Even the church of Christ believes in this too!!!!
Posted by James Lynch (+196) 12 years ago
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
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+476) 12 years ago
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."
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
Total rot.
Top
Posted by CS Hunt (+330) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by CS Hunt (+330) 12 years ago
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...
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.)
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
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?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+598) 12 years ago
You guys keep asking these rilly rilly hard questions we are going to lose this thread.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 12 years ago
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?
Top
Posted by blixey (+47) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+476) 12 years ago
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 )
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
See you there, blixey!
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10021) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by Sherri VanCampen (+63) 12 years ago
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!
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9469) 12 years ago
I'm still pissed that no one takes Amos 5:21's clear description of phlogiston seriously anymore.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
As long as you believe, with faith anything is possible.


That's a crock and it ain't full o' butter.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9469) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+598) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by James Lynch (+196) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Only Mr. Lynch knows who a "real Christian" is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
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.
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1420) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
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.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
Who is angry?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Poor "Christians"

Always pretending like they're the victims...
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9469) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
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?"
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+753) 12 years ago
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!
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+598) 12 years ago
Rick I am not so sure it ever went off topic. James asked "Do you agree with the scriptures?"
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 12 years ago
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)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9469) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
I don't know, Jeff. I try to get circumcised at least biannually.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18248) 12 years ago
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.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Does "theodicy" have a similar meaning to "idiocy"


*Going to the Google*


Oh, I guess not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 12 years ago
Oh, I guess not


FYI, Theodicy is not the god of the craps table either...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Well, that's too bad! I need some help from time to time.

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