Amigo42

36 minutes ago, OneLight said:

As with any of the gifts, it's not the person with the gift doing the work, but the Holy Spirit working through them.  I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit knows every language known to man.  This was my first thought when reading your post.  My second was why would scripture tell us that the use of the gift was when they "spoke" if it really meant when they "heard"?

Good point!  I'd still say it's the gift of tongues even if the speaker spoke one language and the audience heard multiple languages through their ears.  Still the gift of tongues.  It's also possible that people miraculously spoke in languages they did not know.  

1 hour ago, SIC said:

'Unhealthy' is such an ambiguous term isn't it?

Yes, it is somewhat, but reasons that are valid for divorce are sometimes ambiguous.  I believe that God judges circumstances, and only he truly knows what is going on in someone's soul.  If spouses are constantly arguing in front of children, I'd say this is an unhealthy relationship.  Our relationship with God is most important, so if an earthly relationship is impacting that, it needs to be evaluated regardless of whether there was infidelity.  There are various common sense reasons for divorce that are not necessarily outlined in the Bible, but again God gave us common sense to use our wisdom and judgment.  On the flip side, on the extreme spectrum, a person may get divorced for no valid reason at all or just because he or she wants to be with a younger person or is getting bored.  I think this is unacceptable to God, but even in this circumstance, people should repent and then ask God for guidance in future relationships.  I do not believe even in that scenario that God expects one to live in solitude and loneliness for life.

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The Bible is inerrant - that does not mean that it is entirely literal.

When God leaves evidence that suggests a literal interpretation is not the best way to read the passage, then that possibility should be considered.

I agree with this, and I would even take it a step further.  I believe there are scriptures in the Bible that fall into one of three categories (1. Literal, 2. symbolic, 3. somewhere in between literal and symbolic).

I do not believe the Bible is inerrant in the strictest sense.  I do not believe God wants us to feel that way either because even the written word can be made an idol.  Only God is perfect.  Nothing on this planet that humans have touched is perfect.

Now, how does this fit into this discussion.  Do I believe that God created the world in a literal seven days or a slow evolutionary seven days?  I believe the truth is closer to a literal seven days.  The former just doesn't make sense.  Why would an all-powerful God take his time like humans who procrastinate to finish the long-time home improvement project?  Evolution in a macro sense implies that God couldn't make up his mind and took millions of years to decide what to do with cosmic mix of biomass that was on this earth.  From a common sense perspective it just doesn't make sense.  

Now, for all I know, it wasn't a literal seven days.  Maybe it was seven hours, maybe it was an instant.  I don't know, and to a degree, we all have to admit that there are some things we'll never know fully in this life.  However, I do believe that God has given us everything we need to know in this life, and the rest we'll find out when the Lord returns.  Amen!

19 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

It's interesting that a few years ago the Black Communities suddenly wanted to be labelled as African Americans.   I read recently that has changed back to wanting to be called Black.   I am positive many understand better what Africans ultimately did.   Many don't yet and we are seeing some real issues today.   But no doubt, American Black Citizens are becoming well aware of what Africa and its people have done to them.

I believe it was Jesse Jackson, who coined the new term, African American.  It makes sense, if you look at it from a subconscious level.  When one thinks of the word "black" negative images come to mind like darkness, halloween, scary, etc.  So, I believe in the minds of the Europeans, it was the same principal.  I believe that the sight of dark-skinned Africans who were tall and some but not all warrior-like, was enough to make them feel somewhat apprehensive.  Subjugating the Africans was in a sense overcompensating for the this fear of these dark-skinned people from another continent.  So, the term African American is more technically accurate.  In reality, black is not even a race, it's just a color.  An Indian person or middle easterner could be black but not necessarily of African descent.  The term African American more clearly distinguishes someone's cultural ancestry.

On 7/4/2021 at 7:32 AM, other one said:

 He says that he is thankful that his ancestors were brought here or he would probably be running around central Africa with a bone in his nose. 

Geez!  Tell it like you mean it, why don't ya!

Is it possible that we have the entire view of tongues wrong?  If you read the passage, it shows that everyone heard the gospel in their own tongue.  So, for example, an apostle may have been preaching in Aramaic to a crowd of 20 nationalities, but with each hearing their languages.  In other words, was the gift of tongues in the part of those who heard.  This would mean that the apostles may not have actually spoken any language except their own.  

On 6/30/2021 at 1:33 AM, SIC said:

Let me clarify further.

In your opinion is marrying a divorcee whose divorce happened not because of abuse or adultery biblically permitted?

One can't unscramble scrambled eggs.  I think Christians put too much emphasis on whether it's a sin.  I believe that God does not prefer spouses to divorce unless it becomes unhealthy.  However, after a divorce I don't believe God expects one to live in solitude and loneliness for life. God gave us all common sense, so we can't overread into specific statements in scripture.

On 7/3/2021 at 9:16 PM, one.opinion said:

Yes, the definition is heritable change over time. The term gets used in multiple contexts, though. It can be used to refer to the concept of species development over time, and even can be used to encompass common ancestry.

Since you did take a look at the OP, you'll see that I accept common ancestry, but that really want to avoid another "evidence for evolution" thread that is frustrating and boring.

I want this thread to focus on theology. As a Christ follower that accepts the baggage associated with "evolution", I still find basic theological points in Genesis 1-3. I would like to see if we can agree on these or if there are fundamental differences in our understanding of the major theological points from those three chapters.

So, these are your original points from the OP. 

1. God is creator of ALL things. I believe that the original audience for these chapters was a group of people that had just escaped 400 years immersed in a culture teeming with false gods. This was an important reminder for them.

2. God made humans special - in His likeness. We possess something that is unique among living creatures. This is quite likely something more than just bigger brains and the ability to talk. I believe our Imago Dei is spiritual, not physical.

3. Humans tragically chose their own way, rather than following God's specific instructions. This not only affected Adam and Eve (which I believe to be real people, and not just literary archetypes), but the rest of humanity. We are doomed to sin and its consequences.

4. God promised a way of deliverance. This was not spelled out in detail in Genesis 3, but it foretold of the coming Messiah.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is His choice to take on human form and limitations, lead a perfect and sinless life, die in order to overcome the power of sin and death, and come back to life to offer a new, spiritual life to all those that would receive Him.

I agree 100 % with these points, and I believe most Christians would.  You just leave open the idea of God evolved evolution, however, you seem to love God completely and appear to have given your life to him.  I don't judge for differences of opinion in areas that are not salvational.  Christians overall have a lot things right and a lot wrong.  

Some Christians believe in eternal hell fire suffering, and some preachers are almost joyful to tell people about hell.  However, the idea of everlasting fire is a Hellenistic and pagan concept.  Common sense would tell us no loving God would do something so sadistic.  In addition, it makes no sense and doesn't dispense fair justice.  A true reading of the Bible would correct such a viewpoint.

The doctrine of speaking in tongues is another area where I believe Christians today have deciphered incorrectly.  I believe that some Christians have it all wrong.  It's possible the gift of tongues was actually on the part of the listener not the speaker. Anyway, that's a bit off topic.

On 6/3/2021 at 6:26 PM, one.opinion said:

I grew up in a family where I was taught Young Earth Creation. However, as a Biology major as an undergraduate and through the process of earning a PhD degree in a molecular virology lab, I became convinced that there was too much evidence supporting evolution to be ignored.

So, what is your definition of evolution?  Are we talking apes to humans, ants to pigs, or the endosymbiotic theory?  I was a Biology major too and saw no evidence of real "evolution.". However, if you mean micro evolution, then yes there is evidence for this.  Evolution technically means slow change over time.  Look at Corona and its various variants and mutations in just one year.  

On 6/28/2021 at 11:19 PM, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Not sure why it would be irrelevant when Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies even explained,  “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”

 

If the Europeans weren't able to fetch the Slaves themselves and no one like the African Natives fetched the slaves for them, there would have been no slave trade.

 

Don't tell me you're in denial that African Natives sold out their own people?

Surely you gist!

I'm sorry, but what your point exactly?  Are you saying that the European settlers and the emerging country had no responsibility for 200 + years of slavery and maltreatment of Africans in the US.  We know there were African collaborators, but again, it doesn't mean much.

On 6/29/2021 at 12:32 AM, SIC said:

As an Indian myself I would like to point out that the caste system has been around for two millenia. And throughout the two millenia it has always been based on the color of the skin. 'Caste' is the English name given to the system in the 17th century. The original Sanskrit name is 'varna' which literally means color.

The modern day caste system is not a result of British colonial system. In fact the British abolished some the worst forms of casteism.. Practices like untouchability were actively opposed by the British.

Thank you for this information.  That's very interesting.  I didn't realize that there was history there prior to the British.

2 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

I see no issue telling the absolute truth about Slavery and the origins of the Black People in America.  I would even encourage it.   But if we're going to be undoubtedly honest, we have to first begin with "Who" sold these Slaves to the White Westerners.   It was their own Native Black Skinned African Descendants who made a fortune selling their own Black Skinned neighbors into Slavery.   But oddly enough, no one wants to mention that.

 

Records from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, directed by historian David Eltis at Emory University, show that the majority of captives brought to the U.S. came from Senegal, Gambia, Congo and eastern Nigeria. Europeans oversaw this brutal traffic in human cargo, but they had many local collaborators. “The organization of the slave trade was structured to have the Europeans stay along the coast lines, relying on African middlemen and merchants to bring the slaves to them,” said Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”

The anguished debate over slavery in the U.S. is often silent on the role that Africans played.

This is true but quite irrelevant.  By the time the slaves arrived on the Virginia shores, it was the slaveowners and not Africans who were involved in treatment of the slaves.

On 6/23/2021 at 8:55 PM, johnthebaptist said:

What is more racist than using Critical Race Theory to teach kids to hate white people?

Hmm.  I don't think that's the goal.  I think the goal is educate everyone concerning the true history of the US and the world for that matter.  This needs to be done because some people seem to forget why conditions are the way they are for minorities, in particular, African Americans in this country.  The truth will set you free is what Jesus said.  The truth is that the Europeans dominated what they considered to be inferior races in history (i.e. Africans, Indians, Asians, Native Americans).  This history has had real-world impacts that still reverberate today.  Look at India today.  The entire caste system of view lighter-skinned Indians as being higher in society and darker-skinned as being lesser is a racist system with roots probably left over by the British colonial system.  Look at the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.  That entire system of division was created by the colonialists which had real-world impacts on the people of that country including genocide.  However, the division of Hutus and Tutsis is entirely made up and fake.  It was a distinction set up by the colonists.  Does that mean people should hate Europeans?  No, people should not hate anyone on the basis of race.  However, the truth is the truth.  History is necessary for people not to repeat the mistakes of the past (i.e. two world wars in less than 50 years started by the same country essentially).

On 6/22/2021 at 4:53 PM, other one said:

The people who spoke at those hearings had furnished the information in legal affidavits that would send them to prison if you proved them not true. I think that adds to what they said.  And the truth always comes out in the end.  Sometimes it takes time but we always find out in the end.  I am confident I won't be embarrassed in the end.

Apparently, judges who are conservative and republican are in cahoots with the Dems then because they threw out all those because there was no evidence.

15 hours ago, other one said:

You obviously didn't watch any of the state senate hearings. Or you would know of the fraud.  The judges threw out the cases without ever hearing any of the testimony.  Fake judges.

Actually, I did watch some state hearing with Giuliani and the lady with the strong Midwest accent.  Her recounting of the so called fraud including democrats "stuffing ballots in vans" was so pathetic it earned her an snl skit.

4 hours ago, other one said:

And none of the real facts have entered a court so far.

Please do share these "real facts."

1 minute ago, other one said:

There was fraud in the 2016 election, however they misjudged how many votes Trump would get and could not overcome the huge numbers.  That was what stopping the counting was all about in 2020.  They had to know how many extra ballots they needed to win. Some day it will be shown in a documentary that all the people will wonder how they got away with it. Probably concerning the downfall of the greatest Republic that ever existed.

I don't mean any offense, but you do realize that according to Trump's own Cyber Security administrator that this election was the most secure in US history?  In addition, conservative judges threw out about 60 or so cases about fake fraud in the 2020 election.  All I can say is what the judges said in those cases "Do you have proof?"  The FBI and attorney general barr, a major supplicant of Trump, also said, the election was secure or that there wasn't any fraud to the extent of changing election results.  It's more of the Big Lie.  There is no proof, and it was sad that the traitors on January 6th fell for the Big Lie and a lot of them are now paying the price.  People have to think for themselves and not be hoodwinked by snake oil salesmen with an agenda.

1 minute ago, Alive said:

What do you do with this bit?

Rom. 13:1 (NAS20S)   Every   person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. ² Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. ³ For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

This is a generic and broad statement by Paul in what is a common sense concept.  However, lol, our country, the USA, which most Christians believe the creation of which is ordained by God was created by people resisting authorities.  

On 6/20/2021 at 1:24 PM, debrakay said:

With all of this said, I believe that mail-in voting and lack of voter identification verification has destroyed fair elections in the US since the 1990's.

Just curious.  Did you have a concern about mail-in voting during the 2016 Presidential election, or is it only when democrats win.  I'm not making any assumptions or anything.  Just curious.

On 6/20/2021 at 1:24 PM, debrakay said:

I firmly believe God has always had his hand on the leadership of nations throughout time.  Sometimes it is the hand of love and sometimes it is the hand of wrath.

I don't believe this.  Sometimes the enemy puts people in power.  For example, people like Hitler, Stalin, and other evil leaders in world history.  So, no God does not always choose leaders.  In reality, he wants to be the leader as shown by the Israelites when choosing a king.  God wants to be the leaders in peoples lives, but he doesn't pick every leader of all of the countries of the world, but at times he does have a special mission appointed even for ungodly leaders like Cyrus the Great or Nebuchadnezzar.

On 6/1/2021 at 5:29 PM, Whyme said:

These same democrats dont want to investigate BLM ANTIFA. Democrats are just politicizing the issue, as always.

Last time I checked BLM didn't try to storm the US capitol to overturn the work of democracy.

On 6/9/2021 at 6:59 AM, Still Alive said:

Except Arizona might bring some clarity once that audit is over.

My friend, unfortunately the opposite is true.  The "audit" in and of itself is the REAL fraud just like Trump's phone call to Georgia governor to "find" those 11,000 votes to win the State.  In addition, the so called "cyber ninjas" are doing an unsanctioned audit with no real safeguards in term of ballot security.  No one's going to believe anything they say regardless of the results of their fake audit.

11 hours ago, Chicken coop2 said:

Perhaps they are confused about what Watergate really was.

That's kind of funny actually. Lol

On 3/18/2021 at 12:52 PM, Sparks said:

Not long. 

Incidentally, you can make your own amber in minutes with tree sap, tin foil and a torch.   Sap is highly flammable so be very careful doing it.  Instead of inserting an insect or a bird feather, why not put in a small picture of Trump?  Then throw it on a beach for a scientist to find.  I guarantee you, some scientist will fall for it, and claim Trump is 'millions of years old.'

I love it.

On 5/31/2021 at 9:06 AM, johnthebaptist said:

It's not easy to catch people voting fraudulently. That doesn't mean they aren't doing it. Why are you afraid of laws that would make it more difficult to vote fraudulently?

Well, the point of the new laws is to stop democrats from LEGALLY voting period.  In Georgia, no food and water can be provided to people waiting in line for hours.  Hmm.  Where in Georgia are there long voting lines?  Primarily in the cities which are mostly minority and democrat.