Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 This has nothing to do with a discussion regarding the Bible being universal.This has to do with the fact that most words in the English language have:1) At a minimum, different shades of meaning;2) Sometimes two meanings;3) Sometimes more than two meanings;If you claim that God tells you what the proper interpretation of the words is, well that's not something I can argue with.If you do not claim that God tells you what the proper interpretation of the words is, then it is clear the words must be interpreted.Finally, why did God give us the abilities necessary to interpret the Bible (logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, reading comprehension, etc.) but not intend for us to use them?Montythere is very little in the bible that needs to be actually "interpreted" there are some times where the translations can be a little screwy but thats about it. When you go to the historical context and to the actual greek you find that the bible reads very clearly. But the "modern church" has deemed it necessary to "clean up" the bible and so we end up with views like yours where we attempt to bring "human morals" into the equation. The problem is that for as much as God loves his creation, He is also a very just God. And therefore not everybody is going to see heaven. People are goign to suffer, People are going to pay with their lives and some people are going to have to face up to the fact that they ignored God thier entire life. Thats the reality of the situation Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 there is very little in the bible that needs to be actually "interpreted" there are some times where the translations can be a little screwy but thats about it. When you go to the historical context and to the actual greek you find that the bible reads very clearly. But the "modern church" has deemed it necessary to "clean up" the bible and so we end up with views like yours where we attempt to bring "human morals" into the equation. The problem is that for as much as God loves his creation, He is also a very just God. And therefore not everybody is going to see heaven. People are goign to suffer, People are going to pay with their lives and some people are going to have to face up to the fact that they ignored God thier entire life. Thats the reality of the situationThere really isn't any point in discussing this further, I give up. If you cannot understand that words must always be interpreted, then I just don't know what to say.Monty Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 There really isn't any point in discussing this further, I give up. If you cannot understand that words must always be interpreted, then I just don't know what to say.MontyGo easy on them Monty - they are just struggling to inteperet what you are writing Link to post Share on other sites
BuffDan 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Here's a link to the formation of the Bible as we know it Today.Who decided on the books of the bibleLooks like the Old Testament was "finalized" in 90AD (could have been earlier according to the article)The New Testament was "finalized" starting in 367ADIn terms of your question, Buffdan about God "inspiring" writing, that's why we have so many offshoots of Christianity Today (many different interpretations).Thank you for that link, this is something I find fascinating (since most people just take the Bible as being given straight from God to finished text, it will be interesting to read the intermediate steps to the finished texts). Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 There really isn't any point in discussing this further, I give up. If you cannot understand that words must always be interpreted, then I just don't know what to say.MontyYes thou shall not murder needs to be interpreted.Thou shall have no other God needs interpretedNo one comes to the Father except through the Son...I wonder what that meansThe wages of sin is Death...what does that mean?The bible reads pretty clearly. The problem isnt that its hard to read, the problem is you dont like the message. So you attempt to "interprete it" to give you the message you decided God should say.Thank you for that link, this is something I find fascinating (since most people just take the Bible as being given straight from God to finished text, it will be interesting to read the intermediate steps to the finished texts).What you must realize is that people who give dates without explanations are holding the truth from you. well before the 4th century just about the entire bible as we know it had already been "accepted". By the end of the 1st half of the second century all the Gospels were already recognized as from God and Pauls letters were recognized as well. The council met NOT to decide between texts as some would have you believe. They got together to put the book together to defend the true text against the other writings (see Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter and about 200 other texts). The only texts that were called into question only b/c they werent positive on the author of the text. The Gospels were never once considered false. The "vote" on the final version of the bible ended up being around 200-1. Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Yes thou shall not murder needs to be interpretedIs the actual verse "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shalt not murder?" The verse has been translated both ways. Respeced translators and theologians have debated this for years. Different church's have different positions on this. I like the message either way, but to state that is "isn't hard to read" or "reads pretty clearly" is silly in this case.Thou shall have no other God needs interpretedDoes this Old Testament verse demand a) monotheism, or b ) the Jewish-form of monotheism, or c) through the New Testamant, the Christian-form of monotheism, or d) either/or the Jewish-form of monotheism/theChristian-form of monotheism?No one comes to the Father except through the Son...I wonder what that meansIf people want to read the full quote, from which this is excerpted, they can scroll up a few dozen posts. Taken in context, it is not fundamentally clear that Jesus is not just talking to Thomas, regarding Thomas and the disciples. Even -if- it is a general statement to all of humanity, the statement is still subject to countless interpretations regarding manner and process.The wages of sin is Death...what does that mean?What does that mean? I guess it depends on who you talk to, again. Everyone is a sinner. Everyone dies. The bible reads pretty clearly. The problem isnt that its hard to read, the problem is you dont like the message. So you attempt to "interprete it" to give you the message you decided God should say.The bolded portion of the statement describes what YOU AND BRVHRT are doing, not what I am doing. Through all of my comments posted in the religion threads, I have made it excessively clear that I am not demanding that people believe in my interpretations. My ENTIRE point is that the whole debate is unresolvable, and open to all manner of interpretations, and therefore people must take things on faith. YOUR entire point is that YOU have a monopoly on the RIGHT INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Therefore, you are describing yourself in the above quote.What you must realize is that people who give dates without explanations are holding the truth from you.I know this quote isn't regarding something I said, but I'll point out the problem with your logic anyways. I'm not commenting on the accuracy of whether an earlier poster gave an explanation for dates.IF One gives dates without explanation---> The one giving dates EITHER chooses not to provide and explanation OR is unable to provide an explanationYou draw too limited a conclusion in your above-quoted statement.Monty Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 Is the actual verse "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shalt not murder?" The verse has been translated both ways. Respeced translators and theologians have debated this for years. Different church's have different positions on this. I like the message either way, but to state that is "isn't hard to read" or "reads pretty clearly" is silly in this case.And you merely prove my point. People WANT the bible to say things it doesnt. What does it say on this verse? greek word: foneuoMeanings - 1 to kill, slay, murder2 to commit murderyou can decide from that..its not very difficultDoes this Old Testament verse demand a) monotheism, or b ) the Jewish-form of monotheism, or c) through the New Testamant, the Christian-form of monotheism, or d) either/or the Jewish-form of monotheism/theChristian-form of monotheism?another myth brought on by lack of attention. All three parts of God are found in BOTH the OT and NT. People like to try to change it up but its the same God. What does that mean? I guess it depends on who you talk to, again. Everyone is a sinner. Everyone dies.Yes if you talk to a christian you will get a different view than if you talk to a nonbeliever. That seems to be your common problem. You try to apply the world to the bible instead of applyin the bible to the world. Well to live in Christ is "eternal life" so not be in Christ is "eternal death" you decideThe bolded portion of the statement describes what YOU AND BRVHRT are doing, not what I am doing. Through all of my comments posted in the religion threads, I have made it excessively clear that I am not demanding that people believe in my interpretations. My ENTIRE point is that the whole debate is unresolvable, and open to all manner of interpretations, and therefore people must take things on faith. YOUR entire point is that YOU have a monopoly on the RIGHT INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Therefore, you are describing yourself in the above quote.No you try to hide behind a form of skepticism where you can deny everything b/c we just dont "know" You apply the world to the bible. You try to "outthink" the bible and its very evident. The bible is what it is. What I see is the most glaring problem for you is that you dont apply the bible to itself. You read each book seperately and draw different conclusions. The Bible is ONE book. It all goes together or it doesnt. Each writer either matches the points of the other writers or not. Therefore if Paul says something, you should assume it is the same line of thought that Peter was using. You dont do that and your views make this evident. I know this quote isn't regarding something I said, but I'll point out the problem with your logic anyways. I'm not commenting on the accuracy of whether an earlier poster gave an explanation for dates.IF One gives dates without explanation---> The one giving dates EITHER chooses not to provide and explanation OR is unable to provide an explanationYou draw too limited a conclusion in your above-quoted statement.So we should assume ignorance or lying you decide. The fact is that if somebody wants to give dates but no background about why then it is almost always b/c the dates prove the point they want to prove while the facts would disagree. That is what we often seen. Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 And you merely prove my point. People WANT the bible to say things it doesnt. What does it say on this verse? greek word: foneuoMeanings - 1 to kill, slay, murder2 to commit murderHow does this prove your point? The definition you have offered shows that the verse could mean "Thou shalt not kill" or it could mean "Thou shalt not murder."Those are two different things.The definition you have offered proves -my- point.How do you not understand this?Monty Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 How does this prove your point? The definition you have offered shows that the verse could mean "Thou shalt not kill" or it could mean "Thou shalt not murder."Those are two different things.The definition you have offered proves -my- point.How do you not understand this?MontyWrong. very wrongYou do the common thing that most do in read things out of context. We in the english language use kill to describe many things dont we? "To kill time" "To kill someone" But we wouldnt confuse what their meanings are do we? Thats what you do. You attempt to add differnet meanings to what a greek word means. This greek word would be translated as "to kill by murder" but you choose to try to make it difficult which is pointless Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Wrong. very wrongYou do the common thing that most do in read things out of context. We in the english language use kill to describe many things dont we? "To kill time" "To kill someone" But we wouldnt confuse what their meanings are do we? Thats what you do. You attempt to add differnet meanings to what a greek word means. This greek word would be translated as "to kill by murder" but you choose to try to make it difficult which is pointless???I'm not talking about the slang uses of the verb "to kill"I am talking about the difference between:1) To kill;2) To murder;Either the commandment is a prohibition against all killing, or the commandment is a prohibition against murder, and anyone who claims that the answer is clear, doesn't know what they are talking about.Does this commandment proscribe ALL KILLING, including, for example, when someone is drafted into the military and set on a battlefield against other solders? Or does this commandment proscribe murder?Some people would argue all killing. Some people would argue murder.But to claim that it is obvious that the commandment isn't open to interpretation is the height of arrogance.Monty Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 What you must realize is that people who give dates without explanations are holding the truth from you.Gee, assume much? I linked to the article and any reader could find out the background of how the OT and NT were finalized. The council met NOT to decide between texts as some would have you believe.Nice straw man argument here - who would have you believe that? Link to post Share on other sites
Farnan 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Wrong. very wrongYou do the common thing that most do in read things out of context. We in the english language use kill to describe many things dont we? "To kill time" "To kill someone" But we wouldnt confuse what their meanings are do we? Thats what you do. You attempt to add differnet meanings to what a greek word means. This greek word would be translated as "to kill by murder" but you choose to try to make it difficult which is pointlessI think he means more along the lines of this:Is it a sin to kill a plant?Is it a sin to kill a man in self defense?Is it a sin to kill a convicted murderer on death row?To Murder requires you to kill. To Kill doesn't necessarily mean you've committed murder. They are entirely different, but related concepts. Using a word that has both murder and kill creates ambiguity. Is it possible for you to write a post that doesn't conclude with a cheap shot? Seriously--Monty has been smacking you around lately and you still come back with these arguments that completely miss the issue and, in the end, you actually try to insult HIS intelligence. Unbelievable. I've never seen someone so unable to grasp basic analytical skills and at the same time be so smug and self-righteous in their replys. I couldn't be half as calm and patient with your insults as he is. And the fact that he is supposedly the "non-believer" in your eyes is so dripping with irony, it is comical. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 I think he means more along the lines of this:Is it a sin to kill a plant?Is it a sin to kill a man in self defense?Is it a sin to kill a convicted murderer on death row?To Murder requires you to kill. To Kill doesn't necessarily mean you've committed murder. They are entirely different, but related concepts. Using a word that has both murder and kill creates ambiguity. Is it possible for you to write a post that doesn't conclude with a cheap shot? Seriously--Monty has been smacking you around lately and you still come back with these arguments that completely miss the issue and, in the end, you actually try to insult HIS intelligence. Unbelievable. I've never seen someone so unable to grasp basic analytical skills and at the same time be so smug and self-righteous in their replys. I couldn't be half as calm and patient with your insults as he is. And the fact that he is supposedly the "non-believer" in your eyes is so dripping with irony, it is comical.ill wait to see if thats what he means....it can be cleared up very easily if that is what he means Link to post Share on other sites
Farnan 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 ill wait to see if thats what he means....it can be cleared up very easily if that is what he meansWell, judging by his previous post---i think it is. Please clarify... Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 ill wait to see if thats what he means....it can be cleared up very easily if that is what he means/|\ | |For clarity see aboveFor ease of use, reprinted beneath | |\|/ ???I'm not talking about the slang uses of the verb "to kill"I am talking about the difference between:1) To kill;2) To murder;Either the commandment is a prohibition against all killing, or the commandment is a prohibition against murder, and anyone who claims that the answer is clear, doesn't know what they are talking about.Does this commandment proscribe ALL KILLING, including, for example, when someone is drafted into the military and set on a battlefield against other solders? Or does this commandment proscribe murder?Some people would argue all killing. Some people would argue murder.But to claim that it is obvious that the commandment isn't open to interpretation is the height of arrogance.MontyPS, Thank you for the words of support Farnan Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 /|\ | |For clarity see aboveFor ease of use, reprinted beneath | |\|/ PS, Thank you for the words of support FarnanFirst off farnan it was a little hypocritical to take a cheap shot at me and follow it with your nonsense. All monty has shown is that he doesnt read the bible. Its not a very difficult concept to see. Slappin me around? His answers have yet to even have biblical evidence. As for monty. If those are truly your questions then I have to ask. Have you actually read the bible. The plants and food are ridiculous b/c all things on this earth were created for Man. That clears up those. The bible clearly offers a death penalty as an option in cases (see most of the OT and the crucifixion of Jesus). So that one is cleared up. Self defense - I cant think of a specific verse for this one but again this is an extreme case...so i will look into the verse for thisBut again this is merely monty tryin to change the subject...the Greek word implies "to kill in terms of murder" Look at the quotes it puts "to kill, slay, murder" all together. What does that look like? When you open a thesaurus for a word, doesnt it give all meanings that are similar? Hence it is very easy to see that the greek word implies murder. IT is a very easy concept. If i put murder into an american dictionary I getMain Entry: murderPart of Speech: nounDefinition: killingSynonyms: annihilation, assassination, big chillSo you see. When you apply the EXACT SAME RULES that you would to any other situation you find its very easySo please quit tryin to dance aroudn this issue to. Link to post Share on other sites
FullMontyM1 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 All monty has shown is that he doesnt read the bible.I think it is pretty obvious from this very long thread, that this isn't true. Stop being silly.The plants and food are ridiculous b/c all things on this earth were created for Man. This has nothing to do with my point regarding the distinction between "to kill" and "to murder."the Greek word implies "to kill in terms of murder" Look at the quotes it puts "to kill, slay, murder" all together. What does that look like? When you open a thesaurus for a word, doesnt it give all meanings that are similar? Hence it is very easy to see that the greek word implies murder. You are doing a fabulous job of proving my point for me. IMPLIES is the key word. An implication is not a certainty. A thesaurus -does- provide lists of words with similar meanings, and that is exactly my point.In order to say for certain that "thou shalt not kill/murder" means one thing or the other, we -must- imply meaning to the word, we -must- interpret the word.Therefore, if we must interpret one part of the Bible, it is a reasonable extension that we are expected to interpret the entirety of the Bible. It would make little sense for God to provide us a Bible where interpretation was only necessary in a single instance across thousands and thousands of words.So please quit tryin to dance aroudn this issue to.You are the one dancing around the issue. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I think it is pretty obvious from this very long thread, that this isn't true. Stop being silly. This has nothing to do with my point regarding the distinction between "to kill" and "to murder." You are doing a fabulous job of proving my point for me. IMPLIES is the key word. An implication is not a certainty. A thesaurus -does- provide lists of words with similar meanings, and that is exactly my point.In order to say for certain that "thou shalt not kill/murder" means one thing or the other, we -must- imply meaning to the word, we -must- interpret the word.Therefore, if we must interpret one part of the Bible, it is a reasonable extension that we are expected to interpret the entirety of the Bible. It would make little sense for God to provide us a Bible where interpretation was only necessary in a single instance across thousands and thousands of words.You are the one dancing around the issue.actually alternative meanings on a single line, or written under a ordinal, carry equal but different meanings, one doesnt imply the otherif there are less correct or popular meanings they are under a higher ordinal or preceded by sec. indicating secondary meanings.there is nothing in the above definition that helps distinguish between kill and murder.Certainly the anti-death penalty crowd interprets "kill" in its most general form. Without going back through this matt-filled thread, is it clear that "kill" even refers to killing other humans, or could it extend to animals and even plants? Link to post Share on other sites
Farnan 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 First off farnan it was a little hypocritical to take a cheap shot at me and follow it with your nonsense. All monty has shown is that he doesnt read the bible. Its not a very difficult concept to see. Slappin me around? His answers have yet to even have biblical evidence.I was not taking a cheap shot--i was calling you out for your continual condecending, smug, arrogant posts. I can understand that people, in the heat of an argument, can act this way---but you have demonstrated a clear pattern of groundless arrogance.He has posted time after time after time, biblical support for his views. Yet you have somehow come to believe that YOU KNOW exactly how God intended the bible to be interpreted. And to think there is NO other way to look at this is the height of arrogance.If you're trying to get people to agree with your interpretation---you're certainly going at it the wrong way. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 I was not taking a cheap shot--i was calling you out for your continual condecending, smug, arrogant posts. I can understand that people, in the heat of an argument, can act this way---but you have demonstrated a clear pattern of groundless arrogance.He has posted time after time after time, biblical support for his views. Yet you have somehow come to believe that YOU KNOW exactly how God intended the bible to be interpreted. And to think there is NO other way to look at this is the height of arrogance.If you're trying to get people to agree with your interpretation---you're certainly going at it the wrong way.please post just one single verse that supports his views? I would be interested to see if you can find anything that actually supports anything he has said. So far I have yet to see anyting. So if you can provide this for him that would be great. Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 please post just one single verse that supports his views? I would be interested to see if you can find anything that actually supports anything he has said. So far I have yet to see anyting. So if you can provide this for him that would be great.Matt, I started a post trying to tell you how foolish you are being, but I realised it is the same message everybody is trying to get through to you, so I decided it was pointlessSo instead why don't you conduct a little experiment.Print out a few of these threads, change the names to protect the innocent, and to hide your investment in the debate. Then ask some people whose intellect you respect what they think of the argument. Try a few people and regardless of their beliefs I am confident they will tell you that your stance is untenable. Be honest with yourself and try people based on their ability to interpret an argument, not on any preconceived notion of their religous standards.Do it, because if you are right you have nothing to lose, however if you are wrong you might be able to step back and take a long hard look at yourself which I think you need to do.Please note I am not challenging your beliefs in any way, I am just suggesting that you have backed yourself into a corner over this and have no mechanism for defusing. Your stubbornness and inability to listen to Monty is truly bordering on the unhealthy.There you go, a post with no flames, no insults. Must be a Wednesday Link to post Share on other sites
socalpoker_j 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Matt, your fervor for the truth is evident, but I think you're going about it the wrong way and coming off as how the above posters mentioned. You've made some great contributions to the religion area and I would kindly ask that you continue to do so, but not in a condescending manner. There's nothing wrong with heated discussion just the way it may come off sometimes. Yours in Christ,James Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Matt, I started a post trying to tell you how foolish you are being, but I realised it is the same message everybody is trying to get through to you, so I decided it was pointlessSo instead why don't you conduct a little experiment.Print out a few of these threads, change the names to protect the innocent, and to hide your investment in the debate. Then ask some people whose intellect you respect what they think of the argument. Try a few people and regardless of their beliefs I am confident they will tell you that your stance is untenable. Be honest with yourself and try people based on their ability to interpret an argument, not on any preconceived notion of their religous standards.Do it, because if you are right you have nothing to lose, however if you are wrong you might be able to step back and take a long hard look at yourself which I think you need to do.Please note I am not challenging your beliefs in any way, I am just suggesting that you have backed yourself into a corner over this and have no mechanism for defusing. Your stubbornness and inability to listen to Monty is truly bordering on the unhealthy.There you go, a post with no flames, no insults. Must be a WednesdaySee here is the difference between what I post and what others have posted. When I post I provide direct proof of my beliefs. I provide biblical history or verses that leave no doubt on where my beliefs come from. The problem its seems is that when I expect this of others I am deemed "crazy". I have asked for one piece of evidence to prove anything Monty has said to be true and I have not recieved anything. So I will lay that challenge to you and others. Go through montys posts and find a biblical verse he uses or actually any evidence he uses to support his view. The problem you will have is that there is no substance to his views. He gave a touching hypothetical, but nowhere did he even give his own thoughts on the hypothetical or even his solution to the problem. He merely said he things the guy got a bad deal. So again, the challenge is out there to all of yall to show where monty actually provided evidence for anything he believes. Link to post Share on other sites
gobears 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 See here is the difference between what I post and what others have posted. When I post I provide direct proof of my beliefs. I provide biblical history or verses that leave no doubt on where my beliefs come from. The problem its seems is that when I expect this of others I am deemed "crazy". I have asked for one piece of evidence to prove anything Monty has said to be true and I have not recieved anything. So I will lay that challenge to you and others. Go through montys posts and find a biblical verse he uses or actually any evidence he uses to support his view. The problem you will have is that there is no substance to his views. He gave a touching hypothetical, but nowhere did he even give his own thoughts on the hypothetical or even his solution to the problem. He merely said he things the guy got a bad deal. So again, the challenge is out there to all of yall to show where monty actually provided evidence for anything he believes.Look at posts #37 and posts #52 in this thread just as a starting point. Monty provides his interpretation of the same bible verses that you list as a basis for your beliefs. The real issue is that you don't agree with his interpretation and analysis, not that he hasn't provided any evidence.You are both reading the same bible verses and come to different conclusions. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 See here is the difference between what I post and what others have posted. When I post I provide direct proof of my beliefs. I provide biblical history or verses that leave no doubt on where my beliefs come from. The problem its seems is that when I expect this of others I am deemed "crazy". I have asked for one piece of evidence to prove anything Monty has said to be true and I have not recieved anything. So I will lay that challenge to you and others. Go through montys posts and find a biblical verse he uses or actually any evidence he uses to support his view. The problem you will have is that there is no substance to his views. He gave a touching hypothetical, but nowhere did he even give his own thoughts on the hypothetical or even his solution to the problem. He merely said he things the guy got a bad deal. So again, the challenge is out there to all of yall to show where monty actually provided evidence for anything he believes. No, you don't. You provide scripture tainted and twisted by religous agenda, and so obviously spun it's borderline sickening. When a poster comes to you with a question about bears killing children, you throw out some bologna about studies showing that they were not children at all, which biblically is just not true- it's just an answer somebody else gave you to fool the masses. The hypothetical is so easy to answer from a christian point of view, and you can't pull it off. It's the simple that blows your mind because you deal in the convoluted- you have too, you have no choice. You can never accept what is front of you because your teachers are so busy telling you that what is in front of you is somehow not really what is actually there. You talk about preconceived notions but willingly work off of a source, built on and for preconceived notions. Faith is the evidence of things not seen- and in may cases the only case you can make for faith is you, who you were before and after. Thats what the true problem is- religion no longer is about change, because it's not of you, right? Saved by grace, right? Works don't matter right? Well, no, not really, because if you don't have works, well then you were not really saved, because if you were you would want to do works. O.k., good, so works do matter? Well, no, because nothing you do saves you, it's by Gods grace. You mean well, you really do I think and you try so hard to provide answers where there are none, proof where there is none, and what you fail to realize is that for some people it will never be. They cannot be persuaded. King Aggripa had Paul himself- and what was his answer? Almost. Do you really think you are going to do better when you try and tangle with Atheists, Agnostics and the like? We can't fight the good fight with logic- what we believe is not logical!! We know it to be true and we can see in other people and hopefully one day in oursleves what God can do, but it defies logic, it spits in the face of it. I guess what I am trying to say is that you try to hard to fight the unwinnable. I avoid atheist/agnostic threads for a reason- can't help em. They don't want it, and lack the ability to make the jump from seen to unseen. It doesn't make em bad people, truth is I enjoy all of there points of view and the way they get me to think on things is something that was lacking in my life for a long time, and I could try and tell them what that statement means but it would do no good- they lack the one thing that is neccesary, and that's faith, even the smallest bit of it. I cannot give them that, no matter how hard I try. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now