|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,412 Year: 3,669/9,624 Month: 540/974 Week: 153/276 Day: 27/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh..." Outside words reveal inside hearts. You are morally accountable for them. Except on the internet...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Logically, eternal life and procreation don't mix. Logically, there's no point to male and female without procreation.
Agreed. Wait, so if eternal life and procreation are mutually exclusive then; because God made Adam and Eve as male and female then He didn't intend for them to live forever. Which makes sense that there was a Tree of Life that would make them live forever if they ate from it. That would be pointless if they already would live forever. So do you agree that Adam and Eve were not created to live forever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Re the apparent contradiction between Calvinism and Arminianism:
jar writes:
Maybe not. If my physics book says that photons are both particles and waves, is it contradicting itself? Or is this really true, and our limited perspective is misleading us? If both positions are in the Bible then that is a contradiction. It really is that simple Faith. Yes, the wave-particle duality is a contradiction and is referred to as a paradox. The Calvinism-Arminianism paradox is also a contraction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Atoms make the most sense to me. They are what makes up things that are seen and yet they themselves are unseen. I don't think it's talking about physical things. If you read the whole chapter, as well as the end of Chapter 10 and the beginning of Chapter 12, it reads as if it is talking about the unseen future.
quote: quote: quote: The lesson is to keep your faith and press on even when you're not sure what the outcome is going to be. God is in charge of what is going to happen an He'll make it right if you stand by your faith and do the right thing. That's my take on it. It doesn't have anything to do with atoms, or in Faith's case granting believers special Bible-reading powers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In order to understand the OT it has to be done through the lens of what Jesus taught. That sucks for the pre-Jesus Jews who thought they were God's chosen people but couldn't even get the whole story so were doomed to misunderstand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What you do matters 1000% more than what you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For starters, however, the very idea of a Pope or human head of the entire Church, is contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity. The very idea of a "vicar of Christ" is synonymous with Antichrist. Vicar is short for "vicarious" which means substitute, or occupying the place of Christ. That idea is Antichrist. Not according to Jesus, Himself:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The foundation of the Church Christ built is not the man Peter but his testimony given by God the Father and not "by flesh and blood." That's you assuming the conclusion, but whatever, Jesus gave the keys to Peter the man, not to his testimony. And then He said whatever you bind - not whatever your testimony binds.
The idea that Peter was ever a Pope is so ridiculous I don't know how you all keep on with it. Apostolic succession - the Papacy can be traced all the way back to Peter, the first Pope. Here's a list: List of popes - Wikipedia
It is utterly absurd that one Bishop just up and made himself head of the entire Church over all the other bishops of his day, and then made up a supposed lineage back to Peter. The whole thing is a monumental lie. Nuh-uh, you're the one who's lying!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
GDR, the first rule of Bible understanding is to assume if it seems to be contradictory the fault is your own. I'm serious. Wow. That pretty much let's the cat out of the bag. Your first rule for understanding the Bible is that you cannot be honest with yourself. That's gotta be the root of the tension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
GDR, the first rule of Bible understanding is to assume if it seems to be contradictory the fault is your own. I'm serious. Wow. That pretty much let's the cat out of the bag. Your first rule for understanding the Bible is that you cannot be honest with yourself. That's gotta be the root of the tension. Not at all, it means the contradiction is a glitch of your fallen mind so that you falsely assess God's word. You said that if it seems contradictory to you then the fault is your own. That's you not being honest with yourself. If you were being honest with yourself, then you would admit that it seems contradictory and investigate it. You denying your own thinking, and instead just assuming that the Bible is right and you are wrong, is you being dishonest with yourself. That's gotta be a source of tension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Faith writes: Blithering nonsense. I understand that you don't like the information, but either ignore it or provide a rational response. I read that as a description of their own post and not yours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And anything that exists in our physical universe can be detected... How do you know there aren't undetectable things in our physical universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards. Definitely not the person declaring the statement. Wait, wuuuuuut? Hate is an emotion held by a person. Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling. Nobody but you can know if you really have hate or not.
Therefore, it's impossible for you to declare that you're not hating. Oh, are you talking about, like, being a "hater"? Like, the colloquial term? Ya know, haters be hatin'. Is that what you're talking about?
You may not be aware of any hatred that might be occurring... but you don't get to say there's no hatred in your own statement. Hatred doesn't reside in statements, it resides in the heart. It's an emotion and it comes from your ego.
Then this statement becomes a selfish profession that only serves to hurt this stranger. Then this statement begins to contain "hate." Hmm, why the scare-quotes? What are you talking about, really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
NCE writes: Nobody but you can know if you really have hate or not. Just as a point of information, English law can decide whether you hate or not You sound like a good little subject But that decision doesn't determine if you really have hate or not. As you go on to say:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If people only thought the words, the law not only doesn't care but can't care. The saying and doing is the outward evidence of the hate. Still though: only you, yourself, know if you have hate or not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024