|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 6, 2008 10:58:23 GMT -5
coughcultcough coughbrainwashcough. The scariest thing about this movie is that they actually filmed part of it near my hometown of Kansas City. Lets just say that Christian movie Fireproof is doing very good around here and that I am basically right in the middle of Jesus Land.
Now I love the idea of Christ. I'm not going to dispute that. I think the teachings and everything are very good. The problem I have with most organized christian religions is that they take away individual thought. We are training a new generation of people to only think how others think and I don't think that is a good thing. LIke it or not churches are cults. Now most churches are very good and very positive, but a lot of them are teaching things that they have just made up or was made up in the past.
Religion is not as cut and dry as most people believe. We believe it is because we want to be saved. I can understand that. But I can also understand that the Bible was misinterpreted and that a lot of it is missing.
Do I personally believe in Jesus? I would like to say I do but it is hard.
I'll tell you what I do know though. I believe that we all have a soul. I believe that we all have a spirit and that when we die it is a lot more complicated than just going to some perfect utopia. I believe individually our spirit is set free. What happens? I truly don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by kureji on Oct 6, 2008 11:21:22 GMT -5
poor little kids
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 6, 2008 13:41:42 GMT -5
i agree with you that this is scary.
i don't sense at all the Holy Spirit (the presence and conviction of God) among these people, but only fleshly excitement.
In fact , there is a great possibility that these kids are brainwashed by some "ministers" who believe that Jesus can only return when the "Church" will have conquered the kingdoms of the earth. What a foolishness ! And yes, i know that some of these dominionists [as we call them] are present in Kansas city with the so-called Kansas City Prophets who have produced many false prophets in the 20 past years. I would not be surprised if these camps have some connection with them…
Rick Joyner , another scary false prophet of North Carolina, who is also brainwashing youth (more the older teenagers though) is connected with those KCP "prophets".
Those people seem to be engaged Christians but they have departed from the Truth [as they don't want to take up their cross but want to overcome with their own will], have already declared war in their writings on the other Christians who don't want to follow them but prefer to stick with the Scriptures and the example of Jesus.
Bottomline, it may seem Christian , but it is not the Jesus I know. I would not let my children in these camps, but educate them in the knowledge of the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by dale on Oct 6, 2008 15:04:39 GMT -5
Joyner tried to gain a foothold in Ohio through one of the local yokel pastors here and that is where I first heard the name. Joyner scares me even more than Palin, Phelps or Micah. Joyner has the makings of another Jim Jones. Read a few of his books, like where he claims to have been allowed to eat off the tree of knowledge and some other nonsense. The onlyt hign mroe scary than Joyner is the pack of fools who believe his line.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 6, 2008 23:24:09 GMT -5
i agree. When he speaks or writes he seems quite a polite man, but you can sense the veiled threat behind his words towards the contradictors. And he is a megalo claiming that his visions are more important than what the apostles said. He also is a champion in mainipulating people , One of their mottos is "do not judge" but in fact it means "do not try to discern what we are saying". It is a form of witchcraft , pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by dale on Oct 7, 2008 8:43:12 GMT -5
Somewhere near the end of your own Bible does it nto caution abotu adding to ro subtracting from what is written in the text? It is enar the end in Revelation. I of course do nto believe the Bible, but you all do. Thus, Rick Joyner would truly be treading on dangerous ground by your own standards, is he not?
People like Jesse, Micah, The Patriot and even you, Frenchy, amuse me and sometimes annoy me. Mega ministers on TBN like Hinn, Crouch and crew have me rolling on the floor with laughter. Joyner, however, frightens me. If he does nto eblieve his own hype and is simply working a number on a bunch of marks, that makes him a crook and a scumbag but if he truly believes what he says then he has the makings of the next Jim Jones.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 7, 2008 12:06:01 GMT -5
that is a possibilty. The man is dark, really. Somewhere near the end of your own Bible does it nto caution abotu adding to ro subtracting from what is written in the text? It is enar the end in Revelation. I of course do nto believe the Bible, but you all do. Thus, Rick Joyner would truly be treading on dangerous ground by your own standards, is he not? Exactly yes. And not only these guys add or subtract to the scriptures, but they also distort the sense of them, for they own destruction and of those who follow them.
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 7, 2008 19:43:07 GMT -5
that is a possibilty. The man is dark, really. Somewhere near the end of your own Bible does it nto caution abotu adding to ro subtracting from what is written in the text? It is enar the end in Revelation. I of course do nto believe the Bible, but you all do. Thus, Rick Joyner would truly be treading on dangerous ground by your own standards, is he not? Exactly yes. And not only these guys add or subtract to the scriptures, but they also distort the sense of them, for they own destruction and of those who follow them. The Bible has been misinterpreted and changed for years. There is no version of the Bible that is completely accurate which is why we have to use our own minds to think.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 8, 2008 5:56:12 GMT -5
The Bible has been misinterpreted and changed for years. There is no version of the Bible that is completely accurate which is why we have to use our own minds to think. It is certainly a good thing to think. I have several versions of the Bible , both in French and in English, and they all say the same thing, even if the words are different at times (of course they are), the message is the same. To give an example , a translator from the original text in Greek into English could have chosen the word “eventually” in a passage, while the other chose “finally”. The more recurent differences between versiosn are due to the languages as some words do not exist in all languages, and others can have several possible translations near from each other. Also there is a handful of verses added in some of the versions which did not existed in the original manuscripts but that do not prove that the original manuscripts were not accurate, and that is the important point ; in the versions which have these few added verses, these verses are well indicated as such, and these few verses do not change the meaning of the passages. In doubt, just discard these few added verses. In each version , the 10 commandments given to Moses are the same, in each version the account of Jesus’ miracles crucifixion and resurrection are the same. In each version the message of God to mankind is the same. If someone is honest he will soon come to see that the message of the Bible is the same in each version. Thinking that the Bible is not accurate, under the pretext that in a few places there would be some ‘suspect’ difference, would be like saying a painting from Rembrandt on which some guy later on has put his fingers or a spot on it could not be from Rembrandt because there would be no way that Rembrandt could produce anything that isn’t perfect. And it would make no sense to not appreciate the painting, just because there would be a tiny spot in a corner. Even though , it would still be a masterpiece from Rembrandt. The original texts written in Hebrew or Greek have been proven unchanging. See the next post :
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 8, 2008 6:02:36 GMT -5
The last books of the New Testament were written by about 100 A.D. by the apostle John who was still alive at that time. We have over 5300 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament penned prior to fourth century A.D. Though not assembled into what we now know now as the New Testament until 300 A.D., those canonical writings of Jesus' apostles were being read all over the known world. Though it is disputed by some Messianic Jews, the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Koine` Greek and then copied by early Christians into every language known to the world. Our major manuscripts are in Greek, yes, but we also have important early manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, and several other lesser-known languages. We have one small piece of the Gospel of John, found on the Egyptian island of Elephantine, that is early enough to be a piece of the original.
It is impossible to support that any kind of later corrupting has taken placed for these old manuscripts when we have those 5300 early manuscripts that prove otherwise. In fact, because of this breadth of early manuscript support, textual scholars have concluded -- that for all practical purposes -- we have the original documents themselves. For a claim of tampering to be seriously considered, one would have to show that scribes from Syria, Babylonia, Galatia, Asia, India, Rome, India, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Tarshish and Macedonia -- to name a few -- all made the same mistake, at the same time, for the same doctrinal purpose. An utterly ridiculous idea.
We have similar textual support for the authenticity of the Old Testament. Until a few years ago, the earliest documents we had for the Old Testament were later copies of a 70 B.C. Septuigent in Greek and a Massoretic Text in Hebrew that could be positively dated to the ninth century A.D.. However, with manuscript discoveries at Qumran made in the late 1940s (the Isaiah scroll, the book of Daniel, etc, etc along with other scrolls which are not in the Bible), some of which could be dated to the third century B.C.. Internal evidence within one Daniel scroll dates it at 350 B.C. As a result, we can now state with some certainty that there has been no tampering with the canonical Old Testament manuscripts between 300 B.C. and 900 A.D !
Despite the span of over a thousand years, the canonical manuscripts are virtually identical !!!!
Now what about before 300 B.C ? To suggest there was tampering to the Old Testament documents prior to 300 B.C. shows a misunderstanding of Israelite scribal methodology and of their reverence for the Scriptures. First of all, biblical scrolls were written on the inside only to prevent any smudging or smearing that might lead to a misreading of the text. When being copied -- besides many parallel readings -- the copy was compared with the original in every way humanly possible.
The words in each column were counted and then the letters. The first, last, and middle letter and word in each column had to be identical to the original. If the number of words or the number of letters of the copy differed from the original, the copy was destroyed. Then they counted the words and letters in the whole document. They divided the document into quarters and into eighths. The first, last and middle letter in each section had to be the same. The number of words and the number of letters in each section had to be the same. The middle word and the middle letter in each section had to be the same, and they had to be the same for the whole document. If not, the copy was destroyed. Not corrected, but destroyed!
Since there is absolutely no textual or historic evidence that the Old Testament was ever corrupted, any claim of editing must have been made by those religious authorities who didn't like what the Old Testament taught. There are some who claim late-dating for Old Testament prophets, but that claim is unfounded, as well. The books of Moses, originally penned in the 15th century B.C. contain Egyptian words and idioms that fell out on the usage a few centuries later. When the Hebrews entered Canaan, Canaanite words appeared in Scripture, when in contact with the Assyrians, Assyrian words appeared in Scripture. During the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel and Ezekiel were written, Babylonian words and Babylonian idioms appeared in Scripture. So rest assured, these canonical books were contemporary books, written when the prophets claimed they were, and they remain unchanged to this day.
[An article by Elis Skolfield]
|
|
|
Post by dale on Oct 8, 2008 6:36:52 GMT -5
I did not say the Bible itself had not been changed, revised, reworded or edited as "Brother Valley" (my brother in nonbelief) notes. I simply used the last phrases in the Bible (parapgrased as I habve no real reason to re-read it) as a barb against Joyner, playing by the Christian rules and showing how their own book can be used against them.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 8, 2008 6:50:32 GMT -5
That is what i understood you were saying, Dale. There are people who -by mere ignorance- may think that the Bible had been 'corrupted' thru the centuries , [just beware of the new versions that have been made by non-christians like the "message" made by New-agers , and the bible of the Jehowah Witnesses] and those who change and twist the meaning of the scriptures to suit their own agenda or justify their behaviour [like Joyner and the like]. Your quote of one of the last phrases of the Bible is accurate by the way, although maybe not word for word you understand rightly the meaning of it.
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 8, 2008 11:59:50 GMT -5
I did not say the Bible itself had not been changed, revised, reworded or edited as "Brother Valley" (my brother in nonbelief) notes. I simply used the last phrases in the Bible (parapgrased as I habve no real reason to re-read it) as a barb against Joyner, playing by the Christian rules and showing how their own book can be used against them. Oh I'm not an nonbeliever. I very much believe that there is more to life than just this. I believe we all have a soul and that something happens when we die. The thing I don't do though is act like I know for sure what is going to happen after we die because no one has any real fact or proof to say what happens. I am a believer in I don't know. Saying there is no God or that there is God is easy. Trying to think about it and make sense of all the gray is hard which is why people don't choose to do that.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 8, 2008 13:56:07 GMT -5
i was like that (not knowing really) before reading the Gospels of John Luke, Mathew and Mark with an open mind and a thirsty heart....
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 8, 2008 14:23:52 GMT -5
i was like that (not knowing really) before reading the Gospels of John Luke, Mathew and Mark with an open mind and a thirsty heart.... Thats good that you believe in it but the fact is that you do not know for sure. Until you realize that you can never think clearly about it.
|
|