|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 72 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are some day going to have to account for your accusation of God as anything but righteous ... I think his point is that since he believes that God is righteous, he has no alternative but to believe that the horrifying accusations made against God in the OT are a filthy blasphemous slander. If I believed in the afterlife, I might speculate that some day you will have to account for going around telling everyone that God really is the evil stupid pig he's portrayed as in the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You aren't normally given to making obvious statements, but this one is just that. If you agree with me, you have a funny way of showing it.
You share his vile blasphemous slander of God as genocidal, which IS his, and yours, and not the Bible's. I've never accused God of genocide, 'cos of not believing in his existence. The Bible does, however, as do you. The fact that you avoid using the word "genocide" while doing so is neither here nor there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Genocide is murder, God's acts on the other hand are righteous and just judgments. He does not violate His own commandment against murder. As I said, you avoid the word. Fine, let's use another word for it when God does it. Let's call it jenocide. I say that God didn't commit jenocide, 'cos of not existing. GDR says that God didn't commit jenocide, 'cos of him being good. You say that he did commit jenocide, 'cos someone wrote that he did, and your opinion of God's character is such that you find the accusation, unsupported though it is by a shred of evidence, perfectly plausible. I don't think he did it, GDR doesn't think he did it, you do think that he did it --- but then find him Not Guilty By Reason Of Divinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I SAY THAT GOD RIGHTEOUSLY JUDGED SOME NATIONS FOR THEIR HEINOUS SINS. GENOCIDE OR JENOCIDE IS MURDER, AND GOD CANNOT COMMIT MURDER. But jenocide isn't murder. I made up a completely new word just for you --- jenocide is an act which involves doing exactly the same things as one would if one was committing genocide, except that jenocide is morally OK, unlike genocide. Your God committed jenocide. Heaven forbid that I should say he committed genocide. He's jenocidal, not genocidal. It is your position that he committed jenocide, as defined. GDR and I think that he didn't.
Of course you and GDR are eminently qualified to be God's judges ... And both of us think he did nothing wrong. He, I and you all agree in exculpating him of any sin --- me because I don't think God exists, GDR because he thinks God is good and didn't commit the acts attributed to him by his anonymous accuser, and you because while agreeing that God did do what he's accused of, he was thereby committing jenocide rather than genocide. It's nice to see such unanimity of opinion, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And keep in mind that ALL the Protestant Reformers, ALL OF THEM, started out Catholics, and all but Calvin had been priests as well. They ought to know what Catholicism teaches and they dedicated their lives, and in fact many of them lost their lives under Catholic monarchs, to exposing the false doctrines of Rome. And bear in mind that people have gone the other way. What does that prove? I'd rather have dinner with Cardinal Newman than with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What you call my "special" position, and my "sect" actually represents the MAJORITY of Christian churches. Just a few off the top of my head: Lutheran Missouri Synod,Presbyterian Church in America (NOT PC USA), Covenant Presbyterian, some Anglican (admittedly not many these days), some Methodists (same as Anglican), Wesleyan, Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, Fundamental Baptist, Church of the Nazarene, Calvary Chapel, Assembly of God, many, perhaps most, independent Bible churches and Community churches, Christian and Missionary Alliance churches, Congregationalist, and let's also include the Amish and the Hutterites because their basic beliefs are in line with the others, and the European groups the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Huguenots. As far as I can find out, the Catholics outnumber all the disparate Protestant sects put together by at least 300,000,000 members. And that's including people like the Mormons. If we could put you all together and convince you to stop calling one another blasphemous heretics who will burn in Hell, you're still outnumbered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I dunno, seems to me that the defection of quite a few Catholic priests who discovered how the Roman Church does not preach or live by the Bible and dedi9cated themselves to exposing it, and their work led to a massive revolution in thought and culture, is a little more than the usual conversion one way or the other. But naturally this is the case. Since the West started off Catholic, naturally the emergence of Protestantism "led to a massive revolution in thought and culture". Similarly, since biologists started off creationist, the emergence of Darwinism "led to a massive revolution in thought and culture". You can hardly think that conclusive in its favor.
Unfortunately Cardinal Newman is dead, but I'm sure you could find some interesting Catholic to dine with. Have a nice time. Yeah, well, I'm not going to have dinner with you either. It's hypothetical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The point of the list was to demonstrate that I'm not representing merely one isolated "sect," but the whole body of Protestant believers. But what you actually wrote was, and I quote:
What you call my "special" position, and my "sect" actually represents the MAJORITY of Christian churches. If this is not true, and it isn't, then you shouldn't have said it. But when you thought it was true, you wanted to shout from the rooftops how Protestants outnumbered Catholics. But now you know it isn't true, you say:
Otherwise numbers are irrelevant. Yes, apostasy is much more popular than the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I NEVER said anything about how Protestants outnumber Catholics! I said my beliefs represent the majority of CHRISTIANchurches and that was true then and it's true now. CATHOLICISM IS NOT CHRISTIAN. So having first decreed that only the people who agree with you are Christian, you can then proudly proclaim that the majority of Christians agree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes I can, about the essentials of Christian belief, which all of them share. So, what are the essentials of Christian belief? Do they look anything like the Apostle's Creed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I believe I already said: Sola Scriptura, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Plus the Deity of Christ/Trinity and various other elements of various of the Creeds. I believe these things are shared by the churches I listed. Right. So first you decide what the essentials of Christianity are, then you decide that people who don't agree with that aren't really Christians, and then you proudly announce that a majority of Christians agree with you about essential things. To you, maybe "sola scriptura" is an essential of Christianity. But to many people, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, the essentials of Christianity would look like this:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The bloodshed becomes a sin when it is done with bad motives ... But if it was sinful, why did God tell Jehu that he'd "done well"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, Faith et al. are correct.
The Bible makes it quite clear that Jesus existed from at least the beginning of time (see John 1), but not in the flesh. Then the "Word was made flesh". So his existence is not coincident with his existence in the flesh. Between the crucifixion and the resurrection, he went on existing, as the Bible makes clear in 1 Peter 3:18: "being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit". He still existed for that period, but was not incarnate. There can be no doubt about that from the scriptures, and you are just messing around with words to obscure what is quite clear to anyone who can be bothered to read the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good points. Only John 1:1 doesn't say Jesus existed "from the beginning of time" -- although I know you said "at least" -- but "And the Word was God" makes Him God Himself, therefore uncreated, without beginning or end. Well, I did say "at least". John says: "In the beginning was the Word". It's not clear that the Bible authors had the same rather subtle concept of eternity that was developed by later theologians. I don't say they didn't, but I would be hard put to it to prove it from texts that I can recall right now. However, what we can take away from John 1 is that it definitely has Jesus existing though not being in the flesh. If he was alive before he was born in the flesh, there's no problem with him being dead in the flesh but alive in spirit, as 1 Peter says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Quite so. However, later theologians (Augustine, etc) would think of God's eternity as consisting in him existing without time, which they considered one of his creations, rather than merely existing in time and at all times. Now, this might be the best way to make sense of the concept of an eternal God who created the universe at a particular time (time zero) but I don't think one would know it from the texts directly. This is the subtlety I was referring to. What we can get out of the texts is that at the very least Jesus existed (and will exist) for all time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024