[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< well I do live in Texas, so pregressive liberal churches are frowned upon here. Although I wish we could do away with lakewood and the heresy that comes out of there.[/quote]
Ooooooooh, don’t get me started there either. There’s a perfect example of why “the church”, if that’s even what that is, has lost it’s power (spiritually speaking) in this country especially.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< well I do live in Texas, so pregressive liberal churches are frowned upon here. Although I wish we could do away with lakewood and the heresy that comes out of there.[/quote]
Ooooooooh, don’t get me started there either. There’s a perfect example of why “the church”, if that’s even what that is, has lost it’s power (spiritually speaking) in this country especially.[/quote]
I agree fully. I have some close friends that like that doctrine, I have got one of them to atleast start questioning that belief and consider the possibility of how wrong it really is. The whole prosperity gospel is the exact type of Church that Jesus would tie a few ropes together and start driving people out.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< well I do live in Texas, so pregressive liberal churches are frowned upon here. Although I wish we could do away with lakewood and the heresy that comes out of there.[/quote]
Ooooooooh, don’t get me started there either. There’s a perfect example of why “the church”, if that’s even what that is, has lost it’s power (spiritually speaking) in this country especially.[/quote]
I agree fully. I have some close friends that like that doctrine, I have got one of them to atleast start questioning that belief and consider the possibility of how wrong it really is. The whole prosperity gospel is the exact type of Church that Jesus would tie a few ropes together and start driving people out. [/quote]
He’s on Hannity and gets other publicity and people think that substance-less goop is the gospel. Folks tell me "well at least God and even sometimes Jesus are getting some public attention"
I disagree entirely. I’d rather see the holy name of Christ hidden than associated with fruity false representations of Him. The Jesus I know, the living Word revealed in the written Word, I’m certain agrees and will not hold them guiltless that reproach His name.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< well I do live in Texas, so pregressive liberal churches are frowned upon here. Although I wish we could do away with lakewood and the heresy that comes out of there.[/quote]
Ooooooooh, don’t get me started there either. There’s a perfect example of why “the church”, if that’s even what that is, has lost it’s power (spiritually speaking) in this country especially.[/quote]
I agree fully. I have some close friends that like that doctrine, I have got one of them to atleast start questioning that belief and consider the possibility of how wrong it really is. The whole prosperity gospel is the exact type of Church that Jesus would tie a few ropes together and start driving people out. [/quote]
He’s on Hannity and gets other publicity and people think that substance-less goop is the gospel. Folks tell me "well at least God and even sometimes Jesus are getting some public attention"
I disagree entirely. I’d rather see the holy name of Christ hidden than associated with fruity false representations of Him. The Jesus I know, the living Word revealed in the written Word, I’m certain agrees and will not hold them guiltless that reproach His name.[/quote]
I tend to agree. while there is a small argument to be made based off of Paul’s writings to Corinth, that argument falls flat when you consider Paul’s opponents where still preaching Christ in accordance with common standards of the early church. Not full out heresy.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes everything and man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins and create His Church (or body) . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins as well give us the Eucharist for the communion of Saints . . . man repents and is baptized to have the sin’s of Adam wiped clean . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus and do works in the name of the Lord for the atonement of his sins as well as have faith in His Church’s teachings . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God if he is purified before earthly death, otherwise he goes to purgatory for purification before entering God’s presence in His Kingdom, and Hell in the case of death in Mortal Sin . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by Moses and continued through the Apostles and also in His Church’s Doctrine. . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
Fixed. 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?
[/quote]
From, not in[/quote]
…from heaven on earth? I’m not seeing that though; many wicked people have it good, and the kind, generous ones are struggling…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
…when one believer interprets scripture differently from you but has similar religious experiences that tell him that he is on the narrow path of righteousness, imo that can mean two things:
…either god does not care about the fine print, only that you believe or beliefs excite parts of the brain and create experiences that are separate from the truth of those beliefs…[/quote]
Or it could mean that each believes the other to be wrong. Yet, neither feel the need to kill the other.[/quote]
…what does killing have to do with it?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
…or you could just say: “I don’t know”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote: …that’s heavy. Seriously, how far are you willing to go to bring god’s truth to people? Are you part of a church? If people ask what kind of christian you are, what do you answer?
[/quote]Christians are commanded to live in the Spirit which by definition defeats the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16) That means feeding the new creature in Christ the last Adam, and starving the old man born in sin in the first. Prayer, bible study and fellowship with other believers while avoiding where possible the undue temptation and influence of the world is the short version of what that is.
Our example to others, what we call a testimony is first. If I act or speak just like they do why would they listen to anything I might say? We are commanded to be separate, set apart, not participating in those things or conversations God hates, (2 Corinthians 6) without portraying ourselves as self righteous because we most certainly are NOT righteous in ourselves.
As I said before I have been lately convicted concerning sharing my faith with the lost. That culminated in a post by one the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the trinity thread. He made an unassailable point about which I felt very guilty as a representative of Christ and I told him so. Prayerful wisdom is required in this regard. We need to tell them, but not every time or place is appropriate and some well meaning believers can inadvertently damage their witness by unthinking overzealousness.
As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.
I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.
[quote]ephrem wrote:…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?
[/quote] This struck me funny lol. Paul is saying from “heaven” here and in the present. It IS revealed FROM heaven against…
[/quote]
…thank you Tiribulus, i have no further questions at this time, but i reserve the right to interview the defendant in the near future (:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote: …that’s heavy. Seriously, how far are you willing to go to bring god’s truth to people? Are you part of a church? If people ask what kind of christian you are, what do you answer?
[/quote]Christians are commanded to live in the Spirit which by definition defeats the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16) That means feeding the new creature in Christ the last Adam, and starving the old man born in sin in the first. Prayer, bible study and fellowship with other believers while avoiding where possible the undue temptation and influence of the world is the short version of what that is.
Our example to others, what we call a testimony is first. If I act or speak just like they do why would they listen to anything I might say? We are commanded to be separate, set apart, not participating in those things or conversations God hates, (2 Corinthians 6) without portraying ourselves as self righteous because we most certainly are NOT righteous in ourselves.
As I said before I have been lately convicted concerning sharing my faith with the lost. That culminated in a post by one the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the trinity thread. He made an unassailable point about which I felt very guilty as a representative of Christ and I told him so. Prayerful wisdom is required in this regard. We need to tell them, but not every time or place is appropriate and some well meaning believers can inadvertently damage their witness by unthinking overzealousness.
As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.
I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.
[quote]ephrem wrote:…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?
[/quote] This struck me funny lol. Paul is saying from “heaven” here and in the present. It IS revealed FROM heaven against…
[/quote]
…thank you Tiribulus, i have no further questions at this time, but i reserve the right to interview the defendant in the near future (:
[/quote]
I was going to devise one of my clever and witty (at least in my mind) quips concerning how I became the defendant because of course from my standpoint you are the defendant. However I will accept the role of the accused for myself while hastening to add that this does not extend to my God who being judge of all judges is Himself judged by no one and also happens to be my attorney =] A perfectly splendid arrangement. Feel free to recall me at any time.
As an aside, one of my ALL TIME heroes of the faith was a Dutchman (Grootegast) named Cornelius Van Til.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.
I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.
What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]
I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]
So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.
Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?
If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]
You are going on faith too…You believe in something from nothing with less that no proof what-so-ever…So we are all faithful people.[/quote]
No, I have seen with my own eyes experiments where particles come into being out of a vacuum and have then read detailed theories of what I am seeing. On balance I believe those theories to be the most likely explanation of what is going on though I am open to changing my opinion based on further evidence.[/quote]
A vacuum is a something, not a nothing, further the events take place in space and happen in time…Nothingness, literally does not exist. Therefore it is impossible to empirically test something from nothing. You’re only vessel for discovery is reason and logic.
I agree it’s fascinating stuff and I wish I knew more about it.
I don’t know how accurate the theory is, though it seems there is some truth to it, if not a complete truth, it still is able to tell us something about the universe. What I like about quantum mechanics, is that it seems very near the intersection between the physical and metaphysical world. Same with general relativity as it pertains to black holes.
I hear theoretical physicists talk about how the equations break down to 1/0 which they consider an error, but I have been thinking really, just what if the equation is correct and black holes do end up having infinite mass and infinite gravity? Could we really know it does not?[/quote]
Fair comment, you are right, a vacuum is not quite nothing but the point about it existing in space and time is kind of the crux of things. All of our current rules relate to space or time or both. When we talk about the big bang or whatever brought the multiverse into effect we are talking about the begining of that space and time, therefore speculations of what happened before do not have to live by those same rules. Again this is not proof of a God. It is just proof that we still have a fair amount to learn and that the universe is pretty fucking amazing.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.
Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]
I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.
I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.
My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.
I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]
Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.
On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]
Ahh, it is very important to keep in mind context though - there is a difference between having a question or not accepting something that is unclear in doctrine, but when God has personally spoken to you directly and charged you individually with a certain action and you fail to obey his direct command to you as an individual - I would think He has the right to go all “smitey” on you . . (i like that word - I may have to use that from time to time)
LOL - yes, but the “Church” fear is not based on theology but on the mixing of politics and religion to achieve power and control to satisfy the greed and avarice of men - concepts foreign to true Christianity.
Any church worth attending not only welcomes doubters and unbelievers, but willing provides the answers from faith and scripture that it has - the decision for belief/acceptance will always rest with the hearer of the word.
We Christians are not offended by or afraid of any question - in fact, we are charged to always be ready to give an answer. We are not worried by doubts or fears, even Thomas proclaimed that he did believe and in the same breath asked for help with his unbelief - God knows the frailty of our human hearts and is more than able to accept us exactly where we are . . .[/quote]
Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.
What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.
We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.
This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.[/quote]
Do you believe the there is a Prime Mover?[/quote]
I guess I am agnostic on that point, as I have stated above, I see it as possible that a higher intelligence has guided things at some point in the universes history. I see it as more likely that chance and natural mechanisms have though. At a base level I do not believe in any God that in any way affects my current situation based on my actions or thoughts.
The point is ultimately a philosophical one. You look at the amazing details of quantum physics and the wonders of the cosmos and see God’s hand I just marvel at how fucking cool science is. We are ultimately talking about the same things but using different nomenclature. I am just never happy to settle for the answer ‘God did it’, I would always ask ‘how, using what mechanism, why, what made God?. etc’
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]
It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.
Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.
[quote]
Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.
Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]
Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.
I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]
If time is not involved you cannot talk about what causes what. Sorry to hear you have been in the hospital, hope everything is OK with you and your family.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
What’s pretty funny is that I went in pretty much the opposite direction. Started off as a devout Christian in a Christian family. Studied a lot of science, moved through Gnosticism and Mysticism to Eastern Philosophies. Read a lot about Taoism, still like the philosophy of Taoism though don’t see it as a religion and ended up pretty strongly atheist, but open minded to all possibilities.[/quote]
That is funny. Just goes to show that you at least have an inquisitive mind. 
do you mind if I ask what denomination of Christianity you grew up in?[/quote]
Church of England
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]
It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.
Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.
[quote]
Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.
Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]
Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.
I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]
Ok back to Aristotle’s cosmology. Now, Aristotle knew several things when making his argument. He knew that causes necessitate their effects. He knew as you follow the causal chain you all things have commonality with each other, that all things share properties with one anther, and that this process could not go on forever with out being a logical fallacy of begging the question. This was not an ad hoc band aid, it was carefully considered, linear logic. It literally solves an equation. As Einstein was able to postulate the existence of black holes by pure math and reason, so Aristotle was able to ‘see’ an uncaused-causer.
Quintin Smith, don’t know much about him. But what little I read, he isn’t breaking any new ground and arguing cosmology from a singularity doesn’t remove the Unmoved-mover, Uncaused- cause. I don’t see where he proves said singularity is an uncaused-causer.
In any event, I am present the arguments and not merely dropping names which I could do easily as well. So if you are going to mention a person who refuted an argument, please at least present the argument. I don’t feel like digging up obscure people’s works to try and find what they said about a certain topic.
If you do not believe that all that exists came from something that exists, the only other option is to believe that it came from that which does not exist.[/quote]
Now you have changed the request. First you ask for any book that has refuted it, I provide an author who has written several and you change to asking for the arguments. There is no way I will put things as well as the author.
At a basic level though to talk about things happening before time and space existed is already a logical fallacy therefore the argument breaks down. Also the uncaused cause is just a logical cop out. What caused the uncaused cause?
Also as I have stated above, please explain how you get form a remote uninterested prime mover to the Christian God.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.
Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]
I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.
I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.
My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.
I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]
Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.
On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]
Which church is this? A faith not open to scrutiny is not a solid faith.[/quote]
Oh I am not playing that game. Whichever schism of the Church I refer to (and there are thousands) I will just be told that it is not the true faith.
On the whole (and there are notable exceptions) religious leaders don’t like people questioning the tenets of their faith too deeply. Faith in the Christian Church is seen as a desirable quality. Proof denies faith so the search for proof goes against the Church.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes everything and man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins and create His Church (or body) . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins as well give us the Eucharist for the communion of Saints . . . man repents and is baptized to have the sin’s of Adam wiped clean . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus and do works in the name of the Lord for the atonement of his sins as well as have faith in His Church’s teachings . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God if he is purified before earthly death, otherwise he goes to purgatory for purification before entering God’s presence in His Kingdom, and Hell in the case of death in Mortal Sin . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by Moses and continued through the Apostles and also in His Church’s Doctrine. . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
Fixed. ;)[/quote]
OK, my turn.
There is nothing… God creates himself…God creates the universe…God creates man (deliberately making him flawed and prone to being led astray)…God creates woman…woman fulfills her destiny by leading Man astray…God is surprised and annoyed that the Man that he created followed the inbuilt flaw that God created and went astray and therefore punishes him for something that God was ultimately responsible for…time passes…God sends himself in the form of his own son to Earth (the mechanism for this is the rape of an innocent woman)…God on earth tells his followers that they have not been following him correctly…he then causes a friend of his to betray him and tricks everyone into believing that he is suffering even though he is an omnipotent, omniscient multidimensional being…God now expects us to follow his example of peace and goodness.
Am I close?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes everything and man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins and create His Church (or body) . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins as well give us the Eucharist for the communion of Saints . . . man repents and is baptized to have the sin’s of Adam wiped clean . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus and do works in the name of the Lord for the atonement of his sins as well as have faith in His Church’s teachings . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God if he is purified before earthly death, otherwise he goes to purgatory for purification before entering God’s presence in His Kingdom, and Hell in the case of death in Mortal Sin . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by Moses and continued through the Apostles and also in His Church’s Doctrine. . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
Fixed. ;)[/quote]
OK, my turn.
There is nothing… God creates himself…God creates the universe…God creates man (deliberately making him flawed and prone to being led astray)…God creates woman…woman fulfills her destiny by leading Man astray…God is surprised and annoyed that the Man that he created followed the inbuilt flaw that God created and went astray and therefore punishes him for something that God was ultimately responsible for…time passes…God sends himself in the form of his own son to Earth (the mechanism for this is the rape of an innocent woman)…God on earth tells his followers that they have not been following him correctly…he then causes a friend of his to betray him and tricks everyone into believing that he is suffering even though he is an omnipotent, omniscient multidimensional being…God now expects us to follow his example of peace and goodness.
Am I close?[/quote]
No. Not even. I will try sometime today to post the reformed protestant understanding of this. Actually, read the old 39 articles of the church of England. Pretty good actually.
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?
What are your thoughts on it?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< I tend to agree. while there is a small argument to be made based off of Paul’s writings to Corinth, that argument falls flat when you consider Paul’s opponents where still preaching Christ in accordance with common standards of the early church. Not full out heresy.[/quote]I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the 1st of Philippians when Paul was in jail and some fell into self glory, taking advantage of his absence to exalt themselves among the people? Yes, they were preaching an accurate Gospel message which has power in itself even if proclaimed from a heart of pretense (a very reformed principle is bubbling about in there =] ) That is definitely different than bringing “another Jesus” and “another Gospel” which even today it’s as Paul says and not necessarily another altogether, but a perverted revision.