|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 27, 2010 0:12:26 GMT -5
He didn't come preaching hellfire and 'whatever'. He came preaching the "kingdom of God". BIG difference than what you have been made to believe. I don't know how to respond. There is no such thing as sinful blood. I don't know why exactly 3 1/2 years. I would assume there could be more than one reason. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 25, 2010 18:55:13 GMT -5
Except for His death, His stay upon earth [33 yrs total] had nothing to with the issue of sin. Then why did he spend so much time preaching hellfire, repentance, and sinless perfection? Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you just ask the question about the 3 1/2 years out of curiosity? I thought you asked it in response to something I said about the atonement.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 25, 2010 17:35:11 GMT -5
haha, I just got your user-name. Very cool.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 25, 2010 15:25:52 GMT -5
Give the reason for Jesus' stay upon Earth for 3-1/2 yrs? Are you asking if there is a significance to the length of his public ministry after his baptism? If so, why? I don't see the connection between the length of Jesus public ministry and the fact that sin, which is a state of the will, cannot be transmitted through blood or any other means whether biological or spiritual.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 25, 2010 11:59:03 GMT -5
"However, it may be that only God's son was a sufficient sacrifice in God's eyes for reasons other than his being sinless." Sinless human blood was all that was necessary to cancel out the penalty of Adam's transgression. The same reasons that made bloodshed and suffering necessary for our pardon could also have made it necessary that the son of God be our atoning sacrifice. The sacrifice of God's own son is uniquely suited to the divine considerations that prompted the atonement. No other sacrifice could ever be so perfectly suited to the purpose of the atonement. God giving his own son for sin has an immeasurably greater impact than any other sacrifice could have.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 24, 2010 22:42:36 GMT -5
These are some things I've been praying for understanding about.
Is God in heaven or everywhere?
If God is everywhere then what is the point of saying he is in heaven?
Could God be 3D instead of like a giant invisible cloud that overlaps everything?
Why would God employ angels as messengers if he is right next to my ear?
Are angels only one-way messengers?
Could it be that heavenly creatures relay human prayers to God?
Does God read everyone's mind all the time?
If he does then why does he ask both people and angels seemingly genuine questions?
Does the fact that God is able to search our hearts and know our thoughts mean that he always watches every thought we have all day long?
If God always reads our minds all day long then what is the point of praying out loud?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 24, 2010 21:02:28 GMT -5
Jesse, if you are correct in your understanding of what was inherited from Adam, i.e., it was not contamination by sin, then the virgin birth of Jesus Christ of the seed of God, would have been unnecessary. Any man who kept himself from "sinning" could have been the sacrifice for all mankind. I've wondered about that before. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. John wrote, Rev 5:2-5 "I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it." However, it may be that only God's son was a sufficient sacrifice in God's eyes for reasons other than his being sinless. God wants all sinners to repent and be saved. God giving his own son as an atonement for sin has the greatest possible influence on a sinful world to repent and live. Not only that, but the Lord Jesus, our creator himself, died for us. This is also very powerful. 1John 3:5 "he appeared to take away sins"
1John 3:8 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."
John 12:32 "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.ā
John 3:16 "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
1John 3:16 "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us"
1John 4:9-10 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Gen 22:8 "Abraham said, 'My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering'"
Rom 5:7-10 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Also, God wanted his son to have the honor of being redeemer and avenger and not anyone else. For example, if God had sent someone else to atone for sin then someone else would have received the sealed scroll of judgments in the Revelation. However, considering the powerful effect of giving his own son for our redemption, I don't think God would have sent anyone else, even if someone else was willing. Col 1:18-20 "He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that all the fullness should dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross."
Heb 1:2 "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things"
Heb 2:10 "it was fitting that he...should make the founder of [our] salvation perfect through suffering."
Heb 3:1-6 "consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses ... Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant ... but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son." Also, Jesus said, John 14:31 "I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. There could be a lot of other reasons I don't understand yet too, that is, reasons why God would give his son as the sacrifice and not another. If there had been sinless people it would have pleased God. It seems God still would have sent his own son to atone for people who had sinned.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 11, 2010 18:54:17 GMT -5
If I was raised a Hindu and taught Hindu ideals would you consider me a good person. I don't know much about Hinduism. If you gave me an example of a specific belief or doctrine then I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience. But, no, being a Hindu does not make you automatically a good person any more than personally knowing the Lord Jesus made Judas Iscariot a good person. Same answer for this as for Hindus. Ok. I'm not sure I understand whether God reveals the gospel to every human before they die, or if it is dependent upon Christians, or a combination of both. Therefore I don't know if every single person hears the Gospel before they die. I kind of doubt it, but I am open to being wrong about that. Anyway, if everyone does hear the Gospel, then of course, as soon as they understand that it is true, they would be bad if they knowingly rejected the truth. But they can't be judged for lacking knowledge that has not yet been presented to them. They are judged according to their works just like the rest of us. I agree there are some things we are without excuse on. For example, as Paul wrote in Romans chapter one, the nations who worshiped idols knew better because they could understand about God from creation.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 11, 2010 11:18:49 GMT -5
I do believe that you can be part of a false denomination like JWs and Mormons and God in his compassion will reveal the truth concerning Himself in some way or another. Like Cornelius in Acts 10 who happened to be a Centurion who feared God and God provided a way in which the gospel was preached to him. Same with JWs and Mormons if they happen to seek the true God and God will reveal himself to them. Amen. Peter said, "in every nation he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with [God]." I would say the same for denominations as nations. Except for stubborn people who truly know they are wrong, "people in every denomination that fear God and work righteousness are accepted with God." How God interacts with them and helps them in sanctification and in learning more truth is over my head I think. Seems like everyone has different needs at different times in their life.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 11, 2010 11:10:30 GMT -5
It seems that you are just having symathy for heretics. Sympathy for human beings made in God's image. I didn't mean all JW's must be good people. If you are mistaken in doctrine because you've been taught the Bible says this or that, it doesn't make you a bad person. Sin makes people bad, not inaccurate knowledge. Have you ever been mistaken in your beliefs before? That's a fairly common belief in my experience. You obviously think you have good reasons for your belief about the importance of this doctrine. So it's not like you are being selfishly stubborn about something that has been totally disproved to you. So of course you can have a clear conscience regarding your statement. Therefore, even though I disagree with your statement, I don't think I should call you a heretic or a non-christian or divisive, because I assume you are well-intentioned and just saying what you think is true. There is no law against being mistaken about things so there is no reason a mistaken person would be automatically excluded from being a disciple of Jesus and from God's kingdom. However, if someone had the truth clearly shown to them in some way and selfishly persisted in their incorrect doctrine (which formerly was an innocent error), then they would not be loving God with all of their mind, but loving "being right" or loving their denomination, or loving their own honor because people might exclude them for changing beliefs. Then if they chose to follow these temptations instead of the truth and hardened their hearts against the truth they were suppressing, then they would depart from being a Christian. Because of their selfishness though, not because they were formerly mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 11, 2010 7:04:42 GMT -5
I'm inclined to disagree with Arianism. I just don't really know how to answer their interpretations of different scriptures if Arianism is actually wrong. I can easily see how someone could be convinced Arianism was Biblical. I don't think it is fair to conclude all JW's are bad because of it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 10, 2010 22:30:57 GMT -5
I'm not saying I think denominationalism is ok. I think all these groups should be working together to submit to each other in whatever ways they can so the world doesn't think that Jesus was just some guy and the Gospel is just a bunch of man-made philosophy, politics, and strife. In Germany, we already have the situation you describe. Almost all churches and ministries of Germany, alongside many other in all of Europe take part in one movement. The leaders of the churches and movements have made a "love covenant" and now work together and don't criticize the others any more. The movement was initiated by Chiara Lubich, an Italian woman who has worked for decades to bring all denominations and all religions together in unity. Alongside the Focolare movement founded by her, the movement is led by the Schoenstatt movement which seeks a spiritual unity of Europe by motivating people to totally surrender to Mary and giving their life to her. Another ministry in the leadership is the YMCA. I'm not sure that's the situation I was describing. I sure didn't mean we should never criticize. I don't understand what "surrender to Mary" and "giving their life to her" means. Does it mean you can't love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength? Because I think everyone knows it is wrong to deny God as much honor and love as we know how to show him. Also, if Mary is still a woman, then she shouldn't have authority over men.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 10, 2010 21:48:58 GMT -5
It's not me who condemns. It's Scripture that does so. Just so you know, I didn't think you were trying to judge beyond what you understand the Bible to say. I also didn't mean it is wrong to judge at all. I only meant that we should not judge others based on knowledge they might not have. The Bible says if you know you should do something and don't do it then it is sin. How could it be a sin to not believe something if you don't know that you should believe it? I agree but, it does not overrule the fact that God judges us righteously based on our knowledge. If a man learns some truth about Jesus, then he becomes obligated to respond in love. But according to the degree of knowledge he receives, not according to all the knowledge he could possibly receive. If someone doesn't know about or understand a certain doctrine I don't think they are automatically anathematized because they were taught differently. People can be sincere and be uninformed, misinformed, or just unsure about things they don't understand. Right. You have to believe whatever you have been legitimately convinced is true about him. Sometimes two different people are convinced about two opposing views. They are both doing their best to have correct doctrine but haven't had the chance to come to complete agreement yet. It doesn't mean one is Christian and the other is not. They might both be totally mistaken in their beliefs but both be genuine Christians seeking correct understanding and to obey Jesus. Having wrong ideas about Jesus does not make you an idolater. However, choosing to make-believe in some false idea of Jesus or God when you certainly know better would be like idolatry. But you can't be an idolater in spirit by accident. I agree. But there is only one Jesus Christ and many different people reading the scripture with different preconceptions and different Bible teachers with different doctrines. I agree with the Apostles' Creed but, I don't know if I would say the name "Pontius Pilate" is essential to the Christian faith. The Nicene Creed, whether it is correct or not, contains statements that people 1) might not understand, 2) might not have been taught by the church they attend, 3) might, in good conscience, think are mistaken or non-biblical additions to the true faith. Even if the doctrine is wrong, I'm not sure condemning all Arians is fair, as the original Nicene creed does. Also, I'm not sure they knew what they were talking about when they said Jesus is "of one substance with the Father". Also, if the Nicene creed is essential to true Christian faith, then anyone who believes in omnipresence is disqualified from Christian faith because it says, "for us men, and for our salvation, [Jesus] came down from heaven".
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 9, 2010 17:11:59 GMT -5
I am very strict and particular about doctrine. I think that's good. What would the point of doctrine be if it was not strict and particular? It would just be personal opinion then and not factual. Why should we judge others according to our knowledge instead of according to their knowledge? What if God judged us according to his knowledge instead of our own? How can we judge someone if they are doing their best to obey the Lord Jesus? So who decides when to excommunicate people over doctrinal differences?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 9, 2010 16:53:59 GMT -5
I was in the Calvinist thread on Crosswalk the other day and someone tried to prove that man's heart is pure evil... with the scriptures below: Genesis 8:21 (King James Version) 21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.My response First, man's heart is evil from their "youth", not from birth. Secondly, this is speaking of a certian group preceding the flood in a certain period of time... Not all men at all times. Please don't take this verse out of context. Jeremiah 17:9 (King James Version) 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?My response This may have been written in "Midrash" (Exaggerating to make a point). Which the Jews did often. This is Jeremiah talking about Judah's sin... Again, a certain group of people in a certain period of time... Read the whole chapter in context. Not everything is written literally. He certainly did not mean that all mankind's hearts are wicked and unable to please God... Compare your verse with the whole counsel of God... 1 Samuel 2:1 - Hannahās heart rejoiced in the Lord. Kings 3:6 - Davidās heart was upright before the Lord. 1 Kings 15:14 - Asa's heart was perfect with the Lord all his days. 2 Kings 20:3 - Hezekiah walked before the Lord with a perfect heart. 2 Kings 23:25 - Josiah turned to the Lord with all his heart. 2 Chron. 19:3 - Jehoshaphat prepared his heart to seek God. 2 Chron. 11:16 - Tribes of Israel set their hearts to seek the Lord Ezra 7:10 - Ezra prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord. 2 Chron. 15:15 - Nation of Judah sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire. 2 Chron. 22:9 - Jehoshaphat sought the Lord with all his heart. 2 Chron. 29:34 - Levites were upright in heart. These individuals and groups of people were under the old covenent, UNREGENERATE, not born again, without the indwelling holy spirit... and look what they did... Mark 7:20-23 (King James Version) 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.My response This is like trying to prove that all apples are red, by showing me a red apple. Nonsense... Yes... these things can proceed out of the heart of man, but so can goodness, repentance, humbleness, righteousness, etc. . Sounds good. I think I read that the verse in Genesis could read ""THOUGH the imagination of man's heart etc.." I'm inclined to agree about Jeremiah talking about the people of Judah and not human nature. If everyone's heart is wicked then why does God search hearts? And why does it say "who can know it?". If everyone's heart is wicked, surely everyone can know it very easily. You would only have to believe a single proposition and you would know the heart of every man on earth. Also, according to Calvinism, the things that defile a man only proceed out of his heart after they have been unknowingly forced upon his heart by genetics or soul-inheritance or whatever. If the doctrine of Total Depravity wouldn't make having children wrong then what could?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 9, 2010 11:12:11 GMT -5
My whole point is you can have a SAVED Baptist, or a Saved Lutheran or a Saved Methodist or even a calvinist for that matter. I agree. I don't see why not. I think there are probably good people in all of these groups. If they love God and their neighbor. Seems to me if you can have bad people with correct doctrine then you can have good people with incorrect doctrine. All kinds of different denominations think they are the true children of Abraham and everyone else are gentiles. Most of these groups are taught they have the Biblical faith, the Apostolic faith, that they are the true church. Can't God can see through these things into people's hearts? I'm not saying I think denominationalism is ok. I think all these groups should be working together to submit to each other in whatever ways they can so the world doesn't think that Jesus was just some guy and the Gospel is just a bunch of man-made philosophy, politics, and strife.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 7, 2010 15:32:31 GMT -5
What do protestants have against the Orthodox church?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 29, 2010 21:17:54 GMT -5
I believe it is wrong to work as a cashier who sells either cigarettes, pornography, hard liquor, or all of them. I told a man who has such a job that he shouldn't sell dirty magazines and he mentioned that he shouldn't sell lottery tickets either. I agree with him about the lottery tickets too. He had obviously thought about it before.
I want to point out to him that he should be willing to immediately leave his job and live in a tent if necessary - because Jesus said to seek God FIRST and THEN God can bless us with material things - Not to immorally take care of our material needs first and THEN obey God in our free time.
Whether or not people have considered these particular aspects of their job, I believe they WOULD HAVE considered them IF they were intent on obeying God in general. Therefore I believe they are in sin and should be warned.
Why shouldn't people be told that they must refuse to sell these things immediately no matter what it costs them? I don't think there is any reason for them to be afraid of losing or leaving a job that dishonors God. They should rather be afraid to work there one more day, to sell one more pack of cigarettes, to sell one more 30 pack of beer, or to sell one more dirty magazine.
Does anyone else agree with this?
Also, it seems stupid to be concerned about "inconveniencing" a line of customers behind you in order to warn to the person behind the counter. What is more important? Their three minutes waiting to buy a Slim-Jim? Or people getting out of sin immediately?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 24, 2010 21:23:19 GMT -5
And in this one, nothing you said was supported by any fact or logic, just blind faith. Was there some part you did not understand? I tried to show my reasoning throughout the post. I agree, though some of it's way older. I agree. They were considered strange cult followers by many back then. I don't think they really fit the profile of cult leaders though. Have you read the new testament part of the Bible? The first time I read through the Gospels I thought a lot of the things Jesus said made manipulative cult-leader types look really pathetic. I was impressed by the down-to-earth honesty and bluntness of Jesus Christ and his followers. Not really as I understand it. I'm pretty sure we have the Bible in its original languages for the most part. You can read it in the original Hebrew and Greek if you wanted to check how different groups have translated it into English. Sometimes I check the original language (since computers make it easily available) if I think I'm missing some meaning in the English translation. Of course. If we inserted the Quran into the end of the Bible don't you think it would defeat the purpose of compiling the Bible? huh? It rained in the Bible. The Lord Jesus' return is not intended to be the kind of proof that an atheist would want. That kind of proof would not benefit an atheist in any way because it would be too late to repent. You mean like telling people to write his words in a book for the whole world to read? Or do you mean audibly with a voice from heaven? I don't understand why you've said this. Do you observe thoughts with your five senses? Or do you need to see a squiggly line on a readout from some electrode machine in order to be convinced you have thoughts? Not all knowledge is a direct result of sensation.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 21, 2010 19:47:02 GMT -5
There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. First, how did you acquire that "information"? You HEARD the words through your neighbor. Still sensory information. Secondly, Jesus never wrote down a word, he spoke to people who spoke to people, and it was written down per THEIR interpretation. Perhaps THEIR minds were unreliable? Believing this is the equivalent of "my friend's second cousin's wife heard from a friend that..." Are you a Bible scholar or something? If some men write a few non-fiction eyewitness accounts of their friend's life, it is totally reasonable for me to consider whether they seem trustworthy or not - It's not that complicated. It's not like we can never determine anything about any biography that anyone writes because it is not our own first hand experience. My point was that the conclusion was not directly acquired through the senses even if the technique and input data were initially acquired through the senses. How do you know you have thoughts? Striving towards certainty? No you're not. If your mind was not intelligently designed then you can't rule out serious unintentional error. If your mind was not benevolently designed then you cannot rule out sabotage or intentional manipulation. It sounds more like you are pressing the gas pedal with the engine off and calling it striving towards the grocery store. Also refusing to believe in God seems very unscientific in light of what we've been discussing. It seems like you are projecting your inconsistent and unreasonable bias onto my consistent and reasonable faith. Wait, I said that based on logic though... and logic is thousands of years old! Nevermind! I obviously can't trust my conclusion because logic is so ancient! I wasn't building a case on the mentally handicapped (by birth) but on people with potentially working minds like you and kureji. The fact of mental disability acknowledges minor exceptions to the overall or general reliability of the human mind. The worldview of ignoring God allows a universal failure, more than a few exceptions as in reality, in the form of unintentional mental error or sabotage or manipulation. That's because you do not allow the logic in your mind to embrace belief in your creator so now you are mentally handicapped and perverted. So what? In effect you lovingly hold the devil as more important than yourself because you do his will even though it will result in you being thrown into hellfire. And your fornicating partner will end up in the fire too. So really it's like you love the devil more than either of you. If you were married you would still go to hell for your self-idolatry and unbelief. But you are right that it is selfish for you to sin with another person. That suggests that morality is a democracy. You deserve to go to hell for just one time you were unfairly selfish, you can't wash it away by telling yourself you are good and telling other people how moral and good you are. Vile affections? You wouldn't have vile affections if you loved Jesus. The reason you have vile affections is because you rejected God. Now God has rejected you and left you to make your body cheap (or selflessly free..) by giving it to a man while you are not his wife, which makes you sexually filthy even if you prefer to live in a fantasy world of "selflessness". That's about as selfless as giving a tip to your drug dealer. There's nothing benevolent about children growing up with a Godless fornicating mommy and being mentally troubled by their experiences. God does not cause parents to ruin their children's lives by being immoral.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 18, 2010 14:26:24 GMT -5
By the way, Jessicker, I didn't mean that comment about my confirmation in a disagreeable sense. I really thought it was interesting how we had two different experiences with that. John316, Denying PERSON and WORK of Christ you deny the crux of the holy faith. Did you mean me? I don't think I deny anything true about Jesus or what he did. I believe in him. I guess I can believe that as long as you don't mean the God of Jesus, who he called "the only true God". But I don't object to calling God's son "God" as long as he is not confused with the Father. I believe all of that too. I don't mean to turn your thread into a Trinitarian debate or anything. I think it all really depends on the person and not the denomination like Jessicker was saying. Though some denominations may be harder to find real saints in if their doctrines are extremely bad or if their practices are bad.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 16, 2010 12:49:59 GMT -5
Interesting. I thought I was doing the right thing when I went through confirmation at 13.
Now, I don't consider myself Trinitarian but I don't think I believe in a false God. I don't know what to think about Arianism, Omnipresence, and the Holy Spirit. So I can't commit to Trinitarianism.
I wish the church was not so divided as it is. I think I should pray more asking God to help us have unity.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 18:25:19 GMT -5
Okay. I think I get it now. I read some more and looked at more instances of the words "spirit" and "soul". I am pretty convinced that your soul is your mind, the way you think, etc (along the lines of 'psyche") and your "spirit" is your heart. I always just assumed that "poor in spirit" meant humble, but I didn't actually see any evidence for that assumption in the passage, so I wanted to make sure I understood what it really meant because who knows where I got this idea of it being humility from. I felt the pressing need to go back and look back over Matthew 5 and when I re-read it, I think what the Lord was trying to show me is that this part about the "poor in spirit" is meant to point out that the kingdom of Heaven is not just for the spiritual giants, priests, great prophets, etc. Much like the kingdom of Heaven is not just for those whose lives have been going perfectly or who are strong; it's also for those that are mourning or meek. So long as you are merciful, pure in heart, hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc, the kingdom of Heaven is attainable, even if in this life, you are not a highly-exalted, great prophet or even if you are in mourning or meek. Everyone is eligible for Heaven through the grace of God! The chapter then goes on to warn against just being complacent in this, though. Just because you are not a great prophet or you're in mourning, or you're meek doesn't mean that you can hide your light under a bushel or lose your flavor. That's great! God is so reasonable in his requirements.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 18:19:39 GMT -5
I believe he never made a choice he knew was stupid. We can do the same. If it did then he can't really relate to us when it comes to temptation. Like Hebrews says he was tempted in all ways just like us so he can be a compassionate High Priest. If it was not possible then we would not really be guilty. If I can love myself then I can love my neighbor as well. If I can worship myself then I can choose to worship God instead. The law commands that we love God with ALL of our strength - not MORE THAN all of our strength. Even everyone sinning does not mean that everyone HAD to sin. If everyone jumped off of a bridge it wouldn't mean that everyone HAD to do it. It's not like science where the same result often means a scientific law of some kind, like gravity. With people who can make free choices the situation is different. The outcome can be this way or that way and it doesn't mean anything about our natures. That's because there is no formula that controls our choices. No physical laws forcing us to sin or not sin.
I don't think we should assume that our children will sin for example. The bible says love hopes all things and believes all things. If we are pessimistic about our children's faithfulness and plant the seed of doubt in their minds then the devil will use that to his advantage. The bible says whoever loves his brother lives in the light and there is no cause for stumbling inside of him. We can teach children to love others at a very young age. People are specially engineered to never sin. I think we should be more optimistic about it so that the devil does not use discouragement as a weapon against faith.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 18:04:40 GMT -5
That part about "the son of man" is exciting. Thanks for sharing that.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 17:48:56 GMT -5
So I have a question that is kinda controversial and need your opinion on this one. It's evident that no denomination will have a perfect doctrine in this lifetime. And you have denominations like Anglicanism which MAY BE in error but you've have great saints come out of there like JC Ryle. IMO I believe denominations like JWs, Mormons, Unitarirans, Oneness Pentacostals, Christaldephians are worhip a different Jesus that cannot save. Can the same be said about ALL CATHOLICS AND ALL ORTHODOX Christians. Is it possible for people who are part of those denominations have a personal relationship with the Savior. Just need to know your opinions. In my opinion, you could be in pretty much any denomination and still know Jesus. I figure it would depend on how much knowledge you have of their doctrines and what you've been taught about the scripture. There's only one Jesus Christ and people are taught a lot of different things about him. I think God is still able to work through a lot of that. What really matters in my opinion is if you love Jesus and obey him or not. I don't think we'll be graded on all our doctrinal knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 12:34:03 GMT -5
Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? memory, logic and thoughts are constructed from pre-gathered sensory information. Yes, I thought about that. It certainly would rule out memory as being non-sensory evidence of something in the way I was intending. But logic still applies because not every logical conclusion was necessarily an object of direct sensation in my past. There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. Also seems that when we do math problems we can acquire knowledge that is not a result of direct sensation. Or the fact that I have thoughts. I've never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt a thought - but I know I have thoughts. I can reason about all sorts of things and grow in knowledge without that knowledge being the direct result of the five senses. Logic provides us with knowledge that is not the direct result of sensation. Logic tells me that only belief in God provides a worldview (on top of the assumption) of certainty. Logic tells me that all other worldviews leave things open for seemingly unlimited universal deception. Since I can't help taking the leap of faith that my mind is reliable, it seems reasonable to trust my mind when logic is pointing its finger at God saying "Look, certainty is in him." Seems people have the option to reject the idea in some ways. I was mainly just pointing out how no atheistic worldview seems to logically compliment the assumption of the mind's reliability. But belief in God seems to do so exclusively. I'm not opposed to the idea that God allows other factors to influence the formation of our minds. God hasn't yet put an end to all the rebellion in the universe. I don't see why it would have to be either/or. It doesn't matter how you grew up, God will not judge a person for what they don't know about. Sin is only when you know better and are able to be loving but choose selfishness instead - as if you are more important than anyone else. I agree. We are not solely a product of our environment because we have the ability to make free choices.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 13, 2010 16:30:37 GMT -5
My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree? I completely disagree. Firstly, because we already assumed that the mind is reliable. Because of that, I can rely on evidence, on things that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. God is not one of those things, thus my reasonable mind gives me no reason to assume he exists. That seems to assume that mediate sensory input is the only source of knowledge. What about memory, logic, and thoughts in general? We don't perceive purely intellectual phenomena through the five senses, but we still acquire lots of knowledge through such phenomena. Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? We know at least some disability is the result of sin. If someone's wife was a drunkard while pregnant, her child can be severely disabled as a result of her sin. That may not be the explanation for all disabilities, regardless, it's not logically necessary to conclude God is not the creator just because there is suffering in the world.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 12, 2010 17:37:04 GMT -5
I'm bad at this whole quoting thing, so I'm going to just take issue with this "I don't think it's silly. If it is reasonable to assume the reliability of the mind, it seems equally reasonable to embrace the only belief which logically confirms this assumption. Do you disagree? " I disagree because I don't think that belief in God "logically confirms" the assumption that the mind is reasonable. What I mean by this is that is that all of your "evidence" that God exists you have received through your mind and senses, I agree with this. I meant it confirms the assumption after the fact. Maybe 'confirm' is too loose a word. How about "affirms". Believing God exists affirms (after the fact) the assumption of mental reliability. Having assumed mental reliability there seems to be no other belief that affirms our assumption other than belief in God. In fact it seem logically impossible for any other belief to ever do so. I don't know if that counts as an argument because you already assume the "therefore" to be reliable before the following conclusion is accepted. My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 11, 2010 22:47:52 GMT -5
I meant the lack of evidence. The lack of a logical confirmation of the assumption of reliability. This misunderstanding was confusing me throughout the discussion. I don't know if I failed to distinguish between the ways we were using the word unreliable or if we were just talking in circles. I'm not trying to convince you that your mind is actually unreliable (except for unbelief). That makes sense. The denial of the mind would assume the validity of the mind to deny anything. It sounds here like you implied you don't know if you are right about anything, you just think sometimes you might be or could be. Is that what you believe? I mean could be imperfect. I'm not sure if I could prove it would be ā I'd have to think about it more. When I say 'unreliable' and 'untrustworthy' my point is that the logical possibility of serious error would remove the logical certainty of reliability (provided by faith in God) which uniquely complements the assumption of reliability (unlike atheism). Without the intelligence of God, unintended error is possible. Without the benevolence of God, deliberate error is possible. I don't usually think of faith as excluding proof. To me it seems that it would be intellectually inconsistent to doubt God's existence. Since I have faith in my mind just like you, it makes sense to me to have faith in God as well. It seems to me that faith in God confirms my faith in my mind which confirms my faith in God and so on. It seems impossible for there to be any other belief that would be compatible with mental reliability. I don't think consciousness could ever occur this way. If you shake a giant box of legos for a bazillion years maybe an unconscious lego-man could fall out ā but I don't think it could be conscious or personal.
What type of proof do you think is right to expect? What is your understanding of the difference between natural and supernatural?
|
|