HumbleThinker

I am not against it in theory, but like many medical conditions such as ADHD, possession can be overdiagnosed and the treatment, exorcism, can be quite deadly. Just like people used to call other people witches and have them burned for selfish and/or ignorant reasons, people have said that others are possessed for these same reasons. To the best of my limited knowledge, this is the reason why the Catholic church goes to great lengths nowadays to disprove that someone is possessed before an exorcism is called for. That someone simply needs psychiatric treatment is as far as I know the default position when there are claims of possession. This is far better than simply assuming that someone is possessed just because they appear to be or because one wants to believe or other such reasons, particularly given how deadly exorcisms can be. It is like capital punishment in that it can get very out of hand very quickly.

Oh there certainly is; it is simply up to us to actually find it. For just as God assures us that He will be found if we seek Him, such an act will be found in Him if we search it out with earnest.

~ Amen~! The Hindu Beliefs Are Indeed Based On A Demonic, Death Dealing, Racism To It's Bitter Core, Caste Slavery Scheme Of sin, because they believe not on me; John 16:9 And Although The Gandhi Studied The Words Of The Christ And Gained A Understanding Of Non-Violence Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36 He When On To Totally Dismiss The Core Of The Bible The LORD Jesus Himself I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8 And When Attacked By The Devil He Choose To Be Offended When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. Matthew 13:19 And In Offended Pride Turned Away Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt. Our soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease, and with the contempt of the proud. Psalms 123:3-4 From The It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 Christ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. John 3:16-20 ~ Do You Think The Gandhi Blamed A Man Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5 Or Do You Believe The Gandhi Blamed The LORD Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jeremiah 17:7 And Just Who's Message There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 Will You Preach Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 Beloved Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26 I'm sorry, but I don't share in your use of buzz words (ie. calling anything non-Christian, particularly religious things, "demonic"), so I highly doubt we will do more than talk past each other. I focus much more on objectively describing things instead of what they should be labeled. I've found that the latter impedes understanding, and to me seeking understanding in all matters is a cardinal virtue, so I would be sinning in myself if I were to do otherwise. This is not to insult you, but to simply point out the apparent differences in our approaches. It is also really difficult when you keep changing the topic. For instance, instead of dealing with the nature of Gandhi's words, you move to simply dismiss him because he isn't Christian as if that should affect the truth or falsehood of his words. And when it is pointed out that Gandhi's words have their root in the racism he met from Christians, and thus is a perfect example of the original poster's point, the conversation is again steered to Gandhi not being Christian and somehow onto the topic of Hinduism.

Not at all. Despite what a small minority of some I've encountered have warned (not speaking of here) , my faith has only been enhanced by the study of other faiths. I've read at least one major work/scripture (some faiths don't have "scripture" in the strictest sense or at least in the same sense as us) for most of the major faiths. I couldn't get through the Quaran, though, due to the massive amounts of repetition and it seems like the longest book is first which makes entry difficult. Speaking in purely objective terms, learning itself is never a bad thing as everything is part of God's Creation. From a subjective point. my faith has been enhanced by exploring different perspectives through which to view my own faith and relationship with God. You may be interested in looking up information on Thomas Merton who actually used Buddhist ideas to rediscover a very spiritual discipline that had all but been forgotten (the meditative techniques of the Desert Fathers) that, IIRC, revitalized his faith. Hopefully I got the details right here as I'm just running off of memory. I would be very careful what you feed your spirit and mind. Thomas Merton was a Christian mystic. Yes. And? And make sure all your electrical appliances are up to code. If you are wanting me to derive something from the fact that he is a Christian mystic, then I'm afraid you are going to have to be more blunt for me to grasp it. Thomas Merton believed and promoted things that are not of God. He was into the occult and alternative religions. He regularly practiced various buddhist acts in order to attain a "connection" to God. All of this is against what the Lord tells us Christians should do and believe. The whole article, and its just one of many on the internet that show the false beliefs of merton, cites the letters and publications of merton in which he claims these heretical views. http://www.apostasyalert.org/Merton.htm In what way are you using the word occult here and in what way does it apply to Merton? And he did not coin the term centering prayer (which is a pretty generic phrase in and of itself) nor did he invent the practice. In the Christian tradition, it goes back to somewhere around the 4th century with the Desert Fathers. And your post seems to be conflating a lot of things. The prayer technique that you are probably thinking of is called hesychasm, and from my limited understanding of it involves attempting to shut down the senses to attempt a spiritual union with God or, probably more accurately, some divine aspect of God. The retirement of the senses would probably be the best use of your word "void" here. As far as Nirvana, Merton had no interest in the doctrines of other faiths, in this case Buddhism. As far as I've seen. he would speak of Nirvana as a Buddhist doctrine and usually for the purpose of trying to find common ground in Christian traditions or philosophies in order to have a dialogue. But he is quick to point out the differences, such as that Nirvana is no a union with anything whereas the Christian is seeking a union with the divine in one respect or another even if they are not as mystically bent as he is. At the risk of oversimplifying here, Merton was essentially interested later in his life in the Eastern concept of selflessness and emptiness in contrast with the very entrenched Western idea of a permanent self/I and the "thatness" of everything. His approach to paralleling particularly Zen and certain strains of Christian thought evolved a lot, so there's nothing particularly monolithic about his treatment of either throughout any long stretch of time. Your post seems to simply be lumping him in with New Age and Emergent stuff, which is at best superficially true from my perspective. A big part of New Age from my experience is an oversimplification and outright butchery of Buddhism that came about with late 19th and early 20th century misunderstandings of Buddhism derived from scant texts. Merton speaks out against this multiple times even in his own treatment as I stated earlier. And as I said earlier, Merton was not looking for any doctrine in other faiths but practice that could fill the spiritual void that he found the Western tradition sorely lacked because of its very object-oriented philosophy. Put another way, Merton seemed to feel that the Western tradition was more about doctrine and conceptions of God than a personal relationship with Him and knowing Him directly. I've experienced something like this even before I knew anything about Merton or much about other faiths. You'll have to forgive me for being this skeptical, particularly when what you have posted goes against what I have read, even in a limited fashion and that your article is from a site called "Apostasy Alert." It doesn't strike me as a particularly authoritative or unbiased source. Sorry if this got too long, but I'm hoping for some interesting discussion on the subject.

~ Beloved So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 I Do Thank You For Your Patience Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 And I Think I May Now Understand The Issue Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23 For At The Core Of Our Faith Stands The LORD Jesus Who Against All Logic Will Turn A Diseased Rotten Apple And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Acts 8:1-3 Into A Nutritious Source Of Life Transforming And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. Acts 9:1-9 Life Saving Truth All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ~ Be Blessed Beloved The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 Love, Your Brother Joe ~ Beloved, The High Esteem That God Puts In His Holy Word I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalms 138:2 Is Reflected In The Hungry Hearts Of His Children And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:3-4 You See Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 You seem to be judging other faiths and knowledge about them in a manner that is neither warranted nor necessary. Just because something is not Christian does not make it rotten, evil, icky, or any other negative adjective you wish to impose upon it; it is simply not Christian. And if a learning about, practicing, or otherwise interacting with a faith either produces negative results, no results, or positive results that are inferior to Christianity and its practices, then, again, no negative adjectives are necessary. To describe something as it is instead of how it makes us feel based on how much we like is generally seen as a positive behavior by most or all religious and secular institutions. Specific claims that can be backed up with Scripture or can be discussed through your personal experience is much more informative and IMO interesting to discuss than simply saying what can be summed up as "it's not Christian therefore it's bad."

Yes. And? Mysticism has always been rebuked, starting with Gnosticism and Hellenism. If it was bad then, why would you think it would be good now? When you eat junk food, your body reflects what was eaten and become unhealthy. Feed yourself spiritual junk and your spirit become unhealthy. It really is that simple. Study the bible and you will know when something does not line up with scripture. There is no need to study all religions. That is what the Emergent Church is doing, taking what is agreeable amongst all religions and discarding what is not, creating themselves another religion. John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." a) Just because some folk rebuked it in the past doesn't mean mysticism or mystics are "bad." b) I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Mysticism has always been rebuked." I see no evidence for this, particularly when you consider than there were many Church Fathers who were mystics (they were called Desert Fathers), many seem to have been held in high esteem, and were canonized. c) Mysticism is distinct from both gnosticism and hellenism, so this likely explains the issue with b. d) In my experience, knowledge is distinct from food in that there is not a clear cause-and-effect relationship between gaining a specific sort of knowledge and it having a specific effect. The entire digestive process is effectively outside of our control and predetermined, yet we can train our mind to react differently to the same stimulus. Your position ignores this and oversimplifies what one is doing when they are gaining knowledge of other faiths, especially when you bring up the Emergent Church as if you are assuming that I am doing what they are doing. Besides enabling you to accurately interact with those of different faiths, learning about different faiths can give you insight into spiritual (as opposed to religious/dogmatic) aspects of the spiritual life that Scripture does not touch on or does not go into much detail. All the analogies in the world will not do away with the effects one sees as a result of their actions. So you can claim that learning about other faiths will have negative consequence Y for reasons A, B, and C, but if it is contrary to my experience, then there is no reason to ignore my experience and take your word for things. This would be like telling someone they will burn their hand if they touch ice for theoretical reasons A, B, and C, despite the fact that the person has never burned their hand when touching ice.

Not at all. Despite what a small minority of some I've encountered have warned (not speaking of here) , my faith has only been enhanced by the study of other faiths. I've read at least one major work/scripture (some faiths don't have "scripture" in the strictest sense or at least in the same sense as us) for most of the major faiths. I couldn't get through the Quaran, though, due to the massive amounts of repetition and it seems like the longest book is first which makes entry difficult. Speaking in purely objective terms, learning itself is never a bad thing as everything is part of God's Creation. From a subjective point. my faith has been enhanced by exploring different perspectives through which to view my own faith and relationship with God. You may be interested in looking up information on Thomas Merton who actually used Buddhist ideas to rediscover a very spiritual discipline that had all but been forgotten (the meditative techniques of the Desert Fathers) that, IIRC, revitalized his faith. Hopefully I got the details right here as I'm just running off of memory. I would be very careful what you feed your spirit and mind. Thomas Merton was a Christian mystic. Yes. And? And make sure all your electrical appliances are up to code. If you are wanting me to derive something from the fact that he is a Christian mystic, then I'm afraid you are going to have to be more blunt for me to grasp it.

Not at all. Despite what a small minority of some I've encountered have warned (not speaking of here) , my faith has only been enhanced by the study of other faiths. I've read at least one major work/scripture (some faiths don't have "scripture" in the strictest sense or at least in the same sense as us) for most of the major faiths. I couldn't get through the Quaran, though, due to the massive amounts of repetition and it seems like the longest book is first which makes entry difficult. Speaking in purely objective terms, learning itself is never a bad thing as everything is part of God's Creation. From a subjective point. my faith has been enhanced by exploring different perspectives through which to view my own faith and relationship with God. You may be interested in looking up information on Thomas Merton who actually used Buddhist ideas to rediscover a very spiritual discipline that had all but been forgotten (the meditative techniques of the Desert Fathers) that, IIRC, revitalized his faith. Hopefully I got the details right here as I'm just running off of memory. I would be very careful what you feed your spirit and mind. Thomas Merton was a Christian mystic. Yes. And?

~ Gandhi Was No Fan Of Christ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 So The Fact He Did And Many Of His Fellow Hindus Do Not Like Followers Of Christ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 Is A No-Brainer Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew 5:11-12 ? For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 Gandhi was met with racism upon trying to enter a church service. The "no-brainer" is the origin of his feelings as expressed in that quote. He is a perfect example of the effect our sin can have on others and why, as LFA said, we should care more about the lost than ourselves.

But is this the inevitable conclusion of studying other faiths? From my experience, it isn't. ~ The LORD's Conclusion Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Philippians 4:8 Trumps Man's Philosophies Every Time Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8 And You Are Correct, For Standing In The Truth So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 Comes From Studying God's Holy Word Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 And Not From Eating Satan's Lies And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 You See? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The claim was that studying other faiths somehow opens the door for Satan planting doubts in you about your own faith. I'm saying from my experience that that is not necessarily the case. My faith has only been strengthened from studying other faiths. You can devise reasoning from Scripture all day long, but it is all theoretical if it is only used to disqualify other's experiences out of hand. Scripture does not tell the effect of studying other faiths, so it would be wrong to pretend that it does and that it therefore disqualifies anyone's experiences that are different from it. And by this logic, we shouldn't study anything that is not theological in nature. Perhaps that would work in an ideal world, but we don't live in one, so that's not going to happen and Christians throughout the millenia have understood how extra-Christian understandings can assist in life and faith, even in a superficial way. Also, perhaps this works for you, but that does not mean it works for others.

But is this the inevitable conclusion of studying other faiths? From my experience, it isn't.

Not at all. Despite what a small minority of some I've encountered have warned (not speaking of here) , my faith has only been enhanced by the study of other faiths. I've read at least one major work/scripture (some faiths don't have "scripture" in the strictest sense or at least in the same sense as us) for most of the major faiths. I couldn't get through the Quaran, though, due to the massive amounts of repetition and it seems like the longest book is first which makes entry difficult. Speaking in purely objective terms, learning itself is never a bad thing as everything is part of God's Creation. From a subjective point. my faith has been enhanced by exploring different perspectives through which to view my own faith and relationship with God. You may be interested in looking up information on Thomas Merton who actually used Buddhist ideas to rediscover a very spiritual discipline that had all but been forgotten (the meditative techniques of the Desert Fathers) that, IIRC, revitalized his faith. Hopefully I got the details right here as I'm just running off of memory.

I want to get better at abiding in God always and fulfill Psalms 23, in particular the first verse: "The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want." Landing a Montessori job after graduation would be nice, too, but "each day has enough trouble of its own."

Given the track record of the myriad of predictors just in Christianity and just in the last few years, any such prediction should be taken with extreme skepticism. Even Jesus doesn't know the time of the second coming, so we sure aren't going to figure it out by trying to interpret descriptions of prophetic visions and such, which are notoriously obtuse.

1) Try establishing common manners of communication. This is especially useful for online communications because so many problems can arise simply from one party misunderstanding the other's word choice. The more you come to know people, the more likely you are to understand their idiosyncrasies, but it would seem to be a good idea to keep them to a minimum. 2) Mutual respect. If one party feels the other party is not giving him a fair shake and/or only has his own interest in mind, he will likely get defensive and communication will quickly break down. 3) Don't have an agenda. This sort of ties in with 2. When one party feels like the other party is talking to him only to get something out of him or only to influence him in some way, paranoia and distrust will arise and communication will quickly break down. A degree of this seems to be mitigated if both parties understand from the beginning that one or both have an agenda in this manner. This is mitigated even more so if one party comes to the other expressly asking to be part of the other's agenda (ie. going to a car dealership and asking to be sold a car or going to a church and asking for spiritual advice about one's behavior). These are a few I thought of off the top of my head.

To avoid repeating what others have said, I'll go a different route. From my experience, recognizing hypocrisy in ourselves is a starting point to empathizing with the hypocrisy of others instead of hypocritically becoming judgmental about it. But empathizing alone will only at best only prevent us from dealing with those who present hypocrisy harshly. This is fine and good, but settling for simply not dealing harshly with others when they sin is not the pinnacle of the holy life and appears selfish if one is capable of going beyond this. Actually assisting others in decreasing their sin and cultivating repentance and better actions is much more in line with the Christian life. A quote that I am rather fond of from the the Talmud (can't remember exactly what it is commenting on) goes like this: "Whoever can prevent members of their household from committing a sin, but does not, is punished for the sins of their household. If they can prevent their fellow citizens from committing sins, but does not, they are punished for the sins of their fellow citizens. If you can prevent the whole world from committing a sin, but does not, they are punished for the sins of the whole world." Actually doing this, however, is easier said than done, and would seem to require understanding the origin of the hypocrisy, how to decrease it and replace it with a better behavior, and the specific actions one needs to do to bring this about.This would seem to require a lot of introspection and prayer to determine origin and treatment of hypocrisy in ourselves before we do so in others, hence the whole beam/speck thing Jesus talked about and others brought up earlier.

I personally wouldn't these days since it is gambling which is a waste of money and cancultivate some poor behavior unintentionally. Obviously the less you do it the less of a problem it is but not doing it at all seems to be the best course as it does not risk our mind straying from God. That said asbutero said, it can fall into the same category as entertainment if you find it entertaining.

So since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right? In as much as He intends it to not have error. If speaking from a mistaken position about the size of mustard seeds compared to all seeds for example would better serve His spiritual purposes, I see no reason why He would correct it. Correcting this understandably mistaken notion of the people at the time would not serve any purpose and would likely just get in the way. As I believe you said before, Jesus was not teaching a course in biology. Jesus of course being both human and divine would presumably know that there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed, but His audience would not nor would they particularly need to. Other than things like this, though, no there would be no error. Do you not understand that in ancient times, they used figurative language when they spoke and in this case, Jesus was using hyperbole??? Or is that just supposed to belong to modern times. THe problem with your approach to the Bible is that you can't tell the difference bewteen plain speech and figurative devices in the text. When the Bible says that the mountains melt like wax in the presence of God, do you assume that they were so stupid as to believe that mountains actually melt, or is it more likely that they were using figurative language? The more you post, the more clear it becomes that you don't have a clue when it comes how to interpret the Bible. But Jesus treats Adam as historical. How can Jesus be God and make that kind of error if Adam isn't really historical. The rest of the NT also treasts Adam as historical. How does your questionable handling of Scripture trump the words of Jesus? Are you calling it hyperbole because it is actually hyperbole and thus something you can demonstrate from the culture or Hebrew, or are you calling it hyperbole because Creation demonstrates that a mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds? If the latter, now you've opened the doors to that slippery slope that some creationists I know love to ramble on about that allows for Creation to assist us in interpreting Scripture. And if you want to talk about ancient times, you should start withe the fact that the mustard seed was the smallest known seed in that part of the world despite it growing into a tree much taller than "the garden plants" that grow from much bigger seeds. He is clearly drawing out a spiritual point from reality as he does on multiple occasions, even within the same chapter of Matthew that this parable is contained in. That the mustard seed in modern times is used for something that is proverbially small came about from the popularity of the Bible.

That's the problem. You are trying to have a discussion based on how YOU define kety terms and you are expecting to make YOUR defintitions of those terms the working definitions for the conversation. Essentially, what you are doing isn't "interpretation." You are trying define the Bible is your own way according to what you are prepared to accept based upon your agenda to force the Bible to be subserviant to the natural world and to science. Which is the point of the whole conversation: to root out how much of this is semantics and how much of it is substantial. Take a chill pill.

These are indeed other examples I think of when I think of one making a very good argument for the Bible being the Word of God. I personally would not connect "word of truth" to "Word of God" in the verses in that way, but it does make for a pretty solid argument. I see Matthew 4:4 as speaking about the words God actually spoke or spoke through others. 2 Timothy 2:16 very well could be talking about Scripture or just about doctrine in general if we look to verse 18. Chronology of the early Church is not one of my strong suits, so I do not know how much Scripture other than the OT of course would have been in circulation at this point. But then it could also just be juxtaposing words of truth with the false and unpragmatic words spoken about in the surrounding verses. 2 Cor. 2:13 is speaking about the wisdom given to them by the Holy Spirit as opposed to worldly "wisdom" men come up with on their own. James 1:18 seems to be speaking about the Gospel, which you seem to be implying in the beginning of your post. And Revlation 1:2 certainly would not have John testifying about Scripture but testifying about those same things which he included in his Gospel. Overall, I can definitely see strong reasons for calling the Bible the Word of God, and I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with doing that. I just think it may be co=opting a phrase that I think is used completely differently elsewhere and thus can cause some confusion that could be avoided. Then again, the phrase, at least in the English translations of the Bible, is used when speaking about connected but distinctly different things. So like I said, this is probably more semantics than anything else. It has been a nice conversation, though, and I've definitely learned some things.

So since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right? In as much as He intends it to not have error. If speaking from a mistaken position about the size of mustard seeds compared to all seeds for example would better serve His spiritual purposes, I see no reason why He would correct it. Correcting this understandably mistaken notion of the people at the time would not serve any purpose and would likely just get in the way. As I believe you said before, Jesus was not teaching a course in biology. Jesus of course being both human and divine would presumably know that there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed, but His audience would not nor would they particularly need to. Other than things like this, though, no there would be no error.

Now these kinds of verses are what I think of when I think of someone trying to make a case for the Bible being the Word of God. It's verses like this where I can understand how many can feel confident in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and can concede the possibility that I am making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. It is quite conceivable that it is speaking of Scripture since Paul is speaking of Old Testament Scripture here. Though Paul could also be specifically talking about the words God spoke since Paul is putting emphasis on God swearing and one hearing his voice earlier in the chapter. Personally, I would connect this with verses like Ephesians 6:17: "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Here it seems to be talking about some specific words, potentially from Scripture, that the Spirit prompts in us to defeat what is opposing us and not necessarily the Bible itself, though again I could be splitting hairs here. Or it could be talking about the Spirit itself, though I am not familiar with the Greek here or if the Spirit is referred to as the word of God in other portions of the Bible. Ok and similarly what do you suggest 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to ? 2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. It certainly is speaking of Scripture. But it being inspired by God, thus making it profitable, does not make it the Word of God in my usage of the term. As GoldenEagle and I have concluded, we are using the term differently. He is using it in a manner that consolidates many of the aspects we both accept about the Bible including inspiration. I am using it in in reference to the Word which is spoken of in the opening chapter of John, which has qualities that the Bible does not. So this whole issue could likely ust be one of semantics.

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time. How is it the common ape has survived, and a human being has survived, but something in between could not adapt? That makes no logical sense to me. What about it doesn't make sense? I don't know how to answer that question because I see no connection between a species being between two existing species and its survival or extinction. Why are more than 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? I'm not sure what you are expecting. Since the ape survived, and the human beings survived, you would think some of the in between beings would have survived. Why wouldn't they have been able to adapt? They would be smarter than the ape. BTW, how do you know that more than 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct? What proof do you offer for that claim? Your explaination for why animals were able to mix at one time is interesting, but like the rest of the theory of evolution, there is no serious evidence for it.

Even Satan knows God is real. That is a very dangerous place to be in, not knowing if you are saved, just taking a chance. You need to make scripture personal to your walk in Him and not depend so much on your own understanding ... Proverbs 3:5-6 Everything has an element of chance in it. In terms of absolute objective certainty, no I don't know that I'm saved. But a relationship with God, like religion in general, isn't objective but subjective. It is a personal matter. And my personal, subjective experience grants my 100% confidence that I am saved. The only problem with invoking Proverbs 3:5 here is that in practical terms, it really only works in a vacuum, if I am the only person on the planet. But I'm not, and to communicate and receive guidance from others, including priests, requires that I be influenced by their understanding. So from my experience, the Proverb is absolutely true, but is more often than not misused so that someone subtly makes you depend on THEIR understanding instead of your own and most definitely instead of God's. You see what I mean? Sorry, but I could not follow what you are trying to say. Proverbs 3:5-6 stated: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. This scripture never tells us to lean on any other persons understanding, as you point to, but on Him and Him alone. Indeed. The point I was trying to make in that jumble of words was that God, from my experience, does not necessarily have direct revelation in mind when He tells us to trust in Him and not our own understandings. And anything understanding that is not direct revelation will rely on either yourself or someone else. This verse becomes dangerous in how easy it is for others to misuse by claiming that you should not trust in your own understanding but God's when what they really mean is that you should trust in their understanding instead of your own or God's. I don't see trusting in God and not in our own understanding as necessarily mutually exclusive from any means of gathering knowledge or information, all of which come from God anyway, through some way other than direct revelation. Hopefully this jumble of words makes slightly more sense

Hello HumbleThinker, For my interest what do you say the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4 is ? Heb 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Now these kinds of verses are what I think of when I think of someone trying to make a case for the Bible being the Word of God. It's verses like this where I can understand how many can feel confident in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and can concede the possibility that I am making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. It is quite conceivable that it is speaking of Scripture since Paul is speaking of Old Testament Scripture here. Though Paul could also be specifically talking about the words God spoke since Paul is putting emphasis on God swearing and one hearing his voice earlier in the chapter. Personally, I would connect this with verses like Ephesians 6:17: "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Here it seems to be talking about some specific words, potentially from Scripture, that the Spirit prompts in us to defeat what is opposing us and not necessarily the Bible itself, though again I could be splitting hairs here. Or it could be talking about the Spirit itself, though I am not familiar with the Greek here or if the Spirit is referred to as the word of God in other portions of the Bible.