Jump to content

Tristen

Worthy Ministers
  • Posts

    2,326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Tristen

  1. I think there is nothing worthy in me which Christ has not restored by His grace. We each come to Christ in a unique state; with a unique array of weaknesses to overcome. The undertone of the thread's title is that there are some better, more worthy, Christians than others. This potentially adds weight to the legalistic burden of many Christians who already struggle under the persistent misconception that God is disappointed with them. I personally don't care if I rule with Him - so long as I am "with Him".
  2. To receive the salvation of God offered through the true Messiah (Jesus Christ), one must be convinced of (i.e. have faith in) the truth of His Gospel - and respond to that Gospel by sincerely surrendering ownership of your life to the Messiah (as to incarnate God). Declaring the Messiah to be your Lord (i.e. Master/Owner) implies a decision to follow the Messiah and His righteousness.
  3. Consider that God created this natural universe. How many thousands of years do you think it would take before you ran out of wonders to discover about the natural universe? Now imagine a reality that is eternally diverse in character. The answer is 'no', heaven will not get boring - even if our finite minds cannot comprehend its awesomeness.
  4. As a non-US citizen, I don't have a say. From my perspective - if I were a US citizen. I would not have voted for Trump in 2016 (it just felt too gimmicky). I would definitely not have voted democrat. I would probably not have voted (nice to have that option). However, during his time as president, I appreciated how he handled Syria, and Iran, and North Korea, and China, and the Abraham accords, and the UN and Nato, and the WHO, and some aspects of how he handled COVID. I'm not overly familiar with his domestic track record, but based on his international record, I would have voted for him in 2020. He says some silly things on occasion. He pushed the 'robbed election' narrative for a bit too long. Not sure if I agree with him totally on how to handle the Ukraine situation. But I'd be far more comfortable with Trump in charge of the US, than any of the democratic party options. But alas, I have no say. People struggle to associate outcomes with their ideological/political decisions. I am therefore not confident that Trumps victory is a given.
  5. If God has placed that burden on your heart, then fantastic. It should, however, be noted that Jesus can also be found in Mexico and South America (as many have already discovered) - and not only in the USA. Furthermore, from another perspective, mass migration into a western nation could be interpreted as a satanic imperative to dilute Christianity (and its influence) out of a culture.
  6. Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
  7. Prayers can take many beautiful forms. I nevertheless suspect God cares more for sincere, heartfelt communication, than He does for a prayer cast in classical English poetic prose. - Which is not to belittle pretty prayers. However, we should be careful to keep prayer within reach of everyone. Prayer is simply talking with our beloved Creator - as a child might speak to their own father. Prayer doesn't have to be pretty or clever.
  8. Yes - God is our loving Father, and we are each His beloved child. The relationship is real. The love is real. This is the basis of our fellowship and communion with our heavenly Father. Therefore prayer is not a chore. Prayer is the joy and privilege of speaking with the Creator - as His beloved child - without hypocrisy or fear - with due respect, but without religious formalities - without trying to impress Him - knowing that He already knows us, and loves us completely.
  9. Given that "scripture" (a.k.a. God's Word) originates in God (i.e. is "God-breathed"), and does not originate in Paul (or any other human author), it is irrelevant whether or not the one who penned the words understood that their writing constituted "scripture". With regards to the New Testament: - The texts must present a revelation of God that is consistent with the revelation of God provided in existing, recognized scriptures. - The texts must be universally recognized by the earliest Christians as having an authoritative (i.e. Apostolic/Prophetic) revelation from God. - The essential doctrines contained in the texts have been preserved by God throughout their history. - There is no counter-claim in the text itself as to its Divine authority. By contrast, there are authoritative internal (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:15) and ancillary (e.g. 2 Peter 3:15-16) claims that the texts are authoritative. Taken together, this represents an extremely high standard of textual criticism. It is highly unlikely that a human-derived text would pass these rules. There is, therefore, very good reason to trust the Christian canon (including Paul's own writings) as "God-breathed Scripture".
  10. If I understand this correctly, what you describe seems like a satanic strategy to lure you into ungodly desires. Males are designed by God to be attracted to the "feminine". And so here we have "boys" made to appear "feminine" in a manner designed to broaden your paradigm - away from normal, God-given, sexual attraction - in the direction of same-sex attraction. I would not consider this to mean you are necessarily "gay" (same-sex attracted). The strategy appears to be designed to confuse your natural male attraction towards the "feminine". You were right to subject those ideas to the authority of Christ and "force" them away.
  11. So "Prayer – Means praying" Prayer means talking to God. Prayer is conversation, communication. Don't over-spiritualize it. Be honest with God and you'll do just fine.
  12. This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy). I described the concept that the sky has windows in it through which rain could fall. As you see, your claim that this isn't in most translations is false. Your original statement was to claim that the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through". In your response here, you are therefore intentionally Equivocating. You are knowingly selecting one aspect of the claim - for the purpose of making false accusations - whilst intentionally ignoring the full nature of the claim I was addressing. That is, you have decided to resort to rank, self-evident dishonesty. Therefore, I have lost interest in wasting any more time in this conversation.
  13. Well allow me to demystify my position for you. If something natural, or something conceptual, is described in architectural terms - this can reasonably be assumed to be a metaphorical description. That is, some literal detail of reality is being described in a symbolic way. This is commonly understood across cultures and languages. However, if something is stated in such a way as to be plainly understood as historical narrative, then we do not permit ourselves the right to dismiss the stated details as though the details have no relation to reality. This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy). Your original claim suggested the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through". As far as I could tell, none of your provided verses said, "the sky is a dome over the Earth". It is true that many of the provided verses used "windows or flood gates", but that was not the full nature of the claim being addressed. Genesis 1:6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. Seems pretty clear, much more explicit than "mornings" and "evenings" without a sun to have them." While it may come as a surprise to many, modern scholarship has long argued that the Hebrews, along with most other ancient peoples, believed that the heavens (as in ‘the sky’)2 were made of some kind of solid substance, whether it be of bronze, iron, or precious stone. This heavenly vault or dome had hatches in it, so it is argued, that released the waters that were contained above it. According to this view, this was the ancient explanation for where rain comes from. While this modern scholastic view goes well beyond what pious ancient interpreters thought, we can conveniently group together all views that thought of the rāqîaʿ as a solid object the firmament concept. ‘Firmament’ being the well-known King James Version translation of the Hebrew word rāqîaʿ. One may question if such a view is nothing more than a modern scholarly invention. As understandable as that would be, the very etymology and long-term usage of the (English) word firmament testifies that the notion of a cosmic ‘vault,’ or conversely of some kind of crystalline celestial sphere (which concepts, however, are far from identical),3 has long been believed in. Firmament is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate’s firmamentum, the Vulgate being a 1,600 year old translation. The Vulgate itself was influenced by the Septuagint’s στερέωμα (stereōma), the Septuagint itself being a 2,300 year old translation. Stereōma comes from the word στερεόω (stereoō) – ‘to make or be firm or solid.’ While secular scholarship and conservative belief alike distinguish between the original intent of the Bible and later interpretations of it (no matter how old those interpretations may be), it is nonetheless a remarkable fact that the earliest ever translation of the Hebrew Bible, from circa 250 B.C., interpreted the rāqîaʿ as referring to some kind of hard heavenly object. ... In summary, this ‘dome theory’ or ‘firmament notion’ represents the almost unquestioned consensus view of modern scholarship, while ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation has itself long supported important aspects of this model. Furthermore, while a segment of scholars, almost entirely from the evangelical community, previously opposed this view, particularly in light of the scientific problems it introduces, an increasing number of professing evangelical scholars have now openly embraced the firmament interpretation. The earlier evangelical view is represented by the translation of rāqîaʿ as an expanse, rather than as a firmament or dome: https://hebrewcosmology.com/expanse-firmament-raqia/introduction-to-the-raqia-problem/ So then, the answer to my question ('Was there any mention in your list of verses, of a windowed "dome"?') is an unequivocal 'No'. The exact meaning of 'raqia' (Hb) has been debated by Hebrew scholars throughout Christian history. You found a source that claimed it probably means one thing, but which also showed it has to be dragged via other languages to support that meaning. In every other sense of the use of 'raqia', it refers to something being expanded, or spread out. Many translators therefore translate 'raqia' as an "expanse". By strange coincidence, the word "expanse" is a perfectly apt description of the sky and space. I am therefore well within reason to reject any insistence that 'raqia' necessarily refers to a "dome".
  14. This is pagan mythology masquerading as truth. You are borrowing concepts from the truth (the Christian Bible) and attempting to merge these Biblical concepts with paganistic mythology. This is a common practice of cults. Add some truth to lies to make the lies seem more true. Sorry (not sorry) - no one here is falling for it. You shouldn't fall for it either.
  15. Yes, Lol. For some reason, obvious (self-evident) architectural metaphors must be taken hyper-literally when it suits your position (pillars, foundations, cornerstones, windows, floodgates etc.). So yes, one might metaphorically describe rain as heaven releasing water - i.e. heaven opening up to release water to fall to Earth; as one might open, say, a "window" or "gate". Are you really going to dishonestly resort to pretending you don't understand an obvious metaphor? Do you think the Bible describes Jesus as a literal lamb, or a literal gate/door. or a literal light etc.? Do we always need to play disingenuous games? Do you think you win a prize? Was there any mention in your list of verses of a windowed "dome"?
  16. I don't think God meant for you to think the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through. Which is why He doesn't say any such thing in His Word. I mean - unless you insist on the most ridiculously remote, narrowest and most presumptuous interpretations of certain words. Fortunately, most translators avoided this trap of confirmation bias - which is why the concepts you describe do not appear in many (if any) translations of the Bible.
  17. For example, I'm pretty sure that God doesn't care what we think the value of pi is To me, the natural implication of this example is that God's Word can be trusted, even in the supposedly "incidental details".
  18. You have decided to completely ignore the implications of my argument, and persisted in repeating the same logical error. I made no "claim to definitively understand the ways of the adult world". We can therefore add "silly" to your growing list of unsupported Ad-hominem (fallacious) accusations against those who dare disagree with you. I did not ever "say God is not talking down to us". Therefore, we can add 'ignorant' and "a lack of self-awareness" to your growing list of unsupported Ad-hominem (fallacious) accusations against those who presume to disagree with you. The fact that you resort to Ad-hominem statements when someone disagrees with you shows that (ironically) you are the one who is being intractable. You are the one who thinks your position represents a definitive understanding of reality. You have this logic filter that automatically dismisses (rather than considers) alternative viewpoints. And in an ironic twist, you automatically attribute your own flaw to the one holding an opposing view.
  19. I'm not convinced that ancient peoples couldn't express precise numbers when it was required. The word 'tithe' is an expression of fractions. Ancient peoples built some very complex structures - which would have required a thorough comprehension of fundamental mathematical concepts. It is not "wrong". It is only less precise than it could be. Due to the nature pi, this accusation could be leveled at anyone who has ever used pi. But it is semantically, mathematically incorrect to claim an imprecise representation of pi is "wrong". Firstly, I don't think the argument supports this conclusion - since the "details" in this example are actually correct (albeit imprecise). More importantly, who gets to decide which "details" of God's Word are "incidental"? Are we giving ourselves permission to do that now?
  20. Galileo (the only one in your list under Christian authority) was not "punished" for claiming the Earth is round. Trying to conflate the 'shape-of-the-Earth' issue with the 'history of geocentric/heliocentric debate' issue only serves to muddy the conversation. Regardless - you are now aware that it is an error to characterize "Christians and church leaders of the Middle Ages" as typically thinking the Earth is flat - given that flat-Earthism was never a typical Christian belief.
  21. Ummm, "pi" is "literally" "3". That is, the number "3" is a mathematically valid rendering of "pi". Now, "3" is not a very precise rendering of "pi". - Since "pi" is an infinite iteration, whenever using "pi", one has to select the level of precision to use for the specific purpose (i.e. where to round off the decimal point). If we round "pi" to the nearest whole integer, "pi" is "3" - unequivocally. The Bible is therefore "literally" correct if it claims "pi" to be "3".
  22. You like to insinuate that anyone who holds an opinion different to yours is being dogmatic and intractable – but in applying this reasoning, you have ironically rendered yourself unteachable – in that, anyone can now dismiss any uncomfortable information (including Biblical truth) on the basis that our knowledge is limited. By this rationale, you therefore make provision for yourself to invalidate any belief that is contrary to your position – while at the same time implying those with differing opinions to you are the ones being arrogant. A person can have a valid, well thought-out, well researched doctrinal position based on rational arguments and sound hermeneutics – in which they have every reasonable right to be confident. Your Argument from Ignorance (i.e. a technical logic fallacy) is therefore nothing more than specious posturing. It sounds humble on the surface – but when properly examined, is, in-actuality, the height of arrogance. Every truth contained in the Bible can now be invalidated if your spurious reasoning is applied more broadly. After all, the Bible itself tells us that our knowledge is limited. So how can anyone be sure about anything? Is Jesus the only way to God? Well – the Bible says so literally, but maybe that was just God’s poetic way of speaking to an ancient people who couldn’t comprehend the truth. Remember, we only have limited knowledge (as the Bible itself tells us). Was Jesus born of a virgin? Well – that is what the Bible plainly claims, but maybe that is just God’s way of poetically communicating truth to those ancients who were incapable of grasping the real truth if it was stated explicitly. Remember, we only have finite knowledge (as the Bible itself tells us). Is Jesus the Son of God Who sacrificed Himself to pay the price for our sins? Well – that is what the Bible teaches us if we take scripture at its word, but maybe that was just God’s poetic way of speaking to an ancient, and therefore ignorant, people. Remember, none of us knows everything (as the Bible itself tells us). Was Jesus resurrected from the dead? Well – that is a fundamental teaching of Christian scripture, but maybe that was just God’s poetic way of conversing with an ancient people who would have had difficulty coming to terms with what really happened. Remember, we only have a partial picture of reality (as the Bible itself tells us). Did God create the heavens and earth (including all life) in six days before resting on the seventh? Well – that is the account of history as stated in Genesis, but maybe that was just God’s poetic way of speaking to a primitive ancient people who lacked the capacity to understand true history. Remember, we only currently have access to limited knowledge (as the Bible itself tells us).
  23. The claim that Christians typically, historically thought the Earth was flat is a secular myth. Civilization was well-aware that the Earth was round centuries before Christ. This myth began in 1828 - with the fictional publication of "A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" by Washington Irving. In this account, it was untruthfully claimed that Christians tried to stop the voyage of Columbus for fear he would sale off the edge of the flat Earth. Apparently, there were also two obscure Christian clerics who argued that the Earth was flat. You'll have to ask an atheist for their names - as atheists like to use these two as evidence - pretending this was the typical Christian view. However, there are many thousands of other historical Christian references to the shape of the Earth (including images) - all demonstrating that learned Christians have always been aware that the Earth is round. The modern flat-earth movement has recent origins and is not a Christian entity (though there are Christians involved).
  24. So, that is what you got out of it Yes. That is the clear progression of the discussion. In one breath you are suggesting we should avoid dogmatism, but in the next breath you are negatively characterizing those who disagree with you about creationism (i.e. as angry fanatics who think they "know everything" and are "not in the spirit of Christ"). You are claiming open-mindedness for yourself, while throwing shade at the opinions of those who disagree with you. And instead of addressing rational arguments against your position, you instead resort to insinuating the intractability of those holding the opposing position.
  25. Insinuating that those who disagree with you think they know everything is (ironically) both arrogant and dishonest.
×
×
  • Create New...