Is this the time of God's Judgment?

Judgement causes us to know ourselves, and exposes all hidden things. All things of the world will be exposed on the day of God's judgement. The day of judgement is God's great cleansing day. Our mistake is that when we think of judgement we think of punishment. But God takes no delight in punishing men.

Both the ark and the flood came from God. The ark offered redemption where as the flood judged the world. The ark saved Noah, but the flood saved the world.

The book of Revelation is the book of judgement that glides over the millennial kingdom, which is the 1000 years that people on this earth learn righteousness. This is the time of peace between the two judgements of the first three and one half years of tribulation and the second three and one half years called the great tribulation.

Judgement is not only a burning fire. It is also the enlightening fire. Because of this light men will hide in caves and call upon the mountains and rocks to cover them. In judgement whatever is covered will be uncovered and will show the things which God has found in us.

When we look at judgement we recognize who God is. To know God as Lord is to know Him through the redemption of Christ Jesus. If we don't know God as Lord, we can only know Him as God, and knowing Him only as God is quite another thing. Through judgement those not accepting him as Lord will know the terror of God, and their worship will be in a different attitude than those worshiping him as Lord.

Judgement is God's work in accomplishing His plan and purpose, and is both terrible and also loving. Before the arrival of the trumpet judgements that we discussed in the writings on Revelation, Jesus was sent by his father to die on the cross; the way of personal salvation for all.

The cross saves not by setting judgement aside, but on the contrary the cross itself is judgement. The judgement of the cross offers salvation. Salvation fulfills judgement, not by overcoming it, but by reaching the blood of Christ to go through it. The cross of Christ is the judgement for those who will believe.

When speaking of the judgement that will be manifested by the Lord through His Branch, we see a restitution for all that has been taken from believers by the world.

Isaiah 11: 4,5

4. But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and the girdle of his reigns.

Gary Larrabee
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/b/branch/

Garry,

Is this the time of God's Judgment?

No since no one can tell if he even exists yet, so no one can possible know if he has any intentions to do anything.

But God takes no delight in punishing men.

He must do since if he created the universe according to his will, then men have only done what he planned. In which case he only has himself to blame if he has mismanaged his creation.

Both the ark and the flood came from God. The ark offered redemption where as the flood judged the world. The ark saved Noah, but the flood saved the world.

Yes the action of the warlord and vicious thug. Murder everyone that doesn’t conform. Now if he had been omnipotent he could have found a way to teach and educate those who had not understood the correct way to live. Isn’t he meant to have infinite patience, compassion, and love. Killing doesn’t seem to fit well with those claimed qualities.

The book of Revelation is the book of judgement that glides over the millennial kingdom, which is the 1000 years that people on this earth learn righteousness.

And is also pure mythology. Totally false in every aspect.

When we look at judgement we recognize who God is. To know God as Lord is to know Him through the redemption of Christ Jesus. If we don't know God as Lord, we can only know Him as God, and knowing Him only as God is quite another thing. Through judgement those not accepting him as Lord will know the terror of God, and their worship will be in a different attitude than those worshiping him as Lord.

That reads like gobbledigook and gibberish.

Judgement is God's work in accomplishing His plan and purpose, and is both terrible and also loving

It is not possible to condemn someone to eternal damnation and love them at the same time.

The cross saves not by setting judgement aside, but on the contrary the cross itself is judgement. The judgement of the cross offers salvation. Salvation fulfills judgement, not by overcoming it, but by reaching the blood of Christ to go through it. The cross of Christ is the judgement for those who will believe.

Mythology again stolen and borrowed from many hundreds of years of similar and older mythologies.

4. But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

He sounds out of step with modern theories of criminal rehabilitation. Most of the so-called wicked come from broken homes, poor upbringing and bad environments. Condemning these poor unfortunates is an admission of failure from someone who is meant to be all powerful.

But an interesting sermon nevertheless.

Cris

Originally posted by GaryLarrabee
Is this the time of God's Judgment?

Judgement causes us to know ourselves, and exposes all hidden things. All things of the world will be exposed on the day of God's judgement. The day of judgement is God's great cleansing day. Our mistake is that when we think of judgement we think of punishment. But God takes no delight in punishing men.

Both the ark and the flood came from God. The ark offered redemption where as the flood judged the world. The ark saved Noah, but the flood saved the world.

The book of Revelation is the book of judgement that glides over the millennial kingdom, which is the 1000 years that people on this earth learn righteousness. This is the time of peace between the two judgements of the first three and one half years of tribulation and the second three and one half years called the great tribulation.

Judgement is not only a burning fire. It is also the enlightening fire. Because of this light men will hide in caves and call upon the mountains and rocks to cover them. In judgement whatever is covered will be uncovered and will show the things which God has found in us.

When we look at judgement we recognize who God is. To know God as Lord is to know Him through the redemption of Christ Jesus. If we don't know God as Lord, we can only know Him as God, and knowing Him only as God is quite another thing. Through judgement those not accepting him as Lord will know the terror of God, and their worship will be in a different attitude than those worshiping him as Lord.

Judgement is God's work in accomplishing His plan and purpose, and is both terrible and also loving. Before the arrival of the trumpet judgements that we discussed in the writings on Revelation, Jesus was sent by his father to die on the cross; the way of personal salvation for all.

The cross saves not by setting judgement aside, but on the contrary the cross itself is judgement. The judgement of the cross offers salvation. Salvation fulfills judgement, not by overcoming it, but by reaching the blood of Christ to go through it. The cross of Christ is the judgement for those who will believe.

When speaking of the judgement that will be manifested by the Lord through His Branch, we see a restitution for all that has been taken from believers by the world.

Isaiah 11: 4,5

4. But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and the girdle of his reigns.

Gary Larrabee
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/b/branch/



Gary,

Your words offer enlightenment (& fresh air), to a smoke filled room of nay sayers.

I get so caught up considering the many other points of views, that I sometimes feel thrown off the principles....

IE.............I agree with that completely SIR...... there are quite a few other silent ones here, that feel the same way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\

speak not into the ears of a fool, for he will despise one's words of wisdom

Chris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WHAT DID I TELL YOU ABOUT THE QUAKES TO COME, ONLY A FEW DAYS BACK???????????

Stop being a doubter of a proposed idea (especially a religious one)....................

Rather than being an antagonist of religion, try on a new pair of shoes & be a protagonist...for religion!

Hell, it ain't goin kill ya!


God...in all "it's" aspects of man's understanding, is always welcome to take a day off & live in me & see through my eyes, a man that I am. I accept that I am imperfect, yet I welcome God to live within me at any time of his choosing, and see, feel & understand my greed or plight, as well as know what strifes that his man child suffers......................

.................In this, I know that the almighty judgement of God is NOT cast down by God! Rather I am sure that the ultimate judgement of a man's sins are by the man himself. And Jehovah is just a witness, as one judges himself!

The most fair court of the land is the court of God! That is a Fact! Since Jehovah does not judge, he simply witnesses the confessions of each and every man, who IS FORCED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OF HIS SOUL, ON JUDGEMENT DAY............

...............NOW let's talk about that people, if you can hear.......................

<body>

<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">WHAT DID I TELL YOU ABOUT THE QUAKES TO COME, ONLY A FEW DAYS BACK???????????</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">LoL!!&nbsp; So you know Gods' mind?&nbsp; And he is
angry?&nbsp; That is a riot though.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Stop being a doubter of a proposed idea (especially a religious one)....................</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">This idea of an all powerful yet invisible god has been around
for a few thousand years.&nbsp; It still makes no sense at all.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Rather than being an antagonist of religion, try on a new pair of shoes &amp; be a protagonist...for religion!</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">What is the point?&nbsp; Why join another cult and think you
know everything?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Hell, it ain't goin kill ya!</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Don't kid yourself, many have died over this gobbledegoop.&nbsp;
And many have lost their wits too, by thinking that they know what is on this
invisible beings mind.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">God...in all "it's" aspects of man's understanding, is always welcome to take a day off &amp; live in me &amp; see through my eyes, a man that I am. I accept that I am imperfect, yet I welcome God to live within me at any time of his choosing, and see, feel &amp; understand my greed or plight, as well as know what strifes that his man child suffers......................]</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">See!?&nbsp; I think it is already happening to you.&nbsp; You
and this invisible but all-powerful space invader have a special
relationship.&nbsp; You want to be ppossessed!</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">.................In this, I know that the almighty judgement of God is NOT cast down by God! Rather I am sure that the ultimate judgement of a man's sins are by the man himself. And Jehovah is just a witness, as one judges himself!</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Oh, I see.&nbsp; Have you two been talking again?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">The most fair court of the land is the court of God! That is a Fact! Since Jehovah does not judge, he simply witnesses the confessions of each and every man, who IS FORCED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OF HIS SOUL, ON JUDGMENT DAY............</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">Wow Dude!&nbsp; That is heavy.&nbsp; Forced to speak the truth
eh?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="3">...............NOW let's talk about that people, if you can hear.......................</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="3">I hear you loud and clear.&nbsp; Many many people with no
power or prestige believe that they KNOW what is on this invisible beings way
powerful mind, but nothing has ever come from this wisdom, except
suffering.&nbsp; No one is healed.&nbsp; No one is risen from the dead.&nbsp; No
one has demons cast out.<br>
<br>
</font></p>

</body>

</html>

Dear Dick,

Wanna find God? Look within yourself. Search for the truth (if there is any) within you.

DO you need a MIRACLE????????? Ask for one.

What did you ask for???????

What more?????

NO???? OKOKOKOKOK......THEN YOU WERE BIRTHED OUT, YOU CONTINUE TO CONSUME PERFECTLY GOOD OXYGEN, AND SPREAD YOUR FECIES. You'll grow more diseased as each year passes, and you'll cause others to have no apparent reason to behave with any more restraint than a Lion on the African Plains (Devour & reproduce). Man! I'm sorry. You were obviously correct in your apparent understanding that man has gained no sense of civility from the best ideas of religion.! Hell man, your right! Perhaps we should all be like you.

have a nice day//////big smiles////


ps. Since you have previously offered an analysis of my mind, I expect that you would not be afraid of my counter-analysis of you. briefly you:

a) With such large words you use......perhaps an inner need to be recognized here, as you are not recognized by others in your daily life......and,

b) You impress color......perhaps because you lack color & character....and,

c) Size once again. Curious. Maybe too small.....????..or too short???????? Or maybe a semi conscious shortcoming..........I dunno. Keep talking though. I'd like to hear it.......

have a nice day//////big smiles////

2+2,

AWRIGHT.

Stay with it I like your style.

Cris

Aussie,

You are perfect for this thread. Your chaotic style manages to emphasize the total irrationaility of religious beliefs. Keep up the excellent destructive work. :D:

Cris

<body>

<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">NO???? OKOKOKOKOK......THEN
YOU WERE BIRTHED OUT, YOU CONTINUE TO CONSUME PERFECTLY GOOD OXYGEN, AND
SPREAD YOUR FECIES. You'll grow more diseased as each year passes, and you'll
cause others to have no apparent reason to behave with any more restraint than
a Lion on the African Plains (Devour &amp; reproduce). Man! I'm sorry.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4">You mean that the same thing doesn't happen for you?&nbsp; Of
course.&nbsp; But I treat others with restraint, because I know that each person
I meet along the way is a unique flower of the rarest variety, and not found
else where in this galaxy, or for billions of light years from us in all
directions.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">You were obviously correct
in your apparent understanding that man has gained no sense of civility from
the best ideas of religion.! Hell man, your right! Perhaps we should all be
like you.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="4">Huh?&nbsp; You all are like
me.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">ps. Since you have
previously offered an analysis of my mind, I expect that you would not be
afraid of my counter-analysis of you. briefly you:<br>
<br>
a) With such large words you use......perhaps an inner need to be recognized
here, as you are not recognized by others in your daily life......and,</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4">Oh, a little spell check here, a little thesaurus there, makes
for a better read.&nbsp; Don't you agree?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">b) You impress
color......perhaps because you lack color &amp; character....and,</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4">Too much time on the www, <span style="background-color: #FFCCCC">I
am getting pasty!!!</span></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2">c) Size once again.
Curious. Maybe too small.....????..or too short???????? Or maybe a semi
conscious shortcoming..........I dunno. Keep talking though. I'd like to hear
it.......</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="4">Hmm, maybe you aren't talking to me Aussie when you say
that.&nbsp; I expect a bit more uh restraint from believers.&nbsp; I mean He
wouldn't talk with such rude innuendos... would He?</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2"><br>
<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>

</body>

</html>

Lessee ... how many times has the world been supposed to end? We need two hands to count the respectable movements to profess such an event without extending much farther back than the mid 19th century. Seventh-Day Adventists are still here ... I'm curious what their excuse is, though Apocalyptic threats seem less their style these days than the concerns of the Millerites.

I once asked a devout Catholic, whose marriage we were disrespecting, why she chose to have a child in 1993 if she believed, even then, that the world would end in 2000. I never got a proper answer, though the most cohesive was, "Because I love him and want him to go to heaven." Either I was contextually in the wrong county (since about three supposed interpretations make that a proper response, but all miss the context of our original discussion), or else it's the dumbest answer I've ever heard. But I'm too much of a perfectionist snob, sometimes. Just because the math doesn't work at all doesn't mean anything. ;)

But as far as I can recall, having come up Lutheran (primarily), Catholic (by schooling), and having some exposure to the Society of Friends, it seems that the world has always been on the eve of judgement, and that some people of faith are capable of worrying about the things they can worry about. (e.g.--I never heard Apocalyptic word one from the Quakers; world peace, starving children, and domestic abuse seemed to occupy the thoughts of the church I knew.)

But flood-advertising is about name- and concept-recognition primarily; one need not be accurate. After so many determinations that the end is nigh, one starts to treat Apocalyptic sentiments like the nagging telemarketer that always calls you during dinner.

Besides, we need no warning or preparation for an apocalypse. If God should choose to have a fiery, exploding, orgiastic apocalypse, it would only be to falsely inflate Its self-esteem.

Heck, I thought Reagan was the apocalypse. But we survived, and the community of hollow-eyed, soulless, two-dimensional vampires of lucre I pass on the street are, truly, the leading edge of everything good about society. How wrong I was ....:rolleyes:

But apocalypses come and go, and the only ones caught up in any rapture at all are the ones with the applesauce and Kool-Aid.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

GaryLarrabee,

Welcome to Sciforums, formerly known as ExoSci.

I have a riddle for you, Gary - which bible character is purported to have said, "I am...the bright and morning star"?

(Hint: I'm sure he never claimed to be a man of wealth and taste in this guise. ;) )

Emerald

Originally posted by Emerald
I have a riddle for you, Gary - which bible character is purported to have said, "I am...the bright and morning star"?

Sorry, Emerald, I know you were asking Gary, but I just couldn't resist.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(Revelation 22:16, KJV).

Originally posted by 2+2
This idea of an all powerful yet invisible god has been around
for a few thousand years. It still makes no sense at all.
Since the alternative is nothing at all, that makes even less sense.


No one is healed. No one is risen from the dead. No
one has demons cast out.

LOL!

Are we supposed to believe that just because you said it?
I've seen too many people healed and too many demons cast out to believe you.

I've never seen anyone raised from the dead yet, but two out of three has me pretty well convinced.

And again, what you have to offer is...?

Very good, Tony! I'm pretty sure you already know who else is called the "morning star", so why do you think that Jesus would identify himself that way - at the end of Revelations, no less?

Emerald

Alright, alright,.........okoko....ok!!!!!!! Jesus Christ(s)!

Don't get all your panties tied up in a dog knot. GOOD GOD!

Hell, If one didn't know better, you'd think the atheists had HOLY WATER THROWN ON EM!!!!!!!!!

BESIDES,............I really don't remember what I last posted, a few days back (Way to much Damned Vodka)!

Anyhow, I didn't expect all the God Haters to form a lynch mob & start looking for Christians to kill!!!!!!!

PEACE & LONG LIFE..........PLEASE!

Originally posted by Cris
Aussie,

You are perfect for this thread. Your chaotic style manages to emphasize the total irrationaility of religious beliefs. Keep up the excellent destructive work. :D:

Cris




Well, ...... thankyou.......verymuch, .....I resemble that remark!

Originally posted by Emerald
I'm pretty sure you already know who else is called the "morning star", so why do you think that Jesus would identify himself that way - at the end of Revelations, no less?

Uh...*major struggle*...uh...*can't answer*...

Can only find reference to morning star twice in the KJV, both times talking about Jesus.

You may be thinking of this...?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(Isaiah 14:12, KJV).

<body>

<blockquote>
<p><br>
Hell, If one didn't know better, you'd think the atheists had HOLY WATER THROWN ON
EM!!!!!!!!!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hmmm, Perhaps if you would read back through your posts you might catch a
whiff of what has pumped us up&nbsp; since well:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...........I really don't remember what I last posted, a few days back (Way to much Damned Vodka)!</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Anyhow, I didn't expect all the God Haters to form a lynch mob &amp; start looking for Christians to kill!!!!!!!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We don't want to <i>kill</i> Christians, but we expect them to remember what
they post, and screaming and yelling won't get you too far in any argument about
the actual existence of invisible all powerful beings.<br>
<br>
</p>

</body>

</html>

Tony,

It looks like your struggles are paying off - you are once again quite correct!

Let's take a look at what the Blue Letter Bible website has to say about who this <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/983757238.html">Lucifer</a> character is. Interesting, no?

Emerald

Originally posted by Emerald
Let's take a look at what the Blue Letter Bible website has to say about who this Lucifer character is. Interesting, no?

The link didn't work, but I went to the website and searched for Lucifer, and got the standard meaning, description, etc.

I am not getting your point. What is it?

Tony,

My point is that both Jesus and Lucifer have been identified as the "morning star" in the bible. Don't you consider this to be a significant point?

For me, this explains a lot of things, such as why Jesus said that anyone who would be his disciple must hate his family, and be willing to abandon them without so much as saying "goodbye". He also advocated death for children who curse their parents. He was rude to his own mother, and had basically disowned his own family. He destroyed a fig tree because it wasn't producing fruit (it was out of season). He destroyed a herd of swine (someone else's property, of course) when he sent some exorcised demons into them to prove to everyone that he was the Son of God (aided by the demons themselves who so handily provided an introduction). On another occasion, Jesus purportedly sent two of his disciples into a village to steal an ass and her colt for him. Once, when a Canaanite woman came to him begging for his help in curing her daughter, she had to put up with being called a dog, and he refused to help her until she had indeed begged like a dog for the crumbs from its master's table. (On an interesting side note, he had stated at that time that he was only sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.) Jesus endorsed castration for those who are able to receive it. :eek: He demonstrated poor hygiene by refusing to wash his hands before eating, and when his host (a Pharisee) called him on it, he launched into a hateful tirade against the Pharisees, accusing them of injustice, greed and wickedness.

He wasn't very well mannered, to say the least. Come to think of it, I would expect infinitely more charm from the Satan character. :rolleyes:

Emerald

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

I happened across, of all stupid shows, a Discovery Channel (I think) show on prisons. The specific chapter in question regarded infamous Leavenworth Prison. Though I cannot recall the gentleman's name, the first prisoner remanded to Leavenworth was a writer whose newspaper--addressing gender inequality, economic enfranchisement, birth control, &c.--was deemed too profane for the public. Despite the fact that the virtuous public has done little better job over the years of addressing these issues, I find it relevant for whatever reasons to note that the name of his newspaper was, Lucifer the Light-Bearer.

I'm starting to think Lucifer is one of those combinations of universal events that naturally irks human nature. It's a simple word, with a simple, long-standing meaning. Yet even in this recent incarnation, the name Lucifer has been abused.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/libertarianism/lifegrand.shtml

Two cents ... I thought it worth tossing into the fountain.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Emerald
My point is that both Jesus and Lucifer have been identified as the "morning star" in the bible. Don't you consider this to be a significant point?
Jesus is the morning star and Lucifer is the son of the morning.
They are similar but not the same.

It probably is significant, but at this time I'm not 100% sure what the significance might be.

For me, this explains a lot of things, such as why Jesus said that anyone who would be his disciple must hate his family, and be willing to abandon them without so much as saying "goodbye".
Well, this is the same advice psychologists give when dealing with 'toxic' relationships.
He also advocated death for children who curse their parents.
As in "Let him die the death?" That doesn't sound like advocacy, it just sounds like a serious version of "if you make your bed, you can lie in it."
He was rude to his own mother, and had basically disowned his own family.
See above (toxic, etc)...
OTOH, when he was on the cross, he arranged for someone to look after his mother.
He destroyed a fig tree because it wasn't producing fruit (it was out of season).
The lumber industry must be way off your A-list.
He destroyed a herd of swine (someone else's property, of course) when he sent some exorcised demons into them to prove to everyone that he was the Son of God (aided by the demons themselves who so handily provided an introduction).
Wasn't it the demons that caused the swine to run off the cliff?
On another occasion, Jesus purportedly sent two of his disciples into a village to steal an ass and her colt for him.
They were being kept for him by the owner.
Once, when a Canaanite woman came to him begging for his help in curing her daughter, she had to put up with being called a dog, and he refused to help her until she had indeed begged like a dog for the crumbs from its master's table. (On an interesting side note, he had stated at that time that he was only sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.)
She was probably a lot happier about the way things turned out than you are.
Jesus endorsed castration for those who are able to receive it.
OTOH, perhaps he was endorsing celibacy.
He demonstrated poor hygiene by refusing to wash his hands before eating, and when his host (a Pharisee) called him on it, he launched into a hateful tirade against the Pharisees, accusing them of injustice, greed and wickedness.
Perhaps his hands were clean enough already.
He wasn't very well mannered, to say the least. Come to think of it, I would expect infinitely more charm from the Satan character.
Interestingly enough, I'd tend to agree with you over the short term.

It sounds almost like your favored religion would be one with emphasis on the social graces, and suave sophistication would be a big point-getter.
Good vs. evil, life vs. death don't apparently mean much, or so it would appear on the surface.

Originally posted by tony1

Jesus is the morning star and Lucifer is the son of the morning. They are similar but not the same.

It probably is significant, but at this time I'm not 100% sure what the significance might be.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at how the Blue Letter Bible site defines "Lucifer":

01966 heylel {hay-lale'}

from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT - 499a; n m

AV - Lucifer 1; 1

Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Well, this is the same advice psychologists give when dealing with 'toxic' relationships.

Where did you see any evidence given that these people were in "toxic" relationships? When his would-be followers asked to go bid farewell to their loved ones before abandoning them, or to go bury their dead - Jesus made callous remarks about them not being fit for the kingdom of God or to let the dead bury their dead. He apparently had no respect for family.

As in "Let him die the death?" That doesn't sound like advocacy, it just sounds like a serious version of "if you make your bed, you can lie in it."

It sounds to me like he was upholding the OT laws about stoning mouthy kids.

See above (toxic, etc)...OTOH, when he was on the cross, he arranged for someone to look after his mother.

I don't see any evidence that he was in a toxic relationship with his family. It appears to me that they were quite concerned about him, and not without good reason.

The lumber industry must be way off your A-list.

Jesus destroyed the fig tree for no reason other than the fact he was hungry and it wasn't the season for figs. Perhaps his blood sugar was a bit low? I guess there's always the Twinkie defense. :rolleyes:

Wasn't it the demons that caused the swine to run off the cliff?

Apparently it was a cooperative effort.

They were being kept for him by the owner.

Then why didn't he instruct the disciples to go directly to the owner and let him know that Jesus needed the ass and colt? Or why didn't he go to the owner himself? Wouldn't that have been the proper way to handle it? Or was he too busy worrying about how to fulfill prophesy and prove himself the Son of God to let a little thing like propriety slow him down?

She was probably a lot happier about the way things turned out than you are.

Yes, and I remember once when I was in San Francisco waiting in line for the cable car, and I saw this toothless old woman happily eating french fries out of the garbage can. I was so unhappy about that, I went into a nearby McDonalds and bought her a fresh bag of french fries. She, on the other hand, appeared to be totally unconcerned about where her french fries came from. I suppose she was just happy to be eating.

OTOH, perhaps he was endorsing celibacy.

In a big way.

Perhaps his hands were clean enough already.

Apparently the Pharisee was in disagreement - and after all, he was supposedly there.

It sounds almost like your favored religion would be one with emphasis on the social graces, and suave sophistication would be a big point-getter.

Simply decency would suffice.

Good vs. evil, life vs. death don't apparently mean much, or so it would appear on the surface.

Isn't evil exactly what I've been railing against all along?

Emerald

... it might just be that we've encountered a Christian who doesn't believe in the Devil.

Tony? (I would hate to spread rumors since you're here to offer your thoughts.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Emerald
Perhaps you should take a closer look at how the Blue Letter Bible site defines "Lucifer"...morning star...
Well, hey thanks. That is a nugget of information I probably would have missed, had you not pointed it out.

Where did you see any evidence given that these people were in "toxic" relationships? When his would-be followers asked to go bid farewell to their loved ones before abandoning them, or to go bury their dead - Jesus made callous remarks about them not being fit for the kingdom of God or to let the dead bury their dead. He apparently had no respect for family.
"dead burying the dead" doesn't indicate some "toxicity?"
You appear to be making the assumption that I am supposed to follow your definition of toxicity.

It sounds to me like he was upholding the OT laws about stoning mouthy kids.
A lot of people forget that he was living in OT times.

I don't see any evidence that he was in a toxic relationship with his family. It appears to me that they were quite concerned about him, and not without good reason.
Well, you seem to think he was toxic. Maybe it was a family thing.

Jesus destroyed the fig tree for no reason other than the fact he was hungry and it wasn't the season for figs. Perhaps his blood sugar was a bit low? I guess there's always the Twinkie defense.
*chuckle*
Well, I see one additional reason, he did it to make a point.

Apparently it was a cooperative effort.
Tell me, really. Are you actually offended that, in a country to whose citizens swine were offensive animals, that two thousand years ago, some pigs fell off a cliff?

Then why didn't he instruct the disciples to go directly to the owner and let him know that Jesus needed the ass and colt? Or why didn't he go to the owner himself?
How do you know that isn't what happened?
He sent people ahead everywhere he went.

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
(Luke 10:1, KJV).

Yes, and I remember once when I was in San Francisco waiting in line for the cable car, and I saw this toothless old woman happily eating french fries out of the garbage can. I was so unhappy about that, I went into a nearby McDonalds and bought her a fresh bag of french fries. She, on the other hand, appeared to be totally unconcerned about where her french fries came from. I suppose she was just happy to be eating.
There you go doing what the Bible says to do.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(James 1:27, KJV).

Apparently the Pharisee was in disagreement - and after all, he was supposedly there.
OK, you got me there.
Will you accept that Jesus thought his hands were clean enough already?

A question: would simple decency among Christians be acceptable to you?

Isn't evil exactly what I've been railing against all along?
I can't tell from where I am. Your definition of evil may differ somewhat from mine.

Tiassa...
I'm not sure I believe IN the devil as much as I believe there is/are devil(s). Those would be the demons I mentioned in an earlier post. They would have a leader, which is what I assume you're referring to by the capital "D."

Because no sense of the Devil makes sense according to the perspective that the Devil is responsible for evil and bad things. Of course, without that perspective, the Devil becomes useless except as a literary juxtaposition. Without the Devil, there isn't even rhetorical justification for the most grievous behavior throughout history.

I find it convenient that nobody of Christian faith can adequately recognize the concept of the Devil, a moderating cornerstone of said faith.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Your definition of evil may differ somewhat from mine.

Might it be, then, because your world is so illusory that you relate better to a book's description of people than you do to people themselves? There's plenty of conventions regarding evil that run nearly universal for humans. Of course, then you get into the refined difference, say, between murder and warfare. And that's why it's always nice to have a book to clear things up. Right and wrong are pretty easy until you have an omnipotent God drawing artificial lines between people.

Look at the world around you. There's plenty that most, if not all, people can agree is evil.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Because no sense of the Devil makes sense according to the perspective that the Devil is responsible for evil and bad things. Of course, without that perspective, the Devil becomes useless except as a literary juxtaposition. Without the Devil, there isn't even rhetorical justification for the most grievous behavior throughout history.

I find it convenient that nobody of Christian faith can adequately recognize the concept of the Devil, a moderating cornerstone of said faith.

Tiny struggle following your point.
Who are you talking about when you say "Devil?"
Satan, Lucifer, the King of Tyre, the destroyer, the father of lies, the head fallen angel, the first of his offspring or a composite of some or all of these?

Here is some perspective on it...

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7, KJV).

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
(Isaiah 54:16, KJV).

The devil isn't going around creating evil, he doesn't create anything. Here is what he is and does...

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(John 8:44, KJV).

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(Revelation 12:9, KJV).


Might it be, then, because your world is so illusory that you relate better to a book's description of people than you do to people themselves?
No.
There's plenty that most, if not all, people can agree is evil.
Of course, Emerald and I weren't discussing a lot of those obvious things.

If people really could agree on what is evil, then why all the debate on abortion or euthanasia or war?

Who are you talking about when you say "Devil?"
Satan, Lucifer, the King of Tyre, the destroyer, the father of lies, the head fallen angel, the first of his offspring or a composite of some or all of these?

You have demonstrated the point, sir. I've met frighteningly few Christians who know anything about the Devil that has been such an important figure in the development of the church. (Without said church institutions, of course, Christianity might not have made it down to our age, and would most certainly not look the same.)

While there are many people--including some of our fellow posters--who would assert that Christianity is a hollow philosophy, you might wish to consider that you are only proving that point when you hide within its empty shell.

I find that your diversionary approach leaves something, at least, to be desired.

So, for the record ... the tradition which brings Christianity and its Devil to our modern age is rife with the kind of confusion you're trying to foster with your response. At this point I must insist, of the whole of Christianity that these people allegedly of common identity ("Christian") should really find some agreement on what they have in common. You left a couple of names off the list, too, like Mahomet, which entered the Christian vocabulary after the rise of Islam.

I'm talking about the Devil which is present throughout the whole of Christian history. That you know so little about a fundamental concept of the religion you choose to advocate is more than a little funny; it's also kind of scary in that such an appearance seems to be the problem with the grander philosophy.

You've pinned it with John 8 and Revelation 12, though. Yes, for the record, that is the Devil of which most Christians refer. They also equate that Devil with the spirit that Christ exorcised and put into a pig. ("I am Legion.")

The Prince of Darkness, the Prince of Air; the Regent of the Souther Region, ad nauseam. :rolleyes:

Now you and I might agree with Isaiah in the idea that God is responsible for evil. You, however, are among the minority of your brethren, and I am already branded heretical at best, blasphemous most likely, and the Devil himself by the Catholics in my high school. So our opinions don't seem to reflect the greater portion of Christianity.

So the conundrum related to Isaiah 54.16, then, becomes the issue of Why people fear the Devil/ If the Devil was created by God with a specific purpose, that makes the Devil part of the holy order, and therefore "Good", in the same way God meant when he saw that the light was good, and the land was good ....

Why do Christians, then, not celebrate the Devil? It is a fundamental part of their faith, ordained to operate by God. By resisting, rejecting, or persecuting the Devil, are Christians not resisting, rejecting, or persecuting God's will? ;)

When you operate within a closed, and therefore finite paradigm, such as Christian faith, one eventually reaches the boundaries. There is no reason to bounce so aimlessly around within them when it's just as easy to take a short step outside and get some fresh air while you take in the miracle of the Universe with virgin eyes. I thought I should mention it since the Devil is, thus far, an insurmountable logical obstacle in the progress of Christian faith.

In the end, I probably would get along well with your view of the Devil; but by the time I got to what you're expressing, the whole of Christianity looked as false as the Devil-riddle.

But that's just my two cents' worth. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
You have demonstrated the point, sir.
Ah, everything has a hidden meaning. When I ask you who you are talking about, I really want to know who I am talking about.

I've met frighteningly few Christians who know anything about the Devil that has been such an important figure in the development of the church.
I guess I don't attend that church.

While there are many people--including some of our fellow posters--who would assert that Christianity is a hollow philosophy, you might wish to consider that you are only proving that point when you hide within its empty shell.
*chuckle*
tiassa, your subtleties are so drily droll.

I find that your diversionary approach leaves something, at least, to be desired.
For those on the broad way to destruction, the narrow way would be a diversion.

At this point I must insist, of the whole of Christianity that these people allegedly of common identity ("Christian") should really find some agreement on what they have in common.
Ah, Satan, can't figure us out, so you send poor tiassa to do your dirty work.
Even in the Bible, the term "Christian" is what non-Christians call us.
You left a couple of names off the list, too, like Mahomet, which entered the Christian vocabulary after the rise of Islam.
Are you talking about Baphomet?

I'm talking about the Devil which is present throughout the whole of Christian history. That you know so little about a fundamental concept of the religion you choose to advocate is more than a little funny; it's also kind of scary in that such an appearance seems to be the problem with the grander philosophy.
The Devil being part of the foundation of the church?
*laugh*

Scary? *chuckle*

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
(Luke 10:19, KJV).

You've pinned it with John 8 and Revelation 12, though. Yes, for the record, that is the Devil of which most Christians refer. They also equate that Devil with the spirit that Christ exorcised and put into a pig. ("I am Legion.")
I don't know any that do.

Now you and I might agree with Isaiah in the idea that God is responsible for evil. You, however, are among the minority of your brethren, and I am already branded heretical at best, blasphemous most likely, and the Devil himself by the Catholics in my high school. So our opinions don't seem to reflect the greater portion of Christianity.
By "our," you mean "mine" and "yours."
Given your high opinion of the Devil, I can't say that our agreement is much more than short sequences of words that coincide for short periods of time.

So the conundrum related to Isaiah 54.16, then, becomes the issue of Why people fear the Devil/ If the Devil was created by God with a specific purpose, that makes the Devil part of the holy order, and therefore "Good", in the same way God meant when he saw that the light was good, and the land was good ....
Of course, at no point does God actually say that the Devil is good, and who does fear the Devil?

Why do Christians, then, not celebrate the Devil? It is a fundamental part of their faith, ordained to operate by God. By resisting, rejecting, or persecuting the Devil, are Christians not resisting, rejecting, or persecuting God's will?
*loud chuckle*
Faith isn't a series of statements collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.
Faith is believing what God says is true.
Since one of the main features of the Devil is contradicting God, the Devil does not form "a fundamental part" of my faith.

When you operate within a closed, and therefore finite paradigm, such as Christian faith, one eventually reaches the boundaries.
One would reach them rather quickly, if faith were what you think it is.
Real Christianity, on the other hand, is infinite.
Yes is bigger than No.
Blessing is bigger than cursing.
Life is bigger than death.
The Creator is bigger than His creation.

There is no reason to bounce so aimlessly around within them when it's just as easy to take a short step outside and get some fresh air while you take in the miracle of the Universe with virgin eyes.
When you find a fence, it is important to know which side you are on.
Why take in miracles (Latin, little wonders) when you can have the large wonder of God who made the universe by speaking it into existence.

I thought I should mention it since the Devil is, thus far, an insurmountable logical obstacle in the progress of Christian faith.
In the end, I probably would get along well with your view of the Devil; but by the time I got to what you're expressing, the whole of Christianity looked as false as the Devil-riddle.
Hence, the uselessness of logic.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1 Corinthians 1:25, KJV).

The Devil's no riddle.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
(Isaiah 14:16, KJV).

Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
(Ezekiel 28:18, KJV).

Originally posted by tony1

Well, hey thanks. That is a nugget of information I probably would have missed, had you not pointed it out.

That's not an answer. Are you willing to worship Jesus even if it means you're really worshipping Satan?

"dead burying the dead" doesn't indicate some "toxicity?" You appear to be making the assumption that I am supposed to follow your definition of toxicity.

Toxic = poisonous, like a cockatrice or a fiery serpent

<font color="red">Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.</font>

Of course, I would question where this eternal life might be spent, but perhaps I ask too many questions.

A lot of people forget that he was living in OT times.

Wasn't he supposed to usher in the New Testament times?

Well, you seem to think he was toxic. Maybe it was a family thing.

See above.

*chuckle*
Well, I see one additional reason, he did it to make a point.

And the point was...?

Tell me, really. Are you actually offended that, in a country to whose citizens swine were offensive animals, that two thousand years ago, some pigs fell off a cliff?

Yes - not only were they living creatures (and therefore presumably God's creation), they were someone else's property! Apparently someone didn't find them offensive.

How do you know that isn't what happened?
He sent people ahead everywhere he went.

I don't know it, but that's not how it reads. He instructed the disciples to take the animals and if anyone asks about it, then they should explain themselves.

Will you accept that Jesus thought his hands were clean enough already?

I will accept that it would have been appropriate if he had been driven off the cliff with the rest of his brethren.

A question: would simple decency among Christians be acceptable to you?

I suppose it would depend on whether or not our definitions of "decency" are in agreement.

I can't tell from where I am. Your definition of evil may differ somewhat from mine.

Tiassa explained this rather well in one of his posts. Murder, genocide, rape, incest, torture, slavery, oppression, theft - that sort of thing. You know - "An ye harm none, do as ye will". I would go into it a bit further, but I'm already at risk of being late for a doctor's appointment, and I think this is clear enough for the time being, at least.

originally posted by Emerald:
Are you willing to worship Jesus even if it means you're really worshipping Satan?
No. And I am looking forward to any proof you may have that they are the same.
If you had such proof from the mouth of God, you would be singlehandedly upsetting a very large applecart.

Toxic = poisonous, like a cockatrice or a fiery serpent

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
OK, is this what psychologists mean when they talk about toxic relationships?

In any case, the reference to the serpent is a good one. Few, Christians or atheists, notice that.

Of course, I would question where this eternal life might be spent, but perhaps I ask too many questions.
Not at all.
After all, I could be the one in error, and only questioning would uncover that.
Not only that, if I were in error, it would be common decency to point it out.

Wasn't he supposed to usher in the New Testament times?
Yes, but by dying. He wasn't dead at the time.

And the point was...?
Symbolic.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
(Mark 13:28, KJV).

Yes - not only were they living creatures (and therefore presumably God's creation), they were someone else's property! Apparently someone didn't find them offensive.
Since you've chosen to bear a two thousand year old grudge, there is not much I can do about that. That is a personal decision which is not subject to debate.

I don't know it, but that's not how it reads. He instructed the disciples to take the animals and if anyone asks about it, then they should explain themselves.
Again, I appreciate the attention to detail.
You're right it does say that, but that does not disprove entitlement.

I will accept that it would have been appropriate if he had been driven off the cliff with the rest of his brethren.
Well, this one of those non-debatable issues. It is obvious that you bear a grudge against the man.

Tiassa explained this rather well in one of his posts. Murder, genocide, rape, incest, torture, slavery, oppression, theft - that sort of thing. You know - "An ye harm none, do as ye will". I would go into it a bit further, but I'm already at risk of being late for a doctor's appointment, and I think this is clear enough for the time being, at least.
I'm sure you will identify places in the Bible where such things appear.

PS I hope the doctor's appointment is not for anything serious.

I'm sure you will identify places in the Bible where such things appear.

There are threads here dealing with God's orders against the Amelekites; there's the part where God strikes down Onan for sexual disobedience; the smashing of the ships of Tarsus against the rocks (an interesting one, since evidence of Tartessian ships sailing the region at about the same time, has been discovered on the American continent. Dr Barry Fell, formerly of Harvard University, has even go so far as to suggest the possibility that the smashing of the ships should not be taken literally, but may reflect an envy on the part of Israel.)

But also think about what men have wrought of the Bible. Inquisitions, tortures, outright theft and destruction, genocide, ad nauseam, all of which can be justified by biblical snippets no longer than the excerpts you depend on for the appearance of rhetorical form.

I, personally, think it's quite important to note that the Bible, cornerstone of faith, is the inspiration for so much negativity that seems to be the polar opposite of what its adherents allege is the central message.

In another thread I posted a Reform/Pentecostal report. The following citation is point 4 of the report:

The exploratory committee believed that some of these tensions were the result of the state of ignorance that these communities often manifested towards one another. Other tensions seemed to emerge as a direct result of honest theological disagreement. Some of these issues were rooted deeply in the history of one group or the other, while other issues were the result of more recent claims. Still other tensions could be attributed to certain contemporary practices in which one group or the other was engaged. In some places in the world these practices yielded public charges of unfair competition, proselytism, fanaticism, or dead religion. The committee believed that this state of affairs was not only unhealthy for Christians to endure, but that it communicated the wrong message to the world. If the Gospel of reconciliation seemed to lack the power necessary to help Christians to resolve differences between themselves, how could it be trusted to bring reconciliation between human beings and their God?

I must admit that it's nice to hear Christians admit this. If, indeed .... What about it? Whereas you choose to rely on the Bible to speak for you, many wonder when the plethora of declarations of faith we hear from the whole of Christianity will manifest itself in real terms reflective of the declarations.

The Bible is nothing without the faithful. It means, nothing, though, if the faithful choose that it should be so. The only part of the Bible regularly evident in modern Christianity is the wrath of God manifest in the faithful.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I, personally, think it's quite important to note that the Bible, cornerstone of faith, is the inspiration for so much negativity that seems to be the polar opposite of what its adherents allege is the central message.
It could be for failing to understand it.

I must admit that it's nice to hear Christians admit this. If, indeed .... What about it? Whereas you choose to rely on the Bible to speak for you, many wonder when the plethora of declarations of faith we hear from the whole of Christianity will manifest itself in real terms reflective of the declarations.
Well, you could try it for yourself.
One of the key things about the Bible is exactly the thing that so many complain about.
The Bible is full of murderers, liars, thieves, doubters, etc.
So is real life.
The message is that God knows this.
As long as you pretend to be "good" on your own, you're doomed to failure.
Faith in Jesus is counted as "goodness," or righteousness.

You've pointed out that people fail, and that is nothing new.
On your own, they is no way to "unfail;" through Jesus there is.

The Bible is nothing without the faithful. It means, nothing, though, if the faithful choose that it should be so.
How true.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(Mark 7:13, KJV).

Tony1--

Well, you could try it for yourself.

Been there, done that. Did your parents ever tell you not to play with someone because, "You don't need those kinds of friends"?

One day, when I was about 13, I woke up and realized that my church was full of them. In fact, the only "Christian" places I ever feel secure are my Catholic high school (ask me how safe I feel next year at my 10-year reunion :rolleyes: ), and, strangely, in a Quaker meeting house. My high school's an odd case: I feel safe among them because people were scared to death of me and I don't know why. In the end, people would literally stop someone from picking a fight with me based on the notion that I was in league with the Devil, and that I could send demons to kill them in their sleep or something hideous like that. I never found out just what that idea was. But the Quakers are an admirably peculiar people to my experience, who gave me the benefit of the doubt in the fact that they just figured God made me this way and had his reasons. I mean, I have to give individuals the benefit of the doubt or else it's too easy. People literally walk into certain stereotypes when they operate in their "cult" mode. Why do those certain stereotypes seem so consistent? Because it's such a limited operation. One book in all the world and it's supposed to be definitive. When I tried to claw away from the church, of course I became a Satanist. Because among the Lutherans and Catholics I spent far too much time among in my youth, that was the only other thing you could be.

I see so many of the psychological devices of Christianity present in the larger phenomenon of the American public. And people wonder why there's such a haze in here right now ... frankly, because when there is, the whole thing looks more like a farce than a tragedy. I left Christianity behind because I hated the way it compelled me to act. What is most frightening is that it's taken almost half my life to undo the damage. I'm still identifying first- and second-generation quirks in my perspective derived specifically from the manner in which I was instructed to view the world around me when I was a child. If there is a God above, It will make sure that either I don't ever procreate, or else I spare my child the pains of the Christian tradition.

I will avoid returning to that way of living, quite literally, on the stake of my life.

One of the key things about the Bible is exactly the thing that so many complain about.
The Bible is full of murderers, liars, thieves, doubters, etc.

And so many of them were working for God.

So is real life.

Yes, but even the Pentecostals, of whom I'm known to be critical, but only if prompted, realize the problem of justifying the presence of murderers, liars, rapists, thieves, ad nauseam among the faithful by demonstrating statistical equity at least.

If the Gospel of reconciliation seemed to lack the power necessary to help Christians to resolve differences between themselves, how could it be trusted to bring reconciliation between human beings and their God?

http://pctii.org/cyberj/WARC.html

(Oh, it's point #4 in the report.)

The message is that God knows this.

The message is that God knows this and expects His people to behave themselves a bit better. To be just like the rest of the sinners isn't quite the point.

As long as you pretend to be "good" on your own, you're doomed to failure.
Faith in Jesus is counted as "goodness," or righteousness.

Well, it's a good thing to know it's about pride and brand recognition. Thanks for clearing it up.

You've pointed out that people fail, and that is nothing new.
On your own, they is no way to "unfail;" through Jesus there is.

First off, that sounds like a variation on a really dumb bumper sticker.

And then there's Emerald's citation for the Definition of a Cult post:

The second element of mind control is "mystical manipulation." It is a systematic process planned and managed from above leadership. God is supposedly ever present in the organization. Leaders become mediators for God. God centered principles can be put forcibly and claimed exclusively so the cult and its beliefs become the only true path to salvation. If one has not seen the light, and is not in the realm of the cult, one is in the realm of evil.

Lofton cites the "demand for purity" as another defining element. Such a demand calls for the radical separation of pure and impure or good and evil within an environment and within oneself. The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions. One's conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group as taught in its literature. People and organizations are pictured as good or evil depending on their relationship to the group. Universal tendencies of guilt or shame are used to influence or control individuals, sometimes in a structured confession process.

So hmm ... you're performing to the letter so far. I'm almost ready to declare shenannigans and call you an agent provocateur.

But even more important to me is that I know Christians are imperfect. It doesn't make a rat's difference to me if a Christian gets divorced, or kills someone. Rather, it doesn't make a rat's difference what that person's religion is. Maybe if it's Irish Catholic divorce or Quaker murder, I'll whistle in surprise, but it doesn't make a moral difference to me any more than if that person's an atheist.

I'll match two for two here, good and bad for illustration.

* Bad: When I was 14, a girl I knew died under devious circumstances. At her memorial, the preacher described a different person than I had known. He described a "normal girl with normal problems". I mean, it's not like I expect him to drone on about the methamphetamine and prostitution, the car thefts, the fistfights with her parents, and I'll stop there because ad nauseam is coming true for the moment. But why the hell did he have to paint up this image that nobody in the room recognized? What kind of twisted denial is this? It is a response to a standard. There is no way to describe the passing of a young, crank-addicted prostitute that won't just sound negative. And so I sat in that church and learned a new form of pain when I listened to them eulogize someone else. But what was up with the idea that Jesus had nothing to say about, well, reality? Did the Bible fail or did the religion it inspired fail?

* Good: A little inside two years ago, a British reverend essentially told off Her Majesty's government re: drugs. It seems that Ecstasy use is so rampant among the young generation that the good reverend fears that continued incarceration and incapacitation policies will so ostracize the generation that the nation, and thus the culture, will "lose" them entirely. It is God's trust that the stewards of society should do a better job than this.

* Bad: I'm aware that family problems transcend any one religion. But I have to say that it is my frightening observational experience that certain family problems go unsaid because young children learn in church to not say bad things about their parents.

* Good: I have yet to read the article; okay, I have yet to search for it because I keep forgetting to. But there's a European minister who has, in recent weeks, echoed a sentiment of mine regarding the notion of the symptom and the disease. He has noted that the church's relief efforts are admirable, but its prevention efforts leave much to be desired. In this case I recall that he was referring to the breakdown of the family. I mean, really ... I love the efforts of battered-women's shelters, but I'd rather men stop knocking the crap out of their wives. As I understand it, such is exactly this minister's point. (I should, actually, locate the article; it's the bloody response to one of my biggest beefs with "church" society.) But this goes on to other ideas, too: stop criminalizing drug addicts so that they can appeal to the faith-based effort without first confessing felonies; if we stop criminalizing the homeless, some of them might have time to get themselves together--relief efforts are nice, but let's also tap the religious psychology so that the society creates less destitution. That sort of thing.

How true.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(Mark 7:13, KJV).
I'll be honest--you've got me ... I can't even figure out what the heck you're saying. I'm pretty sure the context in which you're agreeing with me isn't the correct one, but you're quite aware that you make such assumptions rather impractical. Would you care to elaborate on this one at all?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tony,

I will try to post those bible references, but not tonight - I ended up working 14 hours today, and tomorrow I get to get up at 4:00 am and start all over again. Also, my youngest son is getting married Saturday up in South Lake Tahoe, so I won't have much time for playing on the Internet again at least until Sunday, I'm guessing.

Thanks for the concern, but the doctor's appointment was just routine.

See ya later,

Emerald

I'll wait then, Emerald.

Originally posted by tiassa
My high school's an odd case: I feel safe among them because people were scared to death of me and I don't know why. In the end, people would literally stop someone from picking a fight with me based on the notion that I was in league with the Devil, and that I could send demons to kill them in their sleep or something hideous like that. I never found out just what that idea was.
It could be a simple case of demon possession.

Because it's such a limited operation.
See above.
The problem with possession is two-fold.
One, it is not always the dramatic thing displayed in the movies. The vast majority of demons are just plain stupid.
Two, you can't tell whose thoughts you are thinking. Thus, this limit thing you mention is not your thought because there is no way you could know that. However, it is pretty easy to see how a demon might feel limited by the power of the gospel.

One book in all the world and it's supposed to be definitive.
All the people in the world and there is only one you.

If there is a God above, It will make sure that either I don't ever procreate, or else I spare my child the pains of the Christian tradition.
The tradition, of course, is the problem.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(Mark 7:13, KJV).

You were asking what that means?
The word of God is power.
Lots of tradition means no power.

I will avoid returning to that way of living, quite literally, on the stake of my life.
Good.
You need to know the power of God, not the death and staleness of tradition.

And so many of them were working for God.
Of course, if you could see that the Devil and his cohort are spending all of their time with nothing to do but deceive, you might see why others have been confused, too.

The game is the simplest there is...

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

The Devil, on the other hand, has already lost and he's running out of time.
He's got nothing to do but take as many with him when he goes.

It could be a simple case of demon possession.

Um ... are you sure you haven't been hitting a bong?

The problem with possession is two-fold.
One, it is not always the dramatic thing displayed in the movies. The vast majority of demons are just plain stupid.
Two, you can't tell whose thoughts you are thinking. Thus, this limit thing you mention is not your thought because there is no way you could know that. However, it is pretty easy to see how a demon might feel limited by the power of the gospel.

Sing it with me: Picture yourself in a boat on a river ....

All the people in the world and there is only one you.

And that should be proof that either there is no God or that the Devil rules the Universe because most people tend to think that one of me is a few too many for the world. ;)

On the other hand ... nor do I claim to be, oh ... God. :rolleyes:

The tradition, of course, is the problem.

I agree entirely. I get along better with the Sufi version of the God of Abraham. And you should meet my god--she's a hell of a lady.

Lots of tradition means no power.

Or else lots of political power.

And don't go discounting the Christian tradition. You and I alike are part of it. Without it, you would not have the God you have. Without it, I would not have the persistent headache it inspires.

You need to know the power of God, not the death and staleness of tradition.

There you go, knocking that tradition again. Don't you realize that without nearly two millennia of absolutely horrible conduct, the message would not have arrived with you? It would be a little like, say, Nazca ... nice to look at, but what does it mean?

It would be an historical relic.

Of course, if you could see that the Devil and his cohort are spending all of their time with nothing to do but deceive, you might see why others have been confused, too.

Now, which Devil is it that you're talking about?

The Devil, on the other hand, has already lost and he's running out of time.
He's got nothing to do but take as many with him when he goes.

Oh, you mean that Devil. The one without which God's universe could not operate? The one which God created, knowing what was to come? The one God chose to create? God's love is not infinite.

And therefore, God has lost.

--Tiassa :cool:

Edit: One of the few evidences I would submit, aside from my missing socks, on behalf of the existence of a deliberate superior will in the Universe has just occurred once again. I have in this house no less than four copies of the song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. When I realized I had screwed up part of the lyric in the post, I went to check it ... easy enough. Please understand that of those four, one is by Elton John, and another is by William Shatner. Three of those versions of the song should be approximately an arm's reach away. Absolutely none of the CD's are in the house right now. I have no idea where they went, nor who in the world would want to take my copy of Shatner's Transformed Man. If you would like to declare this evidence of God's work in my life, I might actually have to concede the argument on principle. D'oh! (Maybe I'll just join the Navy.)

"It could be a simple case of demon possession."

Where in the bible does a demon possess a human? I can't recall ant passages.

Sure is an easy way out of taking responsibility. Don't blame me, the invisible, odorless, tasteless and massless daemon took over my thoughts and made me think bad things.

Originally posted by tiassa
And don't go discounting the Christian tradition.
I'm not discounting the tradition, I'm simply assigning the appropriate value to it.

And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again.
And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.
And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
(Numbers 22:25-28, KJV).

Tradition is like this ass, doing and saying exactly what God wants done and said, but has no idea what is going on.

The catholic encyclopedia says a similar thing...
"It is well further to explain:
* that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
* that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly; "

Originally posted by FA_Q2
"It could be a simple case of demon possession."

Where in the bible does a demon possess a human? I can't recall ant passages.

As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.
(Matthew 9:32, KJV).

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
(Matthew 12:22, KJV).

And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
(Matthew 17:18, KJV).

And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
(Mark 5:15, KJV).

Sure is an easy way out of taking responsibility. Don't blame me, the invisible, odorless, tasteless and massless daemon took over my thoughts and made me think bad things.
Not quite.

You are actually supposed to do something yourself.
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
(James 4:7, KJV).

I stand corrected. Possession is in the bible.

I'm not discounting the tradition, I'm simply assigning the appropriate value to it.

You mean, like how without centuries of hypocritical violence and lying, the Gospels might not have reached you in the time of your life?

Tradition is like this ass, doing and saying exactly what God wants done and said, but has no idea what is going on.

I'd agree; history demonstrates that the religion depends on this kind of adherence.

The catholic encyclopedia says a similar thing...
"It is well further to explain:
* that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
* that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly; "

And what else does the Catholic Encyclopedia say about infallibility?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:

* that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
* that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
* that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
* in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

Do you note that? The foundation of infallibility is assumption.

And even more:

If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 17:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.

In other words, one need not ever see evidence of infallibility. It is acceptable only to assume and thus believe.

Or this:

In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration

Infallibility, then, rests in the Bible being a reliable historical source? That it is abstract, and therefore independent, from the factors that motivated it? Read Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan and try to back up such a claim.

You are actually supposed to do something yourself.
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
(James 4:7, KJV).

And what, then, of Emerald's citations indicating the correlation of Jesus and Lucifer? All the Devil, then, must do, is persist and simply not flee, and you will then submit yourself unto it, because it must be God, because it has not fled. Such an idea is of no practical help to the believer, who still may be led astray.

Of course, practical application is one of the difficulties of the Bible. If it applied well in practical terms, most of Exosci's arguments re: Xnty. wouldn't exist.

Sounds to me like you're fishing for justification.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
You mean, like how without centuries of hypocritical violence and lying, the Gospels might not have reached you in the time of your life?
An alternative way might have been better, or not.

And what else does the Catholic Encyclopedia say about infallibility?
I'm not overly concerned.
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that others have thought and asked the same questions, not to prove anything by it.
As a result, any arguments you may have against the RCC are, to me, a non-issue.
I don't believe RCC theology, I don't belong to the RCC and I don't really feel like discussing RCC doctrine or dogma since it has very little to do with Christianity.
Adherence to the RCC may be called Christianity, but that doesn't make it Christianity.
From what I can gather, it is a detailed simulation of Christianity.

And what, then, of Emerald's citations indicating the correlation of Jesus and Lucifer?
What correlation?
All the Devil, then, must do, is persist and simply not flee, and you will then submit yourself unto it, because it must be God, because it has not fled.
Ha ha. He can't. You, apparently, have no idea how obedient devils are. They flee, and rapidly.
Don't forget devils are much brighter than many people are, in a dim kind of way.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(James 2:19, KJV).

Such an idea is of no practical help to the believer, who still may be led astray.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(Matthew 24:24, KJV).

Of course, practical application is one of the difficulties of the Bible. If it applied well in practical terms, most of Exosci's arguments re: Xnty. wouldn't exist.
Practical application is only difficult for those who don't believe it and for those who claim to believe it but don't.

Sounds to me like you're fishing for justification.
Nah.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(Romans 5:1, KJV).

You've done it now Tony! None can prevent the wrath of Tiassa from coming down upon you now!

I am sorrowful to know that another soul shall be sacrificed to the maestro........

Obviously now, evil is upon you! I guess I was too late!

Well, in that case then............hell join the club :D :p

YOUR ONE OF US NOW ! ! ! !


<i>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>

TONY IS NOT HERE ANYMORE???????? HE RUNS AWAY, BUT CANNOT ESCAPE THE INEVITABLE POWER OF THE TIASSA! aaaaaaaaaaaa!

WHEREVER HE GOES, HE KNOWS HE'S INFECTED BY THE MAESTRO TIASSA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M SORRY TONY!!!!! YOU CAN'T GET AWAY!!!!!NOT NOW. NOT EVER AGAIN..... YOU BELONG TO TIASSA!!!!

NO AMOUNT OF HAIL MARY'S CAN SAVE YOU NOW TONY!

NO INUMERABLE CONFESSIONS SHALL DO ANY GOOD.

THE POWER OF THE DARK TIASSA IS UPON YOU NOW TONY. RELENT AND GIVE THANKS TO THE POWER OF THE DARK TIASSA, TONY.

<B><U>MAY THE DARK POWERFUL POWER OF TIASSA BE UPON YOU ALL .........</B></u>

<I> FRUITLESS FIGHT TONY1, FOR THE DEVIL MOCKS YOUR EVERY STEP!!!!</I>

<I>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>

“From what I can gather, it is a detailed simulation of Christianity.”

Once again you are ignoring the fact that it was the first Christianity.

An alternative way might have been better, or not.
Heck, Tony, hasn't it occurred to you that God wanted it this way? God knew all along it would be this way, and therefore it is good.

You are also ignoring the fact that there isn't an alternative way; it seems that the only way the Word was delivered to you was through generations of outright violation of that very Word.

In other words, the appropriate value you assign to your Christian heritage is that it doesn't really matter?

I'm not overly concerned.
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that others have thought and asked the same questions, not to prove anything by it.
As a result, any arguments you may have against the RCC are, to me, a non-issue.
I don't believe RCC theology, I don't belong to the RCC and I don't really feel like discussing RCC doctrine or dogma since it has very little to do with Christianity.
Adherence to the RCC may be called Christianity, but that doesn't make it Christianity.
From what I can gather, it is a detailed simulation of Christianity.
Would you like some cheese with that really cheap whine?

What is your thought process, Tony? Uh-oh! He's found a crack in my source; I guess the source doesn't count, and I just don't want to talk about it. Oh, poor you!

I believe FA_Q2's point is exceptionally valid and important here, too. And I love how you, Tony, get to decide who's Christian and who's not. Now I know why you're so confident of your salvation: you think you get to write the book on who's saved and who's not. Just so we can have it out of the way, Tony, what other churches and Christian ideas should we cross off the list? What else is so difficult for you to cope with that you "don't feel like discussing" it? A simple list of who's Christian and not will do. :rolleyes:

What correlation?
That's right. I forgot, you're too smart to read anyone's citations.

Ha ha. He can't. You, apparently, have no idea how obedient devils are. They flee, and rapidly.
Don't forget devils are much brighter than many people are, in a dim kind of way.
You'll have to get down and Catholic to demonstrate that.

Let's see ... there's your bit from James as your cliche to try to close the issue. And you're pretty close on the context. It seems to me that most of James ch.2 has to do with the idea that preaching and faith alone don't cut it in the heavenly book.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(Matthew 24:24, KJV).
What? No personal insight? Could it be you're relying on a cliche verse to terminate the issue?

Practical application is only difficult for those who don't believe it and for those who claim to believe it but don't.
That's a stupid answer, period. Even Ned Flanders knows that :rolleyes:

It seems that the letter to the Romans actually has the potential to validate one of my arguments about practical application. Consider Paul's condemnation of the Jews:
17 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God
18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law,
19 and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness,
20 that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth--
21then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
23You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24For, as it is written, "Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles." (Romans 2.17-22; New American Bible)
What would Paul write of today's "Christians"? Romans 2.24 refers to the book of Isaiah for scriptural support. Consider this footnote:
-8 According to Isaiah 52:5 the suffering of Israel prompts her enemies to revile God. Paul uses the passage in support of his point that the present immorality of Israelites is the cause of such defamation.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/romans/romans2.htm is the page from which I have excerpted these passages.

Does it not follow, then, that the present immorality of Christendom has drawn the world's ire? The failure of Christians to apply their faith in their daily lives is evident in the state of Christendom. Its institutions may glitter and gleam, but it seems that many people of faith fall victim to that process whereby they create their own crosses to bear.

But that was just a dumb answer, Tony. Even you can do better than that. Practical application is only difficult for those who don't believe it .... :rolleyes:

Nah.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(Romans 5:1, KJV).
I love how you continually justify your Bible quotes with other Bible quotes. You're a living example of the Cult of Christianity, Tony. Wow. It seems to me that what Paul is attempting to do in Romans, at least up until this point, is to settle some of the ideas that people were milling around. I guess it was so clear that people weren't figuring it out.

--Tiassa :cool:

ned flandes is the simpsond neighbor. d'oh

When, after the destruction of his home and the looting of his business, Ned unloads on God: "I've done everything the Bible says, even the parts that contradict the other parts ...."

I was hoping to find the text of that nifty diatribe but alas ... I have to go sift through the videotape.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Once again you are ignoring the fact that it was the first Christianity.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(Acts 11:26, KJV).

Catholicism didn't get rolling until Constantine made it the state religion in about 313 AD.

Originally posted by tiassa
hasn't it occurred to you that God wanted it this way? God knew all along it would be this way, and therefore it is good.
It has occurred to me.
... Christian heritage ...
Here is my real heritage...

Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
(Psalms 119:111, KJV).

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
(Isaiah 54:17, KJV).

What is your thought process, Tony? Uh-oh! He's found a crack in my source; I guess the source doesn't count, and I just don't want to talk about it. Oh, poor you!
What crack?
You are mounting a strong attack on Catholicism, and I am watching you do it. Then, you see that your mighty offensive is getting you nowhere with me. Therefore the problem must be that the "enemy" isn't playing fair.
If you can't figure out where the battleground is, don't expect me to volunteer to step over to where you think it is.

And I love how you, Tony, get to decide who's Christian and who's not.
I just go by the name they give themselves.
"Catholic Church" doesn't mention "Christian."
What else is so difficult for you to cope with that you "don't feel like discussing" it?
I'm still not going to fight the battles of the Catholic Church for them.

That's right. I forgot, you're too smart to read anyone's citations.
Reread my post to Emerald. In it I said I went to the link she gave.
We discussed it further to find that while some think there is only one morning star, there are, in fact, many morning stars.

Let's see ... there's your bit from James as your cliche to try to close the issue. And you're pretty close on the context. It seems to me that most of James ch.2 has to do with the idea that preaching and faith alone don't cut it in the heavenly book.
You missed where it says, "tremble."

That's a stupid answer, period. Even Ned Flanders knows that
But that was just a dumb answer, Tony. Even you can do better than that. "Practical application is only difficult for those who don't believe it ...."
Let's see...

Practical application of driving is only difficult for those who don't believe they can drive.
Practical application of reading is only difficult for those who don't believe they can read.
Practical application of writing is only difficult for those who don't believe they can write.

It seems that practical application is difficult for those who don't believe.

I think you are just addicted to marijuana, first, and rolleyes, second.

Does it not follow, then, that the present immorality of Christendom has drawn the world's ire? The failure of Christians to apply their faith in their daily lives is evident in the state of Christendom. Its institutions may glitter and gleam, but it seems that many people of faith fall victim to that process whereby they create their own crosses to bear.

1. Here is where the world's ire really comes from...

... I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
(John 15:19, KJV).

2. What is the state of Christendom?

3. What process? And, own crosses? Who does that?

I love how you continually justify your Bible quotes with other Bible quotes.
Why, thank you.

You seem very badly to want to deny that you owe anything to the atrocities of history which were committed so that you might be so privileged to blindly accept what a book tells you must necessarily be true.
I'm not discounting the tradition, I'm simply assigning the appropriate value to it.
That you wish to divorce your Christian experience from its violent roots does nothing to change the fact that this is part of the Christian heritage. After all, you are the one who asserted that the Inquisition demonstrates that Christians should always follow their leaders. Are you, then, just afraid to admit that you think those atrocities were right? After all, as the Word of God was delivered to the people, they did follow their leaders appropriately in accusing one another, feeding the mill of destruction, sending their neighbors to horrible deaths, and even achieving the historical footnote that in the Bishopric of Trier, two villages were left with a single childbearing female apiece. This is a vastly important period of the Christian heritage, during which we witness the results of undereducated, propagandized superstition. Yet you would, by your own expressions, assign it the appropriate value of being irrelevant to your faith.
It has occurred to me.
But, such notions as whether God prefers it this way, or whether the Bible failed to convey its inner keys is irrelevant to you, who claims a faith which depends on the infallibility of its foundations?
Here is my real heritage...
Still in denial, I see. Tony, you choose to be Christian. That is, you choose to subscribe to a philosophy that has climbed here over the corpses of millions, courtesy the paranoia of superstition.

Just like those guys in northern Idaho chose to subscribe to Hitler.
What crack?
You are mounting a strong attack on Catholicism, and I am watching you do it.
Hey, you're the one who cited the Catholic Encyclopedia in this thread, and then tucked tail and refused to discuss it. Furthermore, as much as you might hate Catholocism, if you gave a damn about your Christian heritage you would realize that without fourteen-hundred or so years of Catholics, there would be no Protestants, Reformationists, or otherwise Christians in the modern day, yourself included.

As an American, I am not responsible for the pursuit of the Nez Perce across three states and an international boundary. As an American, however, I do not advocate public policy that instructs the government to chase the injuns out of the country.

As a Christian, you are not responsible for the travesty of the Crusades. However, does your faith compel you to advocate the moral and personal supremacy of your faith compared to others? Remember, here, that you're the one who noted that you know where you're going when you're dead. (However, it should be noted that we already know the answer to the question, and you can't say, "No," without ignoring the record; oh, that's what you do, anyway.)
I just go by the name they give themselves.
"Catholic Church" doesn't mention "Christian."
And neither did Creator Lutheran Church, where I was confirmed as a member of the American Lutheran Church. It seems that you're one of the Christians who think faith has a good deal to do with name placement and recognition.
I'm still not going to fight the battles of the Catholic Church for them.
Nobody's asking you to. Quit your whining.
Reread my post to Emerald. In it I said I went to the link she gave.
We discussed it further to find that while some think there is only one morning star, there are, in fact, many morning stars.
Are you referring to the post in which you used the Bible to skillfully contradict itself? I left my sentiments there.
You missed where it says, "tremble."
But that was beside your point. It has nothing to do with the abusive context of your citation. It seems you were grabbing at straws then and still are.
Let's see...

Practical application of driving is only difficult for those who don't believe they can drive.
Practical application of reading is only difficult for those who don't believe they can read.
Practical application of writing is only difficult for those who don't believe they can write.

It seems that practical application is difficult for those who don't believe.
There have been topics here devoted to the contradictions of the Bible. Practically apply one without violating the other. Figure it out.
I think you are just addicted to marijuana, first, and rolleyes, second.
You seem to have missed your point.

To the second, no, sir ... your posts are just that ridiculous.

To the first, I think you missed your point.
1. Here is where the world's ire really comes from...

... I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
(John 15:19, KJV).
Thank you for a good laugh. It's still good to know that the humble followers of God can still show their cajones from time to time. You're right, though. Thinking of themselves as God's "chosen ones" did contribute somewhat to the eternal ass-kicking the world has subjected Judaism to.
2. What is the state of Christendom?
In America it's pathetic; watch TBN or 3Angels. Read a Time or Newsweek about whether Americans believe in God. Vote in an election where the sum effect is whether or not you are qualified to exist in society based on whom you sleep beside. Watch politicians spur Christian anger with rhetoric about drugs and violence and abortion and "family values", while promoting policies that create drug addicts, contribute to factors known to correllate with unwanted pregnancies, and ignoring growing violence until it's out of control.

We don't have witch hunts? Guess what, if 1.5% of the voters felt differently, it would be illegal to be gay and a teacher. Have you ever sat in on a parental demand to the school board or library board that certain books be removed? What is Christianity giving people if this is what they obsess themselves with? How many battered womens' shelters would we not need in this country if the Christians who support Mabon's OCA, or Schlafly's book bannings, or Wildmon's crusade against creativity in this country, were to dedicate their energies toward educating themselves so that their simple superstitions weren't so offended by the existence of ideas different from their own? What happens if you don't have to explain that Jesus doesn't want you to beat your wife because people have generally learned that you just don't beat your wife because you don't beat anyone that way? That is at least the American state of Christendom.

Internationally, there are fundamental, critical problems. Has anyone noticed the last 34 years in Belfast? Would you say that the Christian-dominated cultures of Europe represent the pinnacle of human achievement? Would you say that we have achieved God's kingdom in Europe or America, or anywhere? Is Christendom getting any closer to the coming of God's kingdom, aside from with the passing of time?
3. What process? And, own crosses? Who does that?
Many people in America, for instance, obsess themselves with sexuality. The 2000 ballot saw an anti-homosexuality measure that began with the words, "Because homosexuality is a divisive issue ...." Well, how did it become such a divisive issue? I first recall elections in Oregon in 1990 and '92 in which a political action committee was upset about the fact that books that mentioned homosexuality without condemning it were allowed on library shelves. After hammering the state with several more of these ballot measures, and a host of local initiatives, the petitioners dare cite the divisive nature of the argument they chose to raise as their reason for arguing. If they had shut up and stayed the hell out of people's bedrooms in the first place, they wouldn't have a divisive issue on their hands in the present. This is their own mess. They created it; it's their own burden.

Likewise the puritanical attitude toward heterosexuality. No sex outside of marriage is officially dumb to those of us who think marriage is bonkers. I can't imagine why any woman would want to get married aside from romantic superstitions and cravings for financial security. I prefer women who are themselves, not Mrs. Somebody. Yet as teen pregnancy rose, Christians throughout America argued against birth control and sex education. If you're anti-abortion, how about stopping unwanted pregnancy with education? It might actually work. Suddenly a puritanical society is awash in unwanted children and the Christians lament the tragedy they stoked.
I love how you continually justify your Bible quotes with other Bible quotes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, thank you.
Indeed. After all, with nothing original to respond to, I get a chance to explore the same ideas I've expressed before from other aspects. If nothing else, the repetition is paying off for me.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
[Acts 11:26, KJV].

Catholicism didn't get rolling until Constantine made it the state religion in about 313 AD."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bible quote about history, your stooping lower by the minute. Even so, it is STILL the first Christianity. How does this say anything different. It was also the ONLY Christian religion for many years.
I don't think that you even understand what Christianity is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here is my real heritage..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really! Well yes, it is, along with millions of deaths and years of oppression.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What crack?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crack is in the fact that you cited someone that you don't even believe. One of the largest parts of a prosecutor in a courtroom is to discredit the witnesses for the defense. You MUST
defend a source if you are to quote it, or don't quote it at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just go by the name they give themselves.
"Catholic Church" doesn't mention "Christian." "
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, you have no clue what Christian even means. Catholic church directly equates to Christian.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's see...

Practical application of driving is only difficult for those who don't believe they can drive.
Practical application of reading is only difficult for those who don't believe they can read.
Practical application of writing is only difficult for those who don't believe they can write.

It seems that practical application is difficult for those who don't believe.

I think you are just addicted to marijuana, first, and rolleyes, second."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect. One that cannot drive can very easily find a practical application for it. They just cannot implement it. If I have to walk to work every day I don't need to know how to drive to find the practical application of getting to work faster and out of the weather. The same applies for the other 2 points. Did you even think before you spoke?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In America it's pathetic; watch TBN or 3Angels... Is Christendom getting any closer to the coming of God's kingdom, aside from with the passing of time?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good point!!

Originally posted by tiassa
You seem very badly to want to deny that you owe anything to the atrocities of history which were committed so that you might be so privileged to blindly accept what a book tells you must necessarily be true.
Well, I might "seem" to look like all kinds of things.

That you wish to divorce your Christian experience from its violent roots does nothing to change the fact that this is part of the Christian heritage.
"Christian," even in the Bible, is the term non-Christians use to describe believers.
Thus, you use it to mean whatever it means to you.
I simply reject the load of crap you're trying to lay on me.

After all, you are the one who asserted that the Inquisition demonstrates that Christians should always follow their leaders.
This would be the reason the Bible says the natural man doesn't understand the things of God. The natural man can't understand English, either.
Are you, then, just afraid to admit that you think those atrocities were right? After all, as the Word of God was delivered to the people, they did follow their leaders appropriately in accusing one another, feeding the mill of destruction, sending their neighbors to horrible deaths, and even achieving the historical footnote that in the Bishopric of Trier, two villages were left with a single childbearing female apiece. This is a vastly important period of the Christian heritage, during which we witness the results of undereducated, propagandized superstition. Yet you would, by your own expressions, assign it the appropriate value of being irrelevant to your faith.
Pretty much.
Particularly sinc