jdxp

Nonessential: Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible. That's not the way it works. I know that there are mistakes in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially in the last three volumes, but that doesn't make me doubt the whole work. If someone rejects inerrancy, they can still have faith in most of the Bible. And really, does that matter? I would consider someone a Christian who believes in the gospel Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians 15 but who, at the same time, doesn't believe Onan was killed because he spilled his seed. I'm afraid that if your view is correct, then someone who is seeking the truth but has doubts about the absolute truth of parts of the Bible ought reject the whole Bible. (Highlight mine) No, what I'm saying is, for example, if you don't believe in the Creation as GOD describes it, how can you be SURE about Christ being the only way to salvation. Or if you don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ, how can you be sure about the ability of Christ to be sinless and able to pay the price for ALL our sins? Or even to have risen from the grave to conquer death? Not that they "ought" but that they could as the door would have been opened. One answer: the historical argument for the resurrection employed by Habermas and Craig, and perhaps others. A short(ish) answer: faith. If Abraham knew with absolute certainty that Isaac was going to be spared, then his faith was meaningless and it should not have been counted to him as righteousness. And if Moses knew with absolute certainty that he, with God's help, would be able to lead an army of slaves out of bondage, his faith would have been meaningless too. And thus I would argue that one who doubts parts of the Bible but believes in God and Jesus Christ is more faithful than one who in his heart knows with absolute certainty that the Bible is true and inerrant. When these kinds of threads pop up -- along with YEC threads -- I ask myself which is more important, that nine sinners submit to God's will and put their faith in Jesus Christ despite having personal misgivings or that one sinner do the same and believe the Bible with absolute certainty? The righteous shall live by faith. When Jesus Christ issued the Great Commission, what did he say? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." To make Biblical inerrancy something like a prerequisite to faith (I do not accuse you or others of this) does a disservice to God. In any case, there is rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repents. And that is what matters.

Nonessential: Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible. That's not the way it works. I know that there are mistakes in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially in the last three volumes, but that doesn't make me doubt the whole work. If someone rejects inerrancy, they can still have faith in most of the Bible. And really, does that matter? I would consider someone a Christian who believes in the gospel Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians 15 but who, at the same time, doesn't believe Onan was killed because he spilled his seed. I'm afraid that if your view is correct, then someone who is seeking the truth but has doubts about the absolute truth of parts of the Bible ought reject the whole Bible.

I disagree with the idea of God's omnipresence. God is transcendent and has no physical existence. God's sustenance and providence are certainly present in our lives and the world, but He Himself does not exist at all points in the universe. Omnipresence also smacks of pantheism. I take Psalm 139 to mean that, again, God's sustenance and providence are universally present in our affairs, not that He is creeping in the shadows and hiding in the mountains. Other passages used to support omnipresence -- Psalms 11:4-5 for example -- actually confound presence and knowledge.

I feel this way a lot. I am terrified at times that when Jesus said "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" that I fall into that category. Sometimes my prayers feel forced and mechanical. On the other side, I am reminded of James 2:26. When I give to charity, when I give money to the homeless, at those times I feel drawn up into God's love, and I am happy because I have done God's will and that I am His slave. Yet that opens up all sorts of other problems, for I have to keep myself from feeling proud of myself.

A lot of people have said it and I will second (or third or fourth) it: pray that God's will be done. Pray for what you need, even perhaps what you want -- strength, faith, courage, a better financial situation -- but never forget that it's God's will that matters in the end. Personally, I have to remind myself that although God loves me, making me happy is not necessarily His purpose in this life. Historically, many who have taken up their cross have suffered immensely for it -- just read the things Paul said he endured! Paul believed the thorn in his side was there to make him humble. He prayed repeatedly that it would be taken from him. tl;dr Pray that God's will be done, pray in Jesus' name, and understand that your happiness or physical wellbeing is not necessarily God's purpose for your life.

Congratulations Enoch, you won the internet! lol

Enoch, enough pointing out the (fallacies), some of which are real, many of which are imaginary, all of which are unintentional. Pointing out (fallacies), real or imagined, does nothing to advance the dialogue. It does nothing to support your view. In fact, the only thing it does is show me that you've been on Wikipedia too much (ad hominem). This is not a formal logic class, pointing out (fallacies) is not the same as demonstrating that an argument is logically invalid or that one of its premises (assuming the argument is a formal syllogism) is false. Guess what. We can use terms like "most", "many", "they" and so forth. Why? Because this is an internet forum, not academia (moving the goal posts). Guess what. No one has to address every point you make. It's not necessary and it's generally burdensome. Points are ignored. It happens. Welcome to the internet. Does that mean your argument is winning out over the rest? No. To be generous, it may mean that the person who doesn't reply is on his/her back foot. More likely, they see it as irrelevant or not worth wasting time over (ending a sentence in a preposition; grammar error). Again, welcome to the internet. And Joe, why don't you quit calling scientists pagans (ad hominem)? Every time you call someone a pagan I ignore what you have to say. (If you respond to this, I probably won't read it.) Having been an atheist once upon a time, I can testify that, in my experience, there is no vast pagan conspiracy. Filthy atheists don't gather in dark alleys, rubbing sinful hands and performing arcane rites in order to supplant God (straw man). It doesn't happen. You often accuse them of trying to destroy God or prove God doesn't exist. They don't believe God exists, so why would they try to prove He doesn't exist? I don't believe in unicorns so why would I try to prove they don't exist? Evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Even contemporary cosmology doesn't prove or disprove that God exists. The Big Bang doesn't argue that the universe created itself, sans the Creator. In fact, in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking tries to avoid the uncomfortable metaphysical implication that if the universe had a beginning, it may well need a Creator. He uses imaginary time and other acts of mathematical legerdemain to avoid that implication. Roger Penrose has developed his own ways to escape that implication. Other scientists try to escape via the multiverse or cyclical universes, but the former at best undermines the fine-tuning argument while the latter is metaphysically absurd. In a way, the Big Bang supports the fact that the universe was created. And some theologians (sweeping generalization; who?) use it as a starting point to argue for His existence. Your opinion that those naughty pagans are trying to destroy God and make Charles Darwin the sole Creator of the Universe (straw man) is so absurd that it boggles the mind. I have no problems believing that the universe is quite a bit older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old and believing that God created the universe. I find no contradiction there because in my mind Genesis 1 is theological, not scientific. It explains man's relationship to God (created to Creator) and man's special nature. I know, I know. I'm somehow a pagan who believes in One God, transcendent, uncaused, almighty, and loving (straw man). And that's okay, because I don't answer to you.

There can be no meaningful discussion here. You might as well say I'm worse than al Qaeda, and all because I renounce violence! Do you hear what you're saying? And how is fighting fire with fire working out? We stamped out al Qaeda,er...well no, didn't. Got the Taliban at least...er, no, not them either. But one thing is clear, there are no more terrorists in Iraq. Oh, wait. What did violence solve there? Maybe you're right. The earliest Christians took up the sword and fought the Roman state. Oh...shoot. that's right, they didn't. But Paul definitely threw a punch before he was beheaded. No? Jesus called down ten thousand angels to destroy his persecutors. Still no? Dang it. But Peter did cut someone's ear off...of course, he was admonished for it. I must be a bad Christian for renouncing violence. I'm done here.

It's the overall spirit of your post and the implication that Israel can feel free to murder people with the help of the US. The nonsense about the USS Liberty and conspiracy theory garbage that surrounds that. It's all the usual line of people with an anti-Semitic bent toward Israel. The overall spirit of my post is that a lot of people are dying, that Israel has its own PR machinery in motion, and that we give inordinate support to Israel. Do you deny that I said those things? Tell me honestly, do you deny that AIPAC has a lot of influence in Congress? Do you think they are bringing pressure to bear or not? I said of the Liberty that I was surprised the Israelis compensated the victims. Did I mention a conspiracy? Did I say anything of the sort? What did I say? That I was surprised. Do you honestly think Israel would be so bold if they didn't have US backing? We veto UN resolutions and keep nations in check who would otherwise bring more pressure to bear on the Israeli government. And why does criticizing Israel make me anti-Semitic? Am I a Russophobe because I condemn their arming Ukrainian separatists? I am a pacificist, so please tell me why I should keep my mouth shut when my government arms a state that is actively involved in armed conflict? My taxes are helping to kill people halfway across the world. Should I just keep my mouth shut because it's Israel that's getting guns and bombs?

Shiloh, did I say anything false in my first post? Did I lie? Did I direct my criticism (as much levelled against our government as theirs) at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? I bear no hatred willingly, and when I see that hate has taken root there I remind myself that I have been admonished to love all people. God alone knows that I do not want to love those Hamas members who kill Israelis, and I do not want to love those Israelis who kill Gazans. But this isn't about what I want. This is about God's will in my life. You can accuse me of anger, pride, despair, and a host of other sins - sins I will answer for. But don't you dare accuse me of hating Jews or Muslims or atheists or anyone else. I examine my heart. There is no Jew, no Greek, no free or slave, no man or woman, only Christ Jesus. And in my mind if I hate the least of these, I hate Christ himself.

You think Israel doesn't have its own PR machine working? You think the IDF doesn't have its own Twitter? You think AIPAC isn't in god-mode-engaged lobbying mode right now? But let's be honest: Israel doesn't really need any PR. So long as our government kowtows to Tel Aviv the Israelis could kill ten thousand, they could execute children in the street, and they would have no reason to fear. I'm thoroughly surprised they paid a single penny in resitution for the victims of the USS Liberty. (My guess is only two posts will pass before I'm accused of being a pro-Hamas, pro-Isis Muslim atheist.) I would say that your post drips with anti-Semitism And there it is. Anyone who is critical of Israel actually hates Jews. Since you know my thoughts and my heart, let me ask a few questions. Do I pray for just the families of the dead Gazans or the families of the dead Gazans and the dead Israelis? Do I pray that both sides will abandon war altogether or do I pray that Hamas will be free to shoot rockets into Israel day and night? I await clarification so that I'll finally know what I think.

You think Israel doesn't have its own PR machine working? You think the IDF doesn't have its own Twitter? You think AIPAC isn't in god-mode-engaged lobbying mode right now? But let's be honest: Israel doesn't really need any PR. So long as our government kowtows to Tel Aviv the Israelis could kill ten thousand, they could execute children in the street, and they would have no reason to fear. I'm thoroughly surprised they paid a single penny in resitution for the victims of the USS Liberty. (My guess is only two posts will pass before I'm accused of being a pro-Hamas, pro-Isis Muslim atheist.)

Enoch, you're funny and sad all at the same time. You make my day.

Joe, pettiness is unbecoming. The younger generation is increasingly scientifically minded. (No, I don't care if you think they're misled by those naughty pagans). If everyone here insists on an absolutely literal reading of Genesis, you will never replenish your ranks. Which is fine. Either way I'm going to sit here and laugh at you all quarreling in the shadow of the Tower of Babel. No one here is speaking the same language, no one has common definitions, and no one seems to realize it. It's comical.

Blatant misuse of Scripture. The Greek word used in the text is gnoseos -- it means knowledge, not science in our modern sense of the word. The Latin scientia means knowledge too, not science in the modern sense. Neither word has anything to do with science in the modern sense. This is also a blatant equivocation. Five minutes in the penalty box. Gray Wolf said: (Psalms 19:6) "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his CIRCUIT unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." "This is referring to the Sun. Did you know that the Voltage Profile of a Solid State PNP Transistor can be precisely superimposed on the Voltage Profile of the Sun?".... Doesn't this passage point to a non heliocentric view? No, absolutely not. This is also a terrible, awful, blatant, horrendous equivocation. Five minutes in the penalty box. "Knock, knock! Who’s there, in th' other devil’s name? Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator." Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3. Remember the porter.

This thread is funny.

And I will have to answer to Almighty God and pay the price for the time I have squandered on this and every other forum. Forums I went to for faith and reassurance. Forums I searched for as a baby Christian, as someone justly called me, hoping to find brotherhood. But instead I found internecine nonsense. All I found was Christians fighting Christians and the random nonbeliever. Instead of being filled with strenght, I was set upon by despair. But I thank God that in His wisdom He used this forum, and all the others, to chastise me, to push me into actually going out into the world and helping people in need, as Jesus Christ commanded.

It's a good thing there's no hungry people out there that need feed or prisoners that need comforting, and doubly good that all the souls we see in our daily lives are saved and bound for paradise. Now we can concentrate on the important things, like determining whether atheists are pagans, polytheists, or witches, and deciding if the earth is six thousand or ten thousand years old. I am so disenchanted.

You are to love them. Be the first to help them. Be patient, understanding, meek, and humble.

Doctrinally I am a unitarian. Which is to say a heretic in the eyes of my trinitarian brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope this little fact doesn't get me run off. Fundamentally, I consider the Gospel of Christ to be the Gospel of Love. To remove love is to remove Christ. To add hate is to remove Christ. Therefore I strive to love everyone as I would my own flesh and blood, according to the commandment Christ affirmed. Secondly, I see the message of charity to be second only to that of love. And though I fail to give charitably and I will answer for it one day, I nevertheless consider it of great importance. If you want something in particular: Ideally, I pray kneeling, facing the east, for it is from the east that Christ will return (Matthew 24:27). I put my forehead to the ground, recite the Lord's prayer, then I sit up and speak with God. At the end I put my forehead to the ground again, recite a psalm (usually Psalm 1) or a verse (usually Deuteronomy 6:4). After that I rise and go on about my day. I pray in this way because I am not even a worm compared to God and I wish to acknowledge with my body as well as my heart that I am inferior to Him. If you rely on God for everything then you are on the right path. We must come to God as little children: dependent, submissive, and loving. If you have problems with patience and self-control do not be disheartened. I have problems with lust and profanity. Fight against that part of you that is impatient and lacking control. If we were morally perfect, our morality would be meaningless. That's how I see it, anyway.

Finally. It's absolutely immaterial what kind of fruit it was. The only thing that matters is the act of disobedience.