- Joined
- Aug 13, 2019
- Messages
- 10,555
- Reaction score
- 3,391
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why yes, you are doing what you called strange thing for another to do.
Oh man, the things a trinitarian will say, lol.
Why yes, you are doing what you called strange thing for another to do.This is a strange post.....you just "did" what you accused them of doing.
Actually, from the bible stories I read and was told about, he was in a tomb. A cave.Yeah, Jesus was putting his trust in Jehovah, knowing He would resurrect him...he was dead in the grave/hell for parts of 3 days...
There you go. Words that have been translated.Galatians 5:13-26
Young's Literal Translation
13 For ye -- to freedom ye were called, brethren, only not the freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through the love serve ye one another,
14 for all the law in one word is fulfilled -- in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;'
15 and if one another ye do bite and devour, see -- that ye may not by one another be consumed.
16 And I say: In the Spirit walk ye, and the desire of the flesh ye may not complete;
17 for the flesh doth desire contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit contrary to the flesh, and these are opposed one to another, that the things that ye may will -- these ye may not do;
18 and if by the Spirit ye are led, ye are not under law.
19 And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit.
22 And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;
24 and those who are Christ's, the flesh did crucify with the affections, and the desires;
25 if we may live in the Spirit, in the Spirit also we may walk;
26 let us not become vain-glorious -- one another provoking, one another envying!
I feel there has to be something to it, because I find it ludicrous to believe that the universe stops ****ing with you just because you died.
Was that not his grave? BTW, KJV says in Acts 2:31...Actually, from the bible stories I read and was told about, he was in a tomb. A cave.
Have you read the OT?
There's no such thing in those books about forgiveness, peace, love.
It's obey or be killed as the general message to the Hebrew clans.
The NT is not written by god at all. It has several authors trying to figure out how to get non Jewish people into a religion.
I suggest you put((sarcasm ) or lol after that because the magas believe that Trump is humble and forgivingAnd of course Donald is known for his humble and forgiving nature.
I assume that your wife is subservient like the Bible says. Trump has broken just about every commandment, but he’s still adored..True "Christianity" is a personal relationship with GOD through CHRIST and the working of the HOLY SPIRIT, that changes one's A religion requires membership/attachment to a human group with promise regardless of personal attachment to some deity
Not in the least. Christ doesn't care what Church one attends (as long as HE is its foundation). Christ does care that one believes HE loves us very much and willingly died to save the lost. And that HE arose from the grave to provide eternal life to whosoever will receive HIM. Churches that say they are the way are NOT. Churches that reject GOD's Word are preaching a different gospel that CHRIST warned against.
I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happenedVery low tier response.
God's existence remains a rigorously debated and contested subject in Oxford's philosophy department. You can scrutinize the theology and merits of a particular religion with good arguments, but disinterested handwaving just makes you an intellectual luddite.
They've also suggested it's proper to kneel for Donald because forgiving the unrepentant man his many faults and corruptions is somehow "Christian."I suggest you put((sarcasm ) or lol after that because the magas believe that Trump is humble and forgiving
I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened
And more and more people do not have a relationship with a supernatural GodDon't get caught up in comparison and one up-man ship, everyone has a unique relation with God and it's not defined by so-called Christian norms nor popular opinion.
But it's the most intellectually simplistic and emotionally appealing answer. Notice how it requires no further thought or inquiry. It's the kind of explanation one gives to a child who has not yet developed the capacity for reason.I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened
Who defines righteousness?1st and foremost real Christians...
“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment." Matthew 22:37,38
Real Christians believe in and follow their Savior and exemplar, Jesus Christ...
"Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples," John 8:31
Real Christians base their beliefs on the Bible, just as Jesus did...
"And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:27
Real Christians do more than talk about love....they show by their words and actions that they love one another as Christ loves us...
"This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you." John 15:12
Real Christians do just as Jesus did...they preach Bible truth wherever people are because they love their neighbors and they gladly use their time and energy to share the Bible’s message of hope and comfort...
"And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus." Acts 5:42
Real Christians continue to search for and hunger for Bible truths...
“Happy are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, since they will be filled." Matthew 5:6
True Christians practice what they preach...
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." Matthew 7:21...
No, that's not what I claimed. I said that things claimed to be objectively true should be proven with empirical data or logic and reason. I believe in lots of subjective things, like the superiority of Jamaican cuisine. I just recognize it as such.You claimed to only believe in empirically deducible evidences and now you're claiming that is not the case. Which is it?
Well we seem to be having a hard time nailing down how it is you even go about knowing something, so I'd say my confusion is justified.
I don't even know what you mean by first principles. You'd have to explain what you're talking about before I can't tell you my thoughts on it or whether I've had any before. That's kind of how that works....Probably because you've never engaged in higher order thinking about the assumptions you make on first principles.
What does that even mean? Temporal also relates to time as can the word infinite. As in existing forever.'Eternal' in a temporal sense is not the same as 'infinite' in a spatial sense, which is what I took your 'infinite universe' to mean.
No... I'd just like you tell me what your problem with it is, like I asked you.I mean if you'd like to tell the scientific community that inductive reasoning isn't the bedrock of the scientific method then you can feel free to do that. You may get laughed at.
Is your uncertainty supposed to be an argument about anything other than yourself and your lack of confidence?I'm not sure how chaotic physical laws are a defeater for a religious worldview.
Well first, objective in this instance simply means an observation about a thing not related to your personal feelings and sentiments and by that I mean the distinction from what your eyes are seeing as opposed to how you feel about what you're seeing. And you know your observations to be true by the consequences. If you observe sturdy ground where there is a deep chasm it will be made apparent to you when you fall in.And like I've said, 'objective observations' is a claim which is first of all kind of incoherent (objective to who?) and second, includes a hefty amount of metaphysical baggage. You haven't really demonstrated why your (or anyone's) observations are objective.
Ok, what do you want to say about them?Why are we talking about possible laws we haven't seen in possible places we don't know exist? I'm referring to the laws we do observe.
But it can be so already this line of reasoning has failed. As I said when you look up at the stars in the night sky you're seeing light after its spent millions, perhaps billions of years traveling to you. The thing that emitted its light can be completely gone by the time its light reaches your eyes. You're literally looking at light from the past.If the past cannot be observed,
I don't even know what you mean by this. What do you mean by uniformity in nature? The scientific method is about testing theories to reach conclusions.then empirical evidence alone isn't sufficient because the scientific method relies uniformity in nature to reach conclusions.
Research David Hume's (an atheist) problem of induction to understand this, but here's a summary:
Who is arguing the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has? This Hume guy sounds like a ****ing moron making up other peoples arguments for them. These things are conditional.Induction is the practice of believing any regularity we observe will continue. So, the sun will come up tomorrow, because it always has, objects will fall towards the earth, etc.
Things work until they don't and then we adjust our thinking. This Hume guy sounds like a moron confusing himself for no reason.The only way to justify believing the future will be like the past, is that in the past, it's worked like that. That's circular reasoning. The empirical tradition does not permit viscous circular reasoning. So, although Hume thinks induction works, he admits there is no logical reason it should. Why does past experience give any ability to reason about the future?
Jehovah God does...Who defines righteousness?
No, that's not what I claimed. I said that things claimed to be objectively true should be proven with empirical data or logic and reason.
I don't even know what you mean by first principles. You've had to explain what you're talking about before I can't tell you my thoughts on it or whether I've had any before.
What does that even mean? Temporal also relates to time as can the word infinite. As in existing forever.
Is your uncertainty supposed to be an argument about anything other than yourself and your lack of confidence?
Well first, objective in this instance simply means an observation about a thing not related to your personal feelings and sentiments and by that I mean the distinction from what your eyes are seeing as opposed to how you feel about what you're seeing. And you know your observations to be true by the consequences. If you observe sturdy ground where there is a deep chasm it will be made apparent to you when you fall in.
But it can be so already this line of reasoning has failed. As I said when you look up at the stars in the night sky you're seeing light after its spent millions, perhaps billions of years traveling to you. The thing that emitted its light can be completely gone by the time its light reaches your eyes. You're literally looking at light from the past.
I don't even know what you mean by this. What do you mean by uniformity in nature? The scientific method is about testing theories to reach conclusions.
Who is arguing the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has? This Hume guy sounds like a ****ing moron making up other peoples arguments for them. These things are conditional.
Things work until they don't and then we adjust our thinking. This Hume guy sounds like a moron confusing himself for no reason.
Who defines righteousness?
What is righteous to me may be not righteous to someone else.Righteous - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com
Do you consider yourself a moral person, who tries to do good and be good? If the answer is yes, you are righteous — in the right.
Being righteous literally means to be right, especially in a moral way. Religious people often talk about being righteous. In their view, the righteous person not only does the right thing for other people but also follows the laws of their religion. Heroes like Martin Luther King are often called righteous. On the other hand, this word can be a little negative. If you call someone self-righteous, it means they're a little too sure they're right and better than other people.
And so do Muslims and so do Christians and so do Jews, etc. I don’t need someone to tell me what is right or wrong, I know in my heart what is rightJehovah God does...
My heart has led me down the wrong path more than once in my life...from my own personal experience I've learned to listen to God's Word for the best possible outcome...after all, the Bible says that “the heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9And so do Muslims and so do Christians and so do Jews, etc. I don’t need someone to tell me what is right or wrong, I know in my heart what is right
Totally agree with the above, renee.What is righteous to me may be not righteous to someone else.
I concur too.Totally agree with the above, renee.
One must read the Bible in context of every other verse in the Bible. But what do Jews think? https://www.jewishvoice.org/read/article/was-mary-virginThere you go. Words that have been translated.
Several times. How many different English language versions are there?
Not a single on of them have translated the original hebrew words exactly perfect.
What is Mary? A virgin? Or a young Maiden. Afterall, she was practically married at conception and was married at birth.
She may have not been a virgin.
Christianity was the best thing to ethics anyone could have asked for. In fact you could make the case they were the OG feministsChristianity doesn't even bother with ethics. It just tells you the world is fallen, and the only way you can be saved is to just find the right God to grovel before- so good luck with that- because it seems like just a lottery ticket.
How does that help advance rational discussions of ethics/politics?
The Christianity of this era has never been less mystical. I know many young Orthodox Christians who dont care for the mystical tradition and just want to joint to "own the libs"What stopped the Islamic Golden Age was when they lay aside the Greek philosophy they had discovered (al-falsafah) and went back to an emphasis on mysticism, blind and unquestioning obedience to revelation, and faith- no different than the Christianity of the time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?