1 Chronicles 10:
1Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was wounded by the archers. 4Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and mistreat me.” But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died. 6Thus Saul died; he and his three sons and all his house died together. 7And when all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that the army had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their cities and fled, and the Philistines came and lived in them.
13So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. 14He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Announcement: Upcoming formal debate with Muslim Saaib Ahmed
It is my pleasure to introduce my second formal debate, in which I will affirm, defend, and conclusively demonstrate the resolution, namely:
Resolved: The Bible is the Word of God.
Denying the resolution is Saaib Ahmed, a Kashmiri Muslim, ofapyem.blogspot.com (edit: That blog is defunct as of 01Jan2012, and his blog can be found at http://ssaaib.blogspot.com/ as of 03Jan2012) (2nd edit: Saaib apparently is having trouble deciding which blog he wants to use. apyem.blogspot.com is now valid again, and the other one is defunct). I would like to thank Saaib for challenging me to a debate and appreciate his willingness and courage to engage. Debating in other than one’s native tongue is a challenge in and of itself, so I invite our readers to take that into account and to extend him grace if his English expression should lack clarity or precision. Hopefully, such instances will be few.
The structure is a little unusual in my experience, but it is a result of extensive negotiation.
My opening: 2000 words maximum, due 03 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal/opening: 3500 max, due 08 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 2000 max, due 13 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal: 1500 max, due 17 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 1000 max, due 22 Jan 2012.
I will ask Saaib the first cross-examination question 23 Jan, and he answers 24 Jan.
Saaib asks me his first cross-examination question 24 Jan, and I answer 25 Jan.
Then I ask 25 Jan and he answers 26 Jan.
Then he asks 26 Jan and I answer 27 Jan.
Each question must be framed in 300 words max and each answer in 1000 maximum.
Final statements: 3000 words max. Posted simultaneously 31 Jan.
I plan to post all the content here, and I believe he will be posting his on his Facebook page, though I am unsure which. Given that Facebook sometimes suffers from limited profile visibility, I will post all the content here.
Comments will be disabled for all the debate posts, but each will contain a link to one single comment thread where anyone may comment on the thread. Do not expect me to re-debate the topics of the debate in that thread, however.
Thank you, and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless this debate and use it for His glory in every way.
Resolved: The Bible is the Word of God.
Denying the resolution is Saaib Ahmed, a Kashmiri Muslim, of
The structure is a little unusual in my experience, but it is a result of extensive negotiation.
My opening: 2000 words maximum, due 03 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal/opening: 3500 max, due 08 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 2000 max, due 13 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal: 1500 max, due 17 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 1000 max, due 22 Jan 2012.
I will ask Saaib the first cross-examination question 23 Jan, and he answers 24 Jan.
Saaib asks me his first cross-examination question 24 Jan, and I answer 25 Jan.
Then I ask 25 Jan and he answers 26 Jan.
Then he asks 26 Jan and I answer 27 Jan.
Each question must be framed in 300 words max and each answer in 1000 maximum.
Final statements: 3000 words max. Posted simultaneously 31 Jan.
I plan to post all the content here, and I believe he will be posting his on his Facebook page, though I am unsure which. Given that Facebook sometimes suffers from limited profile visibility, I will post all the content here.
Comments will be disabled for all the debate posts, but each will contain a link to one single comment thread where anyone may comment on the thread. Do not expect me to re-debate the topics of the debate in that thread, however.
Thank you, and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless this debate and use it for His glory in every way.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
And the Word became flesh...
Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Thursday, December 22, 2011
So, I'm a huge fan of Joel Osteen
A FB friend and acquaintance tweeted this status:
“@JoelOsteen: You are God’s most prized possession. When He made you He stepped back and said, “That was good.” He made you the way you are on purpose.”
Our conversation follows:
Me: He made us good, yes, but we're not any good now b/c of the Fall and our massive sin. Let's not forget that.
Chad: So the ultimate price paid by Jesus Christ has no value in the equation?
Me: Of course! Didn't He die BECAUSE of our sin? BECAUSE we are no good?
Me: Rom 4:25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Chad: Rhology doesn't that sacrifice make us good in Gods eyes?
Chad: Your views come across very negative and pessimistic and legalistic. More in similarity to those of the pharisees of Jesus' day and not of Jesus himself.
Me: No, His sacrifice JUSTIFIES us. We remain evil on the inside though our hearts are new creations. Our sin natures remain.
So, when God made *Adam*, yes, He stepped back and said "Very good." None of us are Adam, however. Our hearts are, as Jeremiah said:
Jer 17:9“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
Is it *I* who am being negative and pessimistic? Or is it God Himself? This is something you have to ask yourself, and I pray you will do so with consideration and prayer.
There is a reason why God revealed the Law, isn't there?
Didn't He do it to reveal sin?
Romans 3:10as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
18“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Look especially at v20!
Romans 5:18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Gospel is great because our sin is great.
If our sin is negligible, why did Jesus die on the Cross? Joel Osteen eviscerates the Gospel. He makes it into a small life upgrade. He deceives those who need to know the Gospel!
And as for legalistic, the Pharisees added humans tradition (Mark 7) to the Word of God, in order to lay heavy burdens on men (Matthew 23) and appear more righteous than they really were. It doesn't mean "negative" or "remembering the right place of the Law".
Rather, it would seem that maybe you need to be reminded of the Law's proper place?
I pray you will accept this as not the word of Rhology, but as the Word of God, which I've merely quoted here.
Me: Why did Jesus, then, say in Luke 13:
1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4“Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
6And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7“And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8“And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”
Or, again, in Luke 18:19:
Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
Jesus knew well the heart of men - it is evil. He came to seek and save that which is lost, and that's us. It's barely half the truth to say that "God made you good!" That's far from the most important part of what we need to tell people.
Chad: Wow. You are really well versed on the condemning scriptures. That's where I am going to leave this conversation. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. And he fulfilled the law in the way that it was truly designed to be.
Chad: Sure we all still have to decide daily to die to ourselves and pick up our cross daily.
Me: Those "condemning Scriptures" exist for a reason. Do you deal with them? I don't know, so I'm asking. What role do they play in your theology, and in your evangelism?
The same Jesus Who said John 3:16 also said John 3:17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
The same Jesus Who came to save also warns: John 3:36“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Wrath. For what? For sin. Joel Osteen has forgotten the main part of the Gospel - why Jesus had to die and what our problem is. Without that, the Gospel is meaningless. Which means Osteen's Gospel is meaningless and we must reject him for what he is - a non-pastor teaching meaningless fluff.
If you disagree, please tell me why. I have no desire to win a debate. I want you to come into the fullness of what it means to be a servant of Jesus.
“@JoelOsteen: You are God’s most prized possession. When He made you He stepped back and said, “That was good.” He made you the way you are on purpose.”
Our conversation follows:
Me: He made us good, yes, but we're not any good now b/c of the Fall and our massive sin. Let's not forget that.
Chad: So the ultimate price paid by Jesus Christ has no value in the equation?
Me: Of course! Didn't He die BECAUSE of our sin? BECAUSE we are no good?
Me: Rom 4:25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Chad: Rhology doesn't that sacrifice make us good in Gods eyes?
Chad: Your views come across very negative and pessimistic and legalistic. More in similarity to those of the pharisees of Jesus' day and not of Jesus himself.
Me: No, His sacrifice JUSTIFIES us. We remain evil on the inside though our hearts are new creations. Our sin natures remain.
So, when God made *Adam*, yes, He stepped back and said "Very good." None of us are Adam, however. Our hearts are, as Jeremiah said:
Jer 17:9“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
Is it *I* who am being negative and pessimistic? Or is it God Himself? This is something you have to ask yourself, and I pray you will do so with consideration and prayer.
There is a reason why God revealed the Law, isn't there?
Didn't He do it to reveal sin?
Romans 3:10as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
18“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Look especially at v20!
Romans 5:18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Gospel is great because our sin is great.
If our sin is negligible, why did Jesus die on the Cross? Joel Osteen eviscerates the Gospel. He makes it into a small life upgrade. He deceives those who need to know the Gospel!
And as for legalistic, the Pharisees added humans tradition (Mark 7) to the Word of God, in order to lay heavy burdens on men (Matthew 23) and appear more righteous than they really were. It doesn't mean "negative" or "remembering the right place of the Law".
Rather, it would seem that maybe you need to be reminded of the Law's proper place?
I pray you will accept this as not the word of Rhology, but as the Word of God, which I've merely quoted here.
Me: Why did Jesus, then, say in Luke 13:
1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4“Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
6And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7“And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8“And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”
Or, again, in Luke 18:19:
Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
Jesus knew well the heart of men - it is evil. He came to seek and save that which is lost, and that's us. It's barely half the truth to say that "God made you good!" That's far from the most important part of what we need to tell people.
Chad: Wow. You are really well versed on the condemning scriptures. That's where I am going to leave this conversation. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. And he fulfilled the law in the way that it was truly designed to be.
Chad: Sure we all still have to decide daily to die to ourselves and pick up our cross daily.
Me: Those "condemning Scriptures" exist for a reason. Do you deal with them? I don't know, so I'm asking. What role do they play in your theology, and in your evangelism?
The same Jesus Who said John 3:16 also said John 3:17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
The same Jesus Who came to save also warns: John 3:36“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Wrath. For what? For sin. Joel Osteen has forgotten the main part of the Gospel - why Jesus had to die and what our problem is. Without that, the Gospel is meaningless. Which means Osteen's Gospel is meaningless and we must reject him for what he is - a non-pastor teaching meaningless fluff.
If you disagree, please tell me why. I have no desire to win a debate. I want you to come into the fullness of what it means to be a servant of Jesus.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
David learns about Jesus
No. At this time there is A material body, singular, in heaven.
So there’s an actual, human-shaped body named “Jesus” somewhere in heaven?
No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven.
It has flesh and blood and a penis?
He has flesh and bones and a penis, yes. Don't know about the blood part.
How does this work?
It is supernatural. I don't know how it works, but God is all-powerful.
Where is this physical body hanging out?
Heaven. Didn't you just ask that?
How is this body kept alive?
Jesus' body is immortal.
What does it eat?
Nothing.
Men die. Human bodies die
What experience do you have with immortal resurrected bodies, such that you can make such confident assertions on the topic?
If the physical body known as Jesus is still alive after 2000 years, then this ain’t a man.
Please let me know how you know this, and why anyone should believe you and not Jesus.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Ludicrous Islamic objections, part 2
Shantal:
Loool! Is jesus is the beginning and is the end? I dnt think so!
bcoz if jesus propesied to die for the sin of mankind, since in the beggining, why that jesus cried and shows his little disappointment! MY GOD! MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? If a son and the father had an agreement that jesus, will come to die for the sins of mankind since the creation of the world. Why jesus didnt come b4 the prophets, noah or moses? Why it wasn't jesus who bring the law? Why moses?
Me:
All these "why" questions show that you are a man-centered idolater, Shantal. You think God has some obligation to explain Himself to you?
Shantal:
lol hahaha! God and jesus made an agreement since the beggining that jesus will come to die for the sin of mankind. when the time came, jesus cried out with aloud voices saying MY GOD, MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? He is disappointed. Hahaha Rhology he dont need to explain himself to me, i know already that jesus was'nt God. Bcoz God would never forsaked His chosen one. God would never let His chosen one to hurt or even died without glory. Remember moses? How God protect Him and people of israel from the wickedness of pharaoh. Then now u r telling me that jesus is God? Or son of God to die for the sinners, who disbelieve him, who mocked him, and killed him. Where in OT that God humble Himself? Clearly we see that God would never humble himself, to kill himself for the sinners. Read again Exodus God said, "FOR I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, AND SHOWING MERCY TO THOUSANDS OF THOSE LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. is this God and jesus r one?
Me:
Do you mean *The Father* and Jesus? If so, that's correct.
I know that you don't really care about the truth, Shantal, but for the benefit of others, when Jesus cried out on the cross, He was quoting Psalm 22. Read it, I recommend it. It's a messianic psalm. He was expressing that His mission was complete, that He had atoned for the sin of His people.
And if God doesn't forsake his holy ones in Islam, why did he let Mohammed die from poison from a Jewish woman? Your arguments are foolish. I hope you will repent someday soon.
God did not humble HImself in the OT, that's the point. He did in the NEW Testament - read Philippians 2.
And yes, Jesus is God. He punishes ALL sin. The question is simple: Will Jesus bear your punishment and atone for your sin, or will YOU bear your punishment?
We've alraedy talked about that. You think Allah ignores sin. I'm telling you God does not ignore even one sin, not even the smallest. It will ALL be punished.
Shantal:
so why then he dies for forgiveness of sin? Lol! U all confusing ur ownself, and just pretending, and accept to be hypocrite!!! Lol and for ur info, he didn't die same time the woman give him poison unless the revelation finished and then he died natural death. Moses died natural death. And only jesus not! And dnt u not understand the verse? I will repeat it for you, "For I, the Lord your God, am a JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, and showing MERCY to thousands of those that love me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. Meaning GOD SHOWS HIS MERCY ONLY TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD AND FOR THOSE WHO OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS in other words the believers, the obedient. He will punish the nonbelievers, and the disobedient..
but NT God is not like that! NT GOD forgive people sin, He ignore the sinners, those who disbelieve, and those who disobeyed... in other words christianity is giving the sinners the chance to commit more sin as long as people believe that jesus died for them.
Me:
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of other verses in the Bible, Shantal. As it is, you pose a very shallow objection. Would it be so hard to think a little?
The OT God forgave ppl too. Because of the atonement. You are quite ignorant of the Bible. I recommend you read it
Shantal:
Thats it! Rhology, u get the point. OT God forgive individual people, he forgive those who r sincirely repented, those who ask for forgiveness. Not to those who disbelieve or who disobeyed... but NT God forgive all the world sin. Means whether obeyers and disobeyers, believers and disbelievers(idolaters) r forgiven. Is'nt it unfair for those who Godfearing people those who obey God to forgive those who intentionally did sin?
Me:
God in the OT forgave ppl BECAUSE OF FUTURE ATONEMENT. Read Hebrews.
And in the NT God specifies that He will forgive THE REPENTANT. Those who do not repent will have zero forgiveness. They will have wrath and anger.
Loool! Is jesus is the beginning and is the end? I dnt think so!
bcoz if jesus propesied to die for the sin of mankind, since in the beggining, why that jesus cried and shows his little disappointment! MY GOD! MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? If a son and the father had an agreement that jesus, will come to die for the sins of mankind since the creation of the world. Why jesus didnt come b4 the prophets, noah or moses? Why it wasn't jesus who bring the law? Why moses?
Me:
All these "why" questions show that you are a man-centered idolater, Shantal. You think God has some obligation to explain Himself to you?
Shantal:
lol hahaha! God and jesus made an agreement since the beggining that jesus will come to die for the sin of mankind. when the time came, jesus cried out with aloud voices saying MY GOD, MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? He is disappointed. Hahaha Rhology he dont need to explain himself to me, i know already that jesus was'nt God. Bcoz God would never forsaked His chosen one. God would never let His chosen one to hurt or even died without glory. Remember moses? How God protect Him and people of israel from the wickedness of pharaoh. Then now u r telling me that jesus is God? Or son of God to die for the sinners, who disbelieve him, who mocked him, and killed him. Where in OT that God humble Himself? Clearly we see that God would never humble himself, to kill himself for the sinners. Read again Exodus God said, "FOR I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, AND SHOWING MERCY TO THOUSANDS OF THOSE LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. is this God and jesus r one?
Me:
Do you mean *The Father* and Jesus? If so, that's correct.
I know that you don't really care about the truth, Shantal, but for the benefit of others, when Jesus cried out on the cross, He was quoting Psalm 22. Read it, I recommend it. It's a messianic psalm. He was expressing that His mission was complete, that He had atoned for the sin of His people.
And if God doesn't forsake his holy ones in Islam, why did he let Mohammed die from poison from a Jewish woman? Your arguments are foolish. I hope you will repent someday soon.
God did not humble HImself in the OT, that's the point. He did in the NEW Testament - read Philippians 2.
And yes, Jesus is God. He punishes ALL sin. The question is simple: Will Jesus bear your punishment and atone for your sin, or will YOU bear your punishment?
We've alraedy talked about that. You think Allah ignores sin. I'm telling you God does not ignore even one sin, not even the smallest. It will ALL be punished.
Shantal:
so why then he dies for forgiveness of sin? Lol! U all confusing ur ownself, and just pretending, and accept to be hypocrite!!! Lol and for ur info, he didn't die same time the woman give him poison unless the revelation finished and then he died natural death. Moses died natural death. And only jesus not! And dnt u not understand the verse? I will repeat it for you, "For I, the Lord your God, am a JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, and showing MERCY to thousands of those that love me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. Meaning GOD SHOWS HIS MERCY ONLY TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD AND FOR THOSE WHO OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS in other words the believers, the obedient. He will punish the nonbelievers, and the disobedient..
but NT God is not like that! NT GOD forgive people sin, He ignore the sinners, those who disbelieve, and those who disobeyed... in other words christianity is giving the sinners the chance to commit more sin as long as people believe that jesus died for them.
Me:
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of other verses in the Bible, Shantal. As it is, you pose a very shallow objection. Would it be so hard to think a little?
The OT God forgave ppl too. Because of the atonement. You are quite ignorant of the Bible. I recommend you read it
Shantal:
Thats it! Rhology, u get the point. OT God forgive individual people, he forgive those who r sincirely repented, those who ask for forgiveness. Not to those who disbelieve or who disobeyed... but NT God forgive all the world sin. Means whether obeyers and disobeyers, believers and disbelievers(idolaters) r forgiven. Is'nt it unfair for those who Godfearing people those who obey God to forgive those who intentionally did sin?
Me:
God in the OT forgave ppl BECAUSE OF FUTURE ATONEMENT. Read Hebrews.
And in the NT God specifies that He will forgive THE REPENTANT. Those who do not repent will have zero forgiveness. They will have wrath and anger.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ludicrous Islamic objections, probably part 1
I am part of a Facebook group involving numerous Muslims, and sometimes their objections are just so amazing that I have to tell someone about them.
Khan:
LETS ASSUME THAT JESUS IS GOD.
Luke3:23. And Jesus (God) happened to be about 30 years when he began his ministry to preach. Who being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.
1. So does it mean that some men knew when God clocked 30?
2. If the holy ghost inspired luke (the writer), he didn't know the exact age of God. Yet the holy ghost is God, jesus is God, the father is God.
3. God (jesus) waited for billions of years before coming to earth, and he waited for 30 years after getting to earth before he preached a single word. For the first 30 years of God's life, what was he doing? Nothing.
Me:
1. Some men knew when JESUS turned 30 years of age.
2. Or His exact age is irrelevant. If He'd provided the age in microseconds, you'd complain that He was too specific and it's suspicious. Your problem is that your heart is corrupt.
3. Prove Jesus was doing nothing those 1st 30 years. Good luck!
Khan:
LETS ASSUME THAT JESUS IS GOD.
Luke3:23. And Jesus (God) happened to be about 30 years when he began his ministry to preach. Who being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.
1. So does it mean that some men knew when God clocked 30?
2. If the holy ghost inspired luke (the writer), he didn't know the exact age of God. Yet the holy ghost is God, jesus is God, the father is God.
3. God (jesus) waited for billions of years before coming to earth, and he waited for 30 years after getting to earth before he preached a single word. For the first 30 years of God's life, what was he doing? Nothing.
Me:
1. Some men knew when JESUS turned 30 years of age.
2. Or His exact age is irrelevant. If He'd provided the age in microseconds, you'd complain that He was too specific and it's suspicious. Your problem is that your heart is corrupt.
3. Prove Jesus was doing nothing those 1st 30 years. Good luck!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Utilitarian ethics, abortion, and abolitionism
Frequent commenter AD Graham on the Abolitionist Society blog left some interesting comments on a post that deals with the question of the justifiability of aborting babies that have Downs Syndrome.
They begin here.
I respond:
With respect to AD Graham's system here:
Section 1:
my system takes into account is whether a decision a) is done with consideration of utilitarian consequences and b) is done with reasonable consideration of the relevant information.
I have a few objections. How much is reasonable? Does his system define it? If so, is that not circular? If not, how is his system helpful?
How is it possible to define the good/bad value of the consequences without a circular appeal to his ethical system?
the goal of utilitarian ethics is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in order to obtain lives with more pleasure than pain.
How does he know that maximising pleasure and minimising pain are good things?
if a disease is awful enough to preclude any possibility of a pleasurable life
How does anyone have any "relevant information", as he put it, about the future of a given human being? Citing averages and previous occurrences does nothing to inform us about the future.
While Down syndrome children do not live a life of anguish, they may still be candidates for abortion in a utilitarian system
Candidates for abortion. He makes it sound like they're lining up to sign up to be forcibly dismembered.
Speaking for myself, I don't appreciate his treating me like I'm a child. I recommend he tell it like it is so we can all be assured he is actually giving this issue the consideration it merits.
Utilitarian ethics require the practitioner
I pause here to note that "utilitarian ethics" don't 'require' anything. They have no authority; one can choose to accept them as DESCRIPTIVE...or not. Without any consequence.
Contrast that with the God of the universe creating all that exists, with moral laws and their due punishments in place and clearly communicated to mankind. All that, versus AD Graham and his sort of obscure ethical hypothesising, talking about 'requirements' without authority.
While giving birth to a baby with Down does not harm anyone, it does curb the parents ability to care for others.
A naked assertion, bereft of argument.
And even with an argument, AD Graham would still need to let us know how he knows that's a bad thing. How he measures pain and pleasure such that we can know they're being maximised and minimised. What instrumentation he uses to perform the analysis. How he makes sure his analyses have statistical significance.
Yes, that would require omniscience, so that puts him in a difficult spot. How can he know that he has sufficient relevant information so as to enable him to perform the "reasonable consideration" he recommends?
People with Down’s are not able to reciprocate this level of care.
A cold, heartless statement if ever there were one. AD Graham has committed a Freudian slip. It's doubtful whether he really cares about maximising pleasure/minimising pain. He really just wants it to be OK to put people to death that he thinks it's OK to put to death. Where is his detailed analysis of the question to demonstrate that he's got this nailed down?
I am saying that they are not able to provide support to the lives of others in the same way.
AD Graham needs to clarify here. How does he know that reciprocation of love and help must be of exactly the same kind? What is his argument to that effect? Does he consistently apply this argumentation to all other arenas, not just Downs syndrome people?
people with Down syndrome often provide an inefficient benefit to society
It should be coming clear to anyone that AD Graham has a very physicalistic view of the value of people. People have value insofar as they can do tasks that AD Graham finds valuable.
What's to stop AD Graham from taking that even further and attempting to create the ubermensch, the perfect superman? I mean, if it's ethically justified, we shouldn't even ask "why not?"; we should do it. By his ethic, why would we not be led to precisely that conclusion? Is not efficient benefit to society a virtue? If one is not efficient, AD Graham says other more efficient benefiters are justified in killing them.
(i)f the opportunity arose in which one could painlessly terminate this life in favor of a more efficient life
Another example demonstrating that AD Graham is so far not engaging the topic seriously enough.
1) A huge number, if not the majority, if not the vast majority, of abortions are performed without anesthesia.
2) And they're carried out in violent ways. We put dogs down with sedative injections. Human babies get their heads ripped off by scissors, or their skin scalded by chemical weapons.
3) Even if anesthesia were applied, how could we know that it worked on the babies? We can't ask them. Probably better off not killing them, no?
4) Since abortions are very, very rarely painless, wouldn't that mean that killing 53 million babies would be MAXIMISING PAIN? And that AD Graham should thus be an abolitionist?
How does AD Graham know that the pain of the death of the child does not outweigh the avoidance of pain from his life lived with Downs?
Does AD Graham take into account the large number of women who experience difficult psychological and emotional problems post-abortion b/c of their abortions in judging his maximise pleasure/minimise pain matrix? How, where, and when?
They begin here.
I respond:
With respect to AD Graham's system here:
Section 1:
my system takes into account is whether a decision a) is done with consideration of utilitarian consequences and b) is done with reasonable consideration of the relevant information.
I have a few objections. How much is reasonable? Does his system define it? If so, is that not circular? If not, how is his system helpful?
How is it possible to define the good/bad value of the consequences without a circular appeal to his ethical system?
the goal of utilitarian ethics is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in order to obtain lives with more pleasure than pain.
How does he know that maximising pleasure and minimising pain are good things?
if a disease is awful enough to preclude any possibility of a pleasurable life
How does anyone have any "relevant information", as he put it, about the future of a given human being? Citing averages and previous occurrences does nothing to inform us about the future.
While Down syndrome children do not live a life of anguish, they may still be candidates for abortion in a utilitarian system
Candidates for abortion. He makes it sound like they're lining up to sign up to be forcibly dismembered.
Speaking for myself, I don't appreciate his treating me like I'm a child. I recommend he tell it like it is so we can all be assured he is actually giving this issue the consideration it merits.
Utilitarian ethics require the practitioner
I pause here to note that "utilitarian ethics" don't 'require' anything. They have no authority; one can choose to accept them as DESCRIPTIVE...or not. Without any consequence.
Contrast that with the God of the universe creating all that exists, with moral laws and their due punishments in place and clearly communicated to mankind. All that, versus AD Graham and his sort of obscure ethical hypothesising, talking about 'requirements' without authority.
While giving birth to a baby with Down does not harm anyone, it does curb the parents ability to care for others.
A naked assertion, bereft of argument.
And even with an argument, AD Graham would still need to let us know how he knows that's a bad thing. How he measures pain and pleasure such that we can know they're being maximised and minimised. What instrumentation he uses to perform the analysis. How he makes sure his analyses have statistical significance.
Yes, that would require omniscience, so that puts him in a difficult spot. How can he know that he has sufficient relevant information so as to enable him to perform the "reasonable consideration" he recommends?
People with Down’s are not able to reciprocate this level of care.
A cold, heartless statement if ever there were one. AD Graham has committed a Freudian slip. It's doubtful whether he really cares about maximising pleasure/minimising pain. He really just wants it to be OK to put people to death that he thinks it's OK to put to death. Where is his detailed analysis of the question to demonstrate that he's got this nailed down?
I am saying that they are not able to provide support to the lives of others in the same way.
AD Graham needs to clarify here. How does he know that reciprocation of love and help must be of exactly the same kind? What is his argument to that effect? Does he consistently apply this argumentation to all other arenas, not just Downs syndrome people?
people with Down syndrome often provide an inefficient benefit to society
It should be coming clear to anyone that AD Graham has a very physicalistic view of the value of people. People have value insofar as they can do tasks that AD Graham finds valuable.
What's to stop AD Graham from taking that even further and attempting to create the ubermensch, the perfect superman? I mean, if it's ethically justified, we shouldn't even ask "why not?"; we should do it. By his ethic, why would we not be led to precisely that conclusion? Is not efficient benefit to society a virtue? If one is not efficient, AD Graham says other more efficient benefiters are justified in killing them.
(i)f the opportunity arose in which one could painlessly terminate this life in favor of a more efficient life
Another example demonstrating that AD Graham is so far not engaging the topic seriously enough.
1) A huge number, if not the majority, if not the vast majority, of abortions are performed without anesthesia.
2) And they're carried out in violent ways. We put dogs down with sedative injections. Human babies get their heads ripped off by scissors, or their skin scalded by chemical weapons.
3) Even if anesthesia were applied, how could we know that it worked on the babies? We can't ask them. Probably better off not killing them, no?
4) Since abortions are very, very rarely painless, wouldn't that mean that killing 53 million babies would be MAXIMISING PAIN? And that AD Graham should thus be an abolitionist?
How does AD Graham know that the pain of the death of the child does not outweigh the avoidance of pain from his life lived with Downs?
Does AD Graham take into account the large number of women who experience difficult psychological and emotional problems post-abortion b/c of their abortions in judging his maximise pleasure/minimise pain matrix? How, where, and when?
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Anti-anti-discrimination
David said:
there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination
I'm doubtful of this; that's the thing.
To be clear, if I meet a gay person dressed -ahem- flamboyantly, I have every desire to treat them with the love of Christ. Violence is not an option, and it's not attractive to me either.
That said, if a person were to come to an interview for a serious job dressed flamboyantly, I'd treat that the same way as I'd treat someone who came in with a T-shirt and sandals - this person isn't treating the interview or opportunity seriously. S/he better be WAY more qualified than any other applicant if s/he wants to be considered for the hire.
That's why I've been asking "How would the interviewer know to ask?" about the interviewEE's preferred manner of sex? Was it b/c the homosexual person dressed in such a way as to warrant the asking? I've been in many job interviews and not once has any question ever approached a question about sexual preference. Don't know if I've even been asked if I'm married.
As for the legislation you claim is necessary, it seems to me the inverse is also necessary but I don't see anyone clamoring for it. It's far more politically correct to be loud-and-proud homosexual than to be loud-and-proud hetero. When's the last Hetero Pride March you heard of? When's the last time anyone suggested proclaiming "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?
We don't need anti-discrimination legislation to protect gay people. We need regular laws to protect them from unprovoked violence just like everyone else is protected from unprovoked violence. If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.
Where is the "Missionary Position Pride Parade" where people who prefer missionary position sex march around proclaiming their preferred manner of sexual expression? It's not there. So many of the most visible homosexuals are most visible b/c they insist on flaunting their sexual preferences in public, and not everyone is OK with that. Not everyone prefers to peacefully share the Good News of Jesus with homosexuals like I do. Some prefer violence against the Other. In that case, the answer for the Other is to prioritise carefully. For what reason is s/he spending all this time and energy flaunting his/her sexual preference all over the place?
Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?
Is open discussion of whether employees prefer to watch porn during sex or prefer sex doggie-style acceptable within the workplace?
How precisely would it become known that the hypothetical homosexual person is in fact homosexual? Are you asking what if s/he flaunts it? Should we also introduce anti-discrimination legislation that guarantees that anyone can talk about anything at any time in any workplace without any adverse consequences?
If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.
Precisely my point. His preferred manner of sexual expression shouldn't enter into the question at all, and that includes both sides of the equation. Why would the prospective employer ask? Why would the prospective employee tell?
there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination
I'm doubtful of this; that's the thing.
To be clear, if I meet a gay person dressed -ahem- flamboyantly, I have every desire to treat them with the love of Christ. Violence is not an option, and it's not attractive to me either.
That said, if a person were to come to an interview for a serious job dressed flamboyantly, I'd treat that the same way as I'd treat someone who came in with a T-shirt and sandals - this person isn't treating the interview or opportunity seriously. S/he better be WAY more qualified than any other applicant if s/he wants to be considered for the hire.
That's why I've been asking "How would the interviewer know to ask?" about the interviewEE's preferred manner of sex? Was it b/c the homosexual person dressed in such a way as to warrant the asking? I've been in many job interviews and not once has any question ever approached a question about sexual preference. Don't know if I've even been asked if I'm married.
As for the legislation you claim is necessary, it seems to me the inverse is also necessary but I don't see anyone clamoring for it. It's far more politically correct to be loud-and-proud homosexual than to be loud-and-proud hetero. When's the last Hetero Pride March you heard of? When's the last time anyone suggested proclaiming "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?
We don't need anti-discrimination legislation to protect gay people. We need regular laws to protect them from unprovoked violence just like everyone else is protected from unprovoked violence. If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.
Where is the "Missionary Position Pride Parade" where people who prefer missionary position sex march around proclaiming their preferred manner of sexual expression? It's not there. So many of the most visible homosexuals are most visible b/c they insist on flaunting their sexual preferences in public, and not everyone is OK with that. Not everyone prefers to peacefully share the Good News of Jesus with homosexuals like I do. Some prefer violence against the Other. In that case, the answer for the Other is to prioritise carefully. For what reason is s/he spending all this time and energy flaunting his/her sexual preference all over the place?
Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?
Is open discussion of whether employees prefer to watch porn during sex or prefer sex doggie-style acceptable within the workplace?
How precisely would it become known that the hypothetical homosexual person is in fact homosexual? Are you asking what if s/he flaunts it? Should we also introduce anti-discrimination legislation that guarantees that anyone can talk about anything at any time in any workplace without any adverse consequences?
If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.
Precisely my point. His preferred manner of sexual expression shouldn't enter into the question at all, and that includes both sides of the equation. Why would the prospective employer ask? Why would the prospective employee tell?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation
My friend JohnMark runs hereiblog.com and hosts a weekly feature called Ethics/What-Would-You-Do Wednesday.
I emailed him an idea I had and he graciously put it up on his site today, as follows:
Your main preaching pastor is about to offer a Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Before praying one of your associate pastors steps up to the pulpit to make an important announcement and asks everyone for prayers on the issue.
He begins.
He begins.
As you all know I’ve served as a pastor here for several years. You also know that I have remained single the whole time. What I am about to tell you is not easy to openly admit. The fact is that my sexual orientation...is...homosexual.
But please hear me out. I am fully convinced, and profess to you now, that the only justifiable and acceptable sexual expression is heterosexuality within a heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman committed for life.
I have put specific guidelines in place to protect myself and the whole congregation. For example, I always leave the door open when counseling people. I am accountable to other pastors about this issue and I even have internet filtering software on my computer.
Finally, it is important for you all to know that I have not engaged in any illicit sex and have no plans to. I also meet with a Christian counselor about the same-sex attractions.
Please stand with me in prayer on this issue. Thank you.
This pastor serves the church faithfully and has a great relationship with everyone.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Action vs orientation
I used to be oriented away from enjoying coffee. Now I'm oriented toward coffee. My orientation and preferences changed, and it was a complex process because human psychology is complex.
However, every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.
Similarly, every time someone engages in a consensual sexual act, one has chosen to do so (by definition).
However, every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.
Similarly, every time someone engages in a consensual sexual act, one has chosen to do so (by definition).
Thursday, November 17, 2011
A Reply to a Rape Victim
A woman and rape victim left a heartbreaking comment in one of the Abolitionist Society's older posts. I would like to post a reply here:
My heart breaks to hear about the horror you have undergone, and yet I am thankful to hear that your child lives, that you chose life when you were not legally required to, and that you are not writing from a position of regret about a choice to abort that can never be undone.
I know that these may just seem to be words on a page, but I hate what has happened to you. At the same time, I stand in horror of the darkness that lives inside of me. I have been rescued from that darkness by someone who hates it far more than even you hate it. That someone is Jesus. He hates sin so much that He was willing to leave the glory of Heaven, walk streets crusted with dust, thorns, and camel manure in order to share a message that most people would reject, show great love to people who hated Him, and then be put to death in a horrible way on the cross by those very same people He came to save. He did all this so that we all could have forgiveness for the dark things we have done, and so we could have eternal life with Him in Heaven.
Yet because of His great generosity and love, He offers us as this forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift. I urge you to examine your life in light of God's law. Have you ever lied to someone? If you have, are you not a liar? Have you ever been greedy or selfish, wanted something that doesn't belong to you? Then you are a thief at heart, malcontent with the many blessings God has given you. We have all broken God's law. I have broken God's law. We are all guilty. You are guilty. I would like to ask you to consider that you can not live a good enough life to please God. Fall on Jesus, beg Him to forgive you and give you eternal life, turn from your lawbreaking. He will give you a new heart with new desires. Then read the Bible and obey what you read.
The day is coming when Jesus will redeem everything and will wipe away every tear from the eye of every one of His people. I pray you will be among His people, because then you will experience full healing and redemption of the horror you have undergone. You will even be given vision to see how even the worst of experiences was woven seamlessly into His plan, and you will rejoice. Imagine rejoicing!
If you are not among His people, you will experience total loss. It doesn't matter whether you are rapist or victim, in that case. Nothing will be redeemed for you. No comfort will you know. No joy, no peace, no love.
Please, consider the two options. Choose life.
As for the issue of abortion after rape, we have discussed that at length already, and I would like to ask you to read what has been written with consideration and open-mindedness.
Let me reply to a few specifics in your comment (which I thank you for posting):
You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about.
I'd like to ask you not to generalise. You think no abolitionist has ever been raped? Think again.
There are also among us those who are survivors of abortion.
There are among us those who adopt previously-unwanted children.
Many of us have given money and dozens of man-hours toward helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.
Also, whether any of us have ever experienced difficulty in this life or whether we have all had silver spoons in our mouths our whole lives, this is irrelevant to whether we are correct in our arguments and position, that human abortion must be abolished.
Please reconsider.
the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would've been better for your child if they had been aborted.
Could I ask you to consider this?
The way it went, your child has life, opportunity, breath. Yes, there is struggle. Yes, there is difficulty. Yes, there is pain in this life, but that is life.
You don't get to make the decision "yes, this person should live" or "no, this person should not live". That's not your prerogative. Of course it is better to live!
I am now struggling...financially
We are willing and perhaps able to help you.
Please contact me. Click on my profile page and email me.
Also, Jesus taught us that sometimes we undergo financial hardship and difficulty so that we may learn to depend fully on Him, and not on ourselves, our earning power, or our savings accounts. Life comes from Him, in all aspects.
You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position
It may surprise you to learn that I agree. I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.
I am, however, commanded and responsible to tell you that Jesus does have the right to tell you what to do. He created you. He is your Master. He is far more intelligent and far wiser than any of us. We must listen to Him and obey Him, for He knows what is best.
It is her choice which decision is right for her
Let's think about this on your terms. I'm sure you would also argue that it is my choice to do with my body more or less what I want, unless and until I decide to do something that injures someone else, right?
That is precisely what you are proposing here. Just saying for the sake of argument that the woman does have the right to do with her own body what she wants, if she chooses abortion, she is infringing on the most fundamental right of her child - the right to life. The mother's rights stop at the baby's body. The baby's life must be respected, because just as I would not act to stop or infringe upon, for example, the rights of a group of Muslims or Satanists to assemble peaceably (for their right to assemble is my right to assemble), so is the baby's right to life identical to your right to life.
Jesus has commanded us not to murder, and to take care of the weakest and most neglected members of society. How great a sin we commit if we ignore the very weakest! Shall we walk around and kick beggars in the face too?
Abortion is a violent act of murder in which the abortive woman generally participates at some level. The solution to victimhood is healing and redemption in Jesus, not becoming complicit in violence herself.
The rapist is the guilty party in rape. The baby is innocent. Please consider - we must not apply the death penalty to the innocent child of a criminal!
unless you are going to help us raise these children
We are. We are abolitionists.
We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion's unbridled occurrence (Eph 4:14).
You are obviously hurting, and my heart goes out to you, as do the hearts of my fellow abolitionists. I am posting this publicly, but I invite you to talk to us privately. Let us seek the Lord Jesus together and let us wait patiently for His healing, both in the now and in eternity.
(Please leave any comments at the cross post at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
My heart breaks to hear about the horror you have undergone, and yet I am thankful to hear that your child lives, that you chose life when you were not legally required to, and that you are not writing from a position of regret about a choice to abort that can never be undone.
Yet because of His great generosity and love, He offers us as this forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift. I urge you to examine your life in light of God's law. Have you ever lied to someone? If you have, are you not a liar? Have you ever been greedy or selfish, wanted something that doesn't belong to you? Then you are a thief at heart, malcontent with the many blessings God has given you. We have all broken God's law. I have broken God's law. We are all guilty. You are guilty. I would like to ask you to consider that you can not live a good enough life to please God. Fall on Jesus, beg Him to forgive you and give you eternal life, turn from your lawbreaking. He will give you a new heart with new desires. Then read the Bible and obey what you read.
The day is coming when Jesus will redeem everything and will wipe away every tear from the eye of every one of His people. I pray you will be among His people, because then you will experience full healing and redemption of the horror you have undergone. You will even be given vision to see how even the worst of experiences was woven seamlessly into His plan, and you will rejoice. Imagine rejoicing!
If you are not among His people, you will experience total loss. It doesn't matter whether you are rapist or victim, in that case. Nothing will be redeemed for you. No comfort will you know. No joy, no peace, no love.
Please, consider the two options. Choose life.
As for the issue of abortion after rape, we have discussed that at length already, and I would like to ask you to read what has been written with consideration and open-mindedness.
Let me reply to a few specifics in your comment (which I thank you for posting):
You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about.
I'd like to ask you not to generalise. You think no abolitionist has ever been raped? Think again.
There are also among us those who are survivors of abortion.
There are among us those who adopt previously-unwanted children.
Many of us have given money and dozens of man-hours toward helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.
Also, whether any of us have ever experienced difficulty in this life or whether we have all had silver spoons in our mouths our whole lives, this is irrelevant to whether we are correct in our arguments and position, that human abortion must be abolished.
Please reconsider.
the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would've been better for your child if they had been aborted.
Could I ask you to consider this?
The way it went, your child has life, opportunity, breath. Yes, there is struggle. Yes, there is difficulty. Yes, there is pain in this life, but that is life.
You don't get to make the decision "yes, this person should live" or "no, this person should not live". That's not your prerogative. Of course it is better to live!
I am now struggling...financially
We are willing and perhaps able to help you.
Please contact me. Click on my profile page and email me.
Also, Jesus taught us that sometimes we undergo financial hardship and difficulty so that we may learn to depend fully on Him, and not on ourselves, our earning power, or our savings accounts. Life comes from Him, in all aspects.
You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position
It may surprise you to learn that I agree. I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.
I am, however, commanded and responsible to tell you that Jesus does have the right to tell you what to do. He created you. He is your Master. He is far more intelligent and far wiser than any of us. We must listen to Him and obey Him, for He knows what is best.
Let's think about this on your terms. I'm sure you would also argue that it is my choice to do with my body more or less what I want, unless and until I decide to do something that injures someone else, right?
That is precisely what you are proposing here. Just saying for the sake of argument that the woman does have the right to do with her own body what she wants, if she chooses abortion, she is infringing on the most fundamental right of her child - the right to life. The mother's rights stop at the baby's body. The baby's life must be respected, because just as I would not act to stop or infringe upon, for example, the rights of a group of Muslims or Satanists to assemble peaceably (for their right to assemble is my right to assemble), so is the baby's right to life identical to your right to life.
Jesus has commanded us not to murder, and to take care of the weakest and most neglected members of society. How great a sin we commit if we ignore the very weakest! Shall we walk around and kick beggars in the face too?
Abortion is a violent act of murder in which the abortive woman generally participates at some level. The solution to victimhood is healing and redemption in Jesus, not becoming complicit in violence herself.
The rapist is the guilty party in rape. The baby is innocent. Please consider - we must not apply the death penalty to the innocent child of a criminal!
unless you are going to help us raise these children
We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion's unbridled occurrence (Eph 4:14).
You are obviously hurting, and my heart goes out to you, as do the hearts of my fellow abolitionists. I am posting this publicly, but I invite you to talk to us privately. Let us seek the Lord Jesus together and let us wait patiently for His healing, both in the now and in eternity.
(Please leave any comments at the cross post at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
Friday, October 28, 2011
Incommunicado
Going out of the country.
That's why I'm not talking to anyone, in case you're wondering.
That's why I'm not talking to anyone, in case you're wondering.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
A potpourri on homosexuality
Me
Clever, though hetero cousins still anatomically fit together.
JT
So do gay men... They just have to flip each other around. So if we go by what fits gay women are out but gay men are in? Rhology you have turned a new leaf of acceptance!
Me
Ah, the disconnect here is that you apparently think that delicate membranes, easily torn, thus introducing fecal matter into the bloodstream = "anatomically fit". That's an interesting opinion.
Cason
Use a condom
Me
Ah, right, b/c that'll fix the tissue tearing. Great idea.
Better one - stick with God's design.
Cason
**rools eyes** God designed me too.....
Cason
Here is something for you to go do in your spare time Rhology (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/westboro-announces-protest-steve-jobs-funeral-iphone-141530936.html)
Me
Do you really think that anyone who believes that God designed us to be heterosexual is automatically equivalent to Westboro? Do you know that Westboro picketed my church?
Do you realise how offensive your ignorant comparison is?
Me
And yes, God designed you. If you're saying "God made me gay", you're leaving out a really big part of what the Bible teaches, and that is that we all break God's law.
You have just now broken God's law by comparing someone you don't know to a group of extremely hateful people, just b/c I said something you don't like. What do you think you'll have to say to God when you stand before Him on your day of judgment? Have you ever considered that?
Cason
I'll pray for you. God Bless
Me
Cason, please believe that I harbor zero hatred for you but rather compassion and love. But you have to be told the truth.
"He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." - Proverbs 28:9
JT
Rhology and how will you explain yourself, may take a while. Rhology, how can you misconsture my trachings so bad he will ask... What will your answer be? Anyways back to the tearing issue. Women tear also Rhology. It happens.
BF
Sometimes people are unaware of how they come across to others. It happens. Perhaps you failed to realize that your words come out more like Westboro and less like Jesus. Just a thought.
Me
I'd take such criticisms more seriously if they demonstrated any recognition of the vast difference between how I speak and how Westboro speaks. You guys just sound like bigots, I'm sorry.
BF
Case in point.
Me
Indeed it is. Maybe you could point out precisely where I sound like WBC, and point out where WBC speaks in the same way. Make sure you're making selections that are relevant.
Does WBC ask questions like I did?
JT
Its not what you say, Its the fact that everyone is wrong and you are right and you then talk down to people. Rhology, its scary you cant see that. Plus back to the original debate.. Women tear during sex so your point is irrelevant
BF
I didn't say you sound like them. I said you are received like them, primarily for the reason JT stated. It's the belittling of others' opinions that gets to people. It's putting your opinion out there, with a provocative edge (perhaps to get people's attention) that matches their style. I'm not saying that Christians should never be provocative. I'm not saying that Christians should never point out the wrongs of others. I'm mostly wondering how it's working out for you. Are you reaching a lot of homosexuals? Have you seen a lot of conversions with your approach? Does what you are offering to others sound as gracious as it really is? Of course grace is not extended without justice, judgment or sacrifice on our part but are you effectively presenting the full package or just the judgment part?
Me
I suppose that you don't think you're right and I'm wrong? Come on, JT.
And women tear rarely, whereas the anal tissue is much more fragile AND ALWAYS IS NEAR FECAL MATTER.
Me
So you think I'm wrong but you're not belittling my opinion? You exhibit a double standard, probably for the simple fact that you don't like what I say. It's not that I say it badly or with hate, but you don't like it so you rip me. You can have that hypocrisy.
BTW, who posted this photo? Is this my photo?
You know nothing about my approach, BF. You don't talk to me about this, but you apparently feel qualified to judge me? OK.
Me
Anyway, as for "reaching" them, you can either feed them a line of lies and they'll be happy (until they go to Hell) or you can tell the truth. YOu can't demonstrate that I trade in hate, so I don't know what you're mad about.
Me
Finally, the proud and the unrepentant willl not listen to grace; they need to be convicted of sin first.
BF
You and I can agree 100% on your last statement. I feel that it's best to rest on that. Hopefully I will be stripped of my pride before have to answer for it. I can only hope for the same or better for others.
Me
It's our job to bring blessing to others by showing them their guilt before the Law of God before we extend to them the unspeakably amazing grace of Jesus.
JT
What does fecal matter have to do with it. What about Urine. And does the tearing only occue less because of the freequencey and the body coping witht he situation. Much like a man on man. So all of my gay friends are going to hell? Because they cant choose who they like or are attracted to? Sounds like a design issue, might want to talk to the big guy on that one. God made us all in his image. So what does that say about God? Rhology when is the last time you ever thought you were wrong and maybe someone else was right. Oh wait you interpert the bible how you interpert it. Its not fact but interpertation after interpuertation!
Cason
Any sins you care to confess Rhology?
Cason
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV)
Me
JT,
The anus is for elimination of waste, not for sexual contact. That's what it was designed for.
I already told you what fecal matter has to do with it. Are you paying attention or just arguing b/c you have emotional reactions to what the Bible says?
Tell you what, about your question "are all of my gay friends going to hell?" We've talked about these things numerous times. I don't care to repeat myself so many times, so let me ask you: what do you think I'll say in response to this question? Please surprise me by letting me know you actually do pay attention instead of just rail against God's law.
Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does JT's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."
JT might later object and say "No, I was discussing homosexuality."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.
Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.
Me
Cason, yes, I am a great sinner. I am a lustful and thus adulterous man. I covet things that aren't mine. I lie to my own advantage. I steal from others. I have been unjustifiably angry and thus am a murderer at heart. I am an idolater because I put things before God Almighty. I fail to honor my parents as I should, so I am a parricide.
Jesus has saved me because He is my only hope.
What are you trusting in? Are you better than I? Jesus said "Be perfect as My Father is perfect." Are you perfect? WHat will you tell God when you stand before Him to be judged?
Cason
So, help me understand..... Do all sinners go to hell or just gay ones
Me
All. Jesus is the only hope for anyone.
Cason
None of us are without sin..... At least that's what I believe. If all this world has to do is worry about what Jim and Joe are doing in the bedroom then God help us all.
JT
So fluids and urine in the bloodstream is ok but not fecal matter... Check! Ok so what if I cut myself and dirt gets in the blood stream. Is your only argument that fecal matter gets in the blodd stream? I bet a lof things get in the blood stream. My reaction is to how ridiclious some people are. How judging people who love everyone are. How a loving God is sending so many people to hell. Doenst sound very loving. You seem to be a homophob who thinks he is the end all be all when it comes to what God and Jesus want. Kinda Scary...
JF
This is a disgusting post... not because of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance thereof.
Cason
So Anyone include "Rhology".....right?
JT
Cason, its just the gay ones, your room is in the back witht he disco ball and the village people.
JF
BF -- I'm disappointed in your early dismissal!
Me
This is a disgusting post... not because of intolerance of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance of intolerance.
Me
Cason, I believe I just explained what I meant. Are you reading or just trying to play a game?
JF
oh... well touche Rhology. ha.
Cason
Shiny disco balls!
JT
Intolerance becasue we dont drop eveything and follow Rhology. You are one year away from having people drink Kool-Aid as the commet passes over... Seriously your not but your reaction to everyone else says that. No one is right but you
Me
So, you can be intolerant but I can't. OK. Double standard again.
Me
JT, that is false. You should be ashamed of yourself to talk that way.
JT
Rhology, Do you think they choose to be or are they born that way
Me
That question is unimportant and uninteresting. We are all sinners and we must all repent and belong to Jesus.
JF
That question is unimportant and uninteresting.... to you.
JT
I apologize Rhology, point is you act like you know it all and we are all wrong. You have never thought about what we say you just spew off what you heard in Church or read in a book..... Oh it is very important;
Me
Why is it important?
JT
Answer and you will see why
Me
Read in "a" book? Is it just "a book", JT?
JT
Well I want talking about just the Bible but yes it is just a book...Just like words are just words...
JT
So Rhology answer my question please
Cason
I was born this way...... I also have brown skin and brown eyes.... Nothing that I can change. I have a relationship with my God whom I call Jesus Christ. I have learned from my understanding that he loves all with an unimaginable measurement of love but hates all sin. "Love the sinner not the sin"
JT
Rhology wont answer becasue if he does he knows the outcome.
Cason
This is the written account of Adam's family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. (Genesis 5:1 NIV)
Me
Cason,
What happened in between then and now? Specifically, Genesis 3.
Why did Jesus come to Earth?
ANd how do you know what you think you know about Jesus?
Me
JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?
JT
Rhology, Anser my question please. The bible is just a book. It does nothing. Its the words... The longest game of telephone ever...
Me
JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?
JT
So wait if it wasnt for the bible we wouldnt know anything about God and humankind. So before the bible what did they do
Cason
It was breathed into me at the moment of my conception Along with my brown hair, skin, Gay ways. My life story along with my trials, tribulations, and the Facebook thread were already known from beginning to end. Jesus was sent to die for all sins up to and include homosexuality, murder, lieing, stealing, lustfull thoughts. His blood was shed for the sins of the world that include Cason, Rhology, JT, Neal, or Bob. I don't question your strong faith or your relationship with God. I do question why you think I am condemned to hell for my sins but you are not.
Cason
What makes your Church and it's members any better than Westbrook, me, my church, or my beliefs?
Cason
What makes you better than me?
Cason
"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NIV) ***Please don't cause me to stumble because I am a child of God.
BF
JF, I threw the towel in because Rhology is not going to stop just because I make valid points. He seems to be committed to a Crusade style of evangelism. It's unfortunate that people choose that style. It embarrasses me to be a Christian.
JF
BF, I agree. 100%.
Me
Cason, yes, Jesus died for sins. What did He say about how someone can benefit from that death?
And I have never said, nor implied, that I am better than you.
My church follows what the bible says. If yours does not, it does make my church better than yours, but that is by God's grace and not because of the people in it.
JF and BF, I am glad you enjoy your mutual back-patting. Maybe you could consider how different from Jesus and the apostles you are.
Me
Cason, you said Jesus died for sin. How do you know what sin is? How do you think Jesus knew what sin was? How did he define it?
Me
Finally, Cason, do you hate sin? Is homosexual sex a sin?
JT
LOL Rhology why wont you answer my question? You know you will be backed in a corner. You follow your interpertation of the bible. You dont follow the bible. Jesus still loves you though. Homosexual sex is love between two people. Is all straight sex a sin? Once again we are back to who are you to judge, why cant you let people love each other the way they want to? I wish I could watch your life everyday and critize you as you critize and cast stones. Are you a homophobic? Or maybe you have feelings that scare you.
Me
Told you why, JT. Why won't you answer mine?
JT
Rhology I clearly asked you first... You ignore questions and ask questions... So are they born that way or is it a choice?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
A convo on abortion and general Christian ethics
Mac
If I performed breast exams to screen for cancer for free, and I also murdered small children, would you support me with your donations? Susan G. Komen would.
Mac
http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=16162
Me
https://twitter.com/#!/Rhology/status/121325207481876480 @LarryFitzgerald FYI Susan Komen funds Planned Parenthood. :-( http://t.co/JH6l9Xfl
Mac
http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim-exposed/
Mac
I guess I should.change the quote to "if I claimed to provide breast exams..."
BC
perspective. As long as it is kept quiet the part about you murdering babies, the public will choose to overlook it. That and as long as you claim that the exams are the central part of what you do and that killing babies is just a small percentage of what you do (kind of like a side business)
Danz
With this line of thinking I fear one would have to make a very tough decision. You guys are going to go crazy, move up into the mountains in isolation if you do not want to contribute to evil. Actually even if you did isolate yourself you would still be in some way contributing to evil. Don't you guys pay taxes to the US government? If yes, you are contributing to all their evils. Every time you spend a dollar, part of your taxes go to doing evil. (for a good cause of course.) You support the tobacco industry everytime you support those who sell tobacco, which is every gas station in America. SO what do you do? Stop buying gas? And don't even think about the gas and it's evils. Maybe we should stop using gas. My point is this: Either way you will be supporting that guy killing babies, as long as he does breast exams. For stopping the breast exams would be evil in another way. It's like hitting your head on a wall, which I've almost tried a few times.
Mac
except for the fact.that from what I have.read, planned parenthood just pretended to do mammograms, and there are other places to go and get them that dont murder children.
Me
Correct. We can't avoid indirectly contributing to evil, can't avoid paying taxes. We are in fact commanded to pay taxes, and that to an evil government, at least twice in the New Testament!
We are also encouraged to be wise and not participate in evil when we don't have to. Nobody has to give money to Susan Komen. If you want to help women and cancer, give money to someone who is not into dismembering babies.
Danz
So Rhology, the Bible says you must pay your taxes. So would you say the American Revolution That was based on the refusal to pay taxes to England, a bad thing and violation against God's law? So basically the American Independence is forged in disobedience to the Bible. Would you agree to that? Furthermore, if you don't support Susan Komen, you'll just be supporting someone who supports other evils by shopping at Walmart or buying from McDonalds, two of the biggest exploitative capitalist corporations in the world. Surly these evils are as valuable. My point is, there is no way around it unless you make a TRUE commitment to be a weirdo. Last thing about the taxes and government thing, if you were German during the killing of the jews, would you disassociate yourself with the German government or follow the Bible rule to submit yourself to authority for HE is the one who establishes all authorities. (a mind twister in itself since many authorities are established through revolution and in direct violation to that rule.) Anyways, it's either we agree that the Bible standards are too high for us, or we agree that we are falling way under par to the expectations of Christ.
Me
Hi Dan!
I think the justifiability of the AmRev is an open question. So yes, it's definitely possible that American independence is forged in disobedience. I'm not sure what the relevance is, though.
Yes, WalMart does bad things, but pretty much any grocer does, and I have to buy groceries.
Besides, you don't solve this question by what's known as a "tu quoque" - saying "you do bad stuff too!"
You solve it by saying "OK, I'll stop doing the bad thing you've identified insofar as it lies within my ability."
So, to be reasonable, you need to NOT say the former. You need to say the latter.
No, I would not support an evil gov't that was murdering Jews. There are most certainly grades of evil, and not accepting mass murder is more important than not accepting submission to the gov't.
I agree that we are falling way under par to the expectations of Christ. Two things:
1) That does not mean that we have the right to ignore His expectations.
2) Since you have fallen short, what is the answer? Are you not guilty? Does Jesus ignore guilt?
(I'm not disclaiming guilt. I'm asking what YOUR answer is.)
Danz
Hi Rhology, my answer would be to be real with ourselves and honest with each other. No hypocrisy. I agree however, that the solution it to stop doing bad. But we need to understand that this will require extreme measures.
Why? Because the level of evil has reach an extreme measure. You say you have to buy groceries. No you don't. You can grow your own food. Yes, your diet would be much different but there are other ways. I have a friend in Denver who gets all his food from dumpsters. Near expired canned food mostly. And on my last visit he fed me dumpster food because the thinks it's stupid to pay for food when so much is wasting. That is an extreme measure based on a belief.
Yes, we fall short, but are we even trying to reach a certain point. You don't HAVE to wear exploitation clothing. But it is easy to do so. Again you can find clothes that are not based on exploitation or you can make your own also. But then you would have to sacrifice name brands. Are you willing to do this to get closer to the standard of Christ?
Last think, the relevance of the AmRev is that it seems you are willing to justify Biblical disobedience in certain cases. For example, it is less bad to not accept submission to govt. (even though this is a direct order from God), than to support the govt in killing Jews. But then if your government was killing Arabs on the other side of the globe, it might not be so bad. Since surely those Arabs are in disobedience, we like to say.
I feel like I'm going in circles. If you believe the AmRev was done against GOD's will, would you say it shouldn't have been done? That it was wrong for happening and did not have GOD's blessing? And as the Bible teaches we must repent for our sins and even work to repay our debts. I think you see where I'm going? Do you believe in reparations for victims of a crime of some sort, or punishment for the aggressors? do you think the American Government should have to pay for it's crimes or get a free pass. And should the victims receive anything for their pain?
All these questions play into the honesty and fairness that the Bible teaches. If you are truly advocating for Christ and his teachings you will obviously be encouraging things that for sure are not in the general interest of the American people. But those are the extreme measures I am talking about.
Me
Tell you what, we can debate about the merits of buying groceries from big companies later.
I would hope we could at least agree that we shouldn't give money to an org that intentionally gives money to dismembering babies. It's not that hard, and it's not very complext either.
As for clothing, all of mine is either inherited from my brothers or is bought at the thrift store. I can guarantee I'm not contributing to "exploitation". I also lack the skills to sew and weave.
Be that as it may, I didn't see you answer my big questions there at the end. I would really like to ask you to answer them. They're extremely important.
--"if your government was killing Arabs on the other side of the globe, it might not be so bad"
What did I say that gave you the impression that I support the US' involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? And Libya? And Uganda? And Pakistan? And on and on...
--"If you believe the AmRev was done against GOD's will, would you say it shouldn't have been done?"
When I said I think the justifiability of the AmRev is an open question, I meant precisely what I said.
--"That it was wrong for happening and did not have GOD's blessing?"
That's far too simplistic. Not everyone does things for the same reasons, and several 100s of 1000s of ppl were involved in the AmRev.
--"do you think the American Government should have to pay for it's crimes or get a free pass."
I'm unsure how a government would pay for crimes.
--"If you are truly advocating for Christ and his teachings you will obviously be encouraging things that for sure are not in the general interest of the American people."
Obeying God is always in the best interest of people. You sort of got confused there at the end, bringing up a variety of things that are not very relevant. Could you please answer my main two challenges from last comment?
Mac
Danz, how much dumpster food would be available if everybody ate it? How much time would one have to grow all their food, work full time, raise a family etc. Should I quit my job and ignore my family in order to grow all my own food? Where would I grow it after my house was foreclosed upon?
Danz
Ok the two main questions:
1. Are you not guilty? and 2. Does Jesus ignore guilt?
1. when you say YOU do you mean ME personally or us in general? If me, Yes. if in general, HELL YEAH! As far as the Bible standards we are all guilty. 2. Jesus does not ignore guilt. But I am hoping that he is understanding.
Yes, i think it is best to not give money to an organization that is doing wrong.
The skills to sew and weave can be taught, learned and improved a pond.
I assume you support US wars because your taxes finances it. And I do know if you are in a movement to end the wars.
Open ended questions need addressed.
100 or 1000s of people were involved in the AmRev just like millions are involved in abortions or the slave trade. Everyone has their reasons but bottom line is that it is wrong or it is right. Not to mention the killings.
Governments can pay for their crimes through reparations to the victims or if they were killed, the family of the victims. They can be punished by not being allowed to be part of different international communities or treaties. Embargos is another way. See Cuba.
The part you got confused about states that it is hard to be pro-Christ and Pro-America at the same time. just like Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Christ.
Danz
Mac where there is a will there is a way. you wouldn't be the first to live like this. If you are more worried about foreclosing homes than GOD's purity, than yes, you will have a dillema.
Mac
The Bible doesn't tell me I can't own a home, shop at the market, or that I have to eat dumpster food to be pure, I merely have to put faith in Christ as Lord and Savoir and I am positionally as pure as He. It doesn't matter which Country I become a part of, they are all filled with wicked people and corrupt government. We are to be in the world but not of it. We are certainly not to become Monks. We are to live a Christ like as we can in the midst of wickedness and spread the gospel while also attempting to bring justice into unjust situations. People at our church regularly boycott companies such as Abercrombie and Fitch and others that are immoral in many ways, but there is no way you can avoid association with every evil company. However, it is very simple and clear cut for me, that if you are asking for charity money to give to an organization that murders innocent children, that would certainly be an organization I would want to avoid.
Danz
Yes, we all agree that we want to not only avoid baby killing companies but encourage our friends to avoid them as well, speak out against them, and do everything in your power legally to shut them down.
The Bible doesn't say not to own a home, nor does it say you must own a home. But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil, seek justice and depend the oppressed. How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor. We know what Defend means. It means to deny access, stop, prevent, etc. Owning a home is secondary to God's commandments, I would imagine. The Bible says if your eye is causing you to sin, it is better to cut it off. I would imagine that if your house is causing you to associate or support evil, which is clearly a sin, than it might be better to burn it down. And wait for your golden mansion in heaven. Merely putting faith in Christ as Lord is not enough and I think You know this Mac. If not the bible would be a lot shorter. Live like Christ and spread the gospel. This is the same Christ who took 3 years out of his life to go walk around doing just that. He was not worried about his mortgage or his job at that time. The same Christ who had to go borrow a donkey (I'm assuming he couldn't pay for it) to make his grand entrance. The same Christ who never asked us to have nice highways, big air conditioned houses, or nice cars. If you want to be like Christ these things will not be a priority to us. But we have the choice to have these things, and I think it's best to have things that help you live more comfortably. But you may have to sacrifice them and things of the world, extreme measures, if you want to do more than just have faith. And yes He expects more out of us then just belief. But that is the first step.
Mac
Yes, If Christ called me to sacrifice My house for His Kingdom then I would be willing, however, my house can also be used for service in His Kingdom as well. There is really no possible way to disassociate in every way from evil, we live in a evil world. Komen is giving money to an organization who purposely, proudly and unashamedly murders babies to make it's profit. It not only does this thing but encourages women to continue to do it as if it is a good and honorable thing to do.
Danz
I think we agree on that.
Me
--"But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil, seek justice and depend the oppressed. How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor."
And it said to pay taxes to the gov't, which at the time of writing was Rome, who was persecuting and murdering Christians. That is the worst crime anyone could commit, and the NT tells us to pay taxes to that gov't, for it is instituted by God.
--"Merely putting faith in Christ as Lord is not enough and I think You know this Mac."
This assertion needs some supporting biblical exegesis. How do you know this is true? And what do you mean by "not enough"? Not enough for what purpose and end?
--"The same Christ who never asked us to have nice highways, big air conditioned houses, or nice cars. "
And the same one who never ripped those of His followers who did have wealth. Rather, He instructed them what to do with what God had given them.
OK, a few other things.
--"The skills to sew and weave can be taught, learned and improved (upon)."
And is that a better use of my time than what I'm doing now? Who are you to judge?
Maybe you have an answer. Do you farm and get from the dumpster ALL your food? If not, how have you quieted your sensitive conscience? Do you make your own clothes? How do you have time to work a job? Do you work for an evil corporation?
Are you proposing that we only do business with people who have no sin? How would you propose we go about doing that? Which people are you referring to? Why did Jesus buy food from sinners?
Finally, you say Jesus does not ignore guilt, but you're HOPING He's understanding. Understanding of what? The fact that you demonstrate you don't care to follow God's law and that you break it every day many times? What's the answer here?
Danz
@ Rhology, If I understand the timeline correctly, there were no christians yet when Jesus told people to pay taxes. Christians came "after" Christ. I could be wrong about this. It was Judah, and after Jesus Christ came the Christians. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have said to pay taxes to an evil government anyways.
Now, I've been in enough Biblical debates to know that the verses can seem to fight with one another. I show you a verse that says do this, and then you throw a verse at me that says do that. And than you have 1000 different denominations spring up from the unclearity. We know that it is impossible (or insane) for GOD to have instituted every government. Because this becomes subjective to human definition of government and human recognition of government. I can start a government up in the mountains and slowly and illegally start taking over city by city. So at some point people will be under two different governments, and therefore it is impossible to submit to both at the same time. Government is an agreement or understanding of who is in charge. Even if it is not agreed upon. This is a complicated concept.
In 1804 a bunch of African Slaves in Haiti, decided they would take up arms against the French government instituted by GOD, as you say. After winning, and even before, they formed their own government but it was not recognized by the other countries, only to the former slaves. During the 12 years of war, whose government did GOD instill? the French or the Slaves? It's complicated. But GOD told me once that some truths is what we humans decide it is, collectively. Like time and how we define these tricky words, like government, slavery, etc.
Danz
James 2:14-26 faith without works is dead. Look it up
Danz
Jesus has nothing against wealth. Unless it comes in the way of his mission and yours. Just like anything else.
Danz
Who am I to judge? Another loving human being who wants to live in a better world and understands that we are linked. Your actions affect me, as do mine. I am also assuming that you are a believer in Christ and the Bible. So as a friendly human, I am not judging but simply pointing out some things the book you might be following says. Just a reminder and encouragment.
Danz
I do not eat dumpster food nor live like a monk. I am being totally honest with myself in saying I am not reaching the goal. And I find it very very very difficult in this type of setting of a culture and society. But I am saying IF I were to work in a Christ like manner, this should be my thinking. I think the point is not if you make it to the NBA, but that you did everything in your power to do so. So it's not to be perfect but to do everything physically and mentally/spiritually possible to reach this Godly perfection. But of course no one will. Like no NBA player will have a perfect game with no mistakes at all.
Last thing, about Jesus being understanding. This is not biblical but based on my limited understanding. I hope Jesus will consider the confusion in some minds, the manipulations of others, the not-so-clear communication, the many false prophets so convincing, and the method used to deliver the message. I hope Jesus is loving and understanding enough to understand that some people just don't know. And this does not mean they are rejecting him if they doubt the messenger. Messengers lie all the time. I hope he can understand that some people's introduction to Christ came with guns, rape, and murder. If they reject the word, I hope Jesus is at least considering the situation. I find it very hard to believe, considering some situations that a loving Jesus would send some to Hell after the Hell they just went through. I can just hope. Like I said this is not Biblical my line of thinking.
Me
--" But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil"
And it also allows us (and even tells us sometimes) to buy from sinners.
Buying from != associating with. That might be your problem right there.
--"seek justice and depend the oppressed. "
So why aren't you an abolitionist?
--"How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor."
A man can't do everything. Don't hate because I do something, and it's not the sthg you prefer.
Also, your whole presence on this thread serves as a distraction from the evil that Mac was pointing out. You're not helping anyone here.
--"The Bible says if your eye is causing you to sin, it is better to cut it off"
And in context, that means what?
--"I would imagine that if your house is causing you to associate or support evil, which is clearly a sin, than it might be better to burn it down."
Except that the Bible nowhere begrudges us to own homes that might have been sold to us by sinners.
Somehow they thought there was more to it than you think there is, and that's because you're being too simplistic.
--"This is the same Christ who took 3 years out of his life to go walk around doing just that."
And who stayed with His supporters sometimes who did own houses. Like Matthew. And He didn't rip them for that b/c He recognised there's more to it than your simplistic view.
--"If I understand the timeline correctly, there were no christians yet when Jesus told people to pay taxes. "
The disciples and all Jesus' followers were Christians. This is false.
--" I show you a verse that says do this, and then you throw a verse at me that says do that. "
So the honest thing to do is to take BOTH of them and figure out a theology that allows BOTH of them to say what they say.
--" than you have 1000 different denominations spring up from the unclearity"
The same Bible, but different humans.
I'd say the problem lies with the humans, not the Bible. You're familiar with sin, right?
--"We know that it is impossible (or insane) for GOD to have instituted every government. "
No, we do not know that.
Don't you know that God uses all men, even evil ones, for His purposes?
Read Romans 13, 1 Peter, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, please.
--"This is a complicated concept. "
Well, irrelevant. Not so much complicated as irrelevant.
--" James 2:14-26 faith without works is dead"
And what does that have to do with what I asked you?
When's the last time you read James 2:10? And what does it have to do with the question at hand, since you cited James 2?
--"Who am I to judge? Another loving human being who wants to live in a better world and understands that we are linked. Your actions affect me, as do mine. "
Yes, they do. And yet Jesus didn't give you the right to judge me on this basis, even though He knew "we are all linked". I'm sorry, but I'll listen to Jesus and not you.
--"And I find it very very very difficult in this type of setting of a culture and society. "
Not "difficult". It's literally impossible to avoid doing business with sinners.
--" I hope Jesus will consider the confusion in some minds, the manipulations of others, the not-so-clear communication, the many false prophets so convincing, and the method used to deliver the message."
He will also consider all the sin and hypocrisy.
You have no hope by your own works.
Let me give you the answer here - you have nothing to offer God except disgusting, evil, tainted horror. You have a responsibility to repent before Jesus and beg for His mercy.
He will grant it b/c He died on the cross for evildoers like you and me. The diff between us is that I recognise my evil and have repented. You need to repent, and right now. Today is the day of salvation. Repent, be saved, then read the Bible faithfully and obey it. Give a right confession to those who ask, like I just did. I asked and you said you hope Jesus will consider that you have excuses. Dead wrong. You have ZERO excuse. You have only one hope - Jesus' blood and sacrifice. Depend on it, tell others about it. That is the Gospel.
--" Like I said this is not Biblical my line of thinking."
That is very clear - it is not Biblical.
Stop and consider that you know nothing for certain about God outside the Bible. So you need to stop imagining stuff about God and seek the real authentic God. I pray you will, for the wrath stored up against you is great.
If I performed breast exams to screen for cancer for free, and I also murdered small children, would you support me with your donations? Susan G. Komen would.
Mac
http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=16162
Me
https://twitter.com/#!/Rhology/status/121325207481876480 @LarryFitzgerald FYI Susan Komen funds Planned Parenthood. :-( http://t.co/JH6l9Xfl
Mac
http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim-exposed/
Mac
I guess I should.change the quote to "if I claimed to provide breast exams..."
BC
perspective. As long as it is kept quiet the part about you murdering babies, the public will choose to overlook it. That and as long as you claim that the exams are the central part of what you do and that killing babies is just a small percentage of what you do (kind of like a side business)
Danz
With this line of thinking I fear one would have to make a very tough decision. You guys are going to go crazy, move up into the mountains in isolation if you do not want to contribute to evil. Actually even if you did isolate yourself you would still be in some way contributing to evil. Don't you guys pay taxes to the US government? If yes, you are contributing to all their evils. Every time you spend a dollar, part of your taxes go to doing evil. (for a good cause of course.) You support the tobacco industry everytime you support those who sell tobacco, which is every gas station in America. SO what do you do? Stop buying gas? And don't even think about the gas and it's evils. Maybe we should stop using gas. My point is this: Either way you will be supporting that guy killing babies, as long as he does breast exams. For stopping the breast exams would be evil in another way. It's like hitting your head on a wall, which I've almost tried a few times.
Mac
except for the fact.that from what I have.read, planned parenthood just pretended to do mammograms, and there are other places to go and get them that dont murder children.
Me
Correct. We can't avoid indirectly contributing to evil, can't avoid paying taxes. We are in fact commanded to pay taxes, and that to an evil government, at least twice in the New Testament!
We are also encouraged to be wise and not participate in evil when we don't have to. Nobody has to give money to Susan Komen. If you want to help women and cancer, give money to someone who is not into dismembering babies.
Danz
So Rhology, the Bible says you must pay your taxes. So would you say the American Revolution That was based on the refusal to pay taxes to England, a bad thing and violation against God's law? So basically the American Independence is forged in disobedience to the Bible. Would you agree to that? Furthermore, if you don't support Susan Komen, you'll just be supporting someone who supports other evils by shopping at Walmart or buying from McDonalds, two of the biggest exploitative capitalist corporations in the world. Surly these evils are as valuable. My point is, there is no way around it unless you make a TRUE commitment to be a weirdo. Last thing about the taxes and government thing, if you were German during the killing of the jews, would you disassociate yourself with the German government or follow the Bible rule to submit yourself to authority for HE is the one who establishes all authorities. (a mind twister in itself since many authorities are established through revolution and in direct violation to that rule.) Anyways, it's either we agree that the Bible standards are too high for us, or we agree that we are falling way under par to the expectations of Christ.
Me
Hi Dan!
I think the justifiability of the AmRev is an open question. So yes, it's definitely possible that American independence is forged in disobedience. I'm not sure what the relevance is, though.
Yes, WalMart does bad things, but pretty much any grocer does, and I have to buy groceries.
Besides, you don't solve this question by what's known as a "tu quoque" - saying "you do bad stuff too!"
You solve it by saying "OK, I'll stop doing the bad thing you've identified insofar as it lies within my ability."
So, to be reasonable, you need to NOT say the former. You need to say the latter.
No, I would not support an evil gov't that was murdering Jews. There are most certainly grades of evil, and not accepting mass murder is more important than not accepting submission to the gov't.
I agree that we are falling way under par to the expectations of Christ. Two things:
1) That does not mean that we have the right to ignore His expectations.
2) Since you have fallen short, what is the answer? Are you not guilty? Does Jesus ignore guilt?
(I'm not disclaiming guilt. I'm asking what YOUR answer is.)
Danz
Hi Rhology, my answer would be to be real with ourselves and honest with each other. No hypocrisy. I agree however, that the solution it to stop doing bad. But we need to understand that this will require extreme measures.
Why? Because the level of evil has reach an extreme measure. You say you have to buy groceries. No you don't. You can grow your own food. Yes, your diet would be much different but there are other ways. I have a friend in Denver who gets all his food from dumpsters. Near expired canned food mostly. And on my last visit he fed me dumpster food because the thinks it's stupid to pay for food when so much is wasting. That is an extreme measure based on a belief.
Yes, we fall short, but are we even trying to reach a certain point. You don't HAVE to wear exploitation clothing. But it is easy to do so. Again you can find clothes that are not based on exploitation or you can make your own also. But then you would have to sacrifice name brands. Are you willing to do this to get closer to the standard of Christ?
Last think, the relevance of the AmRev is that it seems you are willing to justify Biblical disobedience in certain cases. For example, it is less bad to not accept submission to govt. (even though this is a direct order from God), than to support the govt in killing Jews. But then if your government was killing Arabs on the other side of the globe, it might not be so bad. Since surely those Arabs are in disobedience, we like to say.
I feel like I'm going in circles. If you believe the AmRev was done against GOD's will, would you say it shouldn't have been done? That it was wrong for happening and did not have GOD's blessing? And as the Bible teaches we must repent for our sins and even work to repay our debts. I think you see where I'm going? Do you believe in reparations for victims of a crime of some sort, or punishment for the aggressors? do you think the American Government should have to pay for it's crimes or get a free pass. And should the victims receive anything for their pain?
All these questions play into the honesty and fairness that the Bible teaches. If you are truly advocating for Christ and his teachings you will obviously be encouraging things that for sure are not in the general interest of the American people. But those are the extreme measures I am talking about.
Me
Tell you what, we can debate about the merits of buying groceries from big companies later.
I would hope we could at least agree that we shouldn't give money to an org that intentionally gives money to dismembering babies. It's not that hard, and it's not very complext either.
As for clothing, all of mine is either inherited from my brothers or is bought at the thrift store. I can guarantee I'm not contributing to "exploitation". I also lack the skills to sew and weave.
Be that as it may, I didn't see you answer my big questions there at the end. I would really like to ask you to answer them. They're extremely important.
--"if your government was killing Arabs on the other side of the globe, it might not be so bad"
What did I say that gave you the impression that I support the US' involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? And Libya? And Uganda? And Pakistan? And on and on...
--"If you believe the AmRev was done against GOD's will, would you say it shouldn't have been done?"
When I said I think the justifiability of the AmRev is an open question, I meant precisely what I said.
--"That it was wrong for happening and did not have GOD's blessing?"
That's far too simplistic. Not everyone does things for the same reasons, and several 100s of 1000s of ppl were involved in the AmRev.
--"do you think the American Government should have to pay for it's crimes or get a free pass."
I'm unsure how a government would pay for crimes.
--"If you are truly advocating for Christ and his teachings you will obviously be encouraging things that for sure are not in the general interest of the American people."
Obeying God is always in the best interest of people. You sort of got confused there at the end, bringing up a variety of things that are not very relevant. Could you please answer my main two challenges from last comment?
Mac
Danz, how much dumpster food would be available if everybody ate it? How much time would one have to grow all their food, work full time, raise a family etc. Should I quit my job and ignore my family in order to grow all my own food? Where would I grow it after my house was foreclosed upon?
Danz
Ok the two main questions:
1. Are you not guilty? and 2. Does Jesus ignore guilt?
1. when you say YOU do you mean ME personally or us in general? If me, Yes. if in general, HELL YEAH! As far as the Bible standards we are all guilty. 2. Jesus does not ignore guilt. But I am hoping that he is understanding.
Yes, i think it is best to not give money to an organization that is doing wrong.
The skills to sew and weave can be taught, learned and improved a pond.
I assume you support US wars because your taxes finances it. And I do know if you are in a movement to end the wars.
Open ended questions need addressed.
100 or 1000s of people were involved in the AmRev just like millions are involved in abortions or the slave trade. Everyone has their reasons but bottom line is that it is wrong or it is right. Not to mention the killings.
Governments can pay for their crimes through reparations to the victims or if they were killed, the family of the victims. They can be punished by not being allowed to be part of different international communities or treaties. Embargos is another way. See Cuba.
The part you got confused about states that it is hard to be pro-Christ and Pro-America at the same time. just like Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Christ.
Danz
Mac where there is a will there is a way. you wouldn't be the first to live like this. If you are more worried about foreclosing homes than GOD's purity, than yes, you will have a dillema.
Mac
The Bible doesn't tell me I can't own a home, shop at the market, or that I have to eat dumpster food to be pure, I merely have to put faith in Christ as Lord and Savoir and I am positionally as pure as He. It doesn't matter which Country I become a part of, they are all filled with wicked people and corrupt government. We are to be in the world but not of it. We are certainly not to become Monks. We are to live a Christ like as we can in the midst of wickedness and spread the gospel while also attempting to bring justice into unjust situations. People at our church regularly boycott companies such as Abercrombie and Fitch and others that are immoral in many ways, but there is no way you can avoid association with every evil company. However, it is very simple and clear cut for me, that if you are asking for charity money to give to an organization that murders innocent children, that would certainly be an organization I would want to avoid.
Danz
Yes, we all agree that we want to not only avoid baby killing companies but encourage our friends to avoid them as well, speak out against them, and do everything in your power legally to shut them down.
The Bible doesn't say not to own a home, nor does it say you must own a home. But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil, seek justice and depend the oppressed. How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor. We know what Defend means. It means to deny access, stop, prevent, etc. Owning a home is secondary to God's commandments, I would imagine. The Bible says if your eye is causing you to sin, it is better to cut it off. I would imagine that if your house is causing you to associate or support evil, which is clearly a sin, than it might be better to burn it down. And wait for your golden mansion in heaven. Merely putting faith in Christ as Lord is not enough and I think You know this Mac. If not the bible would be a lot shorter. Live like Christ and spread the gospel. This is the same Christ who took 3 years out of his life to go walk around doing just that. He was not worried about his mortgage or his job at that time. The same Christ who had to go borrow a donkey (I'm assuming he couldn't pay for it) to make his grand entrance. The same Christ who never asked us to have nice highways, big air conditioned houses, or nice cars. If you want to be like Christ these things will not be a priority to us. But we have the choice to have these things, and I think it's best to have things that help you live more comfortably. But you may have to sacrifice them and things of the world, extreme measures, if you want to do more than just have faith. And yes He expects more out of us then just belief. But that is the first step.
Mac
Yes, If Christ called me to sacrifice My house for His Kingdom then I would be willing, however, my house can also be used for service in His Kingdom as well. There is really no possible way to disassociate in every way from evil, we live in a evil world. Komen is giving money to an organization who purposely, proudly and unashamedly murders babies to make it's profit. It not only does this thing but encourages women to continue to do it as if it is a good and honorable thing to do.
Danz
I think we agree on that.
Me
--"But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil, seek justice and depend the oppressed. How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor."
And it said to pay taxes to the gov't, which at the time of writing was Rome, who was persecuting and murdering Christians. That is the worst crime anyone could commit, and the NT tells us to pay taxes to that gov't, for it is instituted by God.
--"Merely putting faith in Christ as Lord is not enough and I think You know this Mac."
This assertion needs some supporting biblical exegesis. How do you know this is true? And what do you mean by "not enough"? Not enough for what purpose and end?
--"The same Christ who never asked us to have nice highways, big air conditioned houses, or nice cars. "
And the same one who never ripped those of His followers who did have wealth. Rather, He instructed them what to do with what God had given them.
OK, a few other things.
--"The skills to sew and weave can be taught, learned and improved (upon)."
And is that a better use of my time than what I'm doing now? Who are you to judge?
Maybe you have an answer. Do you farm and get from the dumpster ALL your food? If not, how have you quieted your sensitive conscience? Do you make your own clothes? How do you have time to work a job? Do you work for an evil corporation?
Are you proposing that we only do business with people who have no sin? How would you propose we go about doing that? Which people are you referring to? Why did Jesus buy food from sinners?
Finally, you say Jesus does not ignore guilt, but you're HOPING He's understanding. Understanding of what? The fact that you demonstrate you don't care to follow God's law and that you break it every day many times? What's the answer here?
Danz
@ Rhology, If I understand the timeline correctly, there were no christians yet when Jesus told people to pay taxes. Christians came "after" Christ. I could be wrong about this. It was Judah, and after Jesus Christ came the Christians. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have said to pay taxes to an evil government anyways.
Now, I've been in enough Biblical debates to know that the verses can seem to fight with one another. I show you a verse that says do this, and then you throw a verse at me that says do that. And than you have 1000 different denominations spring up from the unclearity. We know that it is impossible (or insane) for GOD to have instituted every government. Because this becomes subjective to human definition of government and human recognition of government. I can start a government up in the mountains and slowly and illegally start taking over city by city. So at some point people will be under two different governments, and therefore it is impossible to submit to both at the same time. Government is an agreement or understanding of who is in charge. Even if it is not agreed upon. This is a complicated concept.
In 1804 a bunch of African Slaves in Haiti, decided they would take up arms against the French government instituted by GOD, as you say. After winning, and even before, they formed their own government but it was not recognized by the other countries, only to the former slaves. During the 12 years of war, whose government did GOD instill? the French or the Slaves? It's complicated. But GOD told me once that some truths is what we humans decide it is, collectively. Like time and how we define these tricky words, like government, slavery, etc.
Danz
James 2:14-26 faith without works is dead. Look it up
Danz
Jesus has nothing against wealth. Unless it comes in the way of his mission and yours. Just like anything else.
Danz
Who am I to judge? Another loving human being who wants to live in a better world and understands that we are linked. Your actions affect me, as do mine. I am also assuming that you are a believer in Christ and the Bible. So as a friendly human, I am not judging but simply pointing out some things the book you might be following says. Just a reminder and encouragment.
Danz
I do not eat dumpster food nor live like a monk. I am being totally honest with myself in saying I am not reaching the goal. And I find it very very very difficult in this type of setting of a culture and society. But I am saying IF I were to work in a Christ like manner, this should be my thinking. I think the point is not if you make it to the NBA, but that you did everything in your power to do so. So it's not to be perfect but to do everything physically and mentally/spiritually possible to reach this Godly perfection. But of course no one will. Like no NBA player will have a perfect game with no mistakes at all.
Last thing, about Jesus being understanding. This is not biblical but based on my limited understanding. I hope Jesus will consider the confusion in some minds, the manipulations of others, the not-so-clear communication, the many false prophets so convincing, and the method used to deliver the message. I hope Jesus is loving and understanding enough to understand that some people just don't know. And this does not mean they are rejecting him if they doubt the messenger. Messengers lie all the time. I hope he can understand that some people's introduction to Christ came with guns, rape, and murder. If they reject the word, I hope Jesus is at least considering the situation. I find it very hard to believe, considering some situations that a loving Jesus would send some to Hell after the Hell they just went through. I can just hope. Like I said this is not Biblical my line of thinking.
Me
--" But it clearly says not to associate yourselves with evil"
And it also allows us (and even tells us sometimes) to buy from sinners.
Buying from != associating with. That might be your problem right there.
--"seek justice and depend the oppressed. "
So why aren't you an abolitionist?
--"How are you defending the oppressed if you are financing, supporting, or being silent about the oppressor."
A man can't do everything. Don't hate because I do something, and it's not the sthg you prefer.
Also, your whole presence on this thread serves as a distraction from the evil that Mac was pointing out. You're not helping anyone here.
--"The Bible says if your eye is causing you to sin, it is better to cut it off"
And in context, that means what?
--"I would imagine that if your house is causing you to associate or support evil, which is clearly a sin, than it might be better to burn it down."
Except that the Bible nowhere begrudges us to own homes that might have been sold to us by sinners.
Somehow they thought there was more to it than you think there is, and that's because you're being too simplistic.
--"This is the same Christ who took 3 years out of his life to go walk around doing just that."
And who stayed with His supporters sometimes who did own houses. Like Matthew. And He didn't rip them for that b/c He recognised there's more to it than your simplistic view.
--"If I understand the timeline correctly, there were no christians yet when Jesus told people to pay taxes. "
The disciples and all Jesus' followers were Christians. This is false.
--" I show you a verse that says do this, and then you throw a verse at me that says do that. "
So the honest thing to do is to take BOTH of them and figure out a theology that allows BOTH of them to say what they say.
--" than you have 1000 different denominations spring up from the unclearity"
The same Bible, but different humans.
I'd say the problem lies with the humans, not the Bible. You're familiar with sin, right?
--"We know that it is impossible (or insane) for GOD to have instituted every government. "
No, we do not know that.
Don't you know that God uses all men, even evil ones, for His purposes?
Read Romans 13, 1 Peter, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, please.
--"This is a complicated concept. "
Well, irrelevant. Not so much complicated as irrelevant.
--" James 2:14-26 faith without works is dead"
And what does that have to do with what I asked you?
When's the last time you read James 2:10? And what does it have to do with the question at hand, since you cited James 2?
--"Who am I to judge? Another loving human being who wants to live in a better world and understands that we are linked. Your actions affect me, as do mine. "
Yes, they do. And yet Jesus didn't give you the right to judge me on this basis, even though He knew "we are all linked". I'm sorry, but I'll listen to Jesus and not you.
--"And I find it very very very difficult in this type of setting of a culture and society. "
Not "difficult". It's literally impossible to avoid doing business with sinners.
--" I hope Jesus will consider the confusion in some minds, the manipulations of others, the not-so-clear communication, the many false prophets so convincing, and the method used to deliver the message."
He will also consider all the sin and hypocrisy.
You have no hope by your own works.
Let me give you the answer here - you have nothing to offer God except disgusting, evil, tainted horror. You have a responsibility to repent before Jesus and beg for His mercy.
He will grant it b/c He died on the cross for evildoers like you and me. The diff between us is that I recognise my evil and have repented. You need to repent, and right now. Today is the day of salvation. Repent, be saved, then read the Bible faithfully and obey it. Give a right confession to those who ask, like I just did. I asked and you said you hope Jesus will consider that you have excuses. Dead wrong. You have ZERO excuse. You have only one hope - Jesus' blood and sacrifice. Depend on it, tell others about it. That is the Gospel.
--" Like I said this is not Biblical my line of thinking."
That is very clear - it is not Biblical.
Stop and consider that you know nothing for certain about God outside the Bible. So you need to stop imagining stuff about God and seek the real authentic God. I pray you will, for the wrath stored up against you is great.
Friday, October 14, 2011
David still doesn't get it
Fri Oct 14, 02:33:00 AM CDT
1) This is in effect just saying "well, I concede it's fallacious, but I KNOW IT WORKS!!!!" That's begging the question, and it's another expression of David's blind faith religion.
Plenty of untrue things "work". Placebos "work". Newtonian mechanics "work". False religions lead people to do virtuous things. Etc.
2) Why not just address the actual problem? Or does it not bother David to commit logical fallacies? It wouldn't surprise me, given that he is an atheist.
3) I'm unsure how many times I have to say this, but I'll just repeat it again: Christianity is the foundation for science. It solves the logical fallacy I've identified, but atheism does not solve it.
Thus, Christianity gives us science. Atheism gives us nothing.
Because God keeps the world running in an orderly fashion and has put in place regular, predictable physical processes, we can trust that the future will generally be like the past.
On atheism, as we've seen, there is zero reasonn to expect such.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Bad answers to bad questions
zilch tried gamely to answer my bad questions with good answers, but it didn't work out well for him.
I trust other people, as I must
1) You think you must, but you can't prove that.
2) Bottom line - you have faith in people you can't prove exist. I have faith in Jesus whom you think I can't prove exists.
I like Jesus better. Until you can produce some good reason not to think Jesus exists, I don't see why not follow Him.
3) Are you conceding that empiricism is a false epistemology? Your lack of defense of it makes you sound like you are. Makes me wonder how you think you know anything. Maybe you have blind faith in other humans, but why pick and choose? And of course, why not embrace solipsism?
Er, no, the "other appeals to authority" would be what you religious guys do
You just did it above. I'm sorry you're so blind to how you actually act, but all I can do is point it out over and over and hope you get it. I'm sure the readers do.
Scientific authorities can be checked by duplicating their work
Any scientific judgment commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Piling fallacy upon fallacy does not get you CLOSER to truth. More fallacies are worse than less.
In the end, it's the facts that count, not the authorities.
So why are you continually appealing to authorities? How are you personally checking their work to make sure it's factual?
And in the end, it's INTERPRETATION OF FACTS that counts, not facts themselves.
Fact: There's a rock.
Question: How old is it?
Answer: Depends on the presuppositions brought to the study of the rock.
If this is what you call "blind faith", that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you've just rendered the expression meaningless
You can keep saying it makes the expression meaningless, but that doesn't change anything. You're just uncomfortable with the appellation so you're hoping you can bully me into not saying it.
You have no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor that any physical process/law will remain in place. You also have no evidence that the physical processes/laws you think you observe were in place 300 years ago when nobody was paying attention. You have faith, blind faith.
NOT to call what you have 'blind faith' would render the expression meaningless!
because by your usage, everything is blind faith.
That's not even close to the case. Too bad you're too busy thinking of bad arguments so you won't have to listen to the truth that you don't pay attention and learn about the truth. You're heading for wrathful judgment, and it will be fully deserved.
z: Uniformitarianism is the necessary basis of any world we can hope to describe
That's just an assertion, and is blatantly false. The Christian WV handles it just fine.
How is this false, blatantly or otherwise?
The Christian worldview, as said before, provides for natural processes and laws just fine.
That's why.
Ironically, the atheist wv doesn't.
If we can't rely on the sun rising tomorrow, or on gravity holding us down, how could we know anything about the world?
Great question!
Answer: YOU CAN'T.
That's why I say that atheism is absurd. By George, I think you may be finally making some progress.
I don't have to "assume" uniformitarianism: I observe it,
That's false. You observe an infinitessimally tiny fraction of all incidents and processes at work in the entire universe. I mean, it's ridiculously small. Every day the ratio composed of:
NUMERATOR: things and events you observe
__________________________________________
DENOMINATOR: all things and events on Earth (to say nothing of all things and events in the universe)
grow smaller and smaller.
Have you observed 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all things and events since the origin of time?
How could you even know? And what difference would shaving a few significant figures off here or there make?
You need to pry open your mind and realise how little you really know.
I observe it, and it accounts for the data.
1) And YEC accounts for the data too.
2) You need to prove that data carries any meaning, on atheism.
3) I'm not impressed when someone tells me that they've seen their hypothesis account for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all possible observations that could be made. I doubt you're much impressed on any other issue, but of course since you're emotionally involved with this one, you won't be consistent here.
3) If we're talking on Christianity, no, it doesn't account for the data, not even close, since God's Word is also data (in fact, it's infallible eyewitness testimony).
If you characterize the atheistic belief that the sun will rise tomorrow as "viciously circular blind faith", then I guess you should be happy you have a worldview where God tells you that the sun will rise.
That's funny. I am pretty happy about that, that I have a reason to think it will (but if it doesn't rise tomorrow, I'll be in the Eschaton, and I'd be even happier about that). The question is: why, since you don't have a reason to think it will, aren't you looking for a worldview that actually accounts for this kind of stuff?
Oh, I know, it's b/c the Bible says you hate God, and your emotions and evil heart lead you away from Jesus.
All you've got is a bald assertion that you can be sure of stuff we atheists can't be sure of, nothing more.
This may come as a surprise, but you're not God. Just talking doesn't change reality.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
My mission
I am currently raising support for the purpose of moving to France on a career basis, though my departure date is currently unknown.
The mission and goal that God has put on my heart is to share the good news of Jesus and the gift of eternal life with the many North African Muslims that live in France. They come from countries where less than 1% of the population loves Jesus, and they have come into a country where less than 2% of the population loves Jesus. Who will reach out to these precious people, Algerian and Moroccan Arabs, Kabyle and Shawiya Berbers?
My wife and I speak French fluently already, so there is no need for language training beforehand. We plan to do a mixture of the following activities as far as outreach:
-Evangelism through tract and booklet distribution
--on the street
--at seaports
--perhaps door to door
-Evangelism through open-air preaching
--I love Ray Comfort's preaching (though his apologetics, not quite as much)
-Seeking extended conversation and relationship, flowing out of these activities
--When we actually live there, we can arrange to meet people later and indeed will seek to do so, often
--We seek not to win debates, but to win people
-Pursuing relationship with the people we meet
--Meeting people and asking them to meet later over coffee/tea/meals
--Getting our families together
--Holidays like Christmas and Easter, and like iftar meals during Ramadan
-Offering free English and French classes
--Many N Africans, especially women, do not even speak French
--We have ESL teaching experience
-Discipling new believers in Jesus and planting churches
--The goal is to get them started and stable, then get out of the way
We are part of a missions agency that has been evangelising Europe for almost 60 years. We have already been appointed by them and our church's elders are 100% behind our going out, though we will of course remain under their leadership, authority, and accountability, even when on the foreign field.
I post this here to ask that any reader prayerfully consider supporting my family and me as we build up our team of partners. As you support us, you yourself join in the effort to share the Gospel with people who desperately need to hear the truth, and you sow blessing (2 Corinthians 8-9, Philippians 4:14-19). May the Lord richly bless all who read and all who are led to give.
Feel free to ask for clarification via email.
Thank you.
You can donate at my mission agency's website.
DONATE HERE
At the This box is for additional detail regarding the designation of your gift. (Name of Project or ministry you would like to support. box, please input "Rhology". That will be directed into my missions account.
Thank you, and may the Lord bless you.
-Rhology
The mission and goal that God has put on my heart is to share the good news of Jesus and the gift of eternal life with the many North African Muslims that live in France. They come from countries where less than 1% of the population loves Jesus, and they have come into a country where less than 2% of the population loves Jesus. Who will reach out to these precious people, Algerian and Moroccan Arabs, Kabyle and Shawiya Berbers?
My wife and I speak French fluently already, so there is no need for language training beforehand. We plan to do a mixture of the following activities as far as outreach:
-Evangelism through tract and booklet distribution
--on the street
--at seaports
--perhaps door to door
-Evangelism through open-air preaching
--I love Ray Comfort's preaching (though his apologetics, not quite as much)
-Seeking extended conversation and relationship, flowing out of these activities
--When we actually live there, we can arrange to meet people later and indeed will seek to do so, often
--We seek not to win debates, but to win people
-Pursuing relationship with the people we meet
--Meeting people and asking them to meet later over coffee/tea/meals
--Getting our families together
--Holidays like Christmas and Easter, and like iftar meals during Ramadan
-Offering free English and French classes
--Many N Africans, especially women, do not even speak French
--We have ESL teaching experience
-Discipling new believers in Jesus and planting churches
--The goal is to get them started and stable, then get out of the way
We are part of a missions agency that has been evangelising Europe for almost 60 years. We have already been appointed by them and our church's elders are 100% behind our going out, though we will of course remain under their leadership, authority, and accountability, even when on the foreign field.
I post this here to ask that any reader prayerfully consider supporting my family and me as we build up our team of partners. As you support us, you yourself join in the effort to share the Gospel with people who desperately need to hear the truth, and you sow blessing (2 Corinthians 8-9, Philippians 4:14-19). May the Lord richly bless all who read and all who are led to give.
Feel free to ask for clarification via email.
Thank you.
You can donate at my mission agency's website.
DONATE HERE
At the This box is for additional detail regarding the designation of your gift. (Name of Project or ministry you would like to support. box, please input "Rhology". That will be directed into my missions account.
Thank you, and may the Lord bless you.
-Rhology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)