Jump to content
IGNORED

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE vs. JEWISH TRADITION


choir loft

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, choir loft said:

You have not stated how or who is qualified to define what is good philosophy or what is bad philosophy.   You haven't done so because it's an impossible task.   

It's impossible because philosophy is changeable.  It's definition and use is dependent upon the individual or popular society.  Therefore it is an inaccurate measure at best.

The LAW of God is not changeable.  It isn't affected by the politics of the day or by personal preference.

This is the reason for difficulties with church doctrine and aberrations in national politics.   Philosophy can justify slavery (by church doctrine of the 18th century) as well as genocide (as in the US government policy of murder of Native Americans or the German Final Solution or mass murder of Jews).   Everything the Nazis did was legal according to their philosophy.

Who said Nazi legal philosophy was bad?   It was the combined military opposition to German aggression, not any sort of social conscience of the German, Russian, American or English people.  More than sixty million people DIED as a result of the conflict between opposing philosophies.

God's LAW is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics as is philosophy.

You stated some philosophy is based on truth.  I'd go further than that and say all of it is.   There is a nugget of truth in every thought of man - as is every lie of the devil.

Our problem is to define how much or how little philosophy is to be allowed to dilute the truth we accept, not whether it's good or bad.   

Consider a plate of brownies.

One may use brownie mix to make a delicious confection.   What if one added a teaspoon of dog poo to the mix before baking?   How about a half teaspoon or quarter teaspoon?   How much or how little would you tolerate when you put one of those brownies into your mouth?

Philosophy is the dog poo of religious doctrine and teaching.

How much do you swallow and why?

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

"You have not stated how or who is qualified to define what is good philosophy or what is bad philosophy.   You haven't done so because it's an impossible task.   "

Don't be silly!

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to uphold Modus Tollens?

(hint:  of course not!)

 

"It's impossible because philosophy is changeable. "

Modus Tollens is ETERNAL.  ALWAYS true.  NEVER false.  

Try again.  

(This time, actually ADDRESS my objections!)

 

"The LAW of God is not changeable.  It isn't affected by the politics of the day or by personal preference."

Great!

And GOOD TRUE PHILOSOPHY is also NOT affected by politics of the day or by personal preference.

 

" Philosophy can justify slavery"

Why assume Biblical slavery is not a divinely-sanctioned permissible feature of a good and wise society?

 

"as well as genocide "

GOD required complete destruction of ALL living things in some of the cities of the promised land....remember?

Let's not get carried away with our examples here....

 

"Everything the Nazis did was legal according to their philosophy."

That's NOT good philosophy.  So uphold GOOD philosophy instead!

 

"God's LAW is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics as is philosophy."

Wrong....GOOD philosophy is NOT affected by human hubris and passion and politics either.....just like God's law is likewise NOT affected by human hubris and passion and politics.

MODUS TOLLENS is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics.

Why are you so afraid of MODUS TOLLENS?

 

"You stated some philosophy is based on truth.  I'd go further than that and say all of it is.  "

Nonsense.  ATHEISTIC philosophy is based on FALSEHOOD, not truth.

For example, the Atheistic philosophical argument from evil is based on FALSE assumptions and FALSE reasoning....

 

"There is a nugget of truth in every thought of man - as is every lie of the devil."

But GOOD TRUE philosophy is ALWAYS true, and NEVER false.

For example, MODUS TOLLENS!  

 

"Philosophy is the dog poo of religious doctrine and teaching."

NOPE!  Only BAD philosophy is dog poo.

GOOD philosophy is TRUTH in which you should REJOICE (1Cor.13:6)....not OPPOSE!

 

Please STOP arguing against good philosophy that is based on unchangeable TRUTH.....

Please actually ADDRESS my objections....

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

20 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

"You have not stated how or who is qualified to define what is good philosophy or what is bad philosophy.   You haven't done so because it's an impossible task.   "

Don't be silly!

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to uphold Modus Tollens?

(hint:  of course not!)

 

"It's impossible because philosophy is changeable. "

Modus Tollens is ETERNAL.  ALWAYS true.  NEVER false.  

Try again.  

(This time, actually ADDRESS my objections!)

 

"The LAW of God is not changeable.  It isn't affected by the politics of the day or by personal preference."

Great!

And GOOD TRUE PHILOSOPHY is also NOT affected by politics of the day or by personal preference.

 

" Philosophy can justify slavery"

Why assume Biblical slavery is not a divinely-sanctioned permissible feature of a good and wise society?

 

"as well as genocide "

GOD required complete destruction of ALL living things in some of the cities of the promised land....remember?

Let's not get carried away with our examples here....

 

"Everything the Nazis did was legal according to their philosophy."

That's NOT good philosophy.  So uphold GOOD philosophy instead!

 

"God's LAW is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics as is philosophy."

Wrong....GOOD philosophy is NOT affected by human hubris and passion and politics either.....just like God's law is likewise NOT affected by human hubris and passion and politics.

MODUS TOLLENS is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics.

Why are you so afraid of MODUS TOLLENS?

 

"You stated some philosophy is based on truth.  I'd go further than that and say all of it is.  "

Nonsense.  ATHEISTIC philosophy is based on FALSEHOOD, not truth.

For example, the Atheistic philosophical argument from evil is based on FALSE assumptions and FALSE reasoning....

 

"There is a nugget of truth in every thought of man - as is every lie of the devil."

But GOOD TRUE philosophy is ALWAYS true, and NEVER false.

For example, MODUS TOLLENS!  

 

"Philosophy is the dog poo of religious doctrine and teaching."

NOPE!  Only BAD philosophy is dog poo.

GOOD philosophy is TRUTH in which you should REJOICE (1Cor.13:6)....not OPPOSE!

 

Please STOP arguing against good philosophy that is based on unchangeable TRUTH.....

Please actually ADDRESS my objections....

Thanks.

 

There is no such thing as good philosophy.

According to Merriam-Webster definition, the first on the list btw, philosophy is:  "all learning EXCLUSIVE of technical precepts and practical arts".  (italics mine)

In other words, philosophy is NOT based upon truth.  Want more?

Merriam-Webster definition second on the list states, "sciences and liberal arts EXCLUSIVE of medicine, law, and theology".   (italics mine)

Your statement that good philosophy, whatever that may be, is based upon truth is absolutely false according to normative definitions.  Philosophy may seek truth, but once found the quest becomes something else.  It becomes LAW.  Truth can be discovered, but once found it demands a response on the part of the seeker.  Truth is LAW.  

The only remaining question thus asks, "who decides which philosophy is good or bad?" 

You have refused to address this question and have rejected my obvious answer - philosophy is defined by the individual (for the individual's justification) and/or by society so as to justify social behavior (ergo SIN).    

The TRUTH you claim to adhere to also states that the heart and mind of man is entirely corrupt.  If the heart and mind of man is corrupt, then it follows ANY philosophy invented by man is also corrupt and by its nature NOT GOOD.

THE ONLY standard by which man can measure appropriate behavior before God and man is the LAW, otherwise defined as the Law of Moses or the moral LAW.   One cannot be saved by philosophy because it is corrupt and incapable of identifying SIN.   The very purpose of THE LAW is to convict of SIN, to provide a standard by which man can know that which God hates.

I submit that you refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the LAW because you presume to justify SIN, which can easily be accomplished by appeals to philosophy (which can be redefined at the whim of any man or society).

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, choir loft said:

There is no such thing as good philosophy.

According to Merriam-Webster definition, the first on the list btw, philosophy is:  "all learning EXCLUSIVE of technical precepts and practical arts".  (italics mine)

In other words, philosophy is NOT based upon truth.  Want more?

Merriam-Webster definition second on the list states, "sciences and liberal arts EXCLUSIVE of medicine, law, and theology".   (italics mine)

Your statement that good philosophy, whatever that may be, is based upon truth is absolutely false according to normative definitions.  Philosophy may seek truth, but once found the quest becomes something else.  It becomes LAW.  Truth can be discovered, but once found it demands a response on the part of the seeker.  Truth is LAW.  

The only remaining question thus asks, "who decides which philosophy is good or bad?" 

You have refused to address this question and have rejected my obvious answer - philosophy is defined by the individual (for the individual's justification) and/or by society so as to justify social behavior (ergo SIN).    

The TRUTH you claim to adhere to also states that the heart and mind of man is entirely corrupt.  If the heart and mind of man is corrupt, then it follows ANY philosophy invented by man is also corrupt and by its nature NOT GOOD.

THE ONLY standard by which man can measure appropriate behavior before God and man is the LAW, otherwise defined as the Law of Moses or the moral LAW.   One cannot be saved by philosophy because it is corrupt and incapable of identifying SIN.   The very purpose of THE LAW is to convict of SIN, to provide a standard by which man can know that which God hates.

I submit that you refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the LAW because you presume to justify SIN, which can easily be accomplished by appeals to philosophy (which can be redefined at the whim of any man or society).

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

"There is no such thing as good philosophy."

What about modus tollens?  Is it TRUE or FALSE?

 

(hint: it's TRUE and GOOD Philosophy of logic!)

 

Why are you afraid to answer?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

As I peruse the Tanakh and the apostles' writing about it I feel less and less like going to any 'church'. I dislike Augustine theology (he only read Latin) and most of the later theology 'experts'. I see much error and misrepresentation of God in the church and its philosophies we call 'theology'. They appear to want all to check in their brains at the door while they feed sweet-milk to their charges - and do not forget the collection either to keep the machine going.

I feel that getting to know God's thoughts and goals thru study gives me a better overall perspective of what is, real and unreal.

The unreal world includes the physical, the real (or physical) which is where we are now. Often the church pretends there is no supernatural and has strip-mined our scriptures of most of this supernatural content because their seminaries disavowed it all.

Many have brought up good points here in my humble (or not so humble) opinion. I suggest that we all study as the apostle said to because "all scripture is of benefit..." and he was talking about what he and the others apostles and disciples AND Yeshua would have read. This coupled with inter-testament ideas by Hebrew scholars was the BASIS for Yeshua's ministry.

The Tanakh mentions the two powers of the Godhead frequently AND the Spirit. This Trinity idea is NOT a new testament invention as many scholars will attest. Just because 'all things Jewish' were played down after about 100 AD does not mean that we should do likewise. Yeshua was NOT an Aryan, He was a Jew. Providentially, the Qumran discoveries gave us the unabridged and accurate texts that 'modern' revisionists throughout the ages sought to hide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

1 hour ago, BibleGuy said:

 

"There is no such thing as good philosophy."

What about modus tollens?  Is it TRUE or FALSE?

 

(hint: it's TRUE and GOOD Philosophy of logic!)

 

Why are you afraid to answer?

 

I'm not afraid to engage an answer, just unwilling to join you in your intellectual sewage.   Like it or not, here is my answer.   I assume you'll choke on it.  So be it.

Merriam-Webster definition of modus tollens states it is, "a mode of reasoning from a HYPOTHETICAL proposition."  (italics mine)

Either you do not understand the simple difference between a hypothetical premise and a statement of fact - or - you are deliberately rejecting it.  I assume the latter.

A hypothetical is a device used to manipulate an argument, illustrate a point or seduce the unwary into SIN.

Philosophy, therefore, is based on shifting perceptions augmented by fanciful allusions (hypotheticals).  A hypothetical is a mind game.  A head trip in self-delusion and cousin to lies and deception.  It is partially true and subjectively false, which I believe is why you love it so much.   

Anyone who uses logic will refrain from deference to hypotheticals.  Hypotheticals are the language of hell - the logic of the devil, justification of SIN and denial of God Almighty.

The LAW of God is neither a fantasy nor supposition.  It is a fixed point in God's definition of SIN and human behavior as He expects it.  It is objective logic.

It is A HIGHER LAW.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

I'm not afraid to engage an answer, just unwilling to join you in your intellectual sewage.   Like it or not, here is my answer.   I assume you'll choke on it.  So be it.

Merriam-Webster definition of modus tollens states it is, "a mode of reasoning from a HYPOTHETICAL proposition."  (italics mine)

Either you do not understand the simple difference between a hypothetical premise and a statement of fact - or - you are deliberately rejecting it.  I assume the latter.

A hypothetical is a device used to manipulate an argument, illustrate a point or seduce the unwary into SIN.

Philosophy, therefore, is based on shifting perceptions augmented by fanciful allusions (hypotheticals).  A hypothetical is a mind game.  A head trip in self-delusion and cousin to lies and deception.  It is partially true and subjectively false, which I believe is why you love it so much.   

Anyone who uses logic will refrain from deference to hypotheticals.  Hypotheticals are the language of hell - the logic of the devil, justification of SIN and denial of God Almighty.

The LAW of God is neither a fantasy nor supposition.  It is a fixed point in God's definition of SIN and human behavior as He expects it.  It is objective logic.

It is A HIGHER LAW.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Ok then...you don't even understand Modus Tollens....

You are WOEFULLY untrained in modern analytic philosophy, thus you don't even know what you're talking about.

MODUS TOLLENS is a LOGICAL INFERENCE RULE used in PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC.

If you ACCEPT IT, then you ACCEPT GOOD PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC.

If you REJECT IT, then you REJECT RATIONALITY!

You choose!

Until then, I won't engage further...

What's your choice?

Do you ACCEPT or REJECT modus tollens?

blessings...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/20/2019 at 7:02 AM, choir loft said:

 

The idea that 99% of present Christian doctrine or even the majority of it is based upon Pauline teachings is inaccurate and absurd.   Political correctness (pc) determines doctrinal ideology, not Biblical standards nor Papal bulls.

 

You are not familiar with Pauline Theology, so, no need to go now and wiki it then come back and pretend you wrote the book, ok?   See,  if you were familiar with it., then you would realize that n Paul penned about 70 % of the New Testament.  (no scholar needed, just read the New Testament and notice the authorship).   Do the math.

So, just by this fact, of most of the New Testament being written by one Apostle, tells and proves to anyone who can count that this one Apostle has contributed  more "church doctrine" then all the other apostles put together.

70% is going to outweigh 30%, every time you do the math, and no scholarship should be  required to be able to use common sense.

Also, Jesus called one Apostle, who was not of the original 12, after Christ ascended back into Glory.   This is the Apostle Paul.    This apostle, is the only Apostle whom Jesus took and taught him the Doctrines for the Church.   He taught Him by himself for 3 years.  And everything that we as the body of Christ understand about the Blood Atonement, Justification, Sanctification thru Christ, .... every thing we understand about how to choose a Deacon, a Pastor, an Evangelist.. came from Paul's epistles. Paul delivered all the principles of "justification by faith", and "Grace" to the body of Christ.  

When you want to understand the concept of marriage, and how to behave in a marriage, you get this from Paul.

When you want to know anything about the 9 Gifts of the Spirit, you get this from Paul

All of this comes from Paul., and so much more.   This info does Not come from  Jude, or James,  or  Mark, and not Matthew.

Now, you are not familiar with any of  this knowledge, and decided to prove it by what you posted, and thats fine.

But let me help you.   Always remember, that Paul wrote most of the New Testament, and over 99% of ALL the Doctrine that is understood as "church Doctrine" by the authentic body of Christ.

One of Paul's most adamant requests to one of his boy preachers "Timothy" is to attend to "DOCTRINE",  to preaching and teaching "DOCTRINE" as this is the dividing line between the truth and what everyone else is preaching.  And where do you think Titus got the Doctrine?   I'll give you one guess.

Understand that if a person is not very familiar with how to understand and teach "The Grace of God", and also the main Pauline Doctrines, then they have no business in a Pulpit, or in a Sunday School Class, or Modding a Christian forum.

Understanding those 2 things, deeply........ is the fulcrum of all New Testament knowledge you are supposed to know your 1st year subsequent to your Salvation...., and without this knowledge, you can't even begin to "rightly divide" The Bible.  Yet, denominations are built on this lack of Knowledge and devoutly religious people are sitting in these churches, lost as any dead atheist, and have no clue about this.........not at all.  Yet had they studied Paul instead of being charmed by a Pulpit Devil, they would be on their way to heaven.

Edited by Behold
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Let's please remember to keep it civil. Things are trending towards getting personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/21/2019 at 8:36 PM, Behold said:

You are not familiar with Pauline Theology, so, no need to go now and wiki it then come back and pretend you wrote the book, ok?   See,  if you were familiar with it., then you would realize that n Paul penned about 70 % of the New Testament.  (no scholar needed, just read the New Testament and notice the authorship).   Do the math.

So, just by this fact, of most of the New Testament being written by one Apostle, tells and proves to anyone who can count that this one Apostle has contributed  more "church doctrine" then all the other apostles put together.

70% is going to outweigh 30%, every time you do the math, and no scholarship should be  required to be able to use common sense.

Also, Jesus called one Apostle, who was not of the original 12, after Christ ascended back into Glory.   This is the Apostle Paul.    This apostle, is the only Apostle whom Jesus took and taught him the Doctrines for the Church.   He taught Him by himself for 3 years.  And everything that we as the body of Christ understand about the Blood Atonement, Justification, Sanctification thru Christ, .... every thing we understand about how to choose a Deacon, a Pastor, an Evangelist.. came from Paul's epistles. Paul delivered all the principles of "justification by faith", and "Grace" to the body of Christ.  

When you want to understand the concept of marriage, and how to behave in a marriage, you get this from Paul.

When you want to know anything about the 9 Gifts of the Spirit, you get this from Paul

All of this comes from Paul., and so much more.   This info does Not come from  Jude, or James,  or  Mark, and not Matthew.

Now, you are not familiar with any of  this knowledge, and decided to prove it by what you posted, and thats fine.

But let me help you.   Always remember, that Paul wrote most of the New Testament, and over 99% of ALL the Doctrine that is understood as "church Doctrine" by the authentic body of Christ.

One of Paul's most adamant requests to one of his boy preachers "Timothy" is to attend to "DOCTRINE",  to preaching and teaching "DOCTRINE" as this is the dividing line between the truth and what everyone else is preaching.  And where do you think Titus got the Doctrine?   I'll give you one guess.

Understand that if a person is not very familiar with how to understand and teach "The Grace of God", and also the main Pauline Doctrines, then they have no business in a Pulpit, or in a Sunday School Class, or Modding a Christian forum.

Understanding those 2 things, deeply........ is the fulcrum of all New Testament knowledge you are supposed to know your 1st year subsequent to your Salvation...., and without this knowledge, you can't even begin to "rightly divide" The Bible.  Yet, denominations are built on this lack of Knowledge and devoutly religious people are sitting in these churches, lost as any dead atheist, and have no clue about this.........not at all.  Yet had they studied Paul instead of being charmed by a Pulpit Devil, they would be on their way to heaven.

Church doctrine has been and continues to be very loosely connected to FEW teachings of the Bible including but not limited to Paul.  There is, by the way, the entire Old Testament that most Christians disallow.  Considering the whole volume, Paul did NOT write the bulk of Biblical text.

These pages are proof positive of the varying degrees of interpretation that have resulted from two thousand years of "political correctness" as it were.  People have been and continue to be killed as a result of attention paid to the words of Holy Writ.  Flame wars here are pretty dull stuff in comparison but still of the same spirit. 

I'm not referring to your particular point of view, but that of Christendom in general - the big picture generally speaking.

I see by your venomous retort that you refuse to understand what I'm trying to point out here - and THAT TOO is part of the problem.   Everyone here is so busy defending their own particular version of what God's Word says that they absolutely refuse to consider the big picture.   Again, the big picture, as I mean it, is the devaluation perturbations and obfuscations of original intent of the Bible.

To wit: the unchangeable nature of God's LAW as opposed to the philosophically based doctrines favored by the church.

Oh and by the way I hold a Masters Degree in Theology, which consisted of formal education in a certified institution and which suggests to no one in particular that I do indeed know what I'm writing about.  I'm also well aware that this formal training means nothing to self-important persons who's private musings are more important to them than any other perspective.  This is why I didn't go on to doctoral studies.  

"What a fool believes no wise man can reason away." - WHAT A FOOL BELIEVES, Doobie Brothers song of the year 1988

Instead of accusing me of stupidity, I submit you weigh the words and intent I'm attempting to share here.   A wise man will do so.  A fool will not.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/21/2019 at 12:04 PM, BibleGuy said:

Ok then...you don't even understand Modus Tollens....

You are WOEFULLY untrained in modern analytic philosophy, thus you don't even know what you're talking about.

MODUS TOLLENS is a LOGICAL INFERENCE RULE used in PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC.

If you ACCEPT IT, then you ACCEPT GOOD PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC.

If you REJECT IT, then you REJECT RATIONALITY!

You choose!

Until then, I won't engage further...

What's your choice?

Do you ACCEPT or REJECT modus tollens?

blessings...

 

My references are in accord with accepted forms of definition and purpose.   In my opinion, specific individual intellectual aberrations are invalid.

Using hypotheticals to justify lies and innuendo are not appropriate to discern truth from anywhere, especially the Bible.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. - Adolph Hitler

Our (American) society has become infected with the lies and deceptions of fools - reinforced from the pulpit.  Unless and until we realize the hard and fast and unchangeable advantages to God's LAW we will continue to circle the drain of self-destruction.  Past civilizations that preferred to justify their own sins and wickedness by means of philosophy eventually collapsed.

As will our own.

When, not if, it happens those who employed private philosophies to deflect their guilt of sin will not know what hit them.

and God will laugh at them.....  (I will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when calamity overtakes you. - Proverbs 1:26)

As to my acceptance or rejection of your favorite intellectual poison, I believe I've made my position clear.  Can you not even understand a simple yes or no?

It is my purpose here to generate consideration of the advantages of the unchangeable character of God's LAW as being superior to that of human philosophy that changes with every passion of the flesh.

Now I ask this of you; will you admit to God's LAW as an absolute and true definition of sin or will you reject it?

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...