Forlife will admit his many faults. The gospel convicts men of high capital crimes against the throne of a flawlessly holy God. I’m not beating you up like you think. I’ll be back later.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
For Life, having read and reread my post I do now feel that it was too harsh. My intent was to be “over the top” but I fear that I flew well past that.
I am sorry for my tact and words.
Please forgive me my meanness. I will try to do better in the future. [/quote]
No problem, I didn’t take offense because none of those stereotypes apply to my life as a gay man. I live a pretty domesticated (some would say boring) life, with my partner and 2 kids, my corporate job, working out, and the occasional video game. But I’m happy and at peace, and that’s what matters, right?
I’ve always said that if religion makes people happy, it serves a good purpose. I’m all for religion in that regard. The only reason I even bother to post in these religion threads is because I think sometimes people cross the line by legislating their beliefs in a way that affects my life. I understand where they’re coming from, I’ve been there myself after all, but I still feel it’s important to stand up for my own rights and the rights of others.
I also feel it’s important to educate people, beyond the stereotypes that you shared, and help them understand that many of us are living “normal” lives in every way you are, with the exception of loving someone of the same rather than the opposite gender.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Forlife will admit his many faults. The gospel convicts men of high capital crimes against the throne of a flawlessly holy God. I’m not beating you up like you think. I’ll be back later.[/quote]
You’re right, I do have many faults and try to be honest about them. The main reason I’ve chosen agnosticism is because I recognize my own limitations, and fully understand that I could be wrong about whether there is or isn’t a god.
[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< I often wonder how many beautiful, bright, searching souls we turn away at the gates because we demand that they suspend the use of their beautiful God given minds and accept the “six day creation story.” >>>[/quote]I’m wondering where you find beautiful searching souls. I find that there is none that seeks after God (not even one, jew or gentile, Romans 3) that we are all born "dead in trespasses and sins and by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2), and enemies of God (Romans 5:2). You have some very orthodox views on some things though like the divine/human person of Jesus Christ who said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.” Unless you believe Adam and Eve are just a story as well, Jesus, you know, the guy this is all about? He tells us they were made male and female “from the beginning of creation” unless He was lyin.
Don’t get me wrong. People can believe whatever they want. I prefer if they just scoff and laugh at the Word of God. That’s better than attempting to update it to accommodate the galactic insolence of modern man.
Just to be clear. I view the day/age theory as terribly wrong and an affront to scripture. However, as long as somebody believes in a literal first man Adam created from the dust of the earth and his literal fall into temptation and sin as recorded in the 3rd of Genesis I see them as in terrible error, but not in damnable heresy. Theistic evolution that also includes a literal first man Adam created from the dust of the earth and his literal fall into temptation and sin as recorded in the 3rd of Genesis is REALLY pushin it. A denial of a literal first man Adam created from the dust of the earth and his literal fall into temptation and sin as recorded in the 3rd of Genesis is a denial of the gospel outright and IS fatally heretical.
My God how the church has prostituted itself to the world. It is exactly these utterly contrasting scandalous and offensive divine truths that give the gospel of the risen Christ it’s power. How dare somebody claiming His name come along and tell the world that they have forced us to reconsider God’s Word as if it evolves like they think we did. The truth of the God who is truth itself is robbed of it’s transforming power as man cuts it down to size to fit inside his arrogant rebellious revisions. You are not helping Him. He seeks true worshipers that come to Him believing “every word that proceeds out of His mouth”. Not people who believe what’s left after sinful men have corrected Him.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but His Word endures forever.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re right, I do have many faults and try to be honest about them. >>>[/quote]Indeed you do as does everybody else which was my point to JEATON. What you do not have, according to you, is a record of high capital crimes against the throne of a flawlessly holy God like the Christian gospel has always asserted. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< The main reason I’ve chosen agnosticism is because I recognize my own limitations, and fully understand that I could be wrong about whether there is or isn’t a god.[/quote]FIDDLESTICKS!!! You are absolutely certain the God I preach, the one true and living God, does NOT exist (even though Paul calls you a liar and says you actually really do know Him). What you have chosen is your allegedly preferred option among the sinful choices which are the only ones your enslaved will is susceptible to.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re right, I do have many faults and try to be honest about them. >>>[/quote]Indeed you do as does everybody else which was my point to JEATON. What you do not have, according to you, is a record of high capital crimes against the throne of a flawlessly holy God like the Christian gospel has always asserted. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< The main reason I’ve chosen agnosticism is because I recognize my own limitations, and fully understand that I could be wrong about whether there is or isn’t a god.[/quote]FIDDLESTICKS!!! You are absolutely certain the God I preach, the one true and living God, does NOT exist (even though Paul calls you a liar and says you actually really do know Him). What you have chosen is your allegedly preferred option among the sinful choices which are the only ones your enslaved will is susceptible to.
[/quote]
It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. If your god does exist, he’s not the god I studied and came to know during my years as a sincere Christian, nor is he the god the vast majority of Christians confess. It’s true that not everything is equally probable, and your god is as improbable as they come. Still, he might exist just like Allah or Ganesh might exist.
Unlike you, I’m open to any possibility. I’m unwilling to draw unwarranted conclusions based on my emotional experiences, although at one point in my life that wasn’t the case.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. [/quote]It’s impossible to “prove” ANYTHING, lol!!! I’m still waiting for that all governing principle or framework that governs every conclusion elder forlife reaches.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< If your god does exist, he’s not the god I studied and came to know during my years >>>[/quote]Oh there’s no doubt about this. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< sincere Christian, >>>[/quote]Whatever that is. There are those who have been supernaturally resurrected into the eternal life of Christ and bear His fruit and those still dead in sin who do not.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< nor is he the god the vast majority of Christians confess. >>>[/quote]Not any more and boy are we paying the price. Especially in this country. It was however the most prominent expression during the 18th century when the wonder of this nation’s founding was taking place. I would tell you to look it up, but you won’t. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< Unlike you, I’m open to any possibility. [/quote]I am most assuredly not open to anything not conforming to the revealed Word of God and you are most assuredly not open to anything that does. I will continue waiting for that all governing principle or framework that governs every conclusion you reach. Don’t delude yourself. Everybody has one and for unbelievers it’s always the same. Well, it’s always the same for believers too even if they don’t self consciously realize it. it comes out in their prayers every single time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]
Let me know what you think of this, please.
http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]
Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]
Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?[/quote]
Luke 2:40. Jesus was filled (not half-way, but filled) with wisdom. Moreover, Jesus increased not unlike the sun who increases from morning to midday in brilliance. Although the sun does not increase in brilliance, it seems so to men.
This would be the same for Jesus, this is a generalized over look of it. It goes much deeper, but I don’t feel like writing a research paper on it at the moment.
Jesus was full of wisdom from conception. The growing in stature and wisdom was what men saw in Jesus. [/quote]
Except the scripture says Jesus grew in stature and wisdom, not that men incorrectly thought he was growing in stature and wisdom.[/quote]
Lol, no to them he grew in stature and wisdom. He was already filled with wisdom. Then to men he grew. [/quote]
Except that’s not what the scripture says. It very clearly states that he actually grew in wisdom and stature, and NOT that people only thought he grew in wisdom and stature. Big difference.[/quote]
Actually it does, you’re ignoring the ‘filled with wisdom.’
Some people need some catechism, all’m sayin’.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Some people need some catechism, all’m sayin’.[/quote]Some people need to ditch Aquinas and watch things like the incarnation come alive in their hearts =]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. [/quote]It’s impossible to “prove” ANYTHING, lol!!! I’m still waiting for that all governing principle or framework that governs every conclusion elder forlife reaches.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< If your god does exist, he’s not the god I studied and came to know during my years >>>[/quote]Oh there’s no doubt about this. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< sincere Christian, >>>[/quote]Whatever that is. There are those who have been supernaturally resurrected into the eternal life of Christ and bear His fruit and those still dead in sin who do not.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< nor is he the god the vast majority of Christians confess. >>>[/quote]Not any more and boy are we paying the price. Especially in this country. It was however the most prominent expression during the 18th century when the wonder of this nation’s founding was taking place. I would tell you to look it up, but you won’t. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< Unlike you, I’m open to any possibility. [/quote]I am most assuredly not open to anything not conforming to the revealed Word of God and you are most assuredly not open to anything that does. I will continue waiting for that all governing principle or framework that governs every conclusion you reach. Don’t delude yourself. Everybody has one and for unbelievers it’s always the same. Well, it’s always the same for believers too even if they don’t self consciously realize it. it comes out in their prayers every single time.
[/quote]
Literalist, black and white thinking is typical of children, but even many adults never learn to think in shades of gray. The whole idea of tentative conclusions based on probabilistic statistical analysis is foreign and threatening to them. They emotionally need the structure and stability of absolutist beliefs, even when those beliefs are unjustified.
A hypothesis with a 95% probability of being true is preferable over a hypothesis with a 5% probability of being true. You cannot know anything with absolute certainty, but you can make educated tentative conclusions, and be willing to refine those conclusions if further evidence warrants doing so.
Many religionists claim to KNOW their beliefs are true on one hand, while on the other hand admitting their beliefs are entirely based on FAITH. Faith is definitionally the lack of knowledge, so this thought process is fatally illogical.
You don’t KNOW Calvin 's god is real. You only have FAITH that he is real. And millions of other Christians have FAITH that their particular god is real. Not to mention Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. Faith means NOTHING when it comes to understanding what is actually real.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…my years as a sincere Christian… [/quote]
If I’m not mistaken I thought you had professed a faith in Mormonism in your past, correct?
Were you also a believing Christian before or after your LDS experience?[/quote]
Mormons have a lot of weird beliefs, but they are absolutely Christian. They believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god, that Jesus is their savior, and that it is impossible to be forgiven and live with god unless people repent and are born again.
I’m not going to comment beyond that, since I know many like to disparage Mormons as non-Christians, due to their strange beliefs in other areas. Feel free to believe whatever you want about them.
What I will say, though, is that I prayed to god and had many deeply poignant, transformational spiritual experiences that convinced me of his love for me, and of my assurance of salvation through the atonement of Christ. I know how personal and powerful these experiences can be. However, I am no longer willing to accept them as evidence for the existence of a god, or for the truthfulness of my beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]
Which ones?[/quote]
See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]
Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]
1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.
Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.
I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.
People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.
I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]
It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]
The truth is inextricably tied to the accuracy of the recorded events.
If Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected in a historically factual sense, the doctrine based on this historical fact is unfounded.[/quote]
Depends on the truth… The fact that the bible isn’t a history book doesn’t mean it does not contain historical facts, it means that depending on the book, the historical facts matter more or less. Certainly in the gospels the fact that Jesus existed, proclaimed the gospel died and ressurected are facts that must be true for them to be valid. Now if that happened the day before, during or after the ‘day of preparation’ is less important. It happened about about that time period.
Now, for instance in the case of Sampson for instance, it doesn’t matter if he killed a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass as much as the moral that Sampson was chosen by God to lead, he disobeyed and became a slave, but ultimately he still executed God’s purpose for him by destroying a the Philistines.
Whether or not the Sampson story is 100% historical fact doesn’t matter. The fact remains that even if God chooses you, you can still disobey, even if you disobey, you can fulfill his purposes; though you’ve damned yourself. Further, you can still repent even after the damage has been done. Of course you can pull it apart and read it even deeper, but you get the picture.[/quote]
It’s important, for 2 reasons:
- If some of the “miracles”, like Sampson slaying 1,000 men, aren’t factual, but were made up and dishonestly perpetrated as being factual, it says something about the character of the men presenting these stories as actual facts. If they lied or were sincerely mistaken about some of those stories, they may have lied or been sincerely mistaken about others stories as well, like Jesus walking on water or appearing to Mary Magdalene after being killed. Not that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it does cast reasonable doubt.
[/quote]
We don’t and cannot verify the historical accuracy on any of those texts. It simply cannot be done. Nor can you produce any other documents that old that are spot on historically accurate. The truth is there is a 50/ 50 shot of them being accurate, but it cannot be known. In either event, these recordings are the story of these ancient peoples, their beliefs and how they lived. The lesson gleaned are just as important if either case is true.
[quote]
2) The large majority of biblical scholars agree that only the very basics of Jesus’ life are h
historically accurate. Stories of the nativity and his resurrection are NOT considered to be reliably historically accurate. And those very stories are central to the beliefs that many people have about Jesus. If the historical facts on these pivotal issues are wrong, the beliefs based on those facts are wrong as well.[/quote]
The fact is that He died and resurrected and it must be true for Christianity to be correct. Now, as St. Paul said, if it’s not true, then we are all fools, but such foolishness should have fallen by the wayside a looooong time ago. So here is where I have to put faith in it.
Now to turn is around, there is little in history we can actually know happened the way it’s reported. Most of the time, we are trusting the old authors and historians to be telling us the truth. But the further back we go, the less history we can verify and the greater the margin of error. This goes for all history, not just biblical history.
Still it not a history book. It’s purpose isn’t to tall us about history. That’s why history exists as a separate study. It’s a religious text. If you don’t believe in God, texts about God are meaningless. It kind of requires belief in God to be meaningful…Though on it’s own it is interesting literature.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You’re right, I do have many faults and try to be honest about them. >>>[/quote]Indeed you do as does everybody else which was my point to JEATON. What you do not have, according to you, is a record of high capital crimes against the throne of a flawlessly holy God like the Christian gospel has always asserted. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< The main reason I’ve chosen agnosticism is because I recognize my own limitations, and fully understand that I could be wrong about whether there is or isn’t a god.[/quote]FIDDLESTICKS!!! You are absolutely certain the God I preach, the one true and living God, does NOT exist (even though Paul calls you a liar and says you actually really do know Him). What you have chosen is your allegedly preferred option among the sinful choices which are the only ones your enslaved will is susceptible to.
[/quote]
It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. If your god does exist, he’s not the god I studied and came to know during my years as a sincere Christian, nor is he the god the vast majority of Christians confess. It’s true that not everything is equally probable, and your god is as improbable as they come. Still, he might exist just like Allah or Ganesh might exist.
Unlike you, I’m open to any possibility. I’m unwilling to draw unwarranted conclusions based on my emotional experiences, although at one point in my life that wasn’t the case. [/quote]
Allah or Ganesh would still be referring to the one God, not a different one.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…my years as a sincere Christian… [/quote]
If I’m not mistaken I thought you had professed a faith in Mormonism in your past, correct?
Were you also a believing Christian before or after your LDS experience?[/quote]
Mormons have a lot of weird beliefs, but they are absolutely Christian. They believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god, that Jesus is their savior, and that it is impossible to be forgiven and live with god unless people repent and are born again.
I’m not going to comment beyond that, since I know many like to disparage Mormons as non-Christians, due to their strange beliefs in other areas. Feel free to believe whatever you want about them.
What I will say, though, is that I prayed to god and had many deeply poignant, transformational spiritual experiences that convinced me of his love for me, and of my assurance of salvation through the atonement of Christ. I know how personal and powerful these experiences can be. However, I am no longer willing to accept them as evidence for the existence of a god, or for the truthfulness of my beliefs.[/quote]
I concur, I think over all good people. Not sure about John Smith being privy to divine revelation, though. But that’s neither here, not there. They are Christians and most of them try hard to be good…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]
Which ones?[/quote]
See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]
Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]
1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.
Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.
I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.
People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.
I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]
It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]
The truth is inextricably tied to the accuracy of the recorded events.
If Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected in a historically factual sense, the doctrine based on this historical fact is unfounded.[/quote]
Depends on the truth… The fact that the bible isn’t a history book doesn’t mean it does not contain historical facts, it means that depending on the book, the historical facts matter more or less. Certainly in the gospels the fact that Jesus existed, proclaimed the gospel died and ressurected are facts that must be true for them to be valid. Now if that happened the day before, during or after the ‘day of preparation’ is less important. It happened about about that time period.
Now, for instance in the case of Sampson for instance, it doesn’t matter if he killed a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass as much as the moral that Sampson was chosen by God to lead, he disobeyed and became a slave, but ultimately he still executed God’s purpose for him by destroying a the Philistines.
Whether or not the Sampson story is 100% historical fact doesn’t matter. The fact remains that even if God chooses you, you can still disobey, even if you disobey, you can fulfill his purposes; though you’ve damned yourself. Further, you can still repent even after the damage has been done. Of course you can pull it apart and read it even deeper, but you get the picture.[/quote]
It’s important, for 2 reasons:
- If some of the “miracles”, like Sampson slaying 1,000 men, aren’t factual, but were made up and dishonestly perpetrated as being factual, it says something about the character of the men presenting these stories as actual facts. If they lied or were sincerely mistaken about some of those stories, they may have lied or been sincerely mistaken about others stories as well, like Jesus walking on water or appearing to Mary Magdalene after being killed. Not that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it does cast reasonable doubt.
[/quote]
We don’t and cannot verify the historical accuracy on any of those texts. It simply cannot be done. Nor can you produce any other documents that old that are spot on historically accurate. The truth is there is a 50/ 50 shot of them being accurate, but it cannot be known. In either event, these recordings are the story of these ancient peoples, their beliefs and how they lived. The lesson gleaned are just as important if either case is true.
[quote]
2) The large majority of biblical scholars agree that only the very basics of Jesus’ life are h
historically accurate. Stories of the nativity and his resurrection are NOT considered to be reliably historically accurate. And those very stories are central to the beliefs that many people have about Jesus. If the historical facts on these pivotal issues are wrong, the beliefs based on those facts are wrong as well.[/quote]
The fact is that He died and resurrected and it must be true for Christianity to be correct. Now, as St. Paul said, if it’s not true, then we are all fools, but such foolishness should have fallen by the wayside a looooong time ago. So here is where I have to put faith in it.
Now to turn is around, there is little in history we can actually know happened the way it’s reported. Most of the time, we are trusting the old authors and historians to be telling us the truth. But the further back we go, the less history we can verify and the greater the margin of error. This goes for all history, not just biblical history.
Still it not a history book. It’s purpose isn’t to tall us about history. That’s why history exists as a separate study. It’s a religious text. If you don’t believe in God, texts about God are meaningless. It kind of requires belief in God to be meaningful…Though on it’s own it is interesting literature.[/quote]
Some histories written by other nations and cultures can be and are historically verified as accurate, while others are not. Much of what is claimed in the bible hasn’t been confirmed as historically accurate, and in some cases is actually disconfirmed (for example, anachronistically discussing technologies that were known not to exist until much later).
Given that inaccuracy, we can’t make any definitive claims about the resurrection of Christ. Most biblical scholars agree on this. We do have decent evidence that Jesus actually lived, but accounts of his nativity and resurrection are historically suspect.
As you point out, if Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected, Christianity is false. It may still teach valuable morals, but its core claims are false. That’s why reliable history is important.
It’s fallacious to assume that Christianity would have fallen by the wayside if it wasn’t true. There are many religions that contradict Christianity, and have similarly stood the test of time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Some people need some catechism, all’m sayin’.[/quote]Some people need to ditch Aquinas and watch things like the incarnation come alive in their hearts =]
[/quote]
Speak’n’ my direction? I say, ‘couldn’t be.’ After all, Jesus is my bridegroom and after all you are just his friend. 
Let me know when you wish to go to the actual wedding feast.
My precious holy Father, PLEASE give me a seat next to Chris. Ephrem on the other side? PLEASE!!!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My precious holy Father, PLEASE give me a seat next to Chris. Ephrem on the other side? PLEASE!!![/quote]
I already told you once that, if heaven is an eternity with people like you and Chris, i’ll happily go south.