undone

HAZARD, You put alot of work and thought into your post. I'm trying to better understand you position on things. A question: What do you think Jesus meant we he said "Go and make discliples of all the world"?

My daughter is home from college this weekend and she was telling about some of the casual discussions she has with her college friends. Some of these discussions revolve around issues related to the Christian faith. While my daughter is a good Christian kid, she's not necessarily an apologist or theologian. She was expressing some concern/frustration about the error many of her friends believe such as there is no hell. Of course she contacts me from time to time to ask about this and that on matters relating to faith but it's not always convenient. She's covered up with studies so she doesn't necessarily have time to research answers on her own. I was telling her about some of the topics I have been involved with here on Worthy and we realized that as she encounters further faith related problems, she can either come to Worthy to search or, possibly even better, refer her friends to Worthy to work out their questions regarding the faith. So I say, thanks for being here Worthy. You are a blessing in so many ways! A useful tool in the toolbox of life.

Clearly, some "wine" in the first century was fermented. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. However, it is just as ludicrous to assume that all "wine" is fermented. I would agree that in the parable of the wineskins Jesus is probably referring to fermented wine. First century Jerusalem had a fresh, constant supply of underground water. It was a renewable resource from the Gihon river. It is true, that in ancient times a small amount of wine would be mixed with water in order to limit impurities. Much like today, we add various chemicals to our water in order to make it drinkable...but no one would suggest that we go out and drink those chemicals. One could hardly make the case that adding 1 part of wine to 8-12 parts of water amounts to drinking alcohol, anymore than drinking water today is the same as drinking chlorine. Jerusalem was blessed with their vast water supply. Thanks Axxman!

Plus, I think wine is a useful alternative to water that may contain a variety of unhealthy impurities in many cultures throughout the world.

When Jesus tells the parable of the wine in new and old wineskins, He says that you would not put new wine into old wineskins. I believe this is because as the wine ferments, it expands and stretches the skin. When it becomes empty and if you were to put some more new wine in it (grape juice and whatever else is in it to make it ferment properly - possibly yeast?), the new wine would expand in the old skin that was already stretched. At some point the old skin will have reached its maximum stretching capacity and having already been stretched once, it would break the old wineskin. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the wine they drank was fermented and had some amount of alcohol in it. Also consider when Paul writes, "Be not drunk with wine, which leads to debauchery, but instead, be filled with the spirit of joy". You again have to assume there is alcohol in it to get drunk on and lead yourself to debauchery (acting foolish). Note that it did not say drinking wine leads to hell. Also, it suggests that alcohol is a depressant and keeps you from experiencing true joy. Also, someone mentioned rotten wine, I believe this is vinegar isn't it?

I think you have to take into consideration the second half of that stanza - but deliver us from evil. Lead us NOT into temptation, BUT deliver us from evil. It's presenting what we don't want then what we do want.

The map is pretty cool. It appears everything written below it is written in - Hungarian? Do you speak/read this language Liz4JC?

I don't see how taking the passage less "literally" is a necessary outcome of us not knowing all the details behind it. I'm not saying it's necessary, simply understandable in light of the many we talk to who are puzzled by our allegiance as literalists.

I agree. Anything else is just shear speculation. The way I read the story of Adam and Eve, it seems to imply that Cain and Abel were the first sons. How many other Adam and Eve children that would have been born after Cain and Abel could there have possibly been at this time in the story to be a threat to Cain? I think the obscurity of this passage opens up the possibility for less literal translations of Genesis.

A reference to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.....

Have you had a chance to view the formal debate between apothanein kerdos and ask an atheist? It's located in the Soapbox Debate thread just below apologetics. They delve into issues like this in a way I thought was pretty interesting.

In in Texas, the ledge passed malpractice reform capping pain and suffering. net effect: in the valley where MDs were leaving in droves, they are returning in droves. There is a backlog for medical licenses. If only we could use lawyers as lab rats.

Me, being the insurance agent, can tell you that much of the reason you see the doctor visit cheaper with cash is because the doctor doesn't have to deal with the hassle of collecting from the insurance company. Often what you think they bill the insurance company get slashed by that insurance company anyway so the doctor doesn't get all you thnk he/she does. As for the rising cost, a large part is due to rising cost of malpractice insurance doctors have to pay. From what I understand, in my state, Texas, it's difficult for someone to operate profitably as a pediatrician due to the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Thanks for the link. I read through much of it and must say it offers some of the wildest ideas I've ever heard. Something I think one could conclude from this passage: Given the implied idea that there were other intelligent beings present on the earth (in fact in the neighborhood, because how else would they have known what Cain had done), there is definately wiggle room when it comes to considering a literal translation of Genesis. The fallen angels idea is interesting, but why would fallen angels care if Cain murdered his brother? They're fallen angels! I'm left to assume that there were other caring humans who were in close proximity to the Adam and Eve family. Who were they? I can't see how anyone could speculate. But clearly we're not told everything in this story. So what is the extent of what has been left out? Harder to bang non-literalists over the head I think.

In the Genesis story of Cain and Abel, Cain is worried that all who see him will try to kill him. At this point, the only other people we've been made aware of is his parents and of course we under the impression that Adam and Eve are the first and only people. I don't think he was worried about his parents killing him. Who else could he be worried about?

Yeah. Two points to emphasize. 1) Big "IF". I cannot absolutely deny God, but I'm pretty close to 100% positive that He (as defined by Christianity) does not exist. 2) If the good works in my life, and the humane and kind thoughts in my heart are insufficient to earn His blessing, then the 12 year old in me wants to stamp his foot and say He's not worth worshipping anyway. Please don't apply too much consideration to point #2; it's point #1 that overrides my thinking. Also please realize that I don't get my moral foundation from this "wager"; it's more of an illustration of my response to Pascal's Wager, which is so often argued by theists. So if I find myself before God, the first thing I will assume is that I am hallucinating. And it might be hard for Him to convince me that He is real! The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only works as a "risk assessment" for believing in something. I would say there is enough evidence, both physical and nonphysical (philosophical), that some type of a theistic God exists. This would obviously narrow it down to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and offshoots of all three). If you can accept that premise, we can work from there. If not, let's establish that premise. You may want to start a separate topic for this. I don't know about spblat, but I'm certainly game.

I understand. No misconception about your views here.

First, if He were to judge me only on the standards of the 10 Commandments, I would most likely be condemned. I do not agree with Exodus 20:2 as you can plainly see. I do not keep the sabbath according to Exodus 20:10. Do you? Depending on how Exodus 20:7 is interpreted, I would probably fail that too, as I occasionally have a potty mouth. I try to follow Exodus 20:17, but sometimes I slip there too: my neighbor's house is quite lovely. I'm reasonably faithful to the rest of them because they are consistent with my own moral standards. Nonetheless, it would probably be generous to award me a D+; only He knows if this is a passing grade. Second, I would endeavor to ask Him (among other things) when he became disinterested in Exodus 20:24-26. Or all the judgments in Exodus 21 through 23. I feel strongly that most of us have failed to follow those laws; on this basis, are you sure that you meet God's standards? In addition, consider when Jesus said that if you look with lust you've committed adultery in your heart and if you anger with your brother, you've committed murder in your heart. If the standard wasn't tough before, now it's impossible for any man to acheive. So I, like you would be guilty and condemned. Now let's make a general comparison to a civil court case. You go before the judge and he finds you guilty. He sets the fine so high you couldn't possibly pay it. Despite how sorry you are for what you did, if he's a good judge, he's got to carry out his job. All the sudden, someone comes into the courtroom and pays your fine. The judge says you're free to go because your fines been paid. You're overjoyed at this fact and give your eternal thanks to the person who paid your debt for you. This is exactly what Jesus did for you and I. He paid the price for your sin and mine 2000 years ago on the cross. He alone was capable of fulfilling the demands of the Law so he was the only one capable of paying our fine. You have been set free from the condemnation of the Law by the act of Jesus Christ. All He asks you to do is to turn away (repent) from trying to get to God on your own (the Athiest Wager), accept the work that Jesus did for you on the cross, and believe Jesus was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God. He sits at the right hand of God to indicate His work is finished. There's nothing you and I need to do gain further acceptance from the Heavenly Father. I know you don't believe...but someday maybe you'll be challenged to hold onto your current position. I think its good to know that all the works been done. No matter how bad you think you are or what you've done, Jesus paid it all. All you have to do is ask for His free gift. It wasn't long ago that I never really connected all the dots on what Christ's work on the cross meant to me until I heard it explained this way.

Yeah. Two points to emphasize. 1) Big "IF". I cannot absolutely deny God, but I'm pretty close to 100% positive that He (as defined by Christianity) does not exist. 2) If the good works in my life, and the humane and kind thoughts in my heart are insufficient to earn His blessing, then the 12 year old in me wants to stamp his foot and say He's not worth worshipping anyway. Please don't apply too much consideration to point #2; it's point #1 that overrides my thinking. Also please realize that I don't get my moral foundation from this "wager"; it's more of an illustration of my response to Pascal's Wager, which is so often argued by theists. So if I find myself before God, the first thing I will assume is that I am hallucinating. And it might be hard for Him to convince me that He is real! So once the acid trip is over and you've pinched yourself enough, if He were to judge you by the standards of the 10 Commandments, would you be innocent or guilty?