Chinahand Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 I am continually fascinated by how the Bible can be manipulated to justify things: Boer4Jesus emphasised Galatians 1:10: 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. Why not Romans 12:17-18: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. So should a good Christian from Living Hope be a servant of Christ and not try to please people, or should they be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone? The Bible a cherry picker's paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boer4Jesus Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 I am continually fascinated by how the Bible can be manipulated to justify things: Boer4Jesus emphasised Galatians 1:10: 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. Why not Romans 12:17-18: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. So should a good Christian from Living Hope be a servant of Christ and not try to please people, or should they be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone? The Bible a cherry picker's paradise. Galatians is saying not to seek approval from the world. Romans is saying we should be a light to the world. Being a light to the world means being a good example, it doesn't mean trying to please everyone. The two passages complement each other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 The only worldview I have, as a Christian, is that we should all love each other, live in peace and "do unto others" as we would have them do unto us (Luke 6:31). It says in 1 John 4:16 that "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him". Love is my worldview. What is yours? OK, but you've got to reconcile that with Luke 14:26. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." We're all worldly people, sinners in need of a savior, ... In Ecclesiastes 7:20, it says there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. Don't you find the idea of original sin tainting even a new born baby repugnant? If you are a literalist surely you must accept that Eve had no conception of right or wrong in the Garden of Eden and hence could not understand that it was wrong to disobey God's command to Adam (not her) not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To damn, not only her, but every human from then on for that innocent act is not the behaviour of a loving god. I wonder if Boer4Jesus ever wonders in a lonely moment of doubt about the words "I never knew you" where people who called Jesus Lord and who felt sure they were a part of the chosen were cast aside? No. Why would I? You might be wrong in your beliefs - those Christ claimed to never know clearly had a bit of a shock when he sent them down to hell fire. As a verb, my opinion is that science is valid. As a system, I side with with Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn that it's a social construct and not the pure field of study that some would have us believe when comparing it with religion. Naturalism and atheism are two dogmatic philosophies which have no place in real science. Lots of interesting points here - too much for tonight, but hopefully space for a longer discussion. In asking for my opinion on homosexuality, are you asking me if I like it? I can't say that I've ever tried it. LOL, no I'm not asking you to try homosexuality, I'm asking you about what your Church attitude towards it. Take two loving couples, both live essentially identical lives - hard working, giving to the community, loving and supporting their partners. If one couple is heterosexual is this a part of the divine order of things while if the other is homosexual are they an abomination before God? Does that really give you no pause for thought? The biblical texts in their original languages are inerrant. Translations and interpretations are open to error. Erm ... we'll have to explore this a bit more - you've given yourself quite a lot of wriggle room! Some simple questions: was world created in 7 literal days? who was created first - Man (if you want to be pedantic Mankind or Adam), or "every fowl of the air"/"every winged fowl after his kind"? Genesis chapter one says "every winged fowl after his kind" was created prior to Mankind. Genesis chapter two says "every fowl of the air" was created after Adam. It must be good knowing life has no meaning or value and we're all evolved from primordial soup which turned into fish which had monkeys for grandkids. Who says life has no meaning or value? What has that got to do with whether we evolved or not? Many Christian sects understand that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and do not reject the knowledge we have simply for dogmatic reasons of fundamentalism. On a personal level I find it totally awe-inspiring that we can learn of the incredible heritage we have, chemistry emerging from supernova remains from stars composed of hydrogen formed in the cauldron of the big bang, expanding out into the vastness of the universe. The huge richness of life over eons and eons able to gain by happenstance the information to become ever more aware of its environment until we self conscious can use that awareness to understand our heritage. To dismiss this with throw away lines about fish and monkeys is to miss the wonder in life and the universe's evolution. He [Jesus] died on the cross for you. What greater love is there? (John 15:13) Lots of people die for others, it isn't such a unique thing. I'm not convinced Christ's sacrifice is necessarily a good thing. Why must he be a scape-goat for the actions of others? And then there is the morality of his intervention. One person is heinously wronged by another - a third party then comes and forgives the wrong doer, not due to any contrition towards the person wronged, but because they worship the third person. The person wronged is ignored, and if they have a different opinion towards this third party they can be dammed for eternity, for any minor lapse - even for thinking the wrong thoughts unacted upon. I am very happy to debate the morality of this with you - are you really certain it is something which gives you no pause? You do like making assumptions. ... It is something I am notorious about. Apologies if they are wrong - a major part of my posting style is to make assumptions and to then see if the person goes "just a minute, that's not right". We are total strangers and so you have to make some sort of leap in the dark to start things off. If I am wrong, do tell me so, and I will try to understand better. I hope that cleared things up. It has been most helpful. Welcome to our Forums. It is a robust place, but can be a source of much enjoyment! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I am continually fascinated by how the Bible can be manipulated to justify things: Boer4Jesus emphasised Galatians 1:10: 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. Why not Romans 12:17-18: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. So should a good Christian from Living Hope be a servant of Christ and not try to please people, or should they be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone? The Bible a cherry picker's paradise. Galatians is saying not to seek approval from the world. Romans is saying we should be a light to the world. Being a light to the world means being a good example, it doesn't mean trying to please everyone. The two passages complement each other. Yes, but getting back to the subject at hand - is the Living Hope church just another Scientology type cult who's primary aims are to shag gullible birds and take money from people to keep the people at the top in a wealthy lifestyle? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Yes about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Re-watched the Louis Theroux episodes where he visits the Westboro Baptists... A family based ponzi scheme cult... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 "He's gonna eat your babies!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fliugh Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Best avoid Ramsey this weekend and next: https://www.facebook.com/events/1234326549931852/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 And the one after. And the one after that. And the one after that... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 well I never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Best avoid Ramsey this weekend and next: https://www.facebook.com/events/1234326549931852/ How disappointing I do dislike evangelism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Erm ... looks like Boer4Jesus has decided to revert to lurking. Oh well. Jerry Coyne has a post asking people to explain their atheism: clicky do! If you were asked explain to someone, say an open-minded person you’d just met, why you’re an atheist, and were limited to at most three sentences, what would you say? My only problem with this is that whenever the word atheism is used some people come along and endlessly try and nit pick its meaning. Such debates are nearly always unproductive and so I tend to use synonyms - replacing say "why you're an atheist" with "why you do not accept religious belief." My signature has some Chinese characters in it: 倾向无神论的. They translate to "inclined to atheism" - I really like the Chinese phrase for atheist - 无神论 wúshénlùn. It literally translates as without a spirit theory. That's me - I am without a spirit theory and if I was asked to give three (admittedly overlong Chinahand length) sentences to explain why I am like this I'd answer: I'm without a spirit theory because I think human psychology is a far more persuasive explanation for people's religious beliefs than the intervention of a divine being. I find the various ideas of an afterlife proposed by religions entirely at variance to the findings of science and especially physics and thermodynamics. Finally I find the Holy Texts of the various religions to be extremely culturally and historically biased; they are structurally incoherent and full of superstitions and beliefs which have been disproven by historical and scientific research; the only way these texts can be read in the light of a modern understanding of culture, history and science is by deliberately distorting their meaning and cherry picking the texts to ignore their contradictions or reduce them to metaphor - this seems to me such an obviously cultural process as to place it firmly in the realm of the mundane with no divine content what so ever. What would other people say? Or the converse - three sentences to explain why you have a belief in a divine being, afterlife or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Firstly, for me it's far more likely that everything has evolved from a random quantum fluctuation than been created by a pre-existing intelligence. If the latter, where did he come from? Secondly, why would such an intelligence, if he existed, reveal himself on only a few occasions, in a way that results in his message getting distorted. Thirdly, if we can accept that this is how it is, then god must be a complete psychopath and I certainly don't want to waste what time I have worshipping him. I'm with Stephen Fry on this point. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-d4otHE-YI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 It was all going so well until someone brought up the national treasure Mr Fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I'm not an atheist or a theist or an agnostic. I reckon there is more going on than any of these camps think but I don't know what it is. There are a lot of examples of things around the world which can be called spiritual. Spirituality is hard wined in our brains, not religion but definitely things like ritual, rites, etc, and I don't believe creativity and dreams are from chemicals in the brain. The chemicals could just be a medium through which spirituality manifests to the conscious mind. But I'm happy to be corrected. People need to keep an open mind or else they're no better than religious fanatics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now