Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

That's something a Christian is warned to try very hard not to do:

Most Christians and nonchristians misunderstand Matthew 7. Here is a good commentary on Matthew 7:

The Greek word translated “judge” is krino, which means “to judge to the place of condemnation.” It’s when you’re in someone’s face, so to speak, pointing your finger at them, and condemning them.

In Romans 16:17, Paul instructs the early church to mark the man who causes division. And in Galatians 1:8, he writes, “Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you.” So there is a need to judge, but not to the place of condemnation. Rather, we are to judge for identification and for restoration. I am to love people enough that when I see them erring, I am to say to them lovingly, “Because I care about you, I want you to know that you’re going in the wrong direction.”

“Do not nurse hatred in your heart for any of your relatives. Confront people directly so you will not be held guilty for their sin." Leviticus 19:17

Don’t hate your brother, but love him by not allowing him to continue in his sin.

"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." Galatians 6:1

According to Scripture, I must make some judgments and identification. But I am not to have an attitude of condemnation. How do I know if I’m condemning people? If I am not willing to partake in restoration, then I am probably practicing condemnation. When Jesus walked into the Upper Room where His disciples were sitting, He noticed they had dirty feet. Did He point His finger and say, “You guys, why don’t you wash your stinky feet? It’s a mess up here.” No. John 13 says He rose from supper, girded Himself with a towel, and began to wash their feet Himself. So, too, I do not believe I have the right to point out someone’s dirty feet unless I’m willing to kneel down and wash them.

Also, Jesus in Matthew 18 says we are to judge when people are living in sin. But we are to judge for the purpose of restoration:

“If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector."

 

[Seda]

Understood. I do not mean this as an insult, but remember this is the internet. We cannot see your face, hear your voice, or see your body language. All we have is text, and the implications behind words such as YOU or I or NAMES. Those are loaded terms that can easily give people the wrong impression, even if you mean no disrespect.

While my wording was probably poor in this topic, usually people on the internet (anonymous or not) seem to want to defend themselves from unseen insulting assailants even if there's no evidence to any sort of implication, in my experience.

I remember when I brought up the fact that I was republican in some topic and people began to associate me with Tea Party ideas and Fox News and Glen Beck and ridiculous far right fodder of the internet and began to vehemently defend gay rights and abortion and such from me, when I am in fact socially liberal..

On topic now, I remember something about Pharaoh tossing children of Hebrew families into the Nile in his own "infanticide" program, so maybe God judged his punishment from that practice.

 

[Seth C]

Debatable. Completely debatable, because every single parent has their own ideas of what punishments work. Some think smacking the kid around does it. Some think time outs work. Some incredibly persuasive parents are able to simply MAKE kids listen due to just being psychologically and emotionally in control. All of them have varied levels of success, none are 100% applicable in all cases.

I do not like the interpretation of God as the omnipresent parent, doling out death as a suitable punishment for transgressions. That is simply too extreme to be considered just or moral, especially as we are specifically told not to do that BY God. I would go so far as to say that if God is willing to kill, but encourages us NOT to kill as a moral goal, then he is asking us to be more moral than he.

We may be told not to do that by God, but the Jews weren't given the same instruction. Oh, they weren't to kill each other, but they had no command against killing people of other nations. That much is clear. Always remember, under Christian law all people are potential children of God. Under Israelite law, only those born to Israel were.

But your argument is flawed, and you won't like this analogy because of our view as people being sacred, but the concept here is the same. If you tell your child not to destroy your stereo and you at some point choose to destroy your stereo, have you asked him to be more moral than you? Or are you simply exercising a right as the creator/owner that he doesn't have?

 

[EYEL1NER]

EDIT: Eh, nvm.

 

[jaxword]

While my wording was probably poor in this topic, usually people on the internet (anonymous or not) seem to want to defend themselves from unseen insulting assailants even if there's no evidence to any sort of implication, in my experience.

I remember when I brought up the fact that I was republican in some topic and people began to associate me with Tea Party ideas and Fox News and Glen Beck and ridiculous far right fodder of the internet and began to vehemently defend gay rights and abortion from me, when I am in fact socially liberal..

I was raised Christian, but I have several qualms and criticisms from a lifetime of being exposed to its religious teachings as a result. Yet by criticizing, people immediately go into ARGH HE MUST BE AN EVIL ATHEST mode.

People like to think of the world as black/white and good/evil. When there's those that don't conform, it's easy to try and mislabel than consider their point of view.

 

[Chaplain]

Sorry, I'm a Christian and the Bible says no such thing.

Edit: that's not to try and debate about this specific topic, but it irks me that Christians are often as ignorant about what the sacred text says as anyone they're trying to debate with.

King David lost his child because of his adultery. When asked why he was so happy, after being so depressed, King David said this about his dead child:

David replied, “I fasted and wept while the child was alive, for I said, ‘Perhaps the Lord will be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me.”

 

[jaxword]

But your argument is flawed, and you won't like this analogy because of our view as people being sacred, but the concept here is the same. If you tell your child not to destroy your stereo and you at some point choose to destroy your stereo, have you asked him to be more moral than you? Or are you simply exercising a right as the creator/owner that he doesn't have?

I think, if anyone upholds a moral standard, then breaks that moral standard, they are a hypocrite. I think we should be better than that, because there's already too many of those in the world. I apply this to parents, I apply this to our leaders, and I apply this to God, any God.

However, if you take the view that we are merely, well, 'stereos' for God to make and unmake, then I can see why you'd think said morals don't apply to God.

 

[Seth C]

On topic now, I remember something about Pharaoh tossing children of Hebrew families into the Nile in his own "infanticide" program, so maybe God judged his punishment from that practice.

Moses was put in a basket and found by the Pharaoh's daughter in the Nile because the Pharaoh had ordered all male children of Hebrews to be killed, yes.

“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”

He did so because the Hebrew people were growing too large and he wanted to cull their numbers.

 

[Seth C]

I think, if anyone upholds a moral standard, then breaks that moral standard, they are a hypocrite. I think we should be better than that, because there's already too many of those in the world. I apply this to parents, I apply this to our leaders, and I apply this to God, any God.

However, if you take the view that we are merely, well, 'stereos' for God to make and unmake, then I can see why you'd think said morals don't apply to God.

But they AREN'T the same morals. That's the point. You're being obtuse to refuse it. Do you have the right to eat your candy bar? Does your neighbour have the right to eat YOUR candy bar?

In the same manner, does God have the right to punish HIS creation? Do you have the right to punish HIS creation? Do you also not believe God has the right to destroy the earth one day should he choose to? Would you ascribe the same right to yourself?

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

That's correct, something about how you brain sends out the signal for moving your arm before you chose to move your arm.

Some see it as quite a hit against the whole notion of free will though.

And the reason free will wouldn't work with an omniscient God is because he is the creator of our souls. If he is a creator of your soul then he knows, before he has even created a soul, the actions that soul will make during it's time in a body.

Every sinning soul has been intentionally created by God, in full knowledge that that soul will sin in the future. He could have created the soul differently, so that it wouldn't sin, if he so wanted but he chose not to do so.

That's why you have no free will, because he created you in a way that resulted in you taking all the decisions you've taken in your life and all the decisions you will take in your future.

Or something like that.

Seeing as this is a Christian thread and the recent posts have been about how discussion breaks down into arguing, I'd like to take the chance to buck the trend and say thank you for making clear and intelligent responses to my posts.

 

[Seda]

Moses was put in a basket and found by the Pharaoh's daughter in the Nile because the Pharaoh had ordered all male children of Hebrews to be killed, yes.

“When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”

He did so because the Hebrew people were growing too large and he wanted to cull their numbers.

Ok. One thing I want to be clear on though is that I'm not using that "eye for an eye" as sole justification. I not saying I believe in God because he killed less people than Pharaoh because
largely that is likely not true when you account for other biblical instances of God's practices.

 

[jaxword]

But they AREN'T the same morals. That's the point. You're being obtuse to refuse it. Do you have the right to eat your candy bar? Does your neighbour have the right to eat
YOUR candy bar?

In the same manner, does God have the right to punish HIS creation? Do you have the right to punish HIS creation?

I'll be honest, I don't understand that candy bar analogy paragraph at all. Nor am I sure what you're asking with who I have the right to punish, I'm not sure who that refers to in this context.

However, as for your second point, that's where we disagree. Does a creator have the right to do whatever he wants to his creation?

 

[Gorgon]

The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's not scientifically proven. All you have is evidence that points to it being true, but it's not proven in any meaningful way. There is a chance that in the future another theory gains over the evolution theory and explain it better. That is why the theory of evolution is just that, a THEORY.

3) Does not disprove anything that I said. You can say there is not center, or there is, and it doesn't really matter.
4) Really, the gay thing is something I don't want to discuss here (too long, done it too many times, and it derails everything), let's leave it at that.
5) It's not up to what anyone thinks. By that argument, I could think that my 2 year old daughter is not alive and assassinate her. Hey! it's my conscience, don't mess with it!.
6) I don't deny it (although I never take aspirin, Paracetamol is superior in every single way). But I oppose that living human beings should be killed in mass so a single one saves his life. You can do whatever the fuck you want with umbilical cords.

No. The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. Evolution itself is a fact and the theory is what tries to explain it. You don't seem to get the difference.

3) Yes, it matters, it's not the same thing, stop playing (or beying) dumb. You can't say there is a center because there isn't. As such, the idea of the Earth beying at the center of the Universe is factually disproved, so it matters.

4) fair enough

5) It's far more complex than that. It goes back to at what point can you say you have a living human being and you're killing it. When is that? When the hearth starts to beat? When that fetus can survive independently of the mother's womb? When the brain shows activity? Where do we draw the limit between a living human being and just living tissue? is a fertilized egg a "living human beying"? It's a complicated question that has more to it than your simplification. Just a few decades ago a human was considered dead when the heart stoped beating. Now it's considered dead when brain activity stops (hence "brain-dead"). But it can change as time goes by and we learn more. These questions are heavily phylosofical because many times we have the data but we have to base our definitions on our moral systems, prejudices, culture, etc. It's not as simply as saying "YOU're KILLING BABIEEESSSS!". When do you have something that can be considered a baby, that is, a living human being? Where do you draw the line? Yes, this ain't that easy. That's why the discussion still exists and there are many opinions out there.

6) see 5) above.

 

[Chaplain]

Does a creator have the right to do whatever he wants to his creation?

God does have every right to judge his creation. And he judged his entire creation on the Cross, when Jesus died in our place and God put our sins on Him. He now offers a way out of the judgement we deserve by accepting the pardon his Son paid for.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'll be honest, I don't understand that candy bar analogy paragraph at all. Nor am I sure what you're asking whether I have the right to punish, I'm not sure what that is getting at.

However, as for your second point, that's where we disagree. Does a creator have the right to do whatever he wants to his creation?

Some will say that we should be free to do whatever we want with our creations once we create sapient AI or modify animals.

I disagree.

 

[Gorgon]

You should probably take the evolution stuff to the evolution thread here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400404&page=28

Your reasoning is just plain silly, all scientific theories might be replaced by other theories in the future. They're still the fact until it really is found that the theory is incorrect.

This is incorrect. Theories try to explain facts, they're not facts in themselves. Evoltion itself is a fact, the theory of evolution isn't.

 

[Seth C]

I'll be honest, I don't understand your candy bar analogy at all.

However, as for your second point, that's where we disagree. Does a creator have the right to do whatever he wants to his creation?

The point is simply that God doesn't say killing is wrong. He says killing is wrong for YOU because you don't have the right to do it. He does. Just as your child doesn't have the right to destroy something that belongs to him, while you do. Destroying something that isn't YOURS to destroy, is wrong. Be it a life or other property. THAT is the morality God commands of you, and of himself. It is the same. The difference here is simply that all things belong to God.

In the same manner, you have the right to eat/consume/destroy your own candy, while another has no such right to your property.

Any attempt to claim God holds you to a higher standard than he does himself is completely flawed. In no situation does he ever say death of a person is wrong. He only ever said you don't have the right to kill that which does not belong to you.

 

[Chaplain]

Here are some videos that go through every book of the Bible in great detail:

Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 01 - Introduction
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 02 - Creation And The Fall of Man
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 03 - The Pre-historical Period
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 04 - The Patriarchs
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 05 - The Birth Of The Nation
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 06 - In The Land
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 07 - The Monarchy
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 08 - The Poetical Books
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 09 - The Book Of Daniel
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 10 - Post-Exile History
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 11 - The Major Prophets
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 12 - The Minor Prophets
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 13 - How Sure Can We Be
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 14 - The New Testament
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 15 - The Gospels
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 16 - The Last Week
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 17 - The Book Of Acts
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 18 - Romans
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 19 - The Church Epistles
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 20 - The Hebrew Christian Epistles
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 21 - Eschatologicial Summary
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 22 - Revelation 1-3
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 23 - Revelation 4-22
Learn the Bible in 24 Hours - 24 - Conclusion

Here are a few university video lectures on various Christian subjects:

What Does it Mean to be Human?
Ravi Zacharias
Mayo Clinic
14 September 2010

http://vimeo.com/15891383

Religious Belief and Reason: A Talk and Discussion led by Two Really Smart Guys
Ian Hutchinson, Colin Adams
Williams College
23 April 2010

http://vimeo.com/16975267

The Journey: A Thinking Person's Quest for Meaning
Os Guinness
University of California, Los Angeles
7 April 2010

http://vimeo.com/10816110

'We Don't Do God'? Secularism and Faith in the Public Square
John Haldane, Christopher Hitchens
Oxford University
12 May 2010

http://vimeo.com/12410681

Can Science Explain Everything?
Ard Louis
Stanford University
26 January 2010

http://vimeo.com/17011941

Moral Mammals - Why do we Matter? - Does theism or atheism provide the best foundation for human worth and morality?
John Hare, Peter Singer, Eric Gregory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13 March 2009

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/10

The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God
Alvin Plantinga, Richard Gale Ph.D.
University of Tennessee
31 December 2008

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/17

A Conversation with Tim Keller: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
Timothy J. Keller
University of California, Berkeley
4 March 2008

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/25

Rumors of Resurrection: Is the Jesus of the Bible the Jesus of History?
D.A. Carson
University of Virginia
31 December 2006

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/40

Is God Necessary for Morality? Part 1 of 2
William Lane Craig, Louise Antony
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
10 April 2008

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/4

Belligerents or Brothers? Are Science and Christian Faith at Odds? Part 1 of 2
Ian Hutchinson, Ned Hall
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 March 2007

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/20

The Nature and Necessity of Worldviews
Dallas Willard
University of California, Los Angeles
31 December 2003

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/12

Can Man Live
Ravi Zacharias
University of Florida
31 December 1997

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/36

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?
William Lane Craig
California State University, Fresno
31 December 2005

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/41

Radical Marxist, Radical Womanist, Radical Love: What Mother Teresa Taught Me about Social Justice
Mary Poplin
Tufts University
4 March 2009

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/5

The Value of Truth, and What Happens When U Don't Have It
Dallas Willard
Louisiana State University
17 February 2008

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/258

Does Science Make Faith Obsolete? The Observations of One Scientist
Ard Louis
Johns Hopkins University
11 November 2010

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/978

Suffering... With a God of Love?
Raymond G. De Vries, Tim Grubbs Lowly, John Rapson
University of Michigan
28 October 2010

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/979

Another video on UFOs and the Bible:

RETURN OF THE NEPHILIM

 

[jaxword]

The point is simply that God doesn't say killing is wrong. He says killing is wrong for YOU because you don't have the right to do it. He does. Just as your child doesn't have the right to destroy something that belongs to him, while you do. Destroying something that isn't YOURS to destroy, is wrong. Be it a life or other property. THAT is the morality God commands of you, and of himself. It is the same. The difference here is simply that all things belong to God.

I understand your point of view. And I realized that is why we disagree. I do not see that God has the right to destroy his own children, in the same way a parent hasn't the right to, well, do what he wishes to his own child.

We will have to agree to disagree here, since I think killing is wrong, even for God.

 

[Seth C]

I understand your point of view. And I realized that is why we disagree. I do not see that God has the right to destroy his own children, in the same way a parent hasn't the right to, well, do what he wishes to his own child.

We will have to agree to disagree here, since I think killing is wrong, even for God.

And that is fine. Just realize HE isn't holding you to a higher standard than he holds himself to. You are. You are holding yourself to a standard he never made, and then suggesting he is doing so. He clearly has no issues with killing of itself, given he repeatedly commanded the Israelites to do so.

And I would agree with you that a parent has no rights to do whatever they wish to their children, but would say that is because as his creation, only God retains that right, over all of us.

For an example, see the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Abraham had no right to kill Isaac, but God considered it within his rights to command Abraham to do so. Only God retains the right to kill (or command the killing) of people, because we are his creation. Yes, even children he gives you.

I'd venture to guess in smaller matters you'd understand this principle. Let me ask this. Were you to fashion something out of modelling clay, would you be within your rights to press it back in to a ball and reform it?

 

[GatorBait]

Now do you think you would be Christian if you were, born in Pakistan?

I personally believe that religion like all learned cultural phenomena is learned, primarily due to location and relations. I speak several languages that my parents do not because they proved of use in a variety of situations that my parents were never a part of, however my native language is the same as my parents, and I learned it by imitating them.

To tell you the truth, I think about this fairly often and it raises a lot of questions for me. I am definitely not naive enough to believe that if I were born overseas into a family and society that practiced a religion other than Christianity, and I was raised in that religion, I would likely believe and practice that religion and never find Christianity.

 

[Chaplain]

Various subjects from a Biblical point of view:

Abortion
An Interesting Quiz Psa. 139:16
What God’s Word Says About Abortion Psa. 127:3

Archaeology & History
Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bibl Matt. 4:4
The Dead Sea Scrolls 1 Pet. 1:25

Bible
The Bible Stands Alone Psa. 119:105
Contradictions in the Bible—Why Are They There? Mark 15:26
Points to Ponder About the Flood and Noah’s Ark Matt. 24:38,39

Buddhism
Buddhism

Evolution
“Missing Link” Still Missing Acts 14:15
Questions for Evolutionists Prov. 3:19

Gospel
The Gospel: Why not preach that Jesus gives happiness, peace, and joy? 2 Cor. 2:17

Hinduism
Hinduism

Islam
Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses 1 Tim. 3:16

Jesus Christ
The Deity of Jesus John 10:36
The Hands of the Carpenter Luke 23:53
The Sermon on the Mount Matt. 5:1
The Significance of the First Miracle John 2:6–11
The Witness Mark Mark 15:39

Love
God’s Love: The Biblical Presentation Matt. 10:22

Mormonism (aka “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”)
Mormonism

Panic Attacks
Panic Attacks

Pornography
Pornography

Prayer
Two Prayers

Quotes
Great Leaders Speak About the Bible
Last Words of Famous People 1 Cor. 15:55

Resurrection
The Resurrection

Sabbath
Freedom from Sabbath-keeping Col. 2:16

Salvation
Is Repentance Necessary for Salvation? John 3:16
Is Suffering the Entrance to Heaven? Acts 4:12

Science
Scientific Facts in the Bible Heb. 11:3
Science Confirms the Bible page 611

 

[jaxword]

I'd venture to guess in smaller matters you'd understand this principle. Let me ask this. Were you to fashion something out of modelling clay, would you be within your rights to press it back in to a ball and reform it?

Yes, but I already see where you're going with this. Are we are just pieces of clay to be done with as God pleases, in cruelty and pleasure?

 

[Seth C]

Yes, but I already see where you're going with this. Are we are just pieces of clay to be done with as God pleases, in cruelty and pleasure?

Is it cruel when you destroy the figure you made out of clay?

 

[jaxword]

Is it cruel when you destroy the figure you made out of clay?

I consider human life to be greater than just clay, wouldn't you?

Actually, I will further that. Humans do not see clay as life, or anything more than a conglomerate of chemicals. There's no empathy or emotion to be felt for the blob of chemicals. So if God just sees us as a blob of chemicals with zero empathy towards it, then no, that's not cruel.

 

[Seth C]

I consider human life to be greater than just clay, wouldn't you?

Actually, I will further that. Humans do not see clay as life, or anything more than a conglomerate of chemicals. There's no empathy or emotion to be felt for the blob of chemicals. So if God just sees us as a blob of chemicals with zero empathy towards it, then no, that's not cruel.

I think God sees our physical bodies as being little more than that, yes.

 

[jaxword]

I think God sees our physical bodies as being little more than that, yes.

Then the clay analogy doesn't fit at all.

I know what you're getting at. I know you think the creator has the right to do as he pleases with his creation. I disagree, because in this case the 'creation' is a person, and a person is more than just a thing. That's all there is to it.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

King David lost his child because of his adultery. When asked why he was so happy, after being so depressed, King David said this about his dead child:

David replied, “I fasted and wept while the child was alive, for I said, ‘Perhaps the Lord will be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me.”

King David also wrote a lot of poetry. I don't think a single sentence in a narrative is what I would call iron-clad proof of a pet doctrine, as comforting as I want to be to those who have lost a child at an early age. Again, we may meet at the same destination, but our arrival there will be by different roads.

 

[Seth C]

Then the clay analogy doesn't fit at all.

I know what you're getting at. I know you think the creator has the right to do as he pleases with his creation. I disagree, because in this case the 'creation' is a person, and a person is more than just a thing. That's all there is to it.

But he fashioned our bodies out of clay. Then he breathed in to them the breath of life. The clay is a vessel. The life he consistently shows care for and provides salvation for.

To an all-powerful being our bodies are as impressive as a clay figure is to us. A person to you is the flesh, because that's what you can see. God sees past that. That's all there is to it.

 

[Chaplain]

This is incorrect. Theories try to explain facts, they're not facts in themselves. Evoltion itself is a fact, the theory of evolution isn't.

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

 

[PoliceCop]

Various subjects from a Biblical point of view:

Abortion
An Interesting Quiz Psa. 139:16

I got a 100% on this. They all died!

 

[Chaplain]

I got a 100% on this. They all died!

No. They all lived.

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

I'm interested to know what you think science is exactly?

 

[Morn]

Essential iPhone Apps

Bible (the best one on iTunes):
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bible/id282935706?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo=4

Harvest:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/harvest-greg-laurie/id373393946?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo=4

KWAVE Radio:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/k-wave-kwve-107-9-the-wave/id304434847?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo=4

And the best app for any Christian posting on GAF - Fast Facts, Challenges & Tactics
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fast-facts-challenges-tactics/id362546775?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo=4

 

[PoliceCop]

No. They all lived.

Right, but I got a 100% because I aborted all of them.

 

[Chaplain]

I'm interested to know what you think science is exactly?

Facts based off of observation and experimentation. Without this, you do not have real science.

 

[Dragon]

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

I'm sure there's a chart somewhere over Biblical 'facts', I put that into quotation marks because they aren't facts at all, that are completely wrong as well. You're being completely arbitrary with that chart and it's pretty disingenuous. I was raised Catholic and we were taught that the majority of the Old Testament should be taken as allegory. People who insist on it being completely factually true and still believe in Christianity scare me. Do you really want to believe in a 'benevolent' God that incinerated two cities because some of its residents were morally corrupt? Or that wiped out everyone on the planet besides one family?

Anyway sorry to get off topic, but yeah that chart. smh

 

[teruterubozu]

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

LOL! Those Bible quotes are taken WAY out of context from its original intent. This kind of cherry-picking is exactly what makes modern Evangelical Christianity hard to take seriously.

 

[jaxword]

But he fashioned our bodies out of clay. Then he breathed in to them the breath of life. The clay is a vessel. The life he consistently shows care for and provides salvation for.

To an all-powerful being our bodies are as impressive as a clay figure is to us. A person to you is the flesh, because that's what you can see. God sees past that. That's all there is to it.

I'm going to stop right here for a moment, because earlier you said you "make no claims to being a Christian." Where are you getting this particular interpretation of God from, then? It sounds Biblical.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Then the clay analogy doesn't fit at all.

I know what you're getting at. I know you think the creator has the right to do as he pleases with his creation. I disagree, because in this case the 'creation' is a person, and a person is more than just a thing. That's all there is to it.

I think the gulf that comes between each side's argument here is a theological idea known as "transcendence". A major tenet of Christian theology is that God is wholly separate from his creation and, as such, our ideas of worth, value, and fairness may not necessarily be representative of his. This is not meant to short-change debate or define away any of the related questions in this thread, but I believe it is the underlying presupposition that allows Christians to feel comfortable with the idea of not always understanding why God does what he does.

 

[Chaplain]

I'm sure there's a chart somewhere over Biblical 'facts', I put that into quotation marks because they aren't facts at all, that are completely wrong as well. You're being completely arbitrary with that chart and it's pretty disingenuous. I was raised Catholic and we were taught that the majority of the Old Testament should be taken as allegory. People who insist on it being completely factually true and still believe in Christianity scare me. Do you really want to believe in a 'benevolent' God that incinerated two cities because some of its residents were morally corrupt? Or that wiped out everyone on the planet besides one family?

Jesus interprets the Old Testament in the Gospels. He says those stories were true. So do the rest of the writers of the New Testament.

The question then becomes do you believe what He said and what His Apostles said. Because I am certain that i do not know more than them and neither does any other man when it comes to what really happened.

 

[Chaplain]

I think the gulf that comes between each side's argument here is a theological idea known as "transcendence". A major tenet of Christian theology is that God is wholly separate from his creation and, as such, our ideas of worth, value, and fairness may not necessarily be representative of his. This is not meant to short-change debate or define away any of the related questions in this thread, but I believe it is the underlying presupposition that allows Christians to feel comfortable with the idea of not always understanding why God does what he does.

God says that we wont always understand:

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways
and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart;
do not depend on your own understanding.
Seek his will in all you do,
and he will show you which path to take."

 

[Morn]

Jesus interprets the Old Testament in the Gospels. He says those stories were true. So do the rest of the writers of the New Testament.

The question then becomes do you believe what He said and what His Apostles said. Because I am certain that i do not know more than them and neither does any other man when it comes to what really happened.

You're arguing with someone who's never actually studied the Bible. If you asked him WHY God caused the flood, he wouldn't be able to tell you as it takes an understanding of the state of the planet at that time.

 

[Dragon]

Jesus interprets the Old Testament in the Gospels. He says those stories were true. So do the rest of the writers of the New Testament.

The question then becomes do you believe what He said and what His Apostles said. Because I am certain that i do not know more than them and neither does any other man when it comes to what really happened.

I agree we do not know what really happened. That's where faith comes in right? The Bible was written by people other than the people that took part in the events right? How do you know that the Bible in its current form has anything to do with how it was written originally? It was written by man, and man is fallible.

The Catholic Church changes words in the New Testament regularly. They pick and choose what Gospels belong and which ones don't depending on THEIR interpretations.

You're arguing with someone who's never actually studied the Bible. If you asked him WHY God caused the flood, he wouldn't be able to tell you as it takes an understanding of the state of the planet at that time.

Actually I went to Catholic school for eight years. I took two Bible study classes that lasted a year in those eight years, along with numerous other classes which used the Bible regularly. This type of response is not helpful, stop with the ad hominems, I'm having a rational discussion that doesn't need this. Perhaps you should be more Christian and stop being so fearful of a dissenting opinion. It's how one learns after all.

 

[Shanadeus]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

God is the author of life, and He has givenevery single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry.

Wow.

 

[Chaplain]

I agree we do not know what really happened. That's where faith comes in right? The Bible was written by people other than the people that took part in the events right? How do you know that the Bible in its current form has anything to do with how it was written originally? It was written by man, and man is fallible.

The Catholic Church changes words in the New Testament regularly. They pick and choose what Gospels belong and which ones don't depending on THEIR interpretations.

If you are really interested in learning about the Bibles validity, please watch this:

The Case for Christ
71 minutes
2007

In this thought-provoking program, Lee Strobel -- a former legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and a self-described atheist who became a Christian -- shares the details of his spiritual quest and asks tough questions of a wide range of experts. Is the New Testament a reliable source? Did Jesus Christ in fact exist? Was he really the Son of God? And could Christ's resurrection have actually occurred?

 

[Morn]

I agree we do not know what really happened. That's where faith comes in right? The Bible was written by people other than the people that took part in the events right?

Moses wrote the first five books and there is speculation that he learned the events of Genesis first hand. How? From looking at the life spans named in the Bible in the early OT, people have worked out the math and Adam was actually still alive around the time of Noah, and thus that's how Moses got the information. Everything from Exodus on was during the time of Moses so he could write it first hand.

How do you know that the Bible in its current form has anything to do with how it was written originally? It was written by man, and man is fallible.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both are still living languages so people are able to read the actual original text. That's what a Strong's Concordance and Vine's Dictionary helps with.

The Catholic Church changes words in the New Testament regularly. They pick and choose what Gospels belong and which ones don't depending on THEIR interpretations.

That's why people leave the Catholic Church.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Jesus interprets the Old Testament in the Gospels. He says those stories were true. So do the rest of the writers of the New Testament.

The question then becomes do you believe what He said and what His Apostles said. Because I am certain that i do not know more than them and neither does any other man when it comes to what really happened.

Personally, I do not see value in trying to persuade others that the Bible is "true" or "100% right". That's a fighting a battle for the mind while ultimately ceding the war for the heart. What matters is what an individual believes about God in the person of Jesus, not whether they agree with the minutiae of the stories therein. You will rightly say that almost everything we know about Jesus is written in the scriptures. Fair enough: give people the message, but do not force them to agree about one hundred other details that have nothing to do with the gospel.

It's a classic apologetic pit, in my opinion.

 

[PoliceCop]

Wow.

I'd like to see another version of this quiz where getting 100% means you abort Hitler, Charlie Manson, and other cool people.

 

[Chaplain]

Personally, I do not see value in trying to persuade others that the Bible is "true" or "100% right". That's a fighting a battle for the mind while ultimately ceding the war for the heart. What matters is what an individual believes about God in the person of Jesus, not whether they agree with the minutiae of the stories therein. You will rightly say that almost everything we know about Jesus is written in the scriptures. Fair enough: give people the message, but do not force them to agree about one hundred other details that have nothing to do with the gospel.

It's a classic apologetic pit, in my opinion.

I am just sharing what the Bible says. What people do with that information is up to them.