Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent


About MissTury

  • Birthday 11/05/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Variable, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,117 profile views
  1. MissTury

    Can you pass a third grade test?

    I commend you for admitting you fell a little short, but at least you passed. I don't believe this is supposed to represent what 3rd graders should know, but to test them well into genius territory. Clearly there are things there that most 3rd graders would not have a clue about. I would be surprised if the average American voter, could do much better that 70%. I managed 100%, but I did have to guess on one of the questions, and I had to choose one wrong answer (which the test called correct) because the test did not offer the correct answer. Had I realized how long this test was going to be, I would not have spent the time.
  2. MissTury

    What does God thinks when He thinks about you?

    He thinks: "Oh my, there goes that sinner Miss Tury, messing up again, but I love her anyway, and am looking forward to her being with me perfected soon!"
  3. MissTury

    Rapture thoughts

    How about a long version that is more descriptive, like "the catching up of believers"?
  4. MissTury


    He did refute what you said when he pointed out that you alleged that certain Pope said something in the 17th century, when no such pope by that name even existed at the time. You asked him to refute what you said, or cease harassment. Since he did refute your post, I think he and others should continue to correct you. You didn't even acknowledge your error, you just repeated it! The question is when you are refuted, will you even notice? Humble people learn from their mistakes, proud people ignore them. Which are you Mr. Kiwi?
  5. So then, you did not post that reply because you chose to, you just did some automated writing that God predestined and then just now, pulled your strings? I am not sure I am understanding you correctly, or, did I fairly represent your position?
  6. I'd say there is no specific amount, that defines what is "fancy" or not. You can get quite a camera and accessories, these days, for less that $500. $500, is not a lot to spend on a hobby, and very little, for a semi-pro, I'd say $350 is reasonable. but then again you can do pretty good under $100 too!
  7. MissTury

    How do most Christians see atheists?

    Yes, there are passages which say things similar to what you describe. Verses in the Bible, however, should not in general be stripped from their contexts, it easily leads to mis-application. It is also important to note, what is being said, and what is not being said. For example, no, the Bible does not really say, execute gays. A gay person, is a person, and the Bible does not say to execute a person, because of the condition of his immoral heart. All of us, have immoral hearts. In fact, Jesus went straight to the heart of that issue, and gives us another way to see things. He provides a Godly perspective: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. God looks upon the heart, and we are all guilty sinners before Him, in need of forgiveness. Therefore, I, as a Christian, look at the homosexual, as a sinner, just like myself, a person in need of mercy, not my judgement. Paul, an apostle and writer of most of the New Testament said: I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” From that we learn, that there is a different standard that Christians are to apply to each other, and hold them accountable, than we hold those outside of our faith to. Sure, we understand that things people do, sexual sins, lying, stealing, etc. are sinful, but we also understand, that apart from being enlightened and willing to receive instruction from God, people cannot be expected to behave, as if they have such understanding. This does not mean, that we do not believe in civil and criminal laws etc. we still strive to have and uphold such standards. Those standards, deal with how people behave, what people do, not with their heart. Laws do not correct the heart, and without correcting the heart, they will always be less than effective. So, there is a spiritual idea, an idea, for example, that taking the life of another, is serious, and it is a moral issue. The law does not address the moral issue, the thing in man's heart, that makes him want to kill another human being. The law does address the behavior though, that is why we have codes of behavior, that we call laws, and violating laws, can have consequences. As a Christian, I hope people do not want to kill each other, and encourage them not to, encourage them to do the right things! When I speak to my homosexual neighbor, if the topic should come up, I would tell him, that God does not want him to have sex with another man. I tell him about sin, and consequences, and right behavior, and about the forgiveness of God, and how it is obtained. Why would I bother to do that? Because as a person, for whom Christ died, I have concern for the neighbor's well being. If Jesus was willing to die for him, as He did for me, why would I want my neighbor to be ignorant of that? I don't. If I did not care for the man, I would not worry about it, but we preach Godly behavior, not to be judgmental, not to hurt feelings, but out of concern. This brings us back to the idea of law. When the Bible speaks to the execution of a man engaged in relations with another man, it is speaking to his behavior, not to the issue of his heart. God set apart a people, a chosen group of people, apart from the rest of mankind. He gave them His law, His instructions on how they were to conduct their society. He did not give that law to all people, nor across all time. This is what I am referring to, when I spoke to context. So there, in Hebrew society, that was living in a covenantal relationship with God, they were to execute two men, lying together sexually. No different than the law they had, for premeditated murder. That was their law, and the law was to be kept. That was to them, not to those who were not subject to the law of that culture. Once one is familiar with the Bible as a whole, one may begin to incorporate all of it's passages, as a whole. When we isolate passages, it is easy to misapply them. Jesus, came for many reasons. One, was to live in a way, that we could see, how the limitations of mankind, as sinners, cannot be addressed by adherence to the law. The problem was not, that the law was wrong, but that mankind, cannot obey it in a way that measures up to God's standards. Now, once we see that we can only fail in the long run, we learn that what we need, is grace. Jesus lived as a man, under the law, but, He also lived as an example, of how to live with grace and forgiveness, and to bring us a better covenant, than that of the law, as a way to God. The short expression of the law, as Jesus expressed it, was to love God, and to love man. How did He demonstrate that? I will give you one example: Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” So, there we see, love in action. This woman, apparently guilty of sin, and breaking the law, a law which was a capital crime then and there. No doubt she was terrified, I feel sorry for her, scared for her life, and humiliated, just reading about that. Jesus, in a simple act of compassion, asked a simple question. In that question, he exposed the hypocrisy of her accusers, and in their reflection on that, then basically dropped the charges, by walking away. Jesus did not find her innocent, but he procured a stay of execution, while at the same time, admonishing her to straighten up and fly right. I think that is a fine example, of how Christians ought not be so quick to judge, but quick to assess our own shortcomings, while still not condoning sin. I know that was a lot of words, for your very brief question. I hope it speaks to what you were looking for, when you asked the question. This reply may have been a little off topic (how do beleivers view Atheists). If the moderators or the O.P. thinks I am too off topic, I will rework this post. I wanted to answer your question in some detail, because you never know who will read this later, and what questions in might prompt in their minds as well, thank you for asking it.
  8. MissTury

    How do most Christians see atheists?

    I am not aware that I have any attitude! The topic is about Athiests, you want to talk about explosions. I don't know how that is not derailing, since you are talking about the big bang, which is not the subject. Please, don't get us into trouble by sustaining a debate about us. I think the topic is a good topic, I see no reason by I cannot reply to it, nor why I should not reply to your diversions from the topic. Friend, I am not you enemy, I am on your side. I agreed with everything you said that was true. I corrected where you made a small factual error, and you responded with a post (still off topic) that affirmed what I made known to you. Yet, you never really acknowledged the error, no thanks for the correction, just a cut and paste job about atomic fission. I do not mind that you do want to nor seem to care for me, and want to accuse me of having an attitude. It comes with the territory on public forums I guess. However, you do not get to instruct me on who I may, or may not reply to. You can take your own advice or not, that is your choice. Reply, or not, that is up to you. There might even be an ignore feature, and you can ignore me, feel free, I won't mind! I suggest though, that you and I can have conversations, honest and sincere, without personal accusations, and ones that stick to the actual topic. For my part, that is what I intend to do. I will happily discourse with you and others, in this thread, about our attitudes toward Atheists. I, happen to love them. What I will not do, is allow the enemy to sew discord among Christians, demonstrating to the world that we are bickering fools contentious over minutia. Let's not turn this into How Atheists Voew Christians. I am done responding to you in this diversion, but will honor your conversation about the thread topic, if you should choose to participate in it.
  9. MissTury

    How do most Christians see atheists?

    Yes, so copying and pasting info from the Internet is a great educational tool. I assume you are indicating, that you understand that there are non-combustion explosions after all. I already granted your premise, that that explosions to not explain creation. Not sure what you are wanting at this point. I still do not see how this deals with the topic, of how Christians see the people, called Athiests. So, are we going to continue to derail this topic, or are we done now?
  10. MissTury

    How do most Christians see atheists?

    The largest man-made explosions, are nuclear, not combustion. We also can over pressurize a container with a gas, or fill a container with a liquid that at some higher temperature, will result if a phase change, until such containers reach their mechanical limitation. Go check your water heater, and you will find that it has an over pressure relief valve, so that it does not become a steam bomb. You point, however, that explosions tend to create destruction, and are not creative events, is fine. That is why we used explosions to demolish buildings, no one places explosives in a pile of rubble, to get a building to erect itself. It might be theoretically possible for that to happen, but it is not the way to place your bets. I think though, that the topic of the thread, is attitudes toward Atheists themselves, not a discussion about the beliefs of Atheists.
  11. MissTury

    How do most Christians see atheists?

    It could be true that this attitude of distrust occurs among "religious' people toward atheists. One reason for that might be because it is understood that if an atheist believes in no higher power, then he/she has no moral obligation or standard, other than that created by humans. It is understood, that such a standard is subject to change, to whims, to culture, to propaganda, to social pressure, or even the force of law, and than can make one nervous. It is difficult to understand then, what trustworthy thing can guide such people, even some criminals, even though they have moral failings (as we all do), might still have an understanding of a morality higher than his own. Does that make any sense to you?
  12. MissTury

    The movie "The Shack"

    Article March 6, 2017 The Shack- The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment - Al Mohler The publishing world sees very few books reach blockbuster status, but William Paul Young’s The Shack has now exceeded even that. The book, originally self-published by Young and two friends, has now sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into over thirty languages. It is now one of the best-selling paperback books of all time, and its readers are enthusiastic. According to Young, the book was originally written for his own children. In essence, it can be described as a narrative theodicy — an attempt to answer the question of evil and the character of God by means of a story. In this story, the main character is grieving the brutal kidnapping and murder of his seven-year-old daughter when he receives what turns out to be a summons from God to meet him in the very shack where the man’s daughter had been murdered. In the shack, “Mack” meets the divine Trinity as “Papa,” an African-American woman; Jesus, a Jewish carpenter; and “Sarayu,” an Asian woman who is revealed to be the Holy Spirit. The book is mainly a series of dialogues between Mack, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. Those conversations reveal God to be very different than the God of the Bible. “Papa” is absolutely non-judgmental, and seems most determined to affirm that all humanity is already redeemed. The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects. While the literary device of an unconventional “trinity” of divine persons is itself sub-biblical and dangerous, the theological explanations are worse. “Papa” tells Mack of the time when the three persons of the Trinity “spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God.” Nowhere in the Bible is the Father or the Spirit described as taking on human existence. The Christology of the book is likewise confused. “Papa” tells Mack that, though Jesus is fully God, “he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being.” When Jesus healed the blind, “He did so only as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.” While there is ample theological confusion to unpack there, suffice it to say that the Christian church has struggled for centuries to come to a faithful understanding of the Trinity in order to avoid just this kind of confusion — understanding that the Christian faith is itself at stake. Jesus tells Mack that he is “the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” Not the only way, but merely the best way. In another chapter, “Papa” corrects Mack’s theology by asserting, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Without doubt, God’s joy is in the atonement accomplished by the Son. Nevertheless, the Bible consistently reveals God to be the holy and righteous Judge, who will indeed punish sinners. The idea that sin is merely “its own punishment” fits the Eastern concept of karma, but not the Christian Gospel. The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity. “Papa” explains that “we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity.” In one of the most bizarre paragraphs of the book, Jesus tells Mack: “Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being — or to all human beings — is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous. The most controversial aspects of The Shack‘s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved.” Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young’s meaning. “Papa” chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world, Mack.” Put together, all this implies something very close to the doctrine of reconciliation proposed by Karl Barth. And, even as Young’s collaborator Wayne Jacobson has lamented the “self-appointed doctrine police” who have charged the book with teaching ultimate reconciliation, he acknowledges that the first editions of the manuscript were unduly influenced by Young’s “partiality at the time” to ultimate reconciliation — the belief that the cross and resurrection of Christ accomplished then and there a unilateral reconciliation of all sinners (and even all creation) to God. James B. DeYoung of Western Theological Seminary, a New Testament scholar who has known William Young for years, documents Young’s embrace of a form of “Christian universalism.” The Shack, he concludes, “rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation.” Even as Wayne Jacobson and others complain of those who identify heresy within The Shack, the fact is that the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that — heresy. The obvious question is this: How is it that so many evangelical Christians seem to be drawn not only to this story, but to the theology presented in the narrative — a theology at so many points in conflict with evangelical convictions? Evangelical observers have not been alone in asking this question. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Timothy Beal of Case Western University argues that the popularity of The Shack suggests that evangelicals might be shifting their theology. He cites the “nonbiblical metaphorical models of God” in the book, as well as its “nonhierarchical” model of the Trinity and, most importantly, “its theology of universal salvation.” Beal asserts that none of this theology is part of “mainstream evangelical theology,” then explains: “In fact, all three are rooted in liberal and radical academic theological discourse from the 1970s and 80s — work that has profoundly influenced contemporary feminist and liberation theology but, until now, had very little impact on the theological imaginations of nonacademics, especially within the religious mainstream.” He then asks: “What are these progressive theological ideas doing in this evangelical pulp-fiction phenomenon?” He answers: “Unbeknownst to most of us, they have been present on the liberal margins of evangelical thought for decades.” Now, he explains, The Shack has introduced and popularized these liberal concepts even among mainstream evangelicals. Timothy Beal cannot be dismissed as a conservative “heresy-hunter.” He is thrilled that these “progressive theological ideas” are now “trickling into popular culture by way of The Shack.” Similarly, writing at Books & Culture, Katherine Jeffrey concludes that The Shack “offers a postmodern, post-biblical theodicy.” While her main concern is the book’s place “in a Christian literary landscape,” she cannot avoid dealing with its theological message. In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied. Any number of notable novels and works of literature have contained aberrant theology, and even heresy. The crucial question is whether the aberrant doctrines are features of the story or the message of the work. When it comes to The Shack, the really troubling fact is that so many readers are drawn to the theological message of the book, and fail to see how it conflicts with the Bible at so many crucial points. All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals — and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe. The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books — we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible’s teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers. The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine. This article was based on the novel and was originally published in 2010. Timothy Beal, “Theology for Everyone,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 15, 2010), pages B16-17. [subscription required]
  13. I kind of think so also. First, because the topic looks like it was supposed to be about the how good the King James Version is, at least that is what it looked like to me. Then somewhere, it came to be about the best understanding/misunderstanding on John chapter 3, verse 16. How did that happen? One of the odder things though, is when someone asked about which Greek texts were used, and that question is answered, the asker then says the discussion borders on silly. What is silly about someone responding to a question, with the information the questioner asks for? If anything, that is silly. Perhaps what is also silly, is why is yet another topic on the KJV needed here? I do not see the benefit, but I do find them instructive, I just think that the debat could be contained in one place, and not spread all over the forum. Toodles!
  14. MissTury

    Why does God let the Antichrist conquer the world?

    Is that how we answer questions of doctrine, by what makes sense to us? If that is so, then what do you do with the idea, that His bride has already been beat up for 20 centuries, without Him coming for her? Toodles
  15. MissTury


    Your link had 974 words, Omegaman's has 342 words. You think that the link which you provided takes less space, how is that, just because it uses a smaller type face? Or are you just saying that it takes up less space to provide a link to things other people write, than to take the time to write something original? Toodles