don't believe GOD or Jesus put me in charge of making that decision about your church.

I have no more rights than you have.

Some of you attack Catholics. I don't get that either. Some of you attack any church that you don't happen to belong to.

This is awful.

I don't understand it at all. I am pleased I am loyal to the LDS church members and GOD and Jesus. Bear in mind, this in no way puts me above any of you. I don't accept that any of you are above me either.

As I related, going to other churches has not harmed me that I am aware of. I think that people going to church tend to be kinder people for the most part.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't know about Avatar who like me is a Mormon, but I have attended some of the churches that I believe are called Christian churches by pretty much any of you. At least those churches were teaching just what some of you guys claim is correct and they did not like Mormons.

I was with my then lady friend and going to a church she picked out and liked the group going as well as the pastor who was teaching us from the Bible. (in Fremont, CA) (small close knit non denomination)

I got very nervous the day he ran down the Mormon church and called my church a cult.

So, been there, done it and heard it all. That is not, by far, the only non Mormon church I have gone to. One in Manteca, CA (substantial size with lots of entertainment; band, singers) and there I can't recall my church being run down but I can't recall them talking about Mormons anyway.

My point is this.

When some of you talk, you talk to the forum as if, since you are the Bible experts, we mere mortals who can't quote each verse of the Bible must be some pretty dumb posters.

And if we don't believe precisely what you do, we will as one poster said, who then whined over you guys being experts, burn in some lake of fire. I don't recall that being found in the NT. The other churches I attended I can't recall them talking that way either.

All I know is that I believe in GOD. Being a Mormon, the church realizes that GOD is not alone. GOD has many around him (Moses reports in Genesis that GOD created men in GODs image) so I don't see why in Heaven, GOD can't have plenty of GODS all over the place.

We worship Jesus who is not on Earth. Some allege Jesus was GOD. Well, that means GOD can do what GOD wants to do. If GOD wanted to be here today, GOD can. So, you would see a human.
A human GOD.

I don't get the arguing over this matter. I can't get into a verse fight.

Some of you can quote many verses. I just know what I believe and can reason out.

I think the Mormon teachings make the most sense.

I can't recall my church discussing this burning hell or lake of fire.

GOD can deal with we mortals as GOD sees fit. I honor GOD and Jesus.

I nor Avatar have told you guys you will burn in hell. I don't understand how decent people can put down on this forum we will go to this burning hell because you think you know something different? Who put you in charge of the gates of hell?

Who handed you the authority to call my church a cult?

Did GOD or Jesus tell you we are a cult? I don't think so.

You are clueless about our church. This church can also become your church. But I don't think if you don't join my church that you end up in hell. I may suspect your church is a cult but I don't believe GOD or Jesus put me in charge of making that decision about your church.

I have no more rights than you have.

Some of you attack Catholics. I don't get that either. Some of you attack any church that you don't happen to belong to.

This is awful.

I don't understand it at all. I am pleased I am loyal to the LDS church members and GOD and Jesus. Bear in mind, this in no way puts me above any of you. I don't accept that any of you are above me either.

As I related, going to other churches has not harmed me that I am aware of. I think that people going to church tend to be kinder people for the most part.

[avatar4321]

Amazing thread here. Never have I ever seen so many self-proclaimed authorities come together to impress each other.

Would someone who has posted here on this topic please disclose which Seminary, or Vatican training gives you the authority to determine, and judge the beliefs, and faith of other human beings you claim to be so learned, and educated about?????

I know this is a forum. But all of you should just READ, and LISTEN to yourselves.

What a shame.

I was unaware we were trying to impress one another. I didn't realize we needed to. I already respect all of your quite well. I consider you friends. I feel no reason to impress you about anything.

What I thought we were doing is having a discussion on the scriptures, Catholics & various others. And not shocking, we disagree in some areas. I dont see a problem with that.

And since when do I need Seminary or Vatican training to read the scriptures? That's the beauty of the Gospel. We don't need special training. We can experience God for ourselves. When Christ walked on the earth, He didn't call those who were trained in the seminary or vatican of the day. He called lowly fisherman to preach His Gospel and to be witnesses of His Atoning sacrifice and Resurrection.

We are all entitled to read the scriptures and recieve revelation for our calling and stewardship. That's what makes the Gospel so amazing.

[Robert A Whit]

I was unaware we were trying to impress one another. I didn't realize we needed to. I already respect all of your quite well. I consider you friends. I feel no reason to impress you about anything.

What I thought we were doing is having a discussion on the scriptures, Catholics & various others. And not shocking, we disagree in some areas. I dont see a problem with that.

And since when do I need Seminary or Vatican training to read the scriptures? That's the beauty of the Gospel. We don't need special training. We can experience God for ourselves. When Christ walked on the earth, He didn't call those who were trained in the seminary or vatican of the day. He called lowly fisherman to preach His Gospel and to be witnesses of His Atoning sacrifice and Resurrection.

We are all entitled to read the scriptures and recieve revelation for our calling and stewardship. That's what makes the Gospel so amazing.

Well said.

Apparently there is some deep seated resentment that some of us offer our own views. I feel bad for those afflicted posters.

[avatar4321]

I would also say that if we waited until we were authorities before we could say anything about a subject, we would be very silent as people. It's by communicating with on another that we learn.

[Robert A Whit]

I would also say that if we waited until we were authorities before we could say anything about a subject, we would be very silent as people. It's by communicating with on another that we learn.

Right. I recall early in high school physics that near the end of the class, the teacher put up a problem. We had not been taught about buoyancy to that point.

Problem for the class to leave for the day was to explain what it is and how it is caused.

Well, a room of puzzled students were sitting around wondering if he would keep us past the bell.

Well, I solved the problem and explained it to him and the class. And we got let go. But had we had to wait to be first taught, we might still be there for all i know.

[avatar4321]

Right. I recall early in high school physics that near the end of the class, the teacher put up a problem. We had not been taught about buoyancy to that point.

Problem for the class to leave for the day was to explain what it is and how it is caused.

Well, a room of puzzled students were sitting around wondering if he would keep us past the bell.

Well, I solved the problem and explained it to him and the class. And we got let go. But had we had to wait to be first taught, we might still be there for all i know.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem nowadays. We think we are entitled to being taught instead of going out to learn for ourselves. I think this is part of the problem with the public education system. It, unfortunately, tends to create a culture where we come to assume that unless we are in school we cant learn anything. I dont subscribe to that doctrine. And I know many would join me. There are just way too many that do. But then that's another topic altogether.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625468#post625468)
Right. I recall early in high school physics that near the end of the class, the teacher put up a problem. We had not been taught about buoyancy to that point.

Problem for the class to leave for the day was to explain what it is and how it is caused.

Well, a room of puzzled students were sitting around wondering if he would keep us past the bell.

Well, I solved the problem and explained it to him and the class. And we got let go. But had we had to wait to be first taught, we might still be there for all I know.



Unfortunately, this is a common problem nowadays. We think we are entitled to being taught instead of going out to learn for ourselves. I think this is part of the problem with the public education system. It, unfortunately, tends to create a culture where we come to assume that unless we are in school we cant learn anything. I dont subscribe to that doctrine. And I know many would join me. There are just way too many that do. But then that's another topic altogether.

I agree with your statements.

In this particular case, that is the only time I recall the teacher laying it out that way. Normally he first taught and then tested.

[revelarts]

credentials? ... i don't have no credentials ....i don't need no stinkin credentials!

-cough- no i do not have ANY formal training at all. zero.
just read some books here and there and listened to a quite a few bible teachers and a handful seminary professors lectures.
and I've spent a fair amount of time reading the Bible for myself.

I really do try not to be offensive when i present my understanding of scriptures, if i've gone to far i apologize.

But I'll say this though.
I don't have ANY problem with people saying they have different views on spiritual issues.
But it is a pet peve of mine when people say the Bible says something or supports something that in SOME cases it clearly does not.

I've pointed out one or 2 times where people here have quoted parts of verses or sections and not mentioned the rest, to support their postion.
frankly it's just wrong, but i guess i'm somehow the bad guy for pointing it out.

If someone did that to a George Bush speech, took a partial quote and assumed he it meant to support something he clearly did not. Most people here would be up in arms. They wouldn't say --well thats what Gabby feels he meant, therefore why are you questioning her about her interpretation of the words. Are you an authority on GWBush speeches?--
Do you have to be? can't anyone just read the speech and place it in contect with other things he's said over the years?

The Bble is a book with words, thankfully, written in English, it does NOT say everything anyone can imagine or promote every idea in religion.
I just like people to honest about what the text says, It makes for a starting place for conversation at least.


so for example
The Bible say "thou shalt not steal".
it doesn't matter what i might think about that, what my grandma thought about what it says or the mafia thinks about it. it is what it is. and has some clear meaning.
Does it apply to wartime enemies is a good question, does it apply to the mentally handicapped? Does it apply if your staving, does it apply to only the Jews? all are debatable questions and bring the REST of the scripture to bear.
but it does not say, thou shall steal as much as you can as often as you can.

becuase someone feels that it really means that and it doesn't make sense to them, is not a question.
they don't have to believe it but if they are honest they'll acknowledge that the Bible does say "thou shall not steal" and it probably applies to most people in most cases.


I became a Christan after I graduated college and I remember vividly reading the Bible and being stunned at all of the things that i had been taught and picked up in the culture that the BIBLE supposedly said but didn't.

and then stunned again one evening as i turned on the TV and watched Garner Ted Armstrong read a passage a scripture, stop and then explain what it meant . But as i looked at my Bible and read the rest of the passage it taught something totally different. If i had not read it for myself what he said would have made perfect sense, but it's not what the book said.

For what ever reason it is a pet peve of mine and I'm sorry if I comes across as sharp or authoritative , I'm just reading and quoting the book as honestly as i can.

But hey, if the words in the book bother you, well take that up with a higher court. I'm just copying and pasting.

[Robert A Whit]

Here is the thing Revelarts ...

The Bible says one thing at one point but some then use the other thing as their proof.

GOD speaks of plural GOD in the Bible. But in context, GOD also speaks of himself only. He did not say, wait, I was wrong in Genesis and am now clearing the matter up.

I believe GOD has power and authority outside the scope of the Bible.

[revelarts]

Here is the thing Revelarts ...

The Bible says one thing at one point but some then use the other thing as their proof.
GOD speaks of plural GOD in the Bible. But in context, GOD also speaks of himself only. He did not say, wait, I was wrong in Genesis and am now clearing the matter up.
I believe GOD has power and authority outside the scope of the Bible.

I'm not sure what you sayin in the middle there .
But in Genesis he speaks of himself in the plural and the singular interchangeably.
but Above you say again that you only want to use parts of the Bible, one piece at a time. well that's fine. thanks for acknowledging that.
and thinking God works outside of the Bible is OK to.

personally I believe the whole book is from God and that he didn't say everything in one shot on the subject the 1st time he spoke.

so we'll just have to disagree.

[avatar4321]

I'm not sure what you sayin in the middle there .
But in Genesis he speaks of himself in the plural and the singular interchangeably.
but Above you say again that you only want to use parts of the Bible, one piece at a time. well that's fine. thanks for acknowledging that.
and thinking God works outside of the Bible is OK to.

personally I believe the whole book is from God and that he didn't say everything in one shot on the subject the 1st time he spoke.

so we'll just have to disagree.

I still don't think He has spoken everything He has to say yet.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625480#post625480)
Here is the thing Revelarts ...

The Bible says one thing at one point but some then use the other thing as their proof.
GOD speaks of plural GOD in the Bible. But in context, GOD also speaks of himself only. He did not say, wait, I was wrong in Genesis and am now clearing the matter up.
I believe GOD has power and authority outside the scope of the Bible.



I'm not sure what you sayin in the middle there .
But in Genesis he speaks of himself in the plural and the singular interchangeably.
but Above you say again that you only want to use parts of the Bible, one piece at a time. well that's fine. thanks for acknowledging that.
and thinking God works outside of the Bible is OK to.

personally I believe the whole book is from God and that he didn't say everything in one shot on the subject the 1st time he spoke.

so we'll just have to disagree.

I am saying that Moses used GOD the Plural in his part of the Bible.

Moses not being able to speak after he died, with other authors speaking later down the line, as the Bible built upon itself like a building is built of blocks, could only have his part for us to study. Moses is said to have spoken to GOD. Thus if anybody would know if GOD was plural or singular, he ought to know. But Moses spoke in Genesis of Plural GODs. Also there was more family than just Adam and Eve but I felt earlier on I would not mention that part. This is significant though and bears on just what GOD created those other people. When Moses said, speaking of GOD, he spoke in the plural. I am not clear why this matters to some people. Is there a FEAR of plural GODS? Would this lessen GOD for any of you to believe he is not alone? Even Jesus went to be by his side as his Son. Why can't you see Jesus and GOD as GODS.

What was Moses fate then? Wasn't he qualified to also become a GOD? Then there is that guy that went to heaven on his chariot. My goodness, there are so many people of the Bible, including Abraham who could have ended up as GODs.

I don't think I am trampling on GOD in any fashion to admit he has a lot of company.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625487#post625487)
I'm not sure what you sayin in the middle there .
But in Genesis he speaks of himself in the plural and the singular interchangeably.
but Above you say again that you only want to use parts of the Bible, one piece at a time. well that's fine. thanks for acknowledging that.
and thinking God works outside of the Bible is OK to.

personally I believe the whole book is from God and that he didn't say everything in one shot on the subject the 1st time he spoke.

so we'll just have to disagree.


I still don't think He has spoken everything He has to say yet.

Same here. I believe GOD can say much more as time progresses.

[revelarts]

I still don't think He has spoken everything He has to say yet.

I think he's said all he wanted to say to get his general message across to the world in the years after the main work was done through Jesus.
And see how much trouble we have agreeing on what he's already said?

But there's no doubt IMO that he speaks from time to individuals or small group on specific issues at his pleasure. but it does not contradict the message 1st delivered to the prophets and apostles of Jesus. When Jesus died the work of redemption was finished when he rose the it was confirmed when the holy spirit came on the apostles it was sealed and spread abroad.

[avatar4321]

I think he's said all he wanted to say to get his general message across to the world in the years after the main work was done through Jesus.
And see how much trouble we have agreeing on what he's already said?

But there's no doubt IMO that he speaks from time to individuals or small group on specific issues at his pleasure. but it does not contradict the message 1st delivered to the prophets and apostles of Jesus. When Jesus died the work of redemption was finished when he rose the it was confirmed when the holy spirit came on the apostles it was sealed and spread abroad.

I humbly disagree. I think He has alot more to say and will say it before it's all over.

[revelarts]

I am saying that Moses used GOD the Plural in his part of the Bible.
I am getting a little frustrated here will you please acknowledge that Moses also spoke of God/for God in the SINGULAR? it's driving me nuts that you keep repeating that half truth Robert. Moses wrote this
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
Deuteronomy 6:4




Moses not being able to speak after he died, with other authors speaking later down the line, as the Bible built upon itself like a building is built of blocks, could only have his part for us to study. Moses is said to have spoken to GOD.
But Moses Did know others would come behind him and speak for God Robert. Moses told then so at the same time reiterated the Law
Deuteronomy 18
15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.
...
17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.

so it's not a haphazard mish mash of people adding willy nilly as you seem to imply. Moses Knew God had more to say and told them so.
Jesus gave us no such promise other than HIS OWN return.

I suggest you read all of Deuteronomy 18 it's very interesting




Thus if anybody would know if GOD was plural or singular, he ought to know. But Moses spoke in Genesis of Plural GODs. This is significant though and bears on just what GOD created those other people. When Moses said, speaking of GOD, he spoke in the plural. I am not clear why this matters to some people. Is there a FEAR of plural GODS? Would this lessen GOD for any of you to believe he is not alone? Even Jesus went to be by his side as his Son. Why can't you see Jesus and GOD as GODS.
because He said there are no other Robert. Because Jesus said he's one with the father. are you afraid that Mormon teaching might be off a bit hear?



What was Moses fate then? Wasn't he qualified to also become a GOD? Then there is that guy that went to heaven on his chariot. My goodness, there are so many people of the Bible, including Abraham who could have ended up as GODs. in your opinion fine, sure , could have in your mind, but the Bible never says any of those guys became gods of any stripe.


and Jesus repeated Moses
Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[revelarts]

I humbly disagree. I think He has alot more to say and will say it before it's all over.

Ok, but I'm skeptical He'l say to much to the world at large until he returns. outside of the Bible.

here's why,
There are some things are very unclear about prophecy but His return is very clear and also the fact that FALSE prophets will arise with lying wonders. This is what we are told to expect. the apostles John, Peter, James and Paul all agree on this. and Jesus warned of it in the gospels
Also we are told of one major anti-christ with one major false prophet and 2 good prophets that will be killed in Jerusalem in the book of Revelations.
so I'm not really looking for any major words from the Lord until he shows up and set things right.

Deuteronomy 18 and Mathew 24

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am getting a little frustrated here will you please acknowledge that Moses also spoke of God/for God in the SINGULAR? it's driving me nuts that you keep repeating that half truth Robert. Moses wrote this
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
Deuteronomy 6:4



But Moses Did know others would come behind him and speak for God Robert. Moses told then so at the same time reiterated the Law
Deuteronomy 18
15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.
...
17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.

so it's not a haphazard mish mash of people adding willy nilly as you seem to imply. Moses Knew God had more to say and told them so.
Jesus gave us no such promise other than HIS OWN return.

I suggest you read all of Deuteronomy 18 it's very interesting



because He said there are no other Robert. Because Jesus said he's one with the father. are you afraid that Mormon teaching might be off a bit hear?

in your opinion fine, sure , could have in your mind, but the Bible never says any of those guys became gods of any stripe.


and Jesus repeated Moses
Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

WHY IS EVERYBODY SO UPSET THAT --- God may make his Sons and Daughters Gods as well?
SHOW ME ANY VERSE THAT ABSOLUTELY FORBID IT BEING A POSSIBILITY.

Jesus is the Son of God and those that accept Jesus are in the body of Christ. I accept that it may be God's plan .
IF IT IS OR IT IS NOT TO BE MATTERS NOT THAT MUCH WHEN ONE HAS RECEIVED SALVATION FOR ACCEPTING JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR.. --Tyr

[aboutime]

WHY IS EVERYBODY SO UPSET THAT --- God may make his Sons and Daughters Gods as well?
SHOW ME ANY VERSE THAT ABSOLUTELY FORBID IT BEING A POSSIBILITY.

Jesus is the Son of God and those that accept Jesus are in the body of Christ. I accept that it may be God's plan .
IF IT IS OR IT IS NOT TO BE MATTERS NOT THAT MUCH WHEN ONE HAS RECEIVED SALVATION FOR ACCEPTING JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR.. --Tyr


Tyr. FIRST. I want Rev to prove that the people he talks about actually said those things!

Rev. Forget the Bible. Forget everything you have read about the subject.

Were you there?

[Robert A Whit]

I am getting a little frustrated here will you please acknowledge that Moses also spoke of God/for God in the SINGULAR? it's driving me nuts that you keep repeating that half truth Robert. Moses wrote this
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
Deuteronomy 6:4

You said ALSO so of course I agree. He also did not say GOD is the only GOD, but as you point out said that the LORD our GOD is one LORD.

Let's say he said the Lord our Mayor is one Lord ... so I don't think your argument is that there is just one Lord nor Mayor. (Trying to show my point better.)


But Moses Did know others would come behind him and speak for God Robert. Moses told then so at the same time reiterated the Law
Deuteronomy 18
15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.
...
17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.

so it's not a haphazard mish mash of people adding willy nilly as you seem to imply. Moses Knew God had more to say and told them so.
Jesus gave us no such promise other than HIS OWN return.

I suggest you read all of Deuteronomy 18 it's very interesting



because He said there are no other Robert. Because Jesus said he's one with the father. are you afraid that Mormon teaching might be off a bit hear?

Nope. Not one bit afraid. Moses did not know Jesus by the way. And when Jesus said he is one with the Father, it is much as if any son said he agrees with his father.

I was afraid this might end up to be dueling banjos of verse.

See, you don't like any idea of any kind of there being plural GODs so you pull out any verse that you suppose helps you. If you stop thinking only one GOD and read all that text as if there were more GODS then try to pick out a way to see only one GOD or rather see if one can have multiple GODS, it will help you see a path. I think you are bound by this idea only one GOD can exist despite Jesus being a second GOD.

in your opinion fine, sure , could have in your mind, but the Bible never says any of those guys became gods of any stripe.


and Jesus repeated Moses
Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

He could have said OUR GOD, but he said THE LORD our god. It would be similar to somebody saying the President our President doing it your way. But when he says OUR, and not THE, the door opens up to more than one GOD.

Look, I don't pretend to be some wise scholar of verse. I just have no problems with there being several GODS and of course of the same form. It takes a village of GODS you know. :laugh:

[PostmodernProphet]

Impressive. I knew I was smart to not try to get into a verse war with you. I passed when you wanted me to disclose gospels that contradict.

Without looking up the 4 gospels and studying them again, some of the discrepancy concerns the various accounts of Jesus on the Cross. I realize that the authors of the gospels memories were normally not perfect, but when putting on paper what happened in the most significant event of that era and probably all eras, one would think the 4 accounts would be perfect. If you are as you say, and I don't claim otherwise, surely you know of the discrepancies in the gospels? I would think you could rattle them off faster than I can.


I guess in order for the four gospels to be "perfect" there should have been one gospel?.......there aren't any real discrepancies in the gospels, there are differences in their purpose.....Matthew wanted to communicate to the Jews, explaining to them that he was the fulfillment of prophecy.....so wrote not chronologically, but following the sequence of OT prophecies......Mark wrote to the non-Jewish Christians.....his focus was on what living a life like Jesus meant...that's why he didn't bother with Jesus birth, he wanted to communicate what Jesus did, not what he was.......Luke, who also wrote Acts was an historian....he specifically states that he wrote his gospel because he wasn't happy that the previous gospels weren't chronological......and John wrote his gospel during the time when there was a sect claiming Jesus was not God (later declared to heretics and thrown out of the church) and focused on issues of his divinity....in short, all four are perfect with respect to their purpose.....


I don't know about Avatar who like me is a Mormon, but I have attended some of the churches that I believe are called Christian churches by pretty much any of you. At least those churches were teaching just what some of you guys claim is correct and they did not like Mormons.

I was with my then lady friend and going to a church she picked out and liked the group going as well as the pastor who was teaching us from the Bible. (in Fremont, CA) (small close knit non denomination)

I got very nervous the day he ran down the Mormon church and called my church a cult.

So, been there, done it and heard it all. That is not, by far, the only non Mormon church I have gone to. One in Manteca, CA (substantial size with lots of entertainment; band, singers) and there I can't recall my church being run down but I can't recall them talking about Mormons anyway.

My point is this.

When some of you talk, you talk to the forum as if, since you are the Bible experts, we mere mortals who can't quote each verse of the Bible must be some pretty dumb posters.

And if we don't believe precisely what you do, we will as one poster said, who then whined over you guys being experts, burn in some lake of fire. I don't recall that being found in the NT. The other churches I attended I can't recall them talking that way either.

All I know is that I believe in GOD. Being a Mormon, the church realizes that GOD is not alone. GOD has many around him (Moses reports in Genesis that GOD created men in GODs image) so I don't see why in Heaven, GOD can't have plenty of GODS all over the place.

We worship Jesus who is not on Earth. Some allege Jesus was GOD. Well, that means GOD can do what GOD wants to do. If GOD wanted to be here today, GOD can. So, you would see a human.
A human GOD.

I don't get the arguing over this matter. I can't get into a verse fight.

Some of you can quote many verses. I just know what I believe and can reason out.

I think the Mormon teachings make the most sense.

I can't recall my church discussing this burning hell or lake of fire.

GOD can deal with we mortals as GOD sees fit. I honor GOD and Jesus.

I nor Avatar have told you guys you will burn in hell. I don't understand how decent people can put down on this forum we will go to this burning hell because you think you know something different? Who put you in charge of the gates of hell?

Who handed you the authority to call my church a cult?

Did GOD or Jesus tell you we are a cult? I don't think so.

You are clueless about our church. This church can also become your church. But I don't think if you don't join my church that you end up in hell. I may suspect your church is a cult but I don't believe GOD or Jesus put me in charge of making that decision about your church.

I have no more rights than you have.

Some of you attack Catholics. I don't get that either. Some of you attack any church that you don't happen to belong to.

This is awful.

I don't understand it at all. I am pleased I am loyal to the LDS church members and GOD and Jesus. Bear in mind, this in no way puts me above any of you. I don't accept that any of you are above me either.

As I related, going to other churches has not harmed me that I am aware of. I think that people going to church tend to be kinder people for the most part.

did someone here say you were going to burn in hell?.....if so, I must have missed it.....


He did not say, wait, I was wrong in Genesis and am now clearing the matter up.

but you see, there are more possibilities about who is wrong in Genesis......one is the author, the other is the reader....my assumption is, if he went to all that trouble to give us a Bible and keep it consistent for 5000 years, it isn't likely HE'S going to make a mistake in it....


Tyr. FIRST. I want Rev to prove that the people he talks about actually said those things!

Rev. Forget the Bible. Forget everything you have read about the subject.

Were you there?

dude......enough......we get that you don't believe it.......but don't bulldoze the discussion......

[avatar4321]

Ok, but I'm skeptical He'l say to much to the world at large until he returns. outside of the Bible.

here's why,
There are some things are very unclear about prophecy but His return is very clear and also the fact that FALSE prophets will arise with lying wonders. This is what we are told to expect. the apostles John, Peter, James and Paul all agree on this. and Jesus warned of it in the gospels
Also we are told of one major anti-christ with one major false prophet and 2 good prophets that will be killed in Jerusalem in the book of Revelations.
so I'm not really looking for any major words from the Lord until he shows up and set things right.

Deuteronomy 18 and Mathew 24

Ah but if He has to warn of false prophets, that means there are true prophets as well. Otherwise, He would just warn against anyone who claims to be a prophet. Instead, He taught that "by their fruits ye shall know them."

[darin]

Amazing thread here. Never have I ever seen so many self-proclaimed authorities come together to impress each other.

Would someone who has posted here on this topic please disclose which Seminary, or Vatican training gives you the authority to determine, and judge the beliefs, and faith of other human beings you claim to be so learned, and educated about?????

I know this is a forum. But all of you should just READ, and LISTEN to yourselves.

What a shame.


Funny story - the only people that really bugged Christ were those steeped in The Law; those 'authorities'. :)

I'm a former pastor, and Doctrine student as part of my then-major 'pastoral studies' - i think was the name.

But none of that matters, ulimately. Those whose faith is limited by only what they read or study are missing out on a lot. In fact, those who read and study too much will probably believe all kinds of things, according to the interpretation they choose.

[revelarts]

He could have said OUR GOD, but he said THE LORD our god. It would be similar to somebody saying the President our President doing it your way. But when he says OUR, and not THE, the door opens up to more than one GOD.

Look, I don't pretend to be some wise scholar of verse. I just have no problems with there being several GODS and of course of the same form. It takes a village of GODS you know. :laugh:
I guess the difference is you want to see in the text more gods than are explicitly mentioned, looking for every option and open doors for the idea. No offesne, but People do the exact same thing when they want to promote Aliens or Jesus and Moses are wizards or whatever. they start with an idea and then find text to shoehorn to fit it.
I'd prefer to let the text say what it says and figure out what the most likely meaning is.
or frankly say I don't know.



Ah but if He has to warn of false prophets, that means there are true prophets as well. Otherwise, He would just warn against anyone who claims to be a prophet. Instead, He taught that "by their fruits ye shall know them."
Yes by their fruits and by their words as in Deuternomy 18 it says anyone promoting other Gods to follow is NOT a prophet. And in the new testament anyone saying anyone other than Christ is the way is Anti Christ and not to be believed. But more than that i guess it seems the text give us specific warnings of false prophets in these times but gives no promise of new major prophets of God.

[PostmodernProphet]

He would just warn against anyone who claims to be a prophet.

hey!.....let's not make this personal!.......

[revelarts]

[QUOTE=aboutime;625526]Tyr. FIRST. I want Rev to prove that the people he talks about actually said those things!
Rev. Forget the Bible. Forget everything you have read about the subject.
Were you there?
Were you? We weren't there for any historical events or speeches.
heck we haven't even read the laws we live under. Do you want to argue about the laws without reading them too? A guy with a police costume shows up with a piece of paper and tells us we broke it. If your wife says you should have known I read the new law it says... you don't ask her "were you THERE when the laws were written? FORGET all the laws you've read for a minute blah blah..."

come on man, we are talking about spiritual things and one reference many use for that is the Bible. Some think it IS authoritative ,some don't. I'm not sure why it upsets you that some people like to point out what it says about various questions.

If a person says I think X.
Why is it wrong to point out that the Bible seems to say Z?
And then discuss it.
They don't have to believe it if they don't want to, but as a matter of just some basic info, it seems a good place to start don't you think?



Funny story - the only people that really bugged Christ were those steeped in The Law; those 'authorities'. :)
I'm a former pastor, and Doctrine student as part of my then-major 'pastoral studies' - i think was the name.
But none of that matters, ultimately. Those whose faith is limited by only what they read or study are missing out on a lot. In fact, those who read and study too much will probably believe all kinds of things, according to the interpretation they choose.
That's a funny way to put it, faith limited by what they read. I know for me reading hearing the word is the beginning of faith. Did you believe in God before your Read the or ever heard of anything in the Bible. I didn't.

Some/most people do seem more inclined to choose their on interpretation rather than see what the text says and let that lead them. We all come to spiritual questions with various ideas and leanings.
But it is true ,ultimately It is more than the text, it's our full relation with God, However the text a part of that relationship, it is a letter directly from him so I don't understand the limited biz.

Letters from a loving father to a son on journey home are not limiting they are refreshing, helpful, reassuring and precious. If people make claims that dad said somethings that he didn't say it's kinda hard on a kid to keep his mouth shut.

[darin]

That's a funny way to put it, faith limited by what they read. I know for me reading hearing the word is the beginning of faith. Did you believe in God before your Read the or ever heard of anything in the Bible. I didn't.

Yeah - my parents spoke of God and demonstrated His love long before I read the bible. The bible did nothing to convince me of His love; only provides SOME context to how and when his Love for us provides for us.



Some/most people do seem more inclined to choose their on interpretation rather than see what the text says and let that lead them. We all come to spiritual questions with various ideas and leanings.

Lots of Churches - in fact, MOST modern christian groups do that.

It's like matrixing. Our minds really want to find reason, order and all that through our lives. Thus, we find parts of the Bible written as allegory or written to document events and convert those to instructions for us.



But it is true ,ultimately It is more than the text, it's our full relation with God, However the text a part of that relationship, it is a letter directly from him so I don't understand the limited biz.

Letters from a loving father to a son on journey home are not limiting they are refreshing, helpful, reassuring and precious. If people make claims that dad said somethings that he didn't say it's kinda hard on a kid to keep his mouth shut.

Righto - they are letters; they are a glimpse of who God is; and how He's interacted with people in history. It's not universal instruction to the rest of humanity. The scope of the bible is to set the stage for our spiritual growth. And to bring this back to the OP, I see so much in Churches NOT supported strongly by scripture; I think it's beautiful and neat - but spirtually worthless. That's ME. If others find inspiration in the tradition? GREAT! Love it!

As long as sombody's idea of How and Who God is - as long as those ideas are not expressly inconsistant with the books the council of Nicea decided should be cannonized, then that idea isn't wrong - it's at least plausible.

Frankly, I don't have the trust in the Council to think they got EVERYTHING right.

[revelarts]

Yeah - my parents spoke of God and demonstrated His love long before I read the bible. The bible did nothing to convince me of His love; only provides SOME context to how and when his Love for us provides for us.



Lots of Churches - in fact, MOST modern christian groups do that.

It's like matrixing. Our minds really want to find reason, order and all that through our lives. Thus, we find parts of the Bible written as allegory or written to document events and convert those to instructions for us.



Righto - they are letters; they are a glimpse of who God is; and how He's interacted with people in history. It's not universal instruction to the rest of humanity. The scope of the bible is to set the stage for our spiritual growth. And to bring this back to the OP, I see so much in Churches NOT supported strongly by scripture; I think it's beautiful and neat - but spirtually worthless. That's ME. If others find inspiration in the tradition? GREAT! Love it!

As long as sombody's idea of How and Who God is - as long as those ideas are not expressly inconsistant with the books the council of Nicea decided should be cannonized, then that idea isn't wrong - it's at least plausible.

Frankly, I don't have the trust in the Council to think they got EVERYTHING right.

DMP
i'll just say is this,
I trust that God worked in Nicea and before on the scripture, just as much or more than he worked in your Mom and Dad.

[darin]

dmp
i'll just say is this,
I trust that God worked in Nicea and before on the scripture, just as much or more than he worked in your Mom and Dad.

Why? How? And would It matter if they left out teaching based on certain criteria - Arias' teaching - wasn't that rejected because it was new?

I don't need the council to have gotten it right 100% because I do not worship the bible. The bible does not have to be complete for God to be complete or perfect. What bothers me most about the bible - and I saw you do this - when people remove "any" scripture from context and draw from the scripture application to those it was not intended.

[Robert A Whit]

So far as I can determine, there are several classes here

1. True Bible Expert
2. One that thinks he is
3. True Book of Mormon expert
4. One who thinks he is
5. Knows a bit about Bible Verse
6. The rest of us

Now, if you are experts on the books, do you claim you know based on faith or that you are 100 percent experts because you are experts on your books?

A simply short explanation will do since I have a purpose for this question.

[avatar4321]

So far as I can determine, there are several classes here

1. True Bible Expert
2. One that thinks he is
3. True Book of Mormon expert
4. One who thinks he is
5. Knows a bit about Bible Verse
6. The rest of us

Now, if you are experts on the books, do you claim you know based on faith or that you are 100 percent experts because you are experts on your books?

A simply short explanation will do since I have a purpose for this question.

Who is truly an expert? I know I am always learning.

[avatar4321]

Why? How? And would It matter if they left out teaching based on certain criteria - Arias' teaching - wasn't that rejected because it was new?

I don't need the council to have gotten it right 100% because I do not worship the bible. The bible does not have to be complete for God to be complete or perfect. What bothers me most about the bible - and I saw you do this - when people remove "any" scripture from context and draw from the scripture application to those it was not intended.

The problem I see with alot of people is they do worship the Bible over God. In fact, I think the Pharisees had that problem.

The Bible is a tool to teach us how to find God. It doesn't have to be without flaw to point to a God without flaw.

[darin]

The problem I see with alot of people is they do worship the Bible over God. In fact, I think the Pharisees had that problem.

The Bible is a tool to teach us how to find God. It doesn't have to be without flaw to point to a God without flaw.

Spot on. They worship their 'education'. Their self-proclaimed knowledge of the Bible is used as evidence of their Knowledge of GOD. :(

[revelarts]

I guess my 1st response is that ignorance of the Bible doesn't make one closer to God either.

one is a gift to that end.
Ignorance is just ignorance seems to me. not sure how it'd make one more godly.


And I'll assume you guys aren't including me in those who worship the Bible.
But you know when i started as a believer I had a very samll amount of Biblical knowledge.
Typical of most people i guess. I went for years with little bible training but still had a firm belief and walk with God .
The Details of the Bible helps me understand God better. I don't know what reading does for you guys. seems you guys don't like the Bible that much.


You guys act as if the Bible the teachings of Jesus and the prophets is a hindrance to peoples understanding.
and Don't seem to like it when people bring it up.
So instead you guys like to read what newer "prophets" have said, what mom and dad said or your own opinions informed by speculation and museings? or just msueings in general, what do you use as a guide or reference to inform you thoughts about God? anything? everything ? nothing?

Just the parts of the Bible that make sense to you? What are you worshiping if you do that?

Do as you will, thats between you and God, but please don't accuse others of Bible worship just because we take what it says seriously.
People have accused me of the same ,on left wing boards, with the constitution and the founding fathers. because I've quoted them at length to defend certain points. and I've read the federalist papers and anti federalist papers. and becuase of that , yes i have gotten some a idea of what they actually said and how they meant to apply it.
Am i am expert? no. Do i claim to be? no. do i worship them just becuase i've taken the time to read it a few times? other people seem ready to make that judgement.

[PostmodernProphet]

Why? How? And would It matter if they left out teaching based on certain criteria - Arias' teaching - wasn't that rejected because it was new?

no.....they rejected it because they believed it was wrong.....


So far as I can determine, there are several classes here

1. True Bible Expert
2. One that thinks he is
3. True Book of Mormon expert
4. One who thinks he is
5. Knows a bit about Bible Verse
6. The rest of us

Now, if you are experts on the books, do you claim you know based on faith or that you are 100 percent experts because you are experts on your books?

A simply short explanation will do since I have a purpose for this question.

anyone who claims he knows 100% is a fool.....that given, when someone makes a particular claim about what the Bible says, and it is contradicted by something else the Bible says, it is guaranteed that at least one of them is wrong, perhaps both........when, as in this case, one of the verses in question is Jesus saying there is only one true God I find it incredible that anyone who says he believes in what the Bible is arguing there are more than one true gods......


Spot on. They worship their 'education'. Their self-proclaimed knowledge of the Bible is used as evidence of their Knowledge of GOD. :(

the problem is, this extra-biblical knowledge can't be shared.....a person can say that even though the bible says X, God told them Y......since no one else heard it we cannot confirm that God didn't really say Z but they were too drunk to understand him when it happened......

[Robert A Whit]

anyone who claims he knows 100% is a fool.....that given, when someone makes a particular claim about what the Bible says, and it is contradicted by something else the Bible says, it is guaranteed that at least one of them is wrong, perhaps both........when, as in this case, one of the verses in question is Jesus saying there is only one true God I find it incredible that anyone who says he believes in what the Bible is arguing there are more than one true gods......

If by one GOD, you mean over the Earth, I can go with that one. If by GOD you mean Jesus died and did not become a GOD, or that Moses is not presently a GOD or that Noah is not a GOD et al, no, I believe that GOD surrounds himself with GODS.

[cadet]

If by one GOD, you mean over the Earth, I can go with that one. If by GOD you mean Jesus died and did not become a GOD, or that Moses is not presently a GOD or that Noah is not a GOD et al, no, I believe that GOD surrounds himself with GODS.

Um... Blasphemy.

[darin]

Um... Blasphemy.


Naw, God wouldn't care if the guy thought that way. Honestly, it makes no difference what happens upon the death of "saints"; makes no difference to my (relative) salvation - and my 'salvation' makes NO difference to my Love of God or not.



the problem is, this extra-biblical knowledge can't be shared.....a person can say that even though the bible says X, God told them Y......since no one else heard it we cannot confirm that God didn't really say Z but they were too drunk to understand him when it happened......

I disagree slightly. The problem isn't knowledge sharing, it's politicizing interpretations. If somebody claims God has brown eyes because God told them so, and the truth to God's eye colour is not in scripture I don't care if they make the claim.

Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture. Teaching whats in the quotes is flat-out wrong on a number of levels.

[revelarts]

Naw, God wouldn't care if the guy thought that way. Honestly, it makes no difference what happens upon the death of "saints"; makes no difference to my (relative) salvation - and my 'salvation' makes NO difference to my Love of God or not.



I disagree slightly. The problem isn't knowledge sharing, it's politicizing interpretations. If somebody claims God has brown eyes because God told them so, and the truth to God's eye colour is not in scripture I don't care if they make the claim.

Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture. Teaching whats in the quotes is flat-out wrong on a number of levels.

DMp, sense no reply yet on my previous mind if i ask...
well, You say "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" is wrong .
I think i know what you mean. but
let me ask you.

Is anyone a sinner? and what would make them so? to you?
Maybe i should ask were people sinners at some point in time?

I think you believe that everyone is under grace so no ones a sinner any more. but i'm not sure.

Whatever the case don't you get your idea of God's grace through Jesus at least in part from the Bible? what are your other sources?

[revelarts]

Naw, God wouldn't care if the guy thought that way. Honestly, it makes no difference what happens upon the death of "saints"; makes no difference to my (relative) salvation - and my 'salvation' makes NO difference to my Love of God or not.


and so how do you know all that? what your basis for those conclusions, in general?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625668#post625668)

If by one GOD, you mean over the Earth, I can go with that one. If by GOD you mean Jesus died and did not become a GOD, or that Moses is not presently a GOD or that Noah is not a GOD et al, no, I believe that GOD surrounds himself with GODS.



Um... Blasphemy.

You are speaking of breaking some sort of man caused rule, not some rule by GOD.

Are any of you alleged scholars really afraid that if you accept that GOD and JESUS are examples of two GODS and that others of the Bible perhaps are also GODS, Moses, Noah, Jonah, Abraham, etc. you somehow did wrong? Mind you, I am not saying that any GOD comes before GOD the one you normally think of.

Do you think GOD would therefore punish you? Is GOD a forgiving GOD or the GOD of punishment and revenge?

[revelarts]

You are speaking of breaking some sort of man caused rule, not some rule by GOD.

Are any of you alleged scholars really afraid that if you accept that GOD and JESUS are examples of two GODS and that others of the Bible perhaps are also GODS, Moses, Noah, Jonah, Abraham, etc. you somehow did wrong? Mind you, I am not saying that any GOD comes before GOD the one you normally think of.

Do you think GOD would therefore punish you? Is GOD a forgiving GOD or the GOD of punishment and revenge?

well you tell us Robert.
Is GOD a forgiving GOD or the GOD of punishment and revenge?
And how do you come by your conclution? in general. where did you get your info to answer that question?

[Robert A Whit]

well you tell us Robert.
Is GOD a forgiving GOD or the GOD of punishment and revenge?
And how do you come by your conclution? in general. where did you get your info to answer that question?

You mean to tell me with all that there book larnin, you want me to be your authority?

[revelarts]

You mean to tell me with all that there book larnin, you want me to be your authority?

i'm just asking Robert?
what's your answer.

[darin]

and so how do you know all that? what your basis for those conclusions, in general?

Because there's no biblical basis for those having not read the ten commandments to not be 'saved' for their lack of understanding. There's no biblical basis for somebody being honestly wrong about 'life after death'.

There IS biblical basis for folks to be following God and probably not even knowing it. There IS biblical basis for those steeped in Biblical knowledge - having seemingly obeyed EVERY RULE - to be cast aside. Read more: here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-46&version=MSG)

and listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix8ddosjg-k

[cadet]

well you tell us Robert.
Is GOD a forgiving GOD or the GOD of punishment and revenge?
And how do you come by your conclution? in general. where did you get your info to answer that question?

Exodus 34:14
You must worship no other gods, for the LORD, whose very name is Jealous, is a God who is jealous about his relationship with you.

[revelarts]

Because there's no biblical basis for those having not read the ten commandments to not be 'saved' for their lack of understanding. There's no biblical basis for somebody being honestly wrong about 'life after death'.

There IS biblical basis for folks to be following God and probably not even knowing it. There IS biblical basis for those steeped in Biblical knowledge - having seemingly obeyed EVERY RULE - to be cast aside. Read more: here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-46&version=MSG)

and listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix8ddosjg-k

Keith Green is/was a great fella

[Robert A Whit]

Exodus 34:14
You must worship no other gods, for the LORD, whose very name is Jealous, is a God who is jealous about his relationship with you.

Wasn't that Moses who came back to find people worshiping some on earth GOD?

[Robert A Whit]

i'm just asking Robert?
what's your answer.

Oh you would have read my reply if only you had replied to me when I asked first.

[revelarts]

Oh you would have read my reply if only you had replied to me when I asked first.

what, answer your book learnin question?
seemed more like a dig than a question Robert. I try not to get caught up in thoose.

[Robert A Whit]

what, answer your book learnin question?
seemed more like a dig than a question Robert. I try not to get caught up in thoose.

Nope, was no dig.

[cadet]

Wasn't that Moses who came back to find people worshiping some on earth GOD?

Yes... FALSE, Gods.

MADE UP, Gods.

THERE IS ONE GOD. The others were making sacrifices to nothing. If you didn't notice all the wars in the bible about god bringing plaques and curses on the people that worshiped idols of false Gods.

It's widely believed that the false gods were demons trying to corrupt human kind against God for their own personal gain.
Remember, Satan is a great battle commander. How better to fight Christians then taking the words of god ans slightly twisting them? Just so that they'res reference to the bible, but differ's in a MAJOR way.

Take muslims for example, they believe most everything, but they won't/can't be saved due to not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior.
The rest they believe, they just can't be forgiven through Christ's sacrifice.

What are the small changes in your part of the religion? Do they differ in only the main things? they might look small to you, but the changes are enough to send a man to hell for being lead astray.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes... FALSE, Gods.

MADE UP, Gods.

THERE IS ONE GOD. The others were making sacrifices to nothing. If you didn't notice all the wars in the bible about god bringing plaques and curses on the people that worshiped idols of false Gods.

It's widely believed that the false gods were demons trying to corrupt human kind against God for their own personal gain.
Remember, Satan is a great battle commander. How better to fight Christians then taking the words of god ans slightly twisting them? Just so that they'res reference to the bible, but differ's in a MAJOR way.

Take muslims for example, they believe most everything, but they won't/can't be saved due to not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior.
The rest they believe, they just can't be forgiven through Christ's sacrifice.

What are the small changes in your part of the religion? Do they differ in only the main things? they might look small to you, but the changes are enough to send a man to hell for being lead astray.

I am not talking about false gods or made up gods.

What do you suppose happened to Moses when he died? I define his fate as becoming a god. We don't worship Moses that I am aware of. We still do worship two gods. Jesus is one and God the other.

[cadet]

I am not talking about false gods or made up gods.

What do you suppose happened to Moses when he died? I define his fate as becoming a god. We don't worship Moses that I am aware of. We still do worship two gods. Jesus is one and God the other.

Jesus is the BODY of Christ.

Holy trinity man, the 3 are 1! 1 God! Moses did not become a GOD! He was a profit! Just like everyone else that follows God and tries to help others find Him!

[Robert A Whit]

Jesus is the BODY of Christ.

Holy trinity man, the 3 are 1! 1 God! Moses did not become a GOD! He was a profit! Just like everyone else that follows God and tries to help others find Him!

No, they are not all one GOD. Jesus is the son of GOD but right now he is also a GOD. The other you speak of is a force of some sort and I am not clear that force is not just exerted by GOD.

How do you know that Moses is not now a GOD? He was a prophet on Earth but why is he one in Heaven?

What is your deal when you die? You won't still be a human. So what do you expect to be upon death?

[aboutime]

I am not talking about false gods or made up gods.

What do you suppose happened to Moses when he died? I define his fate as becoming a god. We don't worship Moses that I am aware of. We still do worship two gods. Jesus is one and God the other.


Everyone knows. Moses' contract with the studio expired after the movie "The TEN Commandments".

While I was in the Navy. The younger sailors accused me of being SO OLD....I was the special effects man for Moses when he parted the RED SEA.

For those too young to remember BEN HUR.....or a movie called THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.



4734 See for yourself.

http://youtu.be/v5xw-1RccHk

[revelarts]

No, they are not all one GOD. Jesus is the son of GOD but right now he is also a GOD. The other you speak of is a force of some sort and I am not clear that force is not just exerted by GOD.

How do you know that Moses is not now a GOD? He was a prophet on Earth but why is he one in Heaven?

What is your deal when you die? You won't still be a human. So what do you expect to be upon death?

So you Moses is a god because... what?

and you know think you will become one because...?

[cadet]

No, they are not all one GOD. Jesus is the son of GOD but right now he is also a GOD. The other you speak of is a force of some sort and I am not clear that force is not just exerted by GOD.

How do you know that Moses is not now a GOD? He was a prophet on Earth but why is he one in Heaven?

What is your deal when you die? You won't still be a human. So what do you expect to be upon death?

I don't expect anything. You don't just go around EXPECTING things from an almighty being who created the universe!

I heard it explained this way.
When a baby is in the womb all it know's is wet, warm, and food. And it's at piece. When it's first born, it's scared, the world is not what it thought it was made for. It thought it was made for wet, warm, and food. But no, it was made for so much more. Can you imagine only wanting blackness and food? And missing out on life?

I don't think we're made for this. Imagine taking it a step further. Think about all we have compared to pre-birth? Now try to imagine taking it further and what we'll have for after-death! We're made for something SO much greater!

But God is God, the almighty, the only, the creator of the universe, and knows/see's all.

And heck, Angels aren't Gods! We don't even BECOME Angels! (despite the misconception, they were made before us and are bound to heaven) And the only thing that has been close to Angels on earth have been the giants! (half human/half angel soul bound to earth due to being made on earth, humans... Not so much bounded as far as I've read. We're not immortal like the Angels and Giants)

He IS the universe! You can't have two Gods occupying the same space! Laws of physics! Let alone hundreds!

[Kathianne]

I don't expect anything. You don't just go around EXPECTING things from an almighty being who created the universe!

I heard it explained this way.
When a baby is in the womb all it know's is wet, warm, and food. And it's at piece. When it's first born, it's scared, the world is not what it thought it was made for. It thought it was made for wet, warm, and food. But no, it was made for so much more. Can you imagine only wanting blackness and food? And missing out on life?

I don't think we're made for this. Imagine taking it a step further. Think about all we have compared to pre-birth? Now try to imagine taking it further and what we'll have for after-death! We're made for something SO much greater!

But God is God, the almighty, the only, the creator of the universe, and knows/see's all.

And heck, Angels aren't Gods! We don't even BECOME Angels! (despite the misconception, they were made before us and are bound to heaven) And the only thing that has been close to Angels on earth have been the giants! (half human/half angel soul bound to earth due to being made on earth, humans... Not so much bounded as far as I've read. We're not immortal like the Angels and Giants)

He IS the universe! You can't have two Gods occupying the same space! Laws of physics! Let alone hundreds!

http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/three-omni-attributes-of-god-stuart-uren-sermon-on-20179.asp


...

* Gods omniscience - God is all-knowing
* Gods omnipresence - God is all-present/all-seeing
* Gods omnipotence - God is all-power

...

The Bible teaches us that God knows everything completely and perfectly.

God knows no thing better than any other thing, but all things equally well. He never discovers anything, he is never surprised, never amazed. He never wonders about anything, nor does he seek information or ask questions (except when drawing men out for their own good). God can make the best decisions because he has all the facts. He knows all the possible outcomes, and all the possible effects. God knows how everything fits together. God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future.

...

Omnipresence, is the concept that God is all-present and all-seeing. David saw this God is:

Unlimited by space (v8)

There is no corner in all creation where God is not absent - if I go to the heavens, if I descend to the depths... ...you are there.

It is not a case of ‘I live near God’, but that ‘in him I live, and move, and have my being’.

This closeness of God is a far cry from what Bette Midler is trying to get across in her song "From a distance". I don’t know whether she wrote this song out of misunderstanding or spite, but I do know that it is totally wrong. Her song "From a distaince" indicates to us that God is far away and keeps his distance from earth. One gets the feeling that God has lost control, hope of regaining it, and doesn’t really care.

...

Omnipotence (All Power)

This word originates from the word ‘almighty’. It describes Gods ability to do anything he wants.

There are things God does not want to do. These limitations, if this is the correct word to use, are:

Natural limitations - things contrary to Gods nature

He can not lie (Tit 1:2)

Be tempted to sin (James 1:13)

Deny himself (2 Tim 2:13).

Remember a forgiven sin

Self-Imposed Limitations - things he has not chosen to include in his plan

He did not choose to spare his son

He did not choose to save all people

He did not choose all nations in old testament times

He did not choose Esau

He did not choose to spare James (Acts 12:2).

Though he could have done any of these things without being inconsistent, he did not choose to do so in his plan.


...

[Robert A Whit]

So you Moses is a god because... what?

and you know think you will become one because...?

I said how do you know that Moses is not currently a GOD up with the big fella?

Nope, I tend to doubt I will be a GOD.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't expect anything. You don't just go around EXPECTING things from an almighty being who created the universe!

I heard it explained this way.
When a baby is in the womb all it know's is wet, warm, and food. And it's at piece. When it's first born, it's scared, the world is not what it thought it was made for. It thought it was made for wet, warm, and food. But no, it was made for so much more. Can you imagine only wanting blackness and food? And missing out on life?

I don't think we're made for this. Imagine taking it a step further. Think about all we have compared to pre-birth? Now try to imagine taking it further and what we'll have for after-death! We're made for something SO much greater!

But God is God, the almighty, the only, the creator of the universe, and knows/see's all.

And heck, Angels aren't Gods! We don't even BECOME Angels! (despite the misconception, they were made before us and are bound to heaven) And the only thing that has been close to Angels on earth have been the giants! (half human/half angel soul bound to earth due to being made on earth, humans... Not so much bounded as far as I've read. We're not immortal like the Angels and Giants)

He IS the universe! You can't have two Gods occupying the same space! Laws of physics! Let alone hundreds!

Well, since you are not expecting, it could be you won't get it either. I still do not know what you hope or suspect you can gain by this lecturing as to the big picture; heaven, etc. What is your deal? You know very well religion is based on the better deal. This is why somebody may live as a protestant and then convert to a Catholic or Mormon.

I know of nothing that proclaims that God lacks the power to have other gods with him. Not here on earth, but with him where he is. There is no reason I can think of why GOD would take Moses and just dispense with him. Jesus is also a GOD. Unless you think he too vanished.

[revelarts]

Nope, I tend to doubt I will be a GOD.

I don't need to check a Bible verse to know that's true.

[PostmodernProphet]

Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture.
depends on where you're going with that.....it is true that the Bible teaches that our salvation is not contingent upon following the Ten Commandments or upon not being a sinner....I think its pretty clear in saying we aren't capable of not being sinners......however, I think you would be hard pressed to find support for a claim that violating one of the commandments is not "sin".......




While I was in the Navy. The younger sailors accused me of being SO OLD....I was the special effects man for Moses when he parted the RED SEA.


that's nothing....I'm so old God and I argued about what color grass should be.....he wanted green........

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625798#post625798)

Nope, I tend to doubt I will be a GOD.



I don't need to check a Bible verse to know that's true.

Hmmmm, you standing in for GOD today?

[PostmodernProphet]

I define his fate as becoming a god.

it's equally logical that he became a banana split......

[Robert A Whit]

it's equally logical that he became a banana split......

I had no idea you so little respected Moses as to talk that way about Moses.

I also wonder about you too, are you standing in for GOD today? I have also asked revelarts this question.

[PostmodernProphet]

I had no idea you so little respected Moses as to talk that way about Moses.

I also wonder about you too, are you standing in for GOD today? I have also asked revelarts this question.
nope, but he told me Moses was a banana split......are you denying it?......

[Robert A Whit]

nope, but he told me Moses was a banana split......are you denying it?......

Why argue with a person claiming he speaks for GOD? Not I.

[aboutime]

that's nothing....I'm so old God and I argued about what color grass should be.....he wanted green........


Sounds good. Bet you didn't know. I'm so old. God asked me what to call the liquid stuff in the oceans, and the dry stuff on the beaches.


Unlike Moses. I told him. "Let's call them water, and sand!"

He agreed. Then asked me to draw up the blueprints for Noah's big boat.

[cadet]

Sounds good. Bet you didn't know. I'm so old. God asked me what to call the liquid stuff in the oceans, and the dry stuff on the beaches.


Unlike Moses. I told him. "Let's call them water, and sand!"

He agreed. Then asked me to draw up the blueprints for Noah's big boat.

I'm so old I..


... Oh, that's right, I'm young and good looking. :rolleyes:

[darin]

depends on where you're going with that.....it is true that the Bible teaches that our salvation is not contingent upon following the Ten Commandments or upon not being a sinner....I think its pretty clear in saying we aren't capable of not being sinners......however, I think you would be hard pressed to find support for a claim that violating one of the commandments is not "sin".......

If we are uncapable of not-sinning, none of us should waste time praying. Because none are righteous, so our prayers won't do dick.

[PostmodernProphet]

If we are uncapable of not-sinning, none of us should waste time praying. Because none are righteous, so our prayers won't do dick.

????....do you think God only listens to the prayers of righteous people.....for that matter, do you really think there's a righteous person?......original sin doesn't mean the first sin, it means the sin we are going to be engaged in because of our origin as humans.......we, being just like the first humans, are as likely as they were to engage in sinful activity at the drop of a hat....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm so old I..


... Oh, that's right, I'm young and good looking. :rolleyes:


Don't forget modest too. ;)--Tyr

[darin]

????....do you think God only listens to the prayers of righteous people.....for that matter, do you really think there's a righteous person?......original sin doesn't mean the first sin, it means the sin we are going to be engaged in because of our origin as humans.......we, being just like the first humans, are as likely as they were to engage in sinful activity at the drop of a hat....



James 5:16: New King James Version (NKJV)16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much

If we cannot stop sinning, I aruge we are not righteous - therefore, using this line, nobody has the ability cause much action through prayer.

Thus - either man can live apart from Sin, or man cannot. I contend man CAN; and men DO when their heart seeks first God.

[PostmodernProphet]

If we cannot stop sinning, I aruge we are not righteous - therefore, using this line, nobody has the ability cause much action through prayer.

Thus - either man can live apart from Sin, or man cannot. I contend man CAN; and men DO when their heart seeks first God.

your logic sucks......the fact that the prayers of a righteous man avails much doesn't mean the prayers of a less than righteous man avails nothing......was the bleeding woman who chose to touch the hem of Jesus robe "righteous"......Jesus said her faith had made her whole anyway......the Roman centurian who's son was dying wasn't "righteous", yet Jesus brought his son back from the dead.....

and, I don't think you really believe that man can live without sinning.....if you do, you're fooling yourself.....re-read the Sermon on the Mount to remind yourself what Jesus considered to be sin......

[revelarts]

If we cannot stop sinning, I aruge we are not righteous - therefore, using this line, nobody has the ability cause much action through prayer.

Thus - either man can live apart from Sin, or man cannot. I contend man CAN; and men DO when their heart seeks first God.

DMP as i read the Scripture i see 2 kinds of righteousness.
One is a where man does the best he can out of love and reverence to God.
then there's REAL righteousness that we get via Jesus Christ that we cannot get to becuase we are sinners.

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 4:2-4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Romans10
2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.


I'm wondering are you as righteous as Jesus required by your own goodness and love of God? I know i don't live up to this standard.
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[darin]

your logic sucks......the fact that the prayers of a righteous man avails much doesn't mean the prayers of a less than righteous man avails nothing......was the bleeding woman who chose to touch the hem of Jesus robe "righteous"......Jesus said her faith had made her whole anyway......the Roman centurian who's son was dying wasn't "righteous", yet Jesus brought his son back from the dead.....

and, I don't think you really believe that man can live without sinning.....if you do, you're fooling yourself.....re-read the Sermon on the Mount to remind yourself what Jesus considered to be sin......

I think you're more upset with the Bible than with what I did there.

Sorta proves my point - doesn't really MATTER how righteous one is or claims to be - what matters is context and their heart. When people love God, and others, nothing else matters too much.

My point is - I believe MOST people live their lives, or can live their lives without cultivating sin. Problem is, if Churches preach true Grace, perhaps their coffers would suffer?




dmp as i read the Scripture i see 2 kinds of righteousness.
One is a where man does the best he can out of love and reverence to God.
then there's REAL righteousness that we get via Jesus Christ that we cannot get to becuase we are sinners.

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

You've used scripture quoting scripture. the purpose of that writing was talking about the Benefit of being Jewish - if they were uniquely special in receiving God's promises. Dangerous to use something written for one group and applying it without cause, to others. It's part of asking the question "Who are 'the chosen" of sorts.

VERY important to contiue on - to show the ONE singlular righteousness God offers:



21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Bingo. Those with faith in Jesus; they are justified and redeemed - they are righteous. It does NOT say 'they are righteous until "the next time they sin". It's because their sins - past, present, and future - are attoned-for. They are covered through the faith they have in Christ Jesus.



Romans 4:2-4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.



Here's that part translated into something that makes sense:


1-3 So how do we fit what we know of Abraham, our first father in the faith, into this new way of looking at things? If Abraham, by what he did for God, got God to approve him, he could certainly have taken credit for it. But the story we’re given is a God-story, not an Abraham-story. What we read in Scripture is, “Abraham entered into what God was doing for him, and that was the turning point. He trusted God to set him right instead of trying to be right on his own.” 4-5 If you’re a hard worker and do a good job, you deserve your pay; we don’t call your wages a gift. But if you see that the job is too big for you, that it’s something only God can do, and you trust him to do it—you could never do it for yourself no matter how hard and long you worked—well, that trusting-him-to-do-it is what gets you set right with God, by God. Sheer gift.

Righto - nothing we can "DO" - no amount of doing, or not-doing will bring us to God. Only by simply trusting Him are we made whole.



Romans10
2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.


Who is 'they' in the passage above? To whom was he speaking, and speaking of? That's important.

But the last line - Righteousness for all who believe.

So we ARE righteous, free from the bonds of Sin. See what I mean? We are not bound by guilt of failure - failing something is NOT a sin. Failure is NOT sin. It's failure. Entirely possible for the righteous to stumble, no? AND - and in that "stumble" learn something or grow closer to God - learning the lessons to MORE-COMPLETELY love HIM and others, otherwise unlearnable. So - if we "stumble" yet rise from the stumble even CLOSER to God, is that stumble bad? Is it "sin"?

I vote 'no.'

Sin is whatever walls - whatever stuff - we put in our heart which drives us from LOVING God and People.

Lying? Probably - because lying betrays we do not LOVE people (those we lie to).

EXCEPT....sometimes lying is NOT sinful - when a Downs Syndrom, say, person brings me something they drew on a paper - and I say "What a LOVELY pony!!" and honestly, it looks more like a turnip, I lied to that person, but my Lie was LOVE-extended. Lying is NOT SIN, based on the context.

Killing - Killing/Murder is a Sin. Except when I'm faced with teh choice of saving my wife, or her unborn baby. If I choose 'save the mother' i'm indirectly killing the baby. Vice-versa too. Thus, killing or muder is NOT sin, based on the context.



I'm wondering are you as righteous as Jesus required by your own goodness and love of God? I know i don't live up to this standard.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


I have no desire to be called 'great' in ANY kingdom - but of what commands was He speaking?

Let's look


Unless you do far better than the Pharisees in the matters of right living, you won’t know the first thing about entering the kingdom.

How would we know? What were the Pharisees doing?

Note part of that last verse 'teachers of the law'...the law.........

[revelarts]

I think you're more upset with the Bible than with what I did there.
Sorta proves my point - doesn't really MATTER how righteous one is or claims to be - what matters is context and their heart. When people love God, and others, nothing else matters too much.
My point is - I believe MOST people live their lives, or can live their lives without cultivating sin. Problem is, if Churches preach true Grace, perhaps their coffers would suffer?
[/COLOR]You've used scripture quoting scripture. the purpose of that writing was talking about the Benefit of being Jewish - if they were uniquely special in receiving God's promises. Dangerous to use something written for one group and applying it without cause, to others. It's part of asking the question "Who are 'the chosen" of sorts.

VERY important to contiue on - to show the ONE singlular righteousness God offers:
Bingo. Those with faith in Jesus; they are justified and redeemed - they are righteous. It does NOT say 'they are righteous until "the next time they sin". It's because their sins - past, present, and future - are attoned-for. They are covered through the faith they have in Christ Jesus.
Here's that part translated into something that makes sense:
Righto - nothing we can "DO" - no amount of doing, or not-doing will bring us to God. Only by simply trusting Him are we made whole.
Who is 'they' in the passage above? To whom was he speaking, and speaking of? That's important.
But the last line - Righteousness for all who believe.
So we ARE righteous, free from the bonds of Sin. See what I mean? We are not bound by guilt of failure - failing something is NOT a sin. Failure is NOT sin. It's failure. Entirely possible for the righteous to stumble, no? AND - and in that "stumble" learn something or grow closer to God - learning the lessons to MORE-COMPLETELY love HIM and others, otherwise unlearnable. So - if we "stumble" yet rise from the stumble even CLOSER to God, is that stumble bad? Is it "sin"?
I vote 'no.'
Sin is whatever walls - whatever stuff - we put in our heart which drives us from LOVING God and People.
Lying? Probably - because lying betrays we do not LOVE people (those we lie to).
EXCEPT....sometimes lying is NOT sinful - when a Downs Syndrom, say, person brings me something they drew on a paper - and I say "What a LOVELY pony!!" and honestly, it looks more like a turnip, I lied to that person, but my Lie was LOVE-extended. Lying is NOT SIN, based on the context.
Killing - Killing/Murder is a Sin. Except when I'm faced with teh choice of saving my wife, or her unborn baby. If I choose 'save the mother' i'm indirectly killing the baby. Vice-versa too. Thus, killing or muder is NOT sin, based on the context.
I have no desire to be called 'great' in ANY kingdom - but of what commands was He speaking?
Let's look
How would we know? What were the Pharisees doing?
Note part of that last verse 'teachers of the law'...the law.........
Ooo Kkk so Lying is Sin, but when you do it it's really only stumbling and not sin?
or you just never lie, except to down syndrone children?

[Robert A Whit]

What I don't like to do is get into "dueling scriptures" discussions.

This is often the habit of those who are new to faith in GOD and even Jesus. I used to dread a woman, the sister of a close friend, showing up to my office since I knew when she arrived I was going to get a born again lecture the size of Alaska.

I came to my path to GOD partly by being a Mormon and going to church for years. I was raised in all Mormon family so I could count on learning more no matter where I was. Be it in CA or Salt Lake City, I got more church information.

I don't like people attacking the church since they do not base the attacks on how great Mormons are as a group. They are awesome in all respects.

Avatar probably can duel with scripture better than I am able to but I not only accept Jesus and GOD but believe that my future will be with them. But I don't wish to have to defend myself via dueling scriptures.

I see no problem for GOD having GODs like him around him. I think he could use the company.

[darin]

Ooo Kkk so Lying is Sin, but when you do it it's really only stumbling and not sin?
or you just never lie, except to down syndrone children?

Are you even trying to be an adult now? Of course lying is not sin, sometimes. Sin is never in the verb, it's in the intent. Actions aren't sin, just as actions are not salvation - but are absolutely and only judged based on one's heart.

My sins are forgiven me; and I love God. And I love people. Beyond that, I won't let guilt compell me to talk-down the gift He's given; nor will I let baseless tradition.

[revelarts]

Are you even trying to be an adult now? Of course lying is not sin, sometimes. Sin is never in the verb, it's in the intent. Actions aren't sin, just as actions are not salvation - but are absolutely and only judged based on one's heart.

My sins are forgiven me; and I love God. And I love people. Beyond that, I won't let guilt compell me to talk-down the gift He's given; nor will I let baseless tradition.

So when intend to lie ...before you lie... you have Sinned but you are already forgiven for it?
But you don't speak of your intent to lie or lust or whatever because that's talking down his gift of ... righteousness?

[darin]

So when intend to lie ...before you lie... you have Sinned but you are already forgiven for it?
But you don't speak of your intent to lie or lust or whatever because that's talking down his gift of ... righteousness?



The sin is in the heart-absolutely. Doesn't matter if the heart-condition expresses in action. Sin, and Love/righteousness reside solely in the heart. I won't repent every day for 'sins I didn't know I committed, just in case' because I know i'm covered. I'm covered based on my Faith in Christ. I won't say "of COURSE I sin all the time!" because that talks poorly against christ's attonement. It says "Christ did a shitty job, and I'm still bound by the sin-conditions from which he tried to free me"

Are you being purposely obtuse?

[revelarts]

What I don't like to do is get into "dueling scriptures" discussions.
This is often the habit of those who are new to faith in GOD and even Jesus. I used to dread a woman, the sister of a close friend, showing up to my office since I knew when she arrived I was going to get a born again lecture the size of Alaska.
I came to my path to GOD partly by being a Mormon and going to church for years. I was raised in all Mormon family so I could count on learning more no matter where I was. Be it in CA or Salt Lake City, I got more church information.
I don't like people attacking the church since they do not base the attacks on how great Mormons are as a group. They are awesome in all respects.
Avatar probably can duel with scripture better than I am able to but I not only accept Jesus and GOD but believe that my future will be with them. But I don't wish to have to defend myself via dueling scriptures.
I see no problem for GOD having GODs like him around him. I think he could use the company.

There are nice Buddhist and Hindus and Atheist who do not believe in Jesus and are very nice people.
and no one has attacked Mormons for being bad people Robert.
You say you believe in many gods and in past and present believers who become gods 2nd class with God.
Most people who call themselves Christians do not.
That's not an attack either. That just a statement of fact.
People have been using the Bible to point out why they believe in one God.
You don't like to read Bible on the subject so I've stopped quotin to you.
And you won't answer my questions sooo I guess our convo is done on this.

cadet, PMP and other might have a few more things to say idunno.

[Robert A Whit]

There are nice Buddhist and Hindus and Atheist who do not believe in Jesus and are very nice people.
and no one has attacked Mormons for being bad people Robert.
You say you believe in many gods and in past and present believers who become gods 2nd class with God.
Most people who call themselves Christians do not.
That's not an attack either. That just a statement of fact.
People have been using the Bible to point out why they believe in one God.
You don't like to read Bible on the subject so I've stopped quotin to you.
And you won't answer my questions sooo I guess our convo is done on this.

cadet, PMP and other might have a few more things to says idunno.

Depends on how you mean believe in other GODS. I thought that is clear that such GODS include even Jesus. Surely a wise GOD does not alone inhabit all that there is. If he made us in his image, does that sound disrespectful? You act as if I am disrespectful to GOD. I am not at all. I realize that few Christians have put thought into the role Jesus, Moses, and others play in the scheme of GOD's world. While a singular GOD is mentioned in the Bible, so is the plural GOD form. GOD created man in OUR image.

Oh I read the Bible. Have it right here. Been reading more of it. I enjoy reading it.

As to answering your questions, some of those questions are asked in the form that you would tell me you already know the answers. When a man knows answers, why ask me?

[revelarts]

The sin is in the heart-absolutely. Doesn't matter if the heart-condition expresses in action. Sin, and Love/righteousness reside solely in the heart. I won't repent every day for 'sins I didn't know I committed, just in case' because I know i'm covered. I'm covered based on my Faith in Christ. I won't say "of COURSE I sin all the time!" because that talks poorly against christ's attonement. It says "Christ did a shitty job, and I'm still bound by the sin-conditions from which he tried to free me"

Are you being purposely obtuse?

well nooo, i'm not being purposely obtuse.
I'm just trying to understand how you dodge the cold hard fact that YOU .. i'm guessing here...
lie from time to time, and that those lies did come from an intent in your heart to lie.
that you, more than likely, have lusted from time to time and that ALSO came from a heart intent to lust.
but somehow you say your not a sinner, when you have it in you heart and have done some of these things since becoming a Christian.
I'm not saying you make a daily practice of it but be lets be real. a sinner is a person who commits sin. if you have committed sin -in your heart- then that makes you... a sinner.

Of course that's not the end of the story , but it's a part of our stories that we can't... honestly in our hearts... dodge. it seems to me.
Your answers appear to me to be convoluted rationalizations to hold onto an unrealistic and unsupported position.


And even in the VERY passage you use about being righteous and effective prayers it says Christains should confess their sins to each other.
James 5:16
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
I just don't understand how you come by all your dodges on sin and your take on righteousness.

[darin]

well nooo, i'm not being purposely obtuse. </SPAN>
I'm just trying to understand how you dodge the cold hard fact that YOU .. i'm guessing here...</SPAN>
lie from time to time, and that those lies did come from an intent in your heart to lie.</SPAN>

I don't lie - in the terms you're describing as lying. </SPAN>


</SPAN>
that you, more than likely, have lusted from time to time and that ALSO came from a heart intent to lust.</SPAN>
but somehow you say your not a sinner, when you have it in you heart and have done some of these things since becoming a Christian.</SPAN>

I don't lust sexually. I lust for good things though. That's not sin.</SPAN>


</SPAN>
I'm not saying you make a daily practice of it but be lets be real. a sinner is a person who commits sin. if you have committed sin -in your heart- then that makes you... a sinner.</SPAN>

If it's not a daily occurrence, it's probably not "sin". In fact, I'd wager classifying 'sin' is probably a sign one doesn't really LOVE. People never do 'a sin'. Sin = broken hearts, keeping us from knowing God. Not an instance. Not a one-thing or another. </SPAN>

AND IF I DID; those sins are already forgiven before I even ask. Because God knows my heart. </SPAN>


</SPAN>
Of course that's not the end of the story , but it's a part of our stories that we can't... honestly in our hearts... dodge. it seems to me.</SPAN>
Your answers appear to me to be convoluted rationalizations to hold onto an unrealistic and unsupported position.</SPAN>
</SPAN>

Except I've absolutely supported my positions. You may not like the simplicity of Grace from an Eternal God.</SPAN>


</SPAN>
And even in the VERY passage you use about being righteous and effective prayers it says Christains should confess their sins to each other.</SPAN>
James 5:16</SPAN>
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.</SPAN>
I just don't understand how you come by all your dodges on sin and your take on righteousness.</SPAN>

What does it mean to confess our sins to another? Maybe it's "When you are having a hard time, find encouragement with one-another"? Maybe it's "When you hurt one-another, FIX IT"? </SPAN>

I've not dodged and you probably know it. But to accept very basic truths, some folks will struggle because they are conditioned for guilt and to be yoked spiritually and financially to a specific organization. </SPAN>

If I claim to be a sinner, I've negated God's fulfillment of the Law and complete atonement and forgiveness of my sin. I cannot very well claim what God has forgiven and forgotten - that'd be arrogant of me. Mistakes are NOT sin. They are mistakes. </SPAN>

[revelarts]

I don't lie - in the terms you're describing as lying.
I don't lust sexually. I lust for good things though. That's not sin.
If it's not a daily occurrence, it's probably not "sin". In fact, I'd wager classifying 'sin' is probably a sign one doesn't really LOVE. People never do 'a sin'. Sin = broken hearts, keeping us from knowing God. Not an instance. Not a one-thing or another.
AND IF I DID; those sins are already forgiven before I even ask. Because God knows my heart.
Except I've absolutely supported my positions. You may not like the simplicity of Grace from an Eternal God.
What does it mean to confess our sins to another? Maybe it's "When you are having a hard time, find encouragement with one-another"? Maybe it's "When you hurt one-another, FIX IT"?
I've not dodged and you probably know it. But to accept very basic truths, some folks will struggle because they are conditioned for guilt and to be yoked spiritually and financially to a specific organization.
If I claim to be a sinner, I've negated God's fulfillment of the Law and complete atonement and forgiveness of my sin. I cannot very well claim what God has forgiven and forgotten - that'd be arrogant of me. Mistakes are NOT sin. They are mistakes.

.....really?
ooo k

[darin]

.....really?
ooo k


well...that was insightful.

How can I be more clear? Christ's grace trumps every hinderence we have, along our quest to learn to love him More. Frankly, disagreeing with that is against every tennant of Christianity I can think of.

[revelarts]

well...that was insightful.

How can I be more clear? Christ's grace trumps every hinderence we have, along our quest to learn to love him More. Frankly, disagreeing with that is against every tennant of Christianity I can think of.

DMP,
I think we agree on grace pretty much,
we're on different pages on sin and the believer.

[darin]

dmp,
I think we agree on grace pretty much,
we're on different pages on sin and the believer.

People do not typically look at their walk with God holistically - we view it linerally, and I think that's goofy. It's a series of if/then:

IF I am forgiven
THEN I am forgiven forever

I shouldn't keep trying to apologize for areas God created within me (I've been told any sexual desire a man has is LUST, etc.). I can walk knowing I'm in process - but because God is already at (what I call) the End of Time, he already knows my spiritual destination. I can avoid the trap of habitual apologies, and focus on what Christ said was most-important: Loving God and one-another.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think you're more upset with the Bible than with what I did there.


????.....for that to be true the Bible would have had to do the same thing you did......but it hasn't......




My sins are forgiven me;
why are your sins forgiven if there is no sin?........you're contradicting yourself.......



that you, more than likely, have lusted from time to time and that ALSO came from a heart intent to lust.

I'm ready to come clean....I'm a serial luster.......

[aboutime]

I'm ready to come clean....I'm a serial luster.......


You are not alone. Here is the admitted, original Serial Luster...Jimmeh Carter...4741 and the Democrats have never been the same since.

[Noir]

As far as the church goes, forget all the rest, any man that can sit on a golden throne, and without so much as a smirk say his organisation is concerned with the poor and needy, deserves contempt.

[red states rule]

As far as the church goes, forget all the rest, any man that can sit on a golden throne, and without so much as a smirk say his organisation is concerned with the poor and needy, deserves contempt.

Noir, we are well aware all you have for any religion, faith, and anyone who worships God is contempt. While you may feel superior to those folks, many like me, continue to ask God to have mercy on you

[Noir]

Noir, we are well aware all you have for any religion, faith, and anyone who worships God is contempt. While you may feel superior to those folks, many like me, continue to ask God to have mercy on you

Like i said forget all the rest (religion and all, thats not important) anyone who sits on a golden throne, and preaches thrift and help the needy should hold our contempt.

I mean, could you imagine if the head of a charity like Red Cross had such riches, and every so often you saw their CEO on TV, sat on their gold, dripping in jewellery, telling you that you should donate to help the needy. What would you think?

[Voted4Reagan]

As far as the church goes, forget all the rest, any man that can sit on a golden throne, and without so much as a smirk say his organisation is concerned with the poor and needy, deserves contempt.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who reject organized religion always seem to feel that they have a right to tell those that do no reject it how we shoul think and act.

One would think they would avoid religious discussions altogether.

seems hypocritical.

[Noir]

It never ceases to amaze me how people who reject organized religion always seem to feel that they have a right to tell those that do no reject it how we shoul think and act.

One would think they would avoid religious discussions altogether.

seems hypocritical.

I've specifically stated in each if my last two posts that I am not talking about religion in this thread, forget the religious aspect, that doesn't mater. Just address the point of my post if you're going to quote it please (:

Now, what would your reaction be if you say the head of a charity, surrounded by gems, jewels and other riches. Asking for your money to help the poor.

[Voted4Reagan]

I've specifically stated in each if my last two posts that I am not talking about religion in this thread, forget the religious aspect, that doesn't mater. Just address the point of my post if you're going to quote it please (:

Now, what would your reaction be if you say the head of a charity, surrounded by gems, jewels and other riches. Asking for your money to help the poor.

Noir... if you were a true atheist you would avoid religious threads altogether.

Since you dont you must be trying to sway people to convert to atheism.

You have become that which you despise most.

A Proselytizer for the Atheist Religion.



pros·e·ly·tize (prhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif)v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v.intr.1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v.tr. To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've specifically stated in each if my last two posts that I am not talking about religion in this thread, forget the religious aspect, that doesn't mater. Just address the point of my post if you're going to quote it please (:

Now, what would your reaction be if you say the head of a charity, surrounded by gems, jewels and other riches. Asking for your money to help the poor.


I'd ask the cat for one of his many jewels since obviously I am poor when compared to him...-;)

Ok, seriously, I do not donate to people like that. If I see that they have gotten rich off taken too large a share of donations for "whatever cause" (religious or not) I refuse to give a dime. --Tyr


Like i said forget all the rest (religion and all, thats not important) anyone who sits on a golden throne, and preaches thrift and help the needy should hold our contempt.



Have to agree with that!
And trust me all they get from me is pure contempt!

The Apostle Paul was a tent maker and set up shop everywhere he went, not asking for money to spread the word.
There is a lesson in that...-Tyr

[Noir]

Have to agree with that!
And trust me all they get from me is pure contempt!

The Apostle Paul was a tent maker and set up shop everywhere he went, not asking for money to spread the word.
There is a lesson in that...-Tyr

Well shucks, looks like you're a proselytising atheist Tyr, erm, congrats? ^,^

[glockmail]

As far as the church goes, forget all the rest, any man that can sit on a golden throne, and without so much as a smirk say his organisation is concerned with the poor and needy, deserves contempt.
You are racist for talking about The Obama that way.

[avatar4321]

If we are uncapable of not-sinning, none of us should waste time praying. Because none are righteous, so our prayers won't do dick.

We can overcome anything by the grace of God. Even our sins. Through God all things are possible.

:link:
your logic sucks......the fact that the prayers of a righteous man avails much doesn't mean the prayers of a less than righteous man avails nothing......was the bleeding woman who chose to touch the hem of Jesus robe "righteous"......Jesus said her faith had made her whole anyway......the Roman centurian who's son was dying wasn't "righteous", yet Jesus brought his son back from the dead.....

and, I don't think you really believe that man can live without sinning.....if you do, you're fooling yourself.....re-read the Sermon on the Mount to remind yourself what Jesus considered to be sin......

Im pretty sure the Bible doesn't mention whether the woman with the blood issue or the Centurian's son was righteous or not.

Through God, all things our possible. Through the Atonement we can repent of our sins. Repentence includes giving them up. We learn and grow line upon line and precept upon precept, from grace to grace through Christ we can overcome our sins and live as a new man.


It never ceases to amaze me how people who reject organized religion always seem to feel that they have a right to tell those that do no reject it how we shoul think and act.

One would think they would avoid religious discussions altogether.

seems hypocritical.

I think it's more interesting that they often seem concerned for the poor and needy and yet don't acknowledge what Christians do.

What did Jesus say when Judas made that same complaint about what he thought should be done for the poor?

[darin]

????.....for that to be true the Bible would have had to do the same thing you did......but it hasn't......


why are your sins forgiven if there is no sin?........you're contradicting yourself.......



I'm ready to come clean....I'm a serial luster.......

Please ask questions that make sense. I am explaining very carefully, but you are not even trying now. If you want me to stop wasting my time - just say so.

Here's my last attempt to spoon feed things to you perhaps you are otherwise unable to want to believe:

I never said "There is no sin". I am saying "in christ, I have no condemnation. Ever. Forever. The specific 'rules' are of far less consequence when our spiritual lives are viewed hollistically - not linerally.

[aboutime]

I think it's more interesting that they often seem concerned for the poor and needy and yet don't acknowledge what Christians do.

What did Jesus say when Judas made that same complaint about what he thought should be done for the poor?

avatar. By now you should know. Everyone knows more than you, me, or they do. Just ASK THEM!

Bring up any topic. Someone will always tell you..Only they know more than you do. That's why nobody seems to get along anymore, unless there is an argument, and someone else must always insist...They Won!

[Robert A Whit]

avatar. By now you should know. Everyone knows more than you, me, or they do. Just ASK THEM!

Bring up any topic. Someone will always tell you..Only they know more than you do. That's why nobody seems to get along anymore, unless there is an argument, and someone else must always insist...They Won!

Pot .... Kettle

nuff said

[revelarts]

Please ask questions that make sense. I am explaining very carefully, but you are not even trying now. If you want me to stop wasting my time - just say so.

Here's my last attempt to spoon feed things to you perhaps you are otherwise unable to want to believe:

I never said "There is no sin". I am saying "in christ, I have no condemnation. Ever. Forever. The specific 'rules' are of far less consequence when our spiritual lives are viewed hollistically - not linerally.
BUt you did say YOU don't sin.
which I find uh... a little hard to believe.
BUt OK when a rouge so called Christian RC preist rapes a child is that a sin or does God look at it (-and us to by extension) holistcally and NOT call it a sin but call it "mistakes". Since Holistically it's forgiven and the priest is not bound by specific 'rules'.

don't tell me i'm being obtuse, it just seems you have no way of being consistent DMP.

Ethier there is no such thing as sin for the believers or there is. all the verbal bob-n-weaving done won't let you escape one of those positions.

Sin is either a real option now. or not. Renaming it when you do is not an honest solution.
Most Christians understand that ULTIMATELY or Holistically we are completely forgiven and As sinless as Jesus Christ DMP.
But we do live linearly. How is it that in this linear experience you say you can express love but somehow your think that sin is not expressed in the same linear existence. So you rename and redefine it to make it disappear "linearly'. But You demand and expect Loving actions in linear time.

why not flip the program and just live any old way , full of linear "mistakes". since Holistically i'm seen as a loving child of God?

And Don't quote a verse about loving your neighbor TODAY, that's linear. And it may not REALLY mean loving your Neighbor anyway. it may mean thinking well of but doing nothing, hoping the best for, Ignoring, Laughing At, or any number of things.
since that the way your willing to play with other verses about sin. you've got to allow for the same principal of interpretation to apply to Love or anything DMP.

[PostmodernProphet]

Im pretty sure the Bible doesn't mention whether the woman with the blood issue or the Centurian's son was righteous or not.

by definition, under the rules of Judaism in that day, both a woman bleeding menstrually and and a gentile were NOT considered righteous......neither would be allowed to even enter the temple......




I never said "There is no sin"

of course you did, that's the only reason we're arguing the issue......#149......

[red states rule]

Like i said forget all the rest (religion and all, thats not important) anyone who sits on a golden throne, and preaches thrift and help the needy should hold our contempt.

I mean, could you imagine if the head of a charity like Red Cross had such riches, and every so often you saw their CEO on TV, sat on their gold, dripping in jewellery, telling you that you should donate to help the needy. What would you think?

I had to take a moment and think if you were talking about the Pope or the "royal family" the overtaxed British taxpayer continues to support. Once again Noir, your contempt for religion is clear. And I continue to pray for you everyday.

[Noir]

I had to take a moment and think if you were talking about the Pope or the "royal family" the overtaxed British taxpayer continues to support. Once again Noir, your contempt for religion is clear. And I continue to pray for you everyday.

I've repeatedly stated my question which is void of any religious context, if you can't see beyond that then fine.

Also I'd abolish the Royal Family in a heartbeat, just sayin'

[red states rule]

I've repeatedly stated my question which is void of any religious context, if you can't see beyond that then fine.

Also I'd abolish the Royal Family in a heartbeat, just sayin'

Noir, you have a long history of attack religion, people of faith, and those who show their faith openly. You seldom miss a chance to show that contempt and I must admit, you show it very well. One day I hope you get your wish about the royal family and I also hope the taxpayers will get that money back - but given the path the British government has taken I doubt that will happen

[Noir]

Noir, you have a long history of attack religion, people of faith, and those who show their faith openly. You seldom miss a chance to show that contempt and I must admit, you show it very well. One day I hope you get your wish about the royal family and I also hope the taxpayers will get that money back - but given the path the British government has taken I doubt that will happen

Mkay Red, one last time, just for you.
If you saw someone, sat in a vault of riches, covered in golds and jewels, and you knew they owner of virtually priceless works. And they told you that his/her concern was the poor, and that you should live thrift-fully, without attachment to whores trinkets. Would you hold them in contempt?

The person could be a pope, or a king, or a princess, or a charity CEO, or a dictator, it doesn't matter. They could be a jew, catholic, atheist, pagan or other, it doesn't matter. Just answer the question, not caveats attached, if you can.

[red states rule]

Mkay Red, one last time, just for you.
If you saw someone, sat in a vault of riches, covered in golds and jewels, and you knew they owner of virtually priceless works. And they told you that his/her concern was the poor, and that you should live thrift-fully, without attachment to whores trinkets. Would you hold them in contempt?

The person could be a pope, or a king, or a princess, or a charity CEO, or a dictator, it doesn't matter. They could be a jew, catholic, atheist, pagan or other, it doesn't matter. Just answer the question, not caveats attached, if you can.

Again are you talking about the US Congress? The Church has done more for the poor then any government handout program. Yes then church has had serious issues and you seem to want to wipe it off the face of the Earth to appease your hatred of religion

[Noir]

Again are you talking about the US Congress? The Church has done more for the poor then any government handout program. Yes then church has had serious issues and you seem to want to wipe it off the face of the Earth to appease your hatred of religion

A+ dude, i won't be replying to you any further in this thread. Deliberately pretending you don't understand a question that's as clear as an unmudded lake is beyond silly, you do yourself a disservice.

[revelarts]

As far as the church goes, forget all the rest, any man that can sit on a golden throne, and without so much as a smirk say his organisation is concerned with the poor and needy, deserves contempt.

The riches of the Church in Rome is amazing and I don't get it either Frankly.

But it's an interesting fact that the New Pope may be sitting on surrounded by gold and silver extracted from his own country and other parts of South America By the conquistadors and such.
RC churches in Europe are groaning under the weight of the stuff. All of Europe was changed by the influx of South American Gold and silver. its part of the reason Europe transformed from a feudal to a mercantile and capitalist economy, more Gold and silver to trade from the conquistadors to the Kings to the Lords to the merchants/corps and the common people. the church got it's cut of the booty too though, often right off the boat.

[Robert A Whit]

The riches of the Church in Rome is amazing and I don't get it either Frankly.

But it's an interesting fact that the New Pope may be sitting on surrounded by gold and silver extracted from his own country and other parts of South America By the conquistadors and such.
RC churches in Europe are groaning under the weight of the stuff. All of Europe was changed by the influx of South American Gold and silver. its part of the reason Europe transformed from a feudal to a mercantile and capitalist economy, more Gold and silver to trade from the conquistadors to the Kings to the Lords to the merchants/corps and the common people. the church got it's cut of the booty too though, often right off the boat.


I can't speak for 2013, but I believe it was FJ1200 that recommended we read a book called the Lords of Finance and by 1923, the USA owned about 80 percent of the worlds gold. I can't recall the USA selling off Gold to Europe and the world. France and the UK had most of the remaining 80 percent with Germany bringing up the tail.

I realize that was a long time ago but does anybody have facts to support the USA divesting itself of the huge stocks of Gold?

[aboutime]

A+ dude, i won't be replying to you any further in this thread. Deliberately pretending you don't understand a question that's as clear as an unmudded lake is beyond silly, you do yourself a disservice.


Noir. Since you won't be replying any further on this thread. Why stop there? How bout taking all of your single-handed, always perfect, and always right attitudes with you, and just stay away from everything?
That would prevent any further disservice from you as well.

[Noir]

Noir. Since you won't be replying any further on this thread. Why stop there? How bout taking all of your single-handed, always perfect, and always right attitudes with you, and just stay away from everything?
That would prevent any further disservice from you as well.

I guess you (ironically) mis-read the post about RSR misreading/applying my posts, wherein i said i wouldn't be replying to him in this thread. Though i really don't understand why you posed a question to me in a topic that you thought i wasn't going to reply in, that makes no sense.

Anyways, rest assured i ain't going nowhere, and given the span and scope of the topic, i'd say its best that (despite your urges to tell me how i'm perfect etc) you don't clog up the thread with posts directed only at me with no relation to the topic (:

[darin]

BUt you did say YOU don't sin.
which I find uh... a little hard to believe.
BUt OK when a rouge so called Christian RC preist rapes a child is that a sin or does God look at it (-and us to by extension) holistcally and NOT call it a sin but call it "mistakes". Since Holistically it's forgiven and the priest is not bound by specific 'rules'.

don't tell me i'm being obtuse, it just seems you have no way of being consistent dmp.


It's consistent for those who want to learn something. When a gay man rapes a child it's way beyond Sin. Much more serious heart problems there.



Ethier there is no such thing as sin for the believers or there is. all the verbal bob-n-weaving done won't let you escape one of those positions.

Believers don't have to worry about sin. That's been my position. Believers are under Grace and don't have to ritualistically ask forgiveness "just in case they've sinned!" Most people probably do NOT have sin in their lives; if those people honestly follow and love God, and others as much as they love themselves. That's been my consistent message. That message is supported by scripture, as i've shown.


Sin is either a real option now. or not. Renaming it when you do is not an honest solution.
Most Christians understand that ULTIMATELY or Holistically we are completely forgiven and As sinless as Jesus Christ dmp.
But we do live linearly. How is it that in this linear experience you say you can express love but somehow your think that sin is not expressed in the same linear existence. So you rename and redefine it to make it disappear "linearly'. But You demand and expect Loving actions in linear time.

Right - so, because we are completely forgiven, our focus should be away from digging out the sin in our lives - if it could exist under grace, which it cannot, because Christ has completely restored us - and focus MORE on loving people.


why not flip the program and just live any old way , full of linear "mistakes". since Holistically i'm seen as a loving child of God?

And Don't quote a verse about loving your neighbor TODAY, that's linear. And it may not REALLY mean loving your Neighbor anyway. it may mean thinking well of but doing nothing, hoping the best for, Ignoring, Laughing At, or any number of things.
since that the way your willing to play with other verses about sin. you've got to allow for the same principal of interpretation to apply to Love or anything dmp

I have no idea what you just wrote. But Christ says, and the Bible shows time and again, to Love one-another, to serve one-another is to serve God. The essence of Christianity is to focus on Loving God - and by loving God we will grow our love for one-another. All the witch hunts and the pomp and cirumstance and dog-and-pony shows we have in churches matters not one bit. Wringing our hands and sweating and searching and spending our time TRYING TO FIND a "OMGWTF A SIN!!!! NOOO!!" is pointless because it doesn't matter. If our heart is one of Love, our actions cannot help but display that Love. That's the focus. That's the only important part of God's message; Love for Him and one-another.


No, I don't regularly foster sin in my life because sin in my life hurts me and others. When I start feeling ANYTHING that puts a baracde between me and Love, I work to correct it - but only so much as working to correct it does NOT consume me; does not take away from my focus - of Loving God and others.

Why does God call some things 'sin'? Because those things HURT people (and ourselves). He doesn't just make shit up to fuck with us. He gives us heart-conditions to avoid. For OUR sake more than his. But once we're forgiven, we are forgiven forever. Christ paid for our sins. All mankind. Forever.

Some people want to spend a lot of energy making atonement for shit already covered. More power to you, but please don't pass your guilt and shame onto the rest of humanity - for their sins are forgiven; and probaly whether they ask for it or not. But that's a different topic.



of course you did, that's the only reason we're arguing the issue......#149......

That's dishonest of you. Lying? No where can any reasonable person conclude I said there is 'no such thing as sin'.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's dishonest of you. Lying? No where can any reasonable person conclude I said there is 'no such thing as sin'.

don't call me a liar, I even gave you the post number where you said it.....how can you deny it, its the only reason we've been arguing for several pages.....

[darin]

don't call me a liar, I even gave you the post number where you said it.....how can you deny it, its the only reason we've been arguing for several pages.....

I think you ARE lying.

here's post 149



Um... Blasphemy.


Naw, God wouldn't care if the guy thought that way. Honestly, it makes no difference what happens upon the death of "saints"; makes no difference to my (relative) salvation - and my 'salvation' makes NO difference to my Love of God or not.



the problem is, this extra-biblical knowledge can't be shared.....a person can say that even though the bible says X, God told them Y......since no one else heard it we cannot confirm that God didn't really say Z but they were too drunk to understand him when it happened......

I disagree slightly. The problem isn't knowledge sharing, it's politicizing interpretations. If somebody claims God has brown eyes because God told them so, and the truth to God's eye colour is not in scripture I don't care if they make the claim.

Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture. Teaching whats in the quotes is flat-out wrong on a number of levels.

If you claim I said "There's no such thing as sin" in above-quoted-post, you are lying about what is written.

[revelarts]

It's consistent for those who want to learn something.
???! What? So i have to learn to think that inconsistents is really consistent when DMP says it. kinda orwellian.



When a gay man rapes a child it's way beyond Sin. Much more serious heart problems there.
more than sin?, Sooo the child rapist doesn't have sin either, it's something else too?
so if raping a child isn't sin then what is DMP?
I wish you would just give a flat definition of sin. And STICK WITH IT. at least w'd have an honest conversation going.
Eveytime i've offered a definition of sin you don't say directly that it's wrong but DODGE and say it's Something else.
you say stuff like
'It's a heart issue not an act... it's not not keeping the 10 comandments..., the verse that SAYS SIN might REALLY mean help with a problem or something... i don't sin.... i make mistakes."

DMP the only thing I'm sure of on your position on sin, is that you don't do it and you don't like to think about it.
What ever IT is.





Believers don't have to worry about sin. That's been my position. Believers are under Grace and don't have to ritualistically ask forgiveness "just in case they've sinned!" Most people probably do NOT have sin in their lives; if those people honestly follow and love God, and others as much as they love themselves. That's been my consistent message. That message is supported by scripture, as i've shown.

Right - so, because we are completely forgiven, our focus should be away from digging out the sin in our lives - if it could exist under grace, which it cannot, because Christ has completely restored us - and focus MORE on loving people.
I'm not asking you to worry about it or DIG it out. I'm just wondering why you are so adverse to acknowledging it. as it comes up Linearly in the the life of the believer the same way you acknowledge love linearly in the life of the believer. It's not matter of Focus but honesty which in my understanding of God's nature is a virtue as well as love.






I have no idea what you just wrote. But Christ says, and the Bible shows time and again, to Love one-another, to serve one-another is to serve God. The essence of Christianity is to focus on Loving God - and by loving God we will grow our love for one-another. All the witch hunts and the pomp and cirumstance and dog-and-pony shows we have in churches matters not one bit. -who's talking about Church ritual DMP? strawman here?- Wringing our hands and sweating and searching and spending our time TRYING TO FIND a "OMGWTF A SIN!!!! NOOO!!" is pointless because it doesn't matter. If our heart is one of Love, our actions cannot help but display that Love. That's the focus. That's the only important part of God's message; Love for Him and one-another. You should read it again

But whose Trying to find sin?! It's pretty self evident to honest folks. Looks like your hand wringing and dodging to AVOID the whole concept. like Adam and Eve in the garden, "OMGWTF A SIN!!!! NOOO!!" It like your putting up a cross and turning your head.



No, I don't regularly foster sin in my life because sin in my life hurts me and others. When I start feeling ANYTHING that puts a baracde between me and Love, I work to correct it - but only so much as working to correct it does NOT consume me; does not take away from my focus - of Loving God and others. ...
OK soo when you start "...feeeling anything that..." i think i may see part of the problem. your going by your "feelings of love". Can you give me a verse for that?
Rather than going by what God says will hurt you or others or ..maybe he just plain doesn't want us to do for his own reasons.

Loving people is a command but without knowing what's right and wrong ( what harms or heals) we can't really know how to love can we.

[darin]

???! What? So i have to learn to think that inconsistents is really consistent when dmp says it. kinda orwellian.


If you want to learn, read what I'm telling you and apply the courtesy of benefit of the doubt, or at least honest debate. I'm not asking you to agree.




more than sin?, Sooo the child rapist doesn't have sin either, it's something else too?
so if raping a child isn't sin then what is dmp?

The sin is in our hearts. That's what God heals. Don't get upset with me, read the Bible.


I wish you would just give a flat definition of sin. And STICK WITH IT. at least w'd have an honest conversation going.
Eveytime i've offered a definition of sin you don't say directly that it's wrong but DODGE and say it's Something else.
you say stuff like
'It's a heart issue not an act... it's not not keeping the 10 comandments..., the verse that SAYS SIN might REALLY mean help with a problem or something... i don't sin.... i make mistakes."


SIN are things that hurt ourselves, or others. Sin isn't arbitrary laws laid-out by a God wanting to smash us. Sin is a verb-within-the-heart. It's a condition to be healed. Those who have forgiveness HAVE IT. (note the period). You are over-complicating; the trees block your view of the forrest.



dmp, the only thing I'm sure of on your position on sin, is that you don't do it and you don't like to think about it.
What ever IT is.

I don't know any christians that 'do' sin.



I'm not asking you to worry about it or DIG it out. I'm just wondering why you are so adverse to acknowledging it. as it comes up Linearly in the the life of the believer the same way you acknowledge love linearly in the life of the believer. It's not matter of Focus but honesty which in my understanding of God's nature is a virtue as well as love.


My sin, past or present or future, is forgiven. Has-been-forgiven if you want to live 'start to finish' of one's life. I believe God eternal, not bound by 'start to finish' as our physical lives are bound. Thus, when God forgives, it's timeless, too.



But whose Trying to find sin?! It's pretty self evident to honest folks. Looks like your hand wringing and dodging to AVOID the whole concept. like Adam and Eve in the garden, "OMGWTF A SIN!!!! NOOO!!" It like your putting up a cross and turning your head.

Yes, I'm avoiding the trap of teaching 'we must REPENT DAILY!! becuase we MIGHT HAVE sinned without our knowledge!" AND...AND voiding "Simple adherence to the Law does not a Christian make".



OK soo when you start "...feeeling anything that..." i think i may see part of the problem. your going by your "feelings of love". Can you give me a verse for that?
Rather than going by what God says will hurt you or others or ..maybe he just plain doesn't want us to do for his own reasons.


Feelings of love? I'm going by when I'm convicted, or am troubled by the condition of my heart...I immediately seek remedy.
I don't get visions or booming voices from God. My spirit gets upset at any failure to love I exhibit. Sometimes that can lean to sin. Other times it's just me being human. No need to stress over little shit. When hot chick walks by and I feel biologically aroused. NOT lust. NOT sin. Biology. When I actively lust after something, well, that's a sign of a heart in need of healing. That lust hurts ME and maybe others around me - hurting ME is not Loving myself (somebody God loves). That's how it boils down to loving God and Loving others as I love myself.

When we love God and others, we are incapable of much sin. In fact, if we are serious about Loving God, we're very close to incapable of sin period. "Sin", not 'making an honest mistake'. Two different animals.


Loving people is a command but without knowing what's right and wrong ( what harms or heals) we can't really know how to love can we.

Nobody can simply 'obey a command' to Love. Love is not a duty one wears begrudingly. We cannot 'know' how to love. We have to love-the-verb. Feel then Act.

I met several people over the course of my life who know nothing of the Bible, yet know God more than many priests and ministers. Those people Know God. They live a life of LOVE for God, and fellow-man apart from ANY bible or other 'instruction'. It's innate, almost.

Love God. Love your fellow man as you love yourself. Love defines what is right or wrong. "Not-loving" is the root element of EVERY classified sin I can think of, and maybe some I can't think of.

Focus on the essentials - Don't worry too much about the rest. You'll screw up sometimes, but keep a heart of love, bent towards love of God and others, and I just bet everything will be all right. In fact, as I've shown time and again in this thread, the Bible tends to teach that same concept.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think you ARE lying.

here's post 149



If you claim I said "There's no such thing as sin" in above-quoted-post, you are lying about what is written.

you said "Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture."....

if having no other gods or murdering people is not sin, then what can there be that is sin?......I called you on that statement and we've been discussing it ever since......are you now claiming you believe they ARE sin?......

[darin]

you said "Claiming we have to "Follow the Ten Commandments or we are sinners" though - that's refutible by scripture."....

if having no other gods or murdering people is not sin, then what can there be that is sin?......I called you on that statement and we've been discussing it ever since......are you now claiming you believe they ARE sin?......

I said it well and it's truth - "Sinner" is not determined by one's strict ahderence to the 10 commandments. I'm saying, do NOT expect anything from God in terms of knowing him more, or being one of the proverbial 'sheep' in 'sheep and the goats' by merely following the 10 commandments. Preaching "If you don't follow the 10 commandments, you are a SINNER!" is patently false, and anti what Christ taught us about sin - about our hearts being the key, because I could easily NOT love God seemingly obey whatever rules you wanna come up with. Just as the bible is probably woefully inadquate in describing God's Love, it's also painfully abused to declare 'sinners-based-on-the-law'. Where those in christ are not SUBJECT to the Law; That law is fulfilled through Christ. We now, sad for some church administrators, no longer bound by The Law - as we Love God and know him fully forgiven of ANY trangression.

Those who have not read the commandments are in no danger of anything; said another way, Christ compells people to God - regardless of the presence of a bible - or the commandments contained therein. See also: Peter, Theif on the Cross, etc.

[revelarts]

[QUOTE=dmp;626625]

DMP:The sin is in our hearts.
ok

DMP:That's what God heals. Don't get upset with me, read the Bible.
ok but, i might start to worship it if i do that any more DMP.

DMP:SIN are things that hurt ourselves, or others.
ok

DMP:Sin isn't arbitrary laws laid-out by a God wanting to smash us.
ok, Who said God was trying to smash anyone?
And who decides if it's arbitrary? seems like we should read the Bible like you told me to find out, instead of following our feelings.

DMP:Sin is a verb-within-the-heart.
ok, is that all? A a negative "verb" in the heart i'd guess.

DMP:It's a condition to be healed.
ok, so it's broken if not wrong.

DMP:Those who have forgiveness HAVE IT. (note the period).
ok, have forgiveness, for something wrong or broken? which is Sin.

You are over-complicating; the trees block your view of the forrest.
ok, so trees of sins make a forest of forgiveness?

DMP:I don't know any christians that 'do' sin.
ok, so now people need forgiveness foe something they don't "do". whatever do is.

DMP:My sin, past or present or future, is forgiven.
ok, yes we agree. so you DO have present sin. and likely Future sin.

DMP:Has-been-forgiven if you want to live 'start to finish' of one's life.
ok, yess has been forgiven, that present and future sin we have.

DMP:I believe God eternal, not bound by 'start to finish' as our physical lives are bound. Thus, when God forgives, it's timeless, too.
ok, yes true. forgiven SIN right.

DMP:Yes, I'm avoiding the trap of teaching 'we must REPENT DAILY!! becuase we MIGHT HAVE sinned without our knowledge!"
ok, who said your need to repent daily over MIGHT HAVE sins? Just seems to me that if i beat my wife today i should ask God and her for forgiveness, aware that at least i've already got it from God.

DMP:AND...AND voiding "Simple adherence to the Law does not a Christian make".
ok, who said adherence to the law made anyone a christian? not me. we have a higher law that if we follow it will encompass "the law". Believing in Jesus is what makes a christian. Loving God and people makes you a good Christian.

DMP:Feelings of love? I'm going by when I'm convicted, or am troubled by the condition of my heart...I immediately seek remedy.
ok, seek remedy, me too. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9. John was writing to Christians i believe.

DMP:I don't get visions or booming voices from God. My spirit gets upset at any failure to love I exhibit.
Mine gets upset most of the time , but sometimes my failure has to be pointed out to me. --you treated that person poorly--- you are wrong-- or that was prideful, that was selfish.--

DMP:Sometimes that can lean to sin.
ok, so we are back to you sinning again, as i said riight

DMP:Other times it's just me being human. No need to stress over little shit.
ok, sure.

DMP:When hot chick walks by and I feel biologically aroused. NOT lust. NOT sin. Biology.
ok, yeah ok... as long as we don't nurse those thoughts, sure.

DMP:When I actively lust after something, well, that's a sign of a heart in need of healing.
ok, which is Sin as you defined above.

DMP:That lust hurts ME and maybe others around me - hurting ME is not Loving myself (somebody God loves).
ok, yes. God loves you and doesn't want your spirit harmed or others and he is grieved as well. there's pain and or offense all around. The pain of a father watching a child go of track. Of a precious creation being used at low standards and corrupted, that's real pain as well.

DMP:That's how it boils down to loving God and Loving others as I love myself.
ok,

DMP:When we love God and others, we are incapable of much sin.
oook, sin as defined by the bible yes. agreed. the same place where you get the loving God and neighbor idea.

DMP:In fact, if we are serious about Loving God, we're very close to incapable of sin period.
... third base. link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ejweI0EQpX8)

DMP:"Sin", not 'making an honest mistake'. Two different animals.
ok, in the sense mentioned ealier, agreed.

[darin]

[QUOTE=dmp;626625]

dmp:That's what God heals. Don't get upset with me, read the Bible.
ok but, i might start to worship it if i do that any more dmp.


Snarky.




dmp:Sin isn't arbitrary laws laid-out by a God wanting to smash us.
ok, Who said God was trying to smash anyone?
And who decides if it's arbitrary? seems like we should read the Bible like you told me to find out, instead of following our feelings.

Fear-mongering Churches say that; And most churches 'make up shit' and call it sin (and holy, too).


dmp:Sin is a verb-within-the-heart.
ok, is that all? A a negative "verb" in the heart i'd guess.

Right. Sin requires action (or inaction).



dmp:It's a condition to be healed.
ok, so it's broken if not wrong.


I don't know what that means.


dmp:Those who have forgiveness HAVE IT. (note the period).
ok, have forgiveness, for something wrong or broken? which is Sin.


Yup. Once forgiveness is given, it's given.


dmp:I don't know any christians that 'do' sin.
ok, so now people need forgiveness foe something they don't "do". whatever do is.


You aren't making sense. You keep interchanging 'those who don't know christ' and applying it where I speak of those who do. That's apples and oranges. But to your confusion-mongering, I'd offer this: I wonder if nobody goes to hell as we've been taught. I wonder if God's grace DOES win in the end....




dmp:My sin, past or present or future, is forgiven.
ok, yes we agree. so you DO have present sin. and likely Future sin.


No - those things are forgiven. Think apart from the constraints of how we percieve Time.



dmp:Has-been-forgiven if you want to live 'start to finish' of one's life.
ok, yess has been forgiven, that present and future sin we have.


...until it's forgiven (which it may already be, because at some point, we might seek restoration/forgiveness in what we call future, but what God may see as one big galactic now).




dmp:Yes, I'm avoiding the trap of teaching 'we must REPENT DAILY!! becuase we MIGHT HAVE sinned without our knowledge!"
ok, who said your need to repent daily over MIGHT HAVE sins?

Many teachers/preachers/people in today's christianity.



dmp:AND...AND voiding "Simple adherence to the Law does not a Christian make".
ok, who said adherence to the law made anyone a christian? not me. we have a higher law that if we follow it will encompass "the law". Believing in Jesus is what makes a christian. Loving God and people makes you a good Christian.



Many teachers/preachers/people in today's christianity.



dmp:Feelings of love? I'm going by when I'm convicted, or am troubled by the condition of my heart...I immediately seek remedy.
ok, seek remedy, me too. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9. John was writing to Christians i believe.


Right - so if you find yourself in that situation, you are not a 'sinner' - you're a guy who seeks help and gets help for whatever is keeping you from loving God.




dmp:I don't get visions or booming voices from God. My spirit gets upset at any failure to love I exhibit.
Mine gets upset most of the time , but sometimes my failure has to be pointed out to me. --you treated that person poorly--- you are wrong-- or that was prideful, that was selfish.--


Mine gets upset ALL the time. I always know when I've done wrong, or hurt others. If I hurt somebody in err, or without knowing, I don't feel conviction. Until its addressed. You aren't a 'sinner' while you're unaware, I bet. :)



dmp:Sometimes that can lean to sin.
ok, so we are back to you sinning again, as i said riight


No, we're not.



dmp:When I actively lust after something, well, that's a sign of a heart in need of healing.
ok, which is Sin as you defined above.


I was using 'when I' as an example or illustration.





dmp:When we love God and others, we are incapable of much sin.
oook, sin as defined by the bible yes. agreed. the same place where you get the loving God and neighbor idea.


...and we can get that completely unware of the bible's existence. We can get that from christ's compelling us to The Father. We can learn that and grow that apart from the Bible you and I read today, because God is that awesome.

[PostmodernProphet]

I said it well and it's truth - "Sinner" is not determined by one's strict ahderence to the 10 commandments. I'm saying, do NOT expect anything from God in terms of knowing him more, or being one of the proverbial 'sheep' in 'sheep and the goats' by merely following the 10 commandments. Preaching "If you don't follow the 10 commandments, you are a SINNER!" is patently false, and anti what Christ taught us about sin - about our hearts being the key, because I could easily NOT love God seemingly obey whatever rules you wanna come up with. Just as the bible is probably woefully inadquate in describing God's Love, it's also painfully abused to declare 'sinners-based-on-the-law'. Where those in christ are not SUBJECT to the Law; That law is fulfilled through Christ. We now, sad for some church administrators, no longer bound by The Law - as we Love God and know him fully forgiven of ANY trangression.

Those who have not read the commandments are in no danger of anything; said another way, Christ compells people to God - regardless of the presence of a bible - or the commandments contained therein. See also: Peter, Theif on the Cross, etc.

a sinner is logically one who sins......if one who violates the commandment not to worship other gods is not a sinner then violating the commandment not to worship other gods is not a sin....if worshiping other gods is not a sin, then I expect nothing is......you cannot pretend you didn't claim there was no sin.....especially not after arguing with me about it for several days....

now the completely separate discussion of the result of God's love, forgiveness, and the consequences of sin does not change the fact that it's still a sin.....

quite simply, if there is no sin you don't need forgiveness.....

[Robert A Whit]

I would not suggest anybody worship the other Gods in Heaven. I think GOD created them for company.

[darin]

a sinner is logically one who sins......if one who violates the commandment not to worship other gods is not a sinner then violating the commandment not to worship other gods is not a sin....if worshiping other gods is not a sin, then I expect nothing is......you cannot pretend you didn't claim there was no sin.....especially not after arguing with me about it for several days....

now the completely separate discussion of the result of God's love, forgiveness, and the consequences of sin does not change the fact that it's still a sin.....

quite simply, if there is no sin you don't need forgiveness.....

Dude - really, really, REALLY - you are simply making stuff up, and attributing things to me I haven't said. That's lying - or such gross and utter mis-reading, i'm at a loss to figure out what is going on with you. I have never said "There is NO sin (in the world/universe)".

Why is this such a struggle for you, I wonder.

Again, I don't know how to more-clearly state this:

It's not failing to adhere to the Commandments that makes somebody a sinner.
Adhering to the commandments does not make somebody a 'non-sinner'.

We are born into Sin. Christ forgives our sin eternally. Because we are under grace, we should spend almost NO time worrying about strict adherence to the Law of Moses (a law since-fulfilled), and almost ALL our time - in fact, ALL our time striving to love God and others more-better. When our mind and heart are tuned into God, we don't have to worry about "OMGWTF! I S1nn3D!!!"

Sin is beaten, forgiven, and ONLY a real issue by people who wish to control the behaviour of others. It's like The Church today is a Socialist/Fascist government who simply want to dole-out rules to 'catch people' and guilt them into participation in their organization.

It's time to move past - WAY past simple 'forgiveness of Sin' and move into the meat of what it means to be a Christian in the true sense of the word - somebody who is not caught up with their sin spreadsheets, tracking every action and all that. It's time to really sin no more, and live our life focused solely upon a loving God.

If you think you sin every day, chances are your heart is missing out. That or you might find something serving the ego, as you daily "humbling" yourself and beg forgiveness over stuff already paid-for (see: crucifiction and resurrection).

I've said it well - a number of times: Sin is a condition of the heart more than a specific action, because it's the heart-condition that DRIVES the action. It's the heart that is forgiven, NOT the action - because the action can produce consequence absent of the sin that drove the action.

Sin - Lust
Action - Adultry
Lust = Forgiven/Forgotten
Consequence = STD

Stop worrying about the adultry - focus FIRST and primarily on bringing one's heart into alignment with the principles Christ taught were the greatest: Loving God and others as yourself. If you fix the root cause, you'll stop acting out.

[PostmodernProphet]

attributing things to me I haven't said.
and yet, you keep repeating it....



Why is this such a struggle for you, I wonder.

because I'm concerned about someone who says he can walk down the street killing every other person he meets and not be sinning because his heart isn't in it.....it boggles the mind that you would even voice it.....

make one simple admission and this argument can be over.....being disobedient to God by doing something he has commanded us not to do, is in fact a sin.......

[darin]

because I'm concerned about someone who says he can walk down the street killing every other person he meets and not be sinning because his heart isn't in it.....it boggles the mind that you would even voice it.....

it boggles the mind you make that shit up about what I wrote.

If you want to be a child about this discussion, I can't stop you - but, c'mon...really?

You really, REALLY come-off like a Pharisee of biblical stories. It's honestly saddening how you twist what I'm telling you to find the worst-possible conclusion; instead of applying context and common-sense to what you "hear" from me. Stop it, for your OWN good.

(shrug).

[PostmodernProphet]

Stop it, for your OWN good.



wtf?.....what are you going to do, ban me because I question your logic?......I'm merely repeating what you say....

[darin]

wtf?.....what are you going to do, ban me because I question your logic?......I'm merely repeating what you say....


No - of course not. Thinking I'd BAN you for not in being in agreement with me is stupid and borderline insulting. That doesn't happen on this board.

What I'm cautioning you is this: Stop lying about what I write for your OWN good spiritually. You are NOT repeating me; You are taking what I write and absolutely lying about what it means; You are taking what I write and drawing it out to the ridiculous. </SPAN>

[PostmodernProphet]

What I'm cautioning you is this: Stop lying about what I write for your OWN good spiritually. You are NOT repeating me; You are taking what I write and absolutely lying about what it means; You are taking what I write and drawing it out to the ridiculous.

am I sinning when I do it?........because it would seem contradictory for you to say it isn't good for me spiritually when apparently you think I don't have to be concerned with it after being forgiven by God.....

[darin]

am I sinning when I do it?........because it would seem contradictory for you to say it isn't good for me spiritually when apparently you think I don't have to be concerned with it after being forgiven by God.....

Let me ask you - when you are changing the definition of words with an attempt to slant what I wrote into something it's NOT, how is your heart at those moments?

[avatar4321]

Let me ask you - when you are changing the definition of words with an attempt to slant what I wrote into something it's NOT, how is your heart at those moments?

I think that's something we all need to ask frequently.

[darin]

I think that's something we all need to ask frequently.

Here's what I see - I see at least two guys who don't agree with what I see in the Bible, but instead of honestly caring MORE about understanding and learning something maybe they have not considered, they want to try and play 'gotcha' using semantics.

Here's what I like about EVERY Mormon I've met: To a body, they debate and discuss in good faith. Couple that with them being outstanding citizens to their community and I think a lot of non-mormon-christian groups could learn a LOT about Love.

[avatar4321]

Here's what I see - I see at least two guys who don't agree with what I see in the Bible, but instead of honestly caring MORE about understanding and learning something maybe they have not considered, they want to try and play 'gotcha' using semantics.

Here's what I like about EVERY Mormon I've met: To a body, they debate and discuss in good faith. Couple that with them being outstanding citizens to their community and I think a lot of non-mormon-christian groups could learn a LOT about Love.

I think we all could learn alot about love. Sometimes it's very difficult not to just go out and attack someone (Im talking in posts not physically). Biting the tongue, especially when they are attacking you is not easy. I can't tell you how many times I've had to delete something I wrote out because it just wasnt kind or charitable. It's also why I've been trying to cut sarcasm out of my life. It's often mean and mocking. But it comes so easily.

I've been very ashamed at the lack of love I've had for others. I just keep praying the Lord will continue to forgive me and give me greater charity for others. Because I know I can do it on my own.

[revelarts]

Here's what I see - I see at least two guys who don't agree with what I see in the Bible, but instead of honestly caring MORE about understanding and learning something maybe they have not considered, they want to try and play 'gotcha' using semantics.

...

DMP, symantic games? I think you'd agree that sin is serious, Christ die for it. it's no game in my mind.
as far as understanding what yours saying, DMP , well don't assume that because I think you are wrong that i don't comprehend what your trying to say.
as if i'm blocking some great truth that your trying to impart but i'm to stubborn to embrace.
I just think your position is inconsistent, that it denies important realities of spiritual life and is unbiblical in a significant area.

pointing out those facts and trying to clarify your use of words, definitions and applications,
then comparing that to what the bible says and my own understanding is not gothca it is very honest discussion.

And also, covering uncomfortable truths with agreeable polite talk is not always love.