Saved by Faith

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Colossians 2:11-13)

This text shows us some important things about baptism that most religious groups do not teach. This text says that baptism is the point in which we are buried WITH Him (cf. Romans 6:3-7).Paul compares Old Testament circumcision to baptism, showing that just as the flesh is cut away when a circumcision is done, God himself "cuts" away our sins with a spiritual circumcision at baptism (v11). We are made alive together with Christ when we are baptized (v13), and most importantly, we are forgiven of all our trespasses (sins)(v13).

Our faith in the work of God is what saves us. We are saved by our FAITH. In Colossians 2:11-13, which we just looked at, we see that we are forgiven of all our trespasses when we by faith in the working of God are baptized (v12). We have our sins cut away from us because of our faith in the promise of God.

This is exactly the way it was with animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. It was the faith of the one who brought the sacrifice that saved the sinner. They believed what God said when he said that the blood of the sacrifice would atone for their souls. They could not just believe that animal sacrifice atones for sin; they actually had to act on their faith and take an animal to have it sacrificed for them. Just a mental belief was not good enough. There had to be a belief based action to perfect their faith.

James 2:17-22 (NKJV) "17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"

An active faith in God's word is what saves. This is how faith is portrayed in Hebrews 11. All of the heroes of faith acted on what they believed. By faith Abel offered (v4). By faith Noah prepared (v7). By faith Abraham obeyed by going (v8). By faith Isaac blessed (v21). By faith Moses refused (v24). We could go on and on showing from the Old Testament characters that faith is active.

Faith in the Old Testament is the same as faith in the New Testament. John 3:16 is a very misapplied verse that is usually taken out of its context to try to prove that faith alone saves. The context of this verse teaches otherwise.

John 3:14-17 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him."

The belief that Jesus expects from us is the same as was expected from the children of Israel when Moses lifted up the serpent on a pole in the wilderness. This takes place in Numbers 21:4-9. Israel in their disobedience and complaint against God, were dying. Because of their sin, God sent snakes among the people to punish them. The people realizing their sin, asked Moses to intercede to the Lord for them. The Lord gave them the way to be saved. All who looked at the bronze snake that was lifted up by Moses was saved. They had to believe that what God said was true; that looking upon the snake would save them, and then they had to go and look upon it in obedience to God's word to be saved. If they did not go to look at it, they did not believe. John the Baptist in John 3:36 says that belief and disobedience are opposites. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." If we do not have a faith that acts and does the will of God, we cannot be saved.

Hebrews 5:9, speaking of Christ, says "He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV) 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Remember that the context of this verse is speaking of how the Romans were baptized to be set free from their sin).

We must obey from the heart what is delivered to us in the scriptures to be set free from our sin and then continue in obedience to God until death (Rev 2:10).

Do you agree with the scriptures? Take God's word for it, not mine! God bless, have a great week, and keep working in the Word.

Jim Lynch, Evangelist
Miles City Church of Christ
406-234-3775

http//www.milescitychurch.community.officelive.com

Too easy

I guess I question his need to keep posting his beliefs on here. Are there not enough people going to his church? Is he just looking for an argument? Too much time on his hands? Go out and do some good for people. Visit the elderly. Help with the kids. These posts are not doing anyone any good.

Kacey, how do you know these posts are not doing anyone any good? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. I haven't read all of Pastor Lynch's posts, but I don't believe he's doing anything that calls for him to stop. His posts are at least literate, which make them stand out from some of the posts on the site.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Thread over.

Father, make me sensitive to the cries for help around me. Reinforce my desire and will to respond.

GOD gives every bird his food, but He doesn't throw it into the nest.

ajs

I don't think he did anything wrong. Just like everyone else in America, Mr. Lynch has a right to express himself. He did it in an acceptable matter. I'm not one to defend evangelical christians by any means, but this was not a knock at my door. Let it be.

While, in spirit, I agree with Jim, the "tone" with which he presents his argument seems a lil' off to me.

I do NOT think that what you or I have "discerned" is appropriate for our own personal walking out of faith is something we can project onto others walk. To each according to their gift/faith. Sure there is obvious black and white areas according to scripture, but Christ's salvation is PERSONAL.

And it's not our faith that has the power to save. It's the grace of God that allows our faith to save us through Christ's sacrifice. We don't have the power, He does. We were saved when we were born, we just didn't know it at the time. I only say that because Christ can't die again.We just have to accept the gift. The gift has the power, not the acceptance. The acceptance unleashes what the gift has to offer. But God respects our decision and allows us to exercise our free will. He doesn't condemn us. We condemn ourselves.

Until we know the difference between right and wrong, no matter what our age, we can't sin because sin isn't an accident nor is sin ignorant. It's purposeful and intentional whether we subjectively think it is sin, The Bible gives us an objective standard.

Does it mean Jim is wrong. No. Does it mean I'm right? No. But it certainly does offer the opportunity to engage in conversation and look into it on their own and find the truth out for themselves.

I welcome all questions/objections regarding the Christian faith. It gives me the opportunity to explore my faith to deepen it. I've yet to have any question/objection cause me to question it.

I welcome all questions/objections regarding the Christian faith. It gives me the opportunity to explore my faith to deepen it. I've yet to have any question/objection cause me to question it.

Well, let me help you out with that. Genisis tells us that when God rested from His creation, everything He created was good. So, if everything was good, what caused or motivated the serpent to tempt Eve? Where did evil come from? Why would a good God allow evil to exist?

In Christianity, satan is thought to be the source of evil. According to Christian tradition, satan was created by God, he somehow rebelled. Supposedly, he and the angels that went with him were created with free will which allows them the opportunity to reject God. One HUGE problem with this is there are no clear Biblical texts that describe these events. Satan just shows up in scripture as the source of sin, motivating humans to turn away from God. He is sort of a cosmic straw dog. The theodicy here is pretty confusing. Why would God provide salvation for humans but not for Satan and the other angels that rebelled? After all, He created both. It seems a little duplicitous to save one part of something you created and banish the other part to torment in hell. Did God create hell? How did it come into existence?

As I have thought about Christianity, I have become aware of many things that I have been taught that are not actually described in Scripture, and this has raised many questions. It seems like a clear understanding of theodicy is important in understanding why or if I need a savior.

The serpent's (Satan/Lucifer) pride is what motivated him to tempt Eve. He wanted to be God, or at least rule over him. Check out Isaiah 14:12-14

Satan/Lucifer was the most beautiful angel and got proud. Check out Ezekiel 28:11-15

Maybe he fell/rebelled before the seventh day. Maybe after. Does it make the scripture any less valid because it reads that God said it was good? No. Why not? Because anything God created to serve his purpose must be good. More on that later.

Why EXACTLY God saves mankind, but not angels is known only to him, but We were created for relationship with him. Is it said explicitly somewhere in the bible? Maybe. Maybe not. But the main theme throughout scripture seems to be God creating, maintaining and restoring relationship with mankind. Angels throughout scripture are seen strictly as servants. Doing some job for God. We read that he loves us, not angels.

The problem most people have with accepting God's allowing evil to exist is we put our understanding of good and evil and what we would do on God. Problem is we don't have the capacity to understand (totally) what God's plan is or what is truly "Good" according to his standard. A perfect example would be someone coming along a bear stuck in an old trap. We want to help the bear and set it free but we can't get close enough to do so because the bear is hurt and wounded and thinks we want to cause it more harm. It doesn't trust us. So the only reasonable alternative is to shoot it... with a tranquilizer, patch it up and set it free. To the bear, we've killed it. But we know we're doing a "good" thing.

If you can allow that God, in order to be God, is infinitely wise, then it's easy to understand how our understanding of what he has in mind in any specific circumstance, is far less than the bear's ability to understand us getting it out of the trap.


Evil is pretty easy to understand IF you see it is analogous to darkness. Darkness cannot exist until you take away LIGHT. Evil cannot exist unless you take away good. Once you introduce light darkness disappears. Same with evil. God is the ultimate good, the further we as humans push him out of our lives the more evil is prevalent. As soon as we allow God back in evil ceases to exist. Seems like WE allow evil to permeate existence because it keeps us in "control" of our lives.

But that's still a hard thing to accept.I would venture it's because of how hard a time we have giving and receiving true love. God loves us perfectly, regardless of our understanding or agreement with his methods. Part of exercising perfect love is acceptance (respect) of independent decision. (Free will) He loves you anyway. But you don't have to love him. (like a rebellious teen, if you will)

And that brings up the whole condemnation thing. Going along with the aforementioned analogy of evil existing only in the absence of good, Hell, where ever it is is the ultimate absence of God. If we die and have accepted the gift of salvation before doing so we get to go to heaven (the presence of God). If WE CHOOSE to reject God's offering WE ETERNALLY REMOVE OURSELVES from the presence of God. We're kicking him out of our lives more and more every day here on earth and see what's done to people and the planet, imagine the horrors realized when he is completely removed from our presence in whatever place Hell is.

Theodicy, in it's entirety, is something we'll never be able to fully grasp, in my opinion, but it's not something we have to in order to have a personally satisfying relationship with him. But if you're understanding of theodicy is holding back your faith (you haven't said it is) I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the story.

I don't claim to understand everything about God, or the Bible. I'll be the first to tell ya, I don't meet "Christian" standards as a lot of them would present them. I don't care. I just have a basic lowest common denominator understanding I share with people. I hope it helps. I appreciate your(or anyone else's) sharing with me. It's what we were designed to do.

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that God doesn't work that way.. So I stole a bike and asked Him to forgive me.

It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission.


That's classic Lorin...

Thank you all for the enthusiastic discussion...my goal exactly!

As to the comment:

"I guess I question his need to keep posting his beliefs on here. Are there not enough people going to his church? Is he just looking for an argument? Too much time on his hands? Go out and do some good for people. Visit the elderly. Help with the kids. These posts are not doing anyone any good."

I do not have a "need" to post here...and one can never have too many members in the Lord's Church...I have only a desire to serve God by presenting the truth of the Gospel to as many as I can.

If you knew me personally then you would not need to question what I may or may not do in service to others.

When I write an article that seems to be befitting to post then I spend the 3 min it takes to do so hoping that it might help others to examine their own relationship to God and draw closer in line with His commands.

To others who read and/or comment on my articles...thanks for stopping by and I hope you enjoy the journey as much as I do.

God bless and have a great day, Jim

I don't question what you do. On here or in the real world. Not my place. You know who you're accountable to and I know it isn't me.

As for your posting here. I appreciate it. Whether or not we agree on this is or that isn't important. To me, it's the opportunity. What happens after we share isn't up to us. It's good to see you being true to this aspect of your faith.

-Chuck

Thanks CS Hunt...ditto's

Let me add to Richard's questions. Since he is discussing Genesis, I will continue with the same, courtesy of Bart D. Ehrman:

If light was created on the first day, how is it that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day?

How could there be an evening and morning on each of the first three days if there was no sun?

When Noah takes the animals on the ark, does he take seven pairs of all the "clean" animals, as Genesis 7:2 states, or just two pairs, as Genesis 7:9-10 indicates?

From Exodus:

The fifth plague was a pestilence that killed "all of the livestock of the Egyptians" (Exodus 9:5). How is it, then, that a few days later the seventh plague, of hail, was to destroy all of the Egyptian livestock in the fields (Exodus 9:21-22)? What livestock?

From John:

Peter says to Jesus, "Lord, where are you going?" (John 13:36) A few verses later Thomas says, "Lord, we do not know where you are going" (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, 'Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'" (John 16:5).

Jesus performs his first miracle when he turns the water into wine, "this was the first sign that Jesus did" (John 2:11). Later in that chapter we are told that Jesus did "many signs" in Jerusalem (John 2:23). And then, in Chapter 4, he heals the son of a centurion, and the author says "This was the second sign that Jesus did" (John 4:54).

As to the death of Judas, according to Matthew (27:3-10), he "hanged himself". In Acts (1:18-19), we learn that he fell "headlong" and "burst open in the middle" so that "his bowels gushed out".

I could go on and on and on, but I think that the point can be made that there are many reasons to question the inerrancy of the Bible. Something that contains many errors and contradictions cannot, by definition, be considered inerrant.

God works in mysterious ways, Denise. We cannot hope to know why He'd give us a book so obviously flawed.

I can absolutely work with that explanation Wendy. It's when I hear that the Bible is the inerrant word of God that I become a wee bit discombobulated.

Of course there is reason to question the Bible. It is not a perfect text as some claim it to be. Does that mean you shouldn't believe in the greater message being offered by its words? No. Does that mean that you should question the integrity of what you are reading due to the obvious flaws? In my opinion, yes.

For example, when the Bible is used to persecute others based on passages in the Bible, wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to question the integrity of that passage before condemning others, as quite obviously the book is imperfect? If we are reading "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination", shouldn't we wonder what trust to place in this passage when we do not know which passages to trust in regards to Judas? Did he hang himself, or did he disembowel himself? Everything must not be taken literally at the risk of being taken for a fool (and bigot to boot).

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (10/9/2010)]

If light was created on the first day, how is it that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day?

I'm confused... what point was made here?

There's no point. We know the God-light lit everything before there was a sun.

Denise,

The sun, moon, and stars obviously aren't the only source of light. Like you pointed out God created light. He must be the source.

Evening and morning are parts of a 24hour day as we know it. Regardless of whether the sun is showing, we still have evening and morning. (Think near the poles)

Genesis 7:2 says by sevens of every clean beast, the male and his female. I read that as 7 animals ensuring there are males and females. This would make sense to take "extra" clean animals for sacrifice and/or maybe as food.

It goes on to say of the beasts that are not clean, two, a male and a female. That makes sense for continuation of the species.

Exodus 9:5 talks about setting a time... just prior to that it describes what happens to Egypt's (the people) cattle, the latter speaks of pharoah's cattle.

The John issue is pretty easy to understand as well. In the last part it's Jesus' way of saying after everything he's just said they will know where he's going and they won't ask because he's just laid it out to them and they're sad.

Not sure what you're point is in the second part. The verse(4:54) says "This [is] again the second miracle [that] Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee. " The verse itself clarifies it's meaning and what it was referring to. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as a contradiction.

The Judas thing. So he hanged himself according to Matthew. And then acts goes on to say how he did it (jumped from something headfirst) and then says what happens after he did it. Doesn't say how soon after. Just says it happened. Acts was written by Luke, a physician, and a Gentile by the way, who quoted Peter. Peter would use such "colorful language" as he was known to be one to say it now pay for it later.

I'm not sure where these "contradictions" come from but it seems with even the simplest of internet searching of the bible verses in context (or out) and application of critical thinking it's very plausible these aren't contradictory issues.

Denise, just saw you're second post.

In regards to the homosexuality thing, It is a sin. Cut and dry. No ifs, ands or but(t)s about it.

But when people try condemning people for being gay, it's about as smart as an obese preacher saying you shouldn't drink. He obviously has food issues he can't control. Why get on my case about a six pack a night if you're polishing off a quart of ice cream a night?

Point is we ALL have issues. But it's not for us to condemn. Sure we can LOVINGLY mention something that's an obvious issue. But that should be the end of it.

Even Jesus said he didn't come to condemn, but to save (John 3:17) and that we'd be known as his followers by our love (John 13:35) for each other.

According to the Bible it is against God's rules, but if some guy wants to poke another guy, what business is it of mine? I have gay friends. But like my wife and I keep our sex lives to ourselves, for the most part, we expect EVERYONE we know to do the same around us. That's about as fair as I know to be.


-Chuck

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/9/2010)]

Theodicy. It all comes down to theodicy. When Messrs. James and Chuck decide to grapple with that, then their posts will become interesting. Until that point comes, I guess we'll just have to settle for question begging instead.

To be honest, this issue waxes and wanes for me. I don't normally care one bit that the Bible contains contradictions, and most require a third explanation not contained within the Bible to make sense, which sort of defeats the purpose of calling the Bible "inerrant". For me, the Bible is about the greater message, not the particulars.

However, it never fails, after a period of time not caring about the details, I run into another person who tells me that the Lord God doesn't appreciate gay marriage, so neither does he. This conversation from a few days ago disappointed me, as it was with someone I expected more. So what if the "Lord God doesn't appreciate the gay marriage"? He doesn't appreciate working on the Sabbath either. Do we make that illegal as well?

I apologize for dredging up this tired issue. We have discussed it ad nauseum here before. I try to view the Bible as a general guideline for how to live life, but when I continue to run into people who want to use the very few passages regarding homosexuality contained within the book to deny an entire group of American citizens their civil rights, I lose all patience with the book and the religion itself.

No more nitpicking will be done here by me (well, at least until the next jackass tries to hide behind the Bible to explain away his bigotry ).

Bridgier, it's already been addressed. ( Edit: though probably not to your satisfaction)

It would seem to me if someone isn't satisfied with God's "justification" for his actions, they are putting themselves above him. An apparent God complex, if you will. Nobody on the planet has a CLEAR idea what the big picture is. And nobody on the planet has the intellectual capacity to understand what is required to create, manage, and provide for 6+ billion people over 6+ thousand years on a rock the size of our planet floating through space AND know every single one of them by name. Sure we can imagine, but in reality we have no clue.

Theodicy, as an objection, seems to be more about justification of one's pride, than about an justification of one's decision not to exercise a rational faith. But that is JUST MY OPINION.


EDIT: Bridgier and/or Richard is there something specific in regards to theodicy that sends up a red flag for you? Or is it something in general? It might be something I haven't considered and need to look into for my own faith, who knows?

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

I've got a pretty CLEAR idea what the big picture is. You'll be shocked to find out it has nothing to do with gay people loving each other.

I can understand,why people choose the old testament laws they beleive in and it is fine with me. This is the one I have chose to live by.
Deuteronomy 22:10 "Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together"

I like the admonition about not boiling a kid in its mother's milk. There goes tonight's dinner!

and provide for 6+ billion people over 6+ thousand years

Are you saying that God is only 6000 years old? Where was he when the dinosaurs ran rampant?

The dinosaurs existed like a tree falling in a forest makes a sound when there is no one there to hear it.

What's tangible and/or sunlight to you is God-light and devil tricks to someone else. I'd say you've got nothing.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (10/10/2010)]

Buck,
I never said, nor do I think, the big picture has anything to do with gay people specifically, but has everything to do with all people, personally.

Lorin,

I don't know why anyone would choose to "believe" in any old testament law any more than they would choose to "believe" in any local, county, state, federal, or international law today. It's obey, or don't. Not believe or not. You break the law and get caught and show up in court, the judge doesn't care if you believe in the law or not. You pay whatever sentence is dished out or you go to jail or both unless you're granted a pardon. God's law is the same way.

Amorette,

While I appreciate the sarcasm, you do know that's referring to a goat, right?

Wendy,

No I'm not. He exists outside of space and time. So it's easy to say he was here/there/everywhere just like he is today.

Buck,

Not sure what your intention with your last post was, so I'll just say I don't follow.

Amorette,

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to insult your intelligence with my question. I just don't know you well enough to know what to read into, if anything, your posts. (same applies to everyone else)


Like my wife says, I have limited "text" perception.

So CS are you saying you OBEY all of the biblical laws? Or are you prepared to pay the price? So I guess I will have to pay the penalty, but I will dodge the one about plowing with a donkey and ox.

Lorin,

Oh hell no. I fail daily, if not by the minute. I break more than I'm aware I'm sure. I don't even know what they all are, to be honest. But I know where to find them if a question comes up. I try to live by the two most important ones: Love God with all you got, and love everyone else like I love myself. (I paraphrase Jesus there.)

Beyond that, I put my faith in God's saving grace as provided by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection to reconcile me to God.

Yup. It's that simple.

EDIT: maybe you care, maybe you don't, but just so you know, my name is Chuck

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

Oh, so you're saying that humans have only been around for 6000 years. Got it.

Wendy,

No. I'm not saying that. It's what the timeline the Bible gives us. I happen to choose to believe what the Bible says.

Oh Lord, I can't believe I just read this entire thread. Can you please erase it from my memory, and if not, can I get a bicycle instead?

You can use mine. I'll even call you webmaster when you show up to get it... I know how powerful positions command respect. You can have a beer or two while you're here. Or some whiskey. Or if you give me enough lead time I'll pick up your drink of choice to be hospitable. (the catch is letting me know what your drink of choice is) Lemme know...

- Chuck

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

Two quick questions:

What did Jesus have to say about having to follow the strict Jewish laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

That's easy Amorette, He said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. I think that covers homosexuality...

To me that means he shows us how futile our efforts (works) are at justifying out own righteousness to God. Hence his sacrifice on our behalf.

Wrong answer. Try again.

Nah. I'm good.

Lazy, too.

No. I'm not saying that. It's what the timeline the Bible gives us. I happen to choose to believe what the Bible says.

Ok. I don't remember seeing any dates anywhere in there. Would you care to elaborate how some people claim the Bible establishes the world is 10,000 where others have claimed it's only 6000? 4000 years seems to be quite a discrepancy to me. There's nothing in the bible that limits the earth's age to 6000 years and lot of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you don't believe that radioactive decay is a credible method to measure the earth's age. If so then I assume that you'd turn down any medical treatments based on that method such as certain organ imaging scans and certain radioactive medicines, even if recommended by your doctor. After all, he's not God.

Wendy,

You assume too much. I work in the medical imaging field. Specifically, I'm a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologist. That's MRI in case you're still questioning my ability to grasp basic science. What does that have to do with anything? Well it means I'm trained in basic radiography (xrays) and I have advanced credentials in Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. I'm not a dumbass that spouts off stuff just get a rise out of someone who doesn't agree with the Bible. And I don't have a blind faith. My faith is as rational as I can make it to this point.

The evidence you suggest as such is radioactive decay. The problem with it is it's as flawed as any other evidence against biblical certainty. Some samples from the same animal have dated millenia apart... You have to assume Carbon-14's rate of decay is constant and there is no NEW carbon introduce to the system. In short there are too many assumptions and, dare I say it, innerancies with the whole concept.

And based on the timeline, counting back that is, the bible does limit the earth's existence to approximately 6k years. That's based on hard empirical evidence from "secular" independent archeaological "evidence" that "verifies" the biblical dates.

Amorette,

Not so much....edit: I just haven't seen anything you've posted that negates the answer I gave. That, and I'm enjoying my beer and football, so I'll just rest in the truth until you show me where I'm wrong. Until that happens, the answer I gave will suffice...


re-edit: my wife says you live across the street from us.(dickinson and lake) If that's true you're more than welcome to come halfway down the block (411) and discuss it further. I have adult beverage, soda, and snacks. I'm not near as much of a jerk as you might think. You, and anyone else are welcome here... at least the first time.
[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]


re-re-edit: of course the invitation assumes you can handle four kids under the age of 10. One being a newborn...
[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

CS,

Radioactive decay is an accepted method of measuring age and has been corroborated by other non-radioactive methods of measuring time such as tree rings. The fact that you accept some scientific principles over others just confirms your ability to compartmentalize your brain to accept some things as truth while rejecting others despite the evidence, just as you do with your selective acceptance of certain biblical "truths" over others. But it doesn't matter how often you say the sky is green; the truth is that's it's blue. You can still believe in God and accept scientific truth. If not, you should be a waiter or something and not a medical professional.

Tree rings?

are you serious? tree rings is your response to 'flaws with carbon dating'?

Tree rings establish what exactly? edit: and how do they do so?

edit: Just to clarify, this is Chuck posting, not his wife (the S in CSHunt)

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

[This message has been edited by CS Hunt (10/10/2010)]

Trust me, I would be happy to chat about anything except religion. Having conversations with those whose minds are nailed shut is a waste of time. Enjoy your belief. Just remember, it is belief.

Ok, I admit I was stretching. I find it interesting when folks who work in a scientific field pick and choose what they want to believe of science in the same way they do of biblical laws. What I meant to say was that Carbon-14 is not the only isotope used and that many other isotopes have been used to date rock which generally correlate with carbon-14 results. Some of them are Beryillium-10, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Lutecium-176, Rhenium-187, Rubidium-87, and Samarium-147. At least, that's my understanding.

So would you mind explaining to me your take on the dinosaur issue as relates to your view of a 6000 year old earth? Did they disappear in the Great Flood? Why aren't there any cave pictures surviving that depict these great animals? I totally understand how a non-scientist might pooh-pooh them but what is your take on them? I'm not baiting you. I'd really like to know.

I have worked with a major Televangelist (who is still on TV) and a person who hobnobbed with many of the top Evangelists in the field (think "Focus on the Family") and I can tell you from experience that the main thing that really motivates those people is money and ways to extract it from their congregants. I used to be somewhat curious about why the Church of Christ asks it's members to be so high pressure when it comes to trying to recruit new members, but after working for those other people, I do not wonder about it so much any more....

Quote:

"The International Churches of Christ (ICC) appear to be a monetary success on a massive scale. The organization has grown from humble beginnings in 1979 to apparently well over $100 million in annual contributions from its members. Although it has a tradition of not buying worship spaces, the organization has considerable assets. For instance, one property the ICC inherited through its "reconstruction" of the Tokyo (mainline) Church of Christ was sold in 1994 for $30 million (1) - no small change for any church.

Despite its prosperity, the ICC puts considerable pressure on members to give money. Quote by the Geographic Sector leader Jim Brown of the Intl' Church of Christ: "Don't you care about your soul more than your checkbook?"

http://www.rightcyberup.o...ances.html

http://www.icsahome.com/l...troduction

Mr. Hunt,

Thank you so much for trying. Unfortunately here, everyone is tolerant of everything except for *gasp* Christians.

I am tolerant of any religion, so long as it is tolerant of me and gives me straight answers to honest questions.

I'm pretty tolerant of Christians. I serve at my Presbyterian church and go to Sunday School. But I believe God gave us brains to be used and to ignore years of data that all point to the same reality is to basically turn your back on Him. Human intelligence is a God-given and glorious thing and should be treated as such.

p.s. I really am interested in an answer to my dinosaur question.

I have to disagree Stefanie. Generally, people are intolerant of Christians because they have personal experience with intolerant Christians.

Disclaimer:

Ms Pieters,

Rest assured that this organization you have quoted below IS NOT and HAS NOTHING to do with the church of Christ at Winchester and Clark in Miles City, Montana.

The Churches of Christ (not to be confused with the Later Day Saints; United; International; or others who happen to have a similar name) are non-denominational and completely independant of one another when it comes to corporate opperation.

Each congregation is governed by their local membership who, ideally, are lead by elders, deacons, and an evangelist in most cases. Our only creed book is the Bible and where we find our authority for what we teach, practice, and live as best we can.

Our web sight is posted at the beginning of this thread and you can clearly see from just a glance that we are VERY different from what you discribe.

Have a great week,
In His Service, Jim Lynch


Quote:

"The International Churches of Christ (ICC) appear to be a monetary success on a massive scale. The organization has grown from humble beginnings in 1979 to apparently well over $100 million in annual contributions from its members. Although it has a tradition of not buying worship spaces, the organization has considerable assets. For instance, one property the ICC inherited through its "reconstruction" of the Tokyo (mainline) Church of Christ was sold in 1994 for $30 million (1) - no small change for any church.

Despite its prosperity, the ICC puts considerable pressure on members to give money. Quote by the Geographic Sector leader Jim Brown of the Intl' Church of Christ: "Don't you care about your soul more than your checkbook?"

http://www.rightcyberup.o...ances.html

http://www.icsahome.com/l...troduction

Wendy,
Is it not possible that Dino's and man lived on earth at the same time...and not so long ago??

Job speaks of Leviathan, and the Behemoth that could possibly be a description of a dino.

Just a thought...possibility??...perhaps.

As for those who comment that the word of God is not perfect, or is flawed?? I would challenge anyone to show me where there is one contradiction or thread within the text that has a flaw.

I know for a fact the Bible has withstood better critics than what I have ever been able to put forth in my own search through the word (Ken Hamm for one) and it has stood the test of time. I have gennerally found that what is percieved as contrary is unsually brought about by my own lack of understanding of textual critisism. Writer, context, his goal, and audiance are the primary factors in correct hermeneutics.

How else can we explain 40+ writers over a 1500 year span of writings, bound together in one book, and all of their writings are in perfect harmony and on one clear subject without contradiction?

Take this thread for example (or any modern writings for that matter); we can't get 50 replies to any given topic and have three agree on one subject without there being contrary opinions and beliefs that cloud the truth.

Just an observation...wew...I better go to bed, too many spellings to correct. Nite folks.

Have a great week.

In His service, Jim

Amorette,

Fair enough. It wasn't a "religious only" invite. And I appreciate the sarcasm. If I was nailed shut I wouldn't keep giving you (and others who disagree) a hammer and invite them to pull the nails out for me. But what do I know about open exchange of ideas, right?

Wendy,

I don't pick and choose what to believe. I review all the evidence I'm made aware of on both sides of the issue. To this point, I haven't found any "evidence" that conclusively shows the Bible is wrong or untrue. Same with Biblical laws. I don't pick and choose what to believe. I consciously choose what to obey at times, but belief has nothing to do with it...

The things I have researched to this point, as I've said, haven't been scientifically (using the scientific method) ruled out as possiblities, so I trust them. It's the basis for my rational faith. The things I haven't researched or may not understand, I take on faith the Bible can be trusted. It's like a good spouse. You build trust a little at a time over time, but once it's broken, the relationship is pretty much over. My relationship with the Bible is alive and kickin'. It hasn't let me down yet.

Beryllium 10 is created in the atmosphere. It's not known if it's production (based on cosmic ray activity) is constant. So using it to date ANYTHING is highly speculative along with any of the others you mentioned because it cannot be determined whether or not the samples have been contaminated (new carbon 14 introduction
, excessive heat, constant ionium content for thorium, and reliance on other other methods to be accurate)

Just too many "ifs" for me to put my "faith' in the numbers they report as "accurate" and the final word. That and the existence of radiohalos throws a big wrench in the "millions of years" theory.

The dinosaur issue... Is a big picture issue. I believe there was a canopy of ice/water above the earth before the flood. I believe it didn't rain before the flood. The canopy kept out UV rays and made the planet kind of a hyperbaric chamber. The o2 concentrations were such that all animal live absorbed oxygen as much if not more than they breathed it. Did wonders for plant life too, as you can imagine. Things grew huge and lived long times. Even people. When the flood came, partially as a result of the canopy collapse, O2 concentration levels diminished. The land mass split up, and people and animals quit living so long and growing so big. As time went by dinosaurs encroached on civilization and they were eradicated, much like the buffalo.


I don't know why (or if) there aren't any cave paintings about dinosaurs. Honestly I haven't looked into it, but I've seen lot's of ancient pottery pics and buildings that seem to illustrate "dinosaur" like creatures though...

Stefanie,
I understand your point...we used to be a Christian Nation...sadly the intollorance for what made this country great is a shame and a disgrace to our founding fathers.

Whatever happend to accountability, and calloing a spade a spade.

"All that is required for evil to prevale is for good men to do nothing" not sure of who said that but it is very true.

"If one has no light to illuminate ones path, how can one ever correct ones step." Me

Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (10/10/2010)]

The serpent's (Satan/Lucifer) pride is what motivated him to tempt Eve. He wanted to be God, or at least rule over him. Check out Isaiah 14:12-14

Satan/Lucifer was the most beautiful angel and got proud. Check out Ezekiel 28:11-15

Maybe he fell/rebelled before the seventh day. Maybe after. Does it make the scripture any less valid because it reads that God said it was good? No. Why not? Because anything God created to serve his purpose must be good. More on that later.

Proper Biblical hermanunitcs insists that we intupret passages that are less clear by those that are more clear. The problem with the two passages cited above is that they don't CLEARLY state what you and many other Chistians believe. Further, there are no clearer passage that validate your point of view. Contextually, the two passages cited above are lamentations (think dirge) against the Kings of Babylon and Tyre, respectively. The notion that Angels at one point had or still have free will, that satan/lucifer was the most beautiful angel and got proud, that he wanted to be God are beliefs that are not found or supported in the scriptures. I can accept an answer of we don't know. I reject the notion that the passages cited above explain the origin of Satan.

The clearest text about Satan is found in Job 1:7-12:

Job 1:7-12
7 The Lord said to Satan, "From where do you come? " Then Satan answered the Lord and said, " From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it. " 8 The Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil. " 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, "Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face. " 12 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him. " So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.

So we are left to grapple with the issue of Theodicy, how and why does a good God interact with evil,where did evil come from, etc. Evil just shows uo to destroy . Frankly, it simpler to believe that Satan/evil has always existed that to try and shoe-horn him into Biblical texts where he doesn't fit

A proper understanding of theodicy is important because if evil can be separated into natural evil and moral evil, and natural evil predates the fall, it is entirely plausable that the age of the earth is much older as science tells us it is, AND what is recorded in Genisis about creation is also correct. I have concluded that the Bible is NOT a science book nor was it ever intended to be used in that manner. I am not content to simply continue to spew forth the party line on this point when there is so much evidence that points in a different direction.

I also think that a proper understanding of theodicy impacts our understanding of the work of the cross.

~~~~~~~~~
To set the record straight: America's founding fathers were NOT Christian. They were Deist. There are HUGE differences between Deisim and Christianity. The notion that we were founded as a Christian nation is FALSE. This notion probably came I to existence about the same time as the republican party and its syncretistic system of belief.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (10/11/2010)]

How else can we explain 40+ writers over a 1500 year span of writings, bound together in one book, and all of their writings are in perfect harmony and on one clear subject without contradiction?

Since there are NO original manuscripts of the Bible, and every single manuscript available to us differs in some way, this is a VERY bold statement on your part.

sadly the intollorance for what made this country great is a shame and a disgrace to our founding fathers.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God." ~ Thomas Jefferson.

The founding fathers may appreciate your not putting words into their mouths.

Things grew huge and lived long times. Even people.

I'm not aware that human skeletal remains an unusual size have ever been discovered. Could you point to some source material for this assertion?

Thanks for the explanation on dinosaurs, Mr. Hunt. I still think you're a wingnut but I appreciate your courage to put yourself out there and endure the criticism that your views can attract.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (10/11/2010)]

Just look to The Creation Museum for an explanation of Dinosaurs

http://whatever.scalzi.co...um-report/

"Not for the Creation Museum that mamby-pamby weak sauce known as "Intelligent Design," which tries to slip God by as some random designer, who just sort of got the ball rolling by accident. Screw that, pal: The Creation Museum's God is hands on! He made every one of those animals from the damn mud and he did it no earlier than 4004 BC, or thereabouts. It's all there in the book, son, all you have to do is look. Indeed, every single thing on display in the Creation Museum is either caused by or a consequence of exactly three things:

1. The six-day creation;

2. Adam eating from the tree of life;

3. Noah's flood.

Really, that's it. That's the Holy Trinity of explanations and rationalizations. And thus we learn fascinating things. Did you know, for example, that Adam is responsible not only for the fall of man, but also for the creation of venom? It didn't exist in the Garden of Eden, because, well. Why would it? Weeds? Adam's fault. Carnivorous animals (and, one assumes, the occasional carnivorous plant)? Adam again. Entropy? You guessed it: Adam. Think about that, won't you; eat one piece of fruit and suddenly you're responsible for the inevitable heat death of the universe. God's kind of mean.

The interplay of this Holy Trinity of explanations comes to its full realization when the Creation Museum considers what really are its main draw: Dinosaurs. Are dinosaurs 65 million years old? As if - the Earth is just six thousand years old, pal! Dinosaurs were in the garden of Eden - and vegetarians, at least until the fall, so thanks there, Adam. They were still around as late as the mid-third millenium BC; they were hanging with the Sumerians and the Egyptians (or, well, could have). All those fossils? Laid down by the Noah's Flood, my friends. Which is not to say there weren't dinosaurs on the Ark. No, the Bible says all kinds of land animals were on the boat, and dinosaurs are a subset of "all kinds." They were there, scaring the crap out of the mammals, probably. Why did they die off after the flood? Well, who can say. Once the flood's done, the Creation Museum doesn't seem to care too much about what comes next; we're in historical times then, you see, and that's all Exodus through Deuteronomy, ie., someone else's problem."

Total rot.

Hermaneutics does indeed insist we interpret things we don't understand by things we clearly do. But it also makes it clear we don't attribute something that is illogical. Sure you can say those verses don't specifically mention Satan, yet for you to assert those verses are referring to either king is less logical than asserting them to Satan/Lucifer.

I never said Angels, at anytime, were granted free will. But scripture and history has shown us there is someone trying to butt heads at the least, undue and/or overthrow at most, what God is doing. To be God, literally? No. Probably not, But to be God pratically, absolutely.

IF evil can be seperated. IF it can be compartmentalized. IF.

It can't based on the criteria you present. At least not as far as the Bible is concerned. Death was brought into the world by sin. And sin was brought into the world by man. Which points to a young earth either way. Either way meaning an "evolutionary method of growth of the earth" or a literal 6 day creation happening millions of years ago.

In the first example it clearly puts death before man. In evolution, something has to evolve through the generations to get to where we are today. Very obviously all generations aren't still alive so something had to die prior to "man's arrival".

In the second scenario, the timeline just doesnt' fit. If you count the years back to Adam, it's a pretty easy determination of roughly 6k- 6.5k years ago. The timeframe from Adam to Joseph is about 2300 years. If you remember your scripture Joseph became second in command of Egypt. Approximately 1900 BC. That's a date even most secular scholars agree on. Let's suppose you don't. Well the Hebrew exodus had to happen sometime. Most scholars put that time around 1450 BC.
Use either of those two numbers and add about 2300 years and you have 4200 years bc or about 6000 years ago.

I agree with you, the Bible is not a science book, however the science that's in it has stood the test by greater men than you or I. And that is just as important it be true and correct because IF the Bible can clearly be shown to be false/wrong/incorrect, NONE OF IT can be trusted. Just one thing has to be wrong. Just one.

Hey Denise,

there are more early manuscripts available with more than enough content to verify each other than there are of any other work of Antiquity including Homer's Odyssey. I'm sure you could easily find that information with a bit of time on a internet search engine, at a good size library, or, and I might be reaching here, a large church or seminary. Given that information is archaeological, it's not a bold statement he made at all.

Wendy,

Wingnut? Hmmm... I've been called a lot worse, I guess. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to compare and contrast theories/ideas/beliefs with you and everyone else. It's greatly appreciated...

I understand your point...we used to be a Christian Nation...sadly the intollorance for what made this country great is a shame and a disgrace to our founding fathers.

Bullsh*t. Go find a tea party.

And Cheryl, quit blaming Adam. It was all Eve's fault.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (10/11/2010)]

Actually, Mr. Hunt, what you find is that these early manuscripts contradict each other quite nicely in many places, and the oldest manuscripts do not even contain some of the beloved cornerstone stories we've all come to know and love. I'm sure you could do this research as well. Heck, attend most mainstream seminary schools while you are at it. I've not attended myself, but I'm told by those who have that these ideas are taught there as well. These ideas are not widely disputed except by Evangelicals. It is more about the overall message of the Bible. The devil is in the details, as they say.

As to the Bible not yet being contradicted by science, do you believe in the science behind DNA testing? I respect you if you do not, but please make sure to make this plain if you find yourself on a jury where DNA will be entered into evidence, especially if I happen to be the defendant.

DNA has already made great strides in connecting the dots of Evolution. There will come a point in the future when Creation will not be a credible explanation, as the Bible is very clear that humans did not evolve from animals, which DNA will ending up proving.

If you choose not to accept that science, my hat is off to you (but probably because I don't want it to fall off my head as I shake it in wonderment). But please, please do not accept your appointment on any jury.

As to the sad state of intolerance of Christians in the United States, from the CIA World Factbook, the United States is comprised of:

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)

How is it exactly that 80% of the country feels persecuted by the remaining 20%? (And that is giving the benefit of the doubt to the 80% that all 20% actually care enough to be concerned with persecuting them. I would suspect that a good portion of the unaffiliated, especially, don't give religion a single thought, and certainly don't give it enough weight to persecute others.)

And that is just as important it be true and correct because IF the Bible can clearly be shown to be false/wrong/incorrect, NONE OF IT can be trusted. Just one thing has to be wrong. Just one.

Am I right in my understanding that you mean that if the bible isn't 100% accurate in all respects it is 100% wrong in all respects? Huh? How can you view anything that was written by human beings as 100% correct? Humans are fallible. It doesn't make any sense. So does that mean that if I think your religious views are goofy I should also eschew your medical services because you can't possibly do a competent job there either?

There are multiple versions of the 'origin' story and the Noah's ark story and a few others because there were northern and southern traditions, which varied on the details, so they were both included. So, which is 'correct?' Two by two for everybody or seven by seven for clean and two by two for unclean? Man and woman created together or the alternate, and more popular among men, women created from men. They are both there, one after the other. So, which is correct?

See, the problem is, I actually read the whole thing (except for quick skipping through the begats) and studied it back in college. Which, mind you, is actually prehistoric days now.

You guys keep asking these rilly rilly hard questions we are going to lose this thread.

Yah. I should know better than to debate religion but the problem is, there isn't another active thread. Maybe we should start some on a more pleasant topic. Beer?

To stefanie.

Why be tolerant of a group that is constantly intolerant of everything that goes against their beliefs.
Slavery is legal in the bible, so are you going to judge me for having one? Why is homosexuality wrong if I don't believe in your God? Who gives Christians the right to interfere with civil laws? If I don't believe in your God, your satan, or your heaven, how can I go to your hell? Why do you caRe if I go to hell? My choice is mine alone. I think people that refute scientific evidence are disgusting, the creation museum is disgusting, indoctrinating children is disgusting, gay bashing is disgusting, so I guess I find christianity disgusting.

I will enjoy my nice throne in Hell, if it happens to really exist.

Why didn't God, who is all seeing and all knowing, tell the authors of the Bible to write it in such a way that it could stand the test of time and be validated by scientific discoveries and thus be clear without a bunch of stretches and random rationalizations and changing theories to try to make it jibe with modern science, knowledge and viewpoints? (as opposed to having it reflect ancient knowledge and philosophies, which is pretty much the case )

See you there, blixey!

Oh God, I've said this to myself before ("do not get involved in a religious debate") -- yet here I go offering my two cents again. I must be insane expecting a different result.

In any case, I must point out that it is very apparent (except to the most ignorant of idiots) that the scriptures were written by people, for people, for a certain tiny place of the world, for a certain tiny place in time -- solely for political control.

It's that simple.

You can analyze Alice in Wonderland or The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to death, and come up with a bunch of conclusions very similar to debate.

I'm not stating that there is no "Greater Power", no "God", nor a "Lord in Heaven" -- since I don't know.

However, as I have stated multiple times, I do not believe in religions invented by Man, specifically those written by essentially cavemen at the time, as their description of our world and our Universe (or Multiverse if we want to get back into theoretical physics again -- which I don't) doesn't make any sense.

Also as mentioned above, the scriptures, compiled into "The Bible", which is most commonly the King James version (who handpicked which scriptures to include, excluding others for no reason other than his desire for political control of the populous) -- is a bunch of bunk.

The stuff was written decades, if not longer after the death of Christ -- and has been hand translated many times over the centuries, through different languages -- ending up with many different versions.

The Old Testament is the "Jewish Bible". The New Testament is the "Christian Bible". However, both are the "Christian Bible" because Jesus atoned us for our sins, and there is a whole bunch of crap that actually doesn't even apply in the holy book due to that supposedly happening.

Jesus Christ was a "Jew". A cult that followed him became the "Christian Religion" and wrote the New Testament, and thus there are a bunch of Christians all over the place, all over time, not only killing people of other religions, but between various factions of themselves.

The Quran is based upon the original Old Testament (or perhaps the New Testament, I forget which). The Mormon religion is based upon the New Testament, which in turn is based upon the Old Testament. The Scientology-whatever-sci-fi religion is based upon who knows what, space aliens and having a bunch of money I guess.

Perhaps there is a "Greater Power". I don't know. However, I seriously doubt I'm going to get a bicycle, or that the cavemen who wrote the fables had any greater concept of who any "Greater Power" may be, should such an entity even exist.

Faith.....The bridge between our knowledge and God's Wisdom. As long as you believe, with faith anything is possible. No matter what, no matter when! There is no more empowering force or solid ground on which to stand!!! God is the way, the truth and the light. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.

Just sayin......all it takes is an open mind and an open heart!

I have faith in my husband's fidelity. If evidence comes to light that contradicts that belief, or at the very least provides reason to question my unwaivering faith, shouldn't I take a good look at the evidence and really get to the bottom of the source and decide whether or not my faith in him was deserved or really misguided all along? Absolute faith can be much like putting your head in the sand.

I'm still pissed that no one takes Amos 5:21's clear description of phlogiston seriously anymore.

As long as you believe, with faith anything is possible.

That's a crock and it ain't full o' butter.

That's a crock and it ain't full o' butter.

It most certainly is full of butter: magical pony butter with little rainbow sprinkles on top.

I think Amos 5:23 fits this thread better. Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.

Denise,

Many times the larger your group does not mean your voice will be louder, or even heard at all for that matter.

"How is it exactly that 80% of the country feels persecuted by the remaining 20%?"

80% may claim to be religious and think that will classify them as a Christian but this is not so. A Christian is an obedient and faithful (not perfect) follower of Christ who has been forgiven and cleansed by the blood of the Lamb of God when he/she is baptized into the watery grave of baptism to arise in newness of life, and not one who follows after man made religion. Did not the Pharasees make the same mistake?

One group of people, homosexuals, (and I use this group mearly to make the point) make up less than 10% of the population and does not the other 90% have to "accept" their lifestyle and yet many of them are not willing to tolorate nor respect others who disagree. So because they are willing to cry foul laws are passed against the majority and all must comply. Equality with God does not mean we may do as we please and break His laws of natural order, although man seems to define it that way.

If I do not accept the sin of a homosexual, athiest, devil worshipper, or others and make as much noise in opposition as some do about Christians then I become labeled as a biggot, racist, hater, or even worse, even though it is the sin I object to and not the person.

Such is the wisdom of man in a world that has lost its way.

Remember Sodom and Gamorah, or the prophets of Baal? God does not tolorate disobedience always, even though He is patient, hoping all will come to repentance. Four souls were saved out of Sodom and 25% of them looked back and died on the spot, thus salvation came to only three.

Jesus said, narrow is the gate that leads to righteousness, and few there will be that find it. Wide is the gate that leads to distruction and many will go therein. So why would one think that the majority of the world today will find salvation. To the contrary, few there will be who will find the truth and sell it not.

Have a great day,
Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (10/11/2010)]

Only Mr. Lynch knows who a "real Christian" is.

The 80/20 split thing isn't really relevant. The 'community' in Stefanie's remark was the MilesCity.com community, not the nation as a whole.

I'd rate the MilesCity.com community on about a 60/40 nihilvangelest/evangelist split.

It's kind of a microcosm, in a way, of what things would look like if the nation as a whole were ordered the same way... the level of 'tolerance' would stay the same, the actors would switch positions. Just human nature.

As for the rest, it's really a dead horse. The Christians will order the makeup of the world around their word. Everything we learn will be applied to what we already 'know'

And to quote Mr Ehlers mentioned above

"Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred."

Just like the Christians, the non-believers' assumptions are already made. The evidence will be molded to the predetermined outcome. To them, supernatural claims cannot be substantiated without supernatural evidence... so they erect standards of evidence so strict that no piece of similar history could ever pass.

God is the way, the truth and the light. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.

Just sayin......

Then God is also not the way, not the truth and darkness. God is all things right?

God loves the sinner but hates the sin? Really, How do you know this? Why would God hate anything He is responsible for? And how do you (we) know He hates the sin? Because men say so?

All this is absurd and conjecture. Nobody alive can say with 100% assuredness that they know what God thinks, or believes. For that to happen you would have to be God and if you were God then you would have no need to spew your beliefs anywhere, especially an internet forum. This junk all comes from men and women who in truth are really ignorant of the truth. You either believe what you've been told or what you want to believe. The truth, real truth, never needs to be told.

Mr. Lynch,

You really have to work on your spelling skills. It detracts from the credibility of your argument.

Rick said:

I'd rate the MilesCity.com community on about a 60/40 nihilvangelest/evangelist split

Come on. You didn't make room for pagans and Presbyterians.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (10/11/2010)]

and does not the other 90% have to "accept" their lifestyle

You do not have to accept anything. What you cannot do, however, is deprive another U.S. citizen of a right they are due because you disagree due to your religious belief. Your religious belief is immaterial. On what basis do you deny marriage equality? Are you also advocating for work on the Sabbath to be made illegal? Why not? This is the problem. You seem to want to selectively choose which sins to lawfully allow to transpire and those you want to see addressed and banned by law.

and yet many of them are not willing to tolorate nor respect others who disagree.

I would not have gone quietly into that good night prior to 1920 either. Why would I tolerate the denial of my civil rights by the majority because they disapprove of me? Women and minorities would be nowhere if the majority was always allowed to rule with an iron fist.

So because they are willing to cry foul laws are passed against the majority and all must comply.

Yes, this is how inequality is addressed. As Thomas Jefferson stated, the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Equality with God does not mean we may do as we please and break His laws of natural order, although man seems to define it that way.

What your God thinks is immaterial to Atheists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. We've discussed the natural order to death, so I will not address it further but to say the natural order is broken by heterosexuals all of the time, as well as is broken in nature by hundreds of species.

As to Rick's comments, the 80/20 split is relevant. I was not speaking solely of milescity.com because I encounter this argument everywhere I have this discussion. There is a very common perception among Christians that they are persecuted for their beliefs. Try being someone who has the audacity to question their Christian beliefs in a predominantly Christian town, state and country. How many e-mails and hate letters do you get sent to you or dropped by your house because you are Christian? It is laughable to hear that Christians are persecuted in our country.

Just like the Christians, the non-believers' assumptions are already made.

Unfortunately this scenario depicts the argument as only having two sides, much as how you also shade politics in America. You leave no room for those who are in the middle, searching for answers and whose minds are not made up. There are plenty of people out there who were raised Christians and now feel the need to question what has been spoon-fed to them all of their lives. It's too bad you are labeled a bad Christian, or according to Mr. Lynch, not a Christian at all when you ask questions. In this one example, for some reason, knowledge is not power. It is considered dangerous. I just don't get that.

You should be flattered, James. Wendy only corrects those she really really disagrees with.

I thought about saying Christian instead of evangelist, Wendy. I just figured it matched better this way.

I think the polite thing to do in the search for 'answers' would be to start your own thread with your own questions.

Instead we had yet another ambush of what could've been a nice, congenial, inside-baseball kind of conversation about faith v works among believers with more endless 'Why Christianity is wrong about everything' diatribes.

It's perfectly within your rights, for sure. But if a certain group of people kept frequenting the various Bobcat/Griz threads with "Football Sucks, why do you bother" commentary, you'd start to wonder what their real purpose in the whole pursuit was.

Maybe someone should start a thread "Believers Only" and ask that only believers post. Since I am pretty certain no one was ever converted by an internet thread, any more than they were by that nutjob with the clown wig who used to hang around at golf tournaments, then you can have your believers only conversation. I don't post to football/NASCAR threads because I have nothing to say. If I see that a thread is ONLY for the already converted/saved/holier-than-thou to debate the fine points of their beliefs, then I might stay away.

Just remember, though, while I know nothing about football or NASCAR, I actually do know something about the Bible. More than some people, from what I've read.

I will remember this for future discussions, because we all know how you stay on topic.

Anyway, I was responding to comments made before me. That is how conversation works. It weaves in and out based on the statements made throughout the course of the conversation. Try this line of thinking the next time you are having a person-to-person chat...

Oops, I'm sorry, no, we cannot discuss this. Your statements do not meet the criteria laid out in the first few sentences.

And excuse me if I am wrong, but the original thread was about Biblical passages and asked "Do you agree with the scriptures?". I guess that was supposed to be rhetorical then?

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (10/11/2010)]

I wouldn't say it's about sticking to the topic so much as to the spirit in which it was intended.

James laid out a heartfelt (to him) message about something important to him, probably not coincidentally having nothing to do with gay marriage.

But of course, as if on cue, we see the topic du jour clubbed like a baby seal and dragged kicking and screaming to the Big Gay Marriage altar so we can get treated once again to some liberal helpings of 'bigotry' 'segregation', 'suffrage', plus whatever other name-calling we can come up with until everyone on either side of the bible is so angry that everything just becomes drive-by chatter.

In the end, no matter how the thread started, it ends the same. I think we've seen enough of these to know where everyone stands.

Who is angry?

Poor "Christians"

Always pretending like they're the victims...

I've said this before, and I will say it again. As long as any book is proferred up as a reason to deny people their rights, or discriminate against people, or condemn people, it is only fair that the book also be opened up to scrutiny as to its integrity. When it stops being used as a tool for hate, no one will care if the stories of Judas' death conflict, because it has no bearing on anyone other than those who believe in the Bible. Since they already believe in the Bible, they would not need explanations. They already have faith. It is those non-Christians being governed by a book in which they do not believe that really deserve credible explanations if you expect them to accept that governance without complaint.

we can get treated once again to some liberal helpings of 'bigotry' 'segregation', 'suffrage'

Poor Rick. It must really suck to always be on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Lynch wrote:

If I do not accept the sin of a homosexual, athiest, devil worshipper, or others and make as much noise in opposition as some do about Christians then I become labeled as a biggot, racist, hater, or even worse, even though it is the sin I object to and not the person.

If it's about the sin, not the sinner, then why does it matter to you who does the sinning?

Are the "sins" of a homo, atheist, devil worshipper, etc. somehow worse than the "sins" of a "true Christian" such as yourself?

If not, how come I never hear a "true Christian" such as yourself "not accepting" the "sins" of other "true Christians?"

This thread lost me way back when it was about circumcision. No thanks, been there, done that, never again.
Then I had to see what all the fuss was about, almost a hundred comments. Wow. Congrats on keeping it so civil!

Rick I am not so sure it ever went off topic. James asked "Do you agree with the scriptures?"

It can't based on the criteria you present. At least not as far as the Bible is concerned. Death was brought into the world by sin. And sin was brought into the world by man. Which points to a young earth either way. Either way meaning an "evolutionary method of growth of the earth" or a literal 6 day creation happening millions of years ago.

In the first example it clearly puts death before man. In evolution, something has to evolve through the generations to get to where we are today. Very obviously all generations aren't still alive so something had to die prior to "man's arrival".

And in short that is the trap of the young-earth creation way of thinking. The underlying assumption is that human sin must precede all evil in the world. Otherwise humans can not be responsible for it. You are trapped attempting to shoehorn thousands or millions of years of "natural" earth processes into a 6000 year time-line. In the process, you have to toss aside proper Biblical hermeneutical practice to get it all to fit.

Who gave man the wisdom to devise technology such as the dating techniques? As a Christian, such wisdom is necessarily attributed to God. Those dating techniques clearly show that death was occurring prior to the existence of man.

Why, in the economy of a world whose creator is omnipotent, omniscient, and transtemporal, should cause always precede effects? Clearly, such a Creator could act to anticipate events that have yet to happen. Moreover, those events could be the occasion or "cause" of God's prior anticipatory action.

There is absolutely no reason that the corrupting effects of the fall could not be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the Fall could take place AFTER the natural events for which it is responsible.

Such "retroactivity" has theological precedent in Christianity. Take the saving effects of the Cross, which are held to act not only forward, but also backward. Christians have always attributed the salvation of the Old Testament saints to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross at the hands of the Romans, even though OT times predate Roman times by hundreds of years.

Another example would be answered prayer. Many an answered prayer requires that God have prepared the answer before the prayer was actually prayed.

God designed natural laws to accommodate divine action. Such a way of thinking provides room for what the Bible tells us about God's creative work and what science tells us to be compatible with one another.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (10/12/2010)]

I had someone tell me once that it hadn't rained on earth prior to the flood - and that all animals prior to the fall were vegetarian.

I don't know, Jeff. I try to get circumcised at least biannually.

Theodicy. It all comes down to theodicy.

And here I always thought that theodicy was the worship of the savior of the Boston Red Sox. Thank Theo....err, God....that this thread came around, to fix that misunderstanding.

Does "theodicy" have a similar meaning to "idiocy"


*Going to the Google*


Oh, I guess not.

Oh, I guess not

FYI, Theodicy is not the god of the craps table either...

Well, that's too bad! I need some help from time to time.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (10/12/2010)]