The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by saint4God
Then there is no good or bad (in keeping with that line of thinking). Therefore murder, rape, etc. cannot possibly be 'bad'. There's a problem with that and hope it can be seen.

Think of it this way. Some consider abortion a terrible thing, but put yourself in their shoes. What if your daughter/wife was raped? They have to have the child? What if it could not be properly taken care of? Should a child be knowinglt be born into a terrible life?

Originally posted by saint4God
It's a validation test. Apply multiple tests and that helps. You can never tell for absolute certainty that what someone else says is true unless you walk the road yourself.

As I've said the Bible is mostly 2nd hand accounts.

Originally posted by saint4God
Then I've failed to properly explain. Perhaps someday there will be someone who can come along and do a better job. Until then, as I know you're probably tired of hearing by now, my recommendation is to go the the source.

Do you think God plays dice?

Originally posted by saint4God

Huzzah! If you can see true Christians as good, it feels like a resoundingly successful exchange! Just a word of progression if I may. If Christian = Good, it would only be because they follow Christ as their teacher and saviour.

True Christian meaning they embody Christ. The message of Christ has been translated/changed over time. There are many forms of Christianity that differ in what they believe. I do not agree with fundamentalists as they usually try to force others to abide by their rules.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hehe, they do rack up like parking tickets!

As do the mistakes which you can't get back. I swear I put in the right color code, but I guess not and so there went another 250 points. I would have had a second title by now.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Think of it this way. Some consider abortion a terrible thing, but put yourself in their shoes. What if your daughter/wife was raped? They have to have the child? What if it could not be properly taken care of? Should a child be knowinglt be born into a terrible life?

I've thought quite a bit about these topics, despite the accusations otherwise. My answer is not a popular one. I believe the child should be raised with the same love despite the source of seed. It is not the child's fault s/he is a product of a criminal and should not be punished according to the sins of the father.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
As I've said the Bible is mostly 2nd hand accounts.

I don't know if its been firmly established as non-first hand. Nevertheless, use as many sources as you've got, I say.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Do you think God plays dice?

Deep! A conversation I have with friends over, usually after watching some kind of whacked movie that spurs such a discussion. I don't know if this is a majority school of thought for Christians or not, but God from what I've seen is a macro manager. I don't think major disasters are because "God done it" because in the past He made it a point to declare it so (like through Moses). Could be wrong. Though He has the capability to lift up or bring down a person, persons, or events, on the whole He has created us with the will to decide upon the things we think, say and do. It is then all the more delight to Him that through that self-decisioning, we choose to give to Him.

Back in the day, they used to draw lots (like drawing straws) to determine who would be the next prophet. We got some good prophets out of it, though I wonder if we got a number of them never put into the Book. So then, we played dice and in at least some cases (if not all, it's argueable), God played along. Right now, there's a group of people I see on a regular basis who are pretty fixed on pre-destination. We're having discussions now and then. I think the problem with pre-destination is very few people can settle on the definition. If you can tell me what pre-destination means to you, I can tell you whether I believe it's the case. All in all though, this is a minor point. Salvation does not hinge upon it.

I'd like to see where this is going though so by all means continue.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
True Christian meaning they embody Christ. The message of Christ has been translated/changed over time. There are many forms of Christianity that differ in what they believe. I do not agree with fundamentalists as they usually try to force others to abide by their rules.

Christianity is supposed to be liberating, not enslaving. If a Christian feels they're now enslaved (and I've yet to meet one who does) then I really think they missed the point. It's not about law. It's about knowing you're free from the burdened responsibility of past mistakes, the ability to change them, and a very bright future. From that, you cannot help but love God and do your best to give back. It's a relationship like any other in some respects, and a relationship like no other in many respects.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
As do the mistakes which you can't get back. I swear I put in the right color code, but I guess not and so there went another 250 points. I would have had a second title by now.

Doh! I'm sure you'll have them back in no time.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Christianity is supposed to be liberating, not enslaving.

Is it sinful to have sex without marriage?
Is it sinful to refuse to forgive a rapist/murderer?
Is it sinful to lie in all cases?
Is it sinful to refuse to worship?
Is it sinful to persue power and wealth for selfish reasons?

Your religion offers a false sense of absolution for actions that should keep you awake at night (hurting others), while simultaneously instilling arbitrary angst over actions that harm no-one. That doesn't sound very liberating to me.

Isn't it commonly claimed that people refuse to believe because they love sin? Doesn't that imply that there is an expectation of modified behavior for believers? The New Testament is just as full of moral imperatives as the Old.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to have sex without marriage?

This one is a hot topic. Are you considering marriage to be a legal ceremony? Do you feel a church has to "marry" two people? Were Adam and Eve married? How about their offsping? I don't remember this being one of the Ten Commandments or Jesus' answer to the Greatest Commandment. This one generates more questions than answers. Here's my take on it: A man and a woman should have promised themselves to each other in marriage before having sex. Is it a sin to have sex outside marriage...that'd I'd bounce back and ask where it is written.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to forgive a rapist/murderer?

Yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to lie in all cases?

Yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to worship?

It is a sin to not worship God at all, yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to persue power and wealth for selfish reasons?

Yes.

Originally posted by spamandham
Your religion offers a false sense of absolution for actions that should keep you awake at night (hurting others), while simultaneously instilling arbitrary angst over actions that harm no-one. That doesn't sound very liberating to me.

I understand the reasons behind my answers and the situations they apply to.

Originally posted by spamandham
Isn't it commonly claimed that people refuse to believe because they love sin?

Yes. That statement doesn't seem to mean anything to a non-believer though. I don't know why it's used.

Originally posted by spamandham
Doesn't that imply that there is an expectation of modified behavior for believers?

Yes. The phrase "go and sin no more" comes to mind. If sin is bad, why would you want to intentionally do something bad?

Originally posted by spamandham
The New Testament is just as full of moral imperatives as the Old.

Thank you for recognizing a link between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament. I will say that these are not imperatives, else all people would be dead. Rather, we are given directions on how to do the right thing. Do we follow them all the time? Obviously not, but we've got to try our best and the goodness flowing from that is quite remarkable.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
A man and a woman should have promised themselves to each other in marriage before having sex. Is it a sin to have sex outside marriage...that'd I'd bounce back and ask where it is written.

From a Biblical perspective, sex with multiple partners is not allowed for women, and is only allowed for men if the females are under his care. The OT allowed men to have sex with female servants, and to have multiple wives. By the time of the NT, the implication is one woman maximum (although it never actually says that outright). Fornication is sex with multiple partners for fun/money. There are numerous passages that condemn this is both the Old and New Testaments.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to forgive a rapist/murderer?

Yes.

How then is that liberating?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to lie in all cases?

Yes.

How do you consider this to be liberating?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to worship?

It is a sin to not worship God at all, yes.

Doesn't sound like the great liberation you referred to earlier.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to persue power and wealth for selfish reasons?

Yes.

And this provides freedom how?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Isn't it commonly claimed that people refuse to believe because they love sin?

Yes. That statement doesn't seem to mean anything to a non-believer though. I don't know why it's used.

It's purpose is to reinforce the preconceptions of believers. It just annoys nonbelievers.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Doesn't that imply that there is an expectation of modified behavior for believers?

Yes. The phrase "go and sin no more" comes to mind. If sin is bad, why would you want to intentionally do something bad?

Because I don't care what the Bible labels as sin, and do not consider it to necessarily be "bad". I see nothing inherently wrong with sex outside marriage, lying under the right circumstances, holding a grudge against murderers and rapists, etc. You, however, are bound by Biblcal morality. If you "sin", you will feel angst over it since you think you are accountable to god for it. I view myself as accountable only to humans, and thus do not have any remorse over actions that harm no-one, and simultaneoulsy do not give myself a free pass on actions that do harm others.

Originally posted by spamandham
From a Biblical perspective, sex with multiple partners is not allowed

Right...

Originally posted by spamandham
for women, and is only allowed for men if the females are under his care. The OT allowed men to have sex with female servants, and to have multiple wives.

Not so right. Do you recall the consequences thereof?

Originally posted by spamandham
By the time of the NT, the implication is one woman maximum (although it never actually says that outright).

Jesus says "what God has brought together, let no man separate" referring of course to Genesis' one man, one woman model Adam and Eve. It's not that cryptic really.

Originally posted by spamandham
Fornication is sex with multiple partners for fun/money. There are numerous passages that condemn this is both the Old and New Testaments.

The dictionary has a different definition, but I like yours and can agree with what you're saying here.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to forgive a rapist/murderer?

Yes.

How then is that liberating?

You no longer have to feel anger, hate, resentment, the need for vengence, etc. for that person.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to lie in all cases?

Yes.

How do you consider this to be liberating?

You no longer have to hide behind lies, rather revel in the truth. It's stressful keeping track of who you told what and above all, it gets you in a boatload of trouble.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to refuse to worship?

It is a sin to not worship God at all, yes.

Doesn't sound like the great liberation you referred to earlier.

It's like saying it's a sin to not love your spouse. It's kind of a given really. How can you all of the sudden truly and honestly not love your spouse? It's certainly possible per the rate of divorce it seems, but it is not God's wish for us.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it sinful to persue power and wealth for selfish reasons?

Yes.

And this provides freedom how?

You can let go. You don't have to play the stupid money and fame games of this world. Sure, be employed and provide, but you can drop all that jealousy, cut-throat competition, and workplace paranoia if you're no longer trying to put down your fellow worker to push yourself to the top.

Originally posted by saint4God
It's purpose is to reinforce the preconceptions of believers. It just annoys nonbelievers.

*nods* I think so too.

Originally posted by spamandham
Because I don't care what the Bible labels as sin, and do not consider it to necessarily be "bad". I see nothing inherently wrong with sex outside marriage,

I didn't say sex before marriage was and have not heard compelling evidence to say that it is. I believe marriage is a spiritual thing, not a bunch of words in front of people who don't really want to be there (except the couple's parents). Adultry is a different story though. Just my perception, feel free to correct me anyone.

Originally posted by spamandham
lying under the right circumstances, holding a grudge against murderers and rapists, etc.

Though we're different in that regard, I'm not saying that I don't understand. In my past I've lied under what I considered to be "the right circumstances" and held grudges. I may still catch myself on occasion doing so, but try to squelch it right away before it grows into something ugly.

Originally posted by spamandham
You, however, are bound by Biblcal morality.

I have volunteered for Biblical morality. The choice was mine, He let me decide and continues to let me do so in every situation. The Bible doesn't stop me from sinning...if it did though, I'd be very grateful .

Originally posted by spamandham
If you "sin", you will feel angst over it since you think you are accountable to god for it.

And the problem with that is? The nice thing about prayer is you can talk to God about it. You can do it whenever you want and as often as you want. He'll listen and say in whatever form He chooses...guess what?... "go and sin no more".

Originally posted by spamandham
I view myself as accountable only to humans,

It sounds to me like you find accountability to yourself.

Originally posted by spamandham
and thus do not have any remorse over actions that harm no-one, and simultaneoulsy do not give myself a free pass on actions that do harm others.

There's the proof: "do not give myself a free pass...". The problem with doing things that appear to 'harm no-one' is that though it may not be immediately apparent, it can in fact harm someone unintentionally whether in the present or later on. This ballooning effect can be quite harmful when allowed to grow beyond the preceived 'harmless' point. By that time, people are set on the notion that it is harmless though it's not. The good news is you're saying you're accountable, which is more than a lot of people feel. I think that's core to being a responsible person.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
for women, and is only allowed for men if the females are under his care. The OT allowed men to have sex with female servants, and to have multiple wives.

Not so right. Do you recall the consequences thereof?

For who? The OT is filled with examples of this, and I'm not aware of a single OT case where such a practice is condemned.

You never did answer how abstinance is liberating.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
How then is that liberating?

You no longer have to feel anger, hate, resentment, the need for vengence, etc. for that person.

I am not required to feel such resentment either, you however, are prohibited from it. Who has more freedom?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
How do you consider this to be liberating?

You no longer have to hide behind lies, rather revel in the truth. It's stressful keeping track of who you told what and above all, it gets you in a boatload of trouble.

I am not required to hide behind lies either, but you are prohibited from engaging in them. There are times when lying will save you a boatload of trouble, even though it's not a good idea to engage in lies in general. Who has greater freedom?

Originally posted by saint4God
It's like saying it's a sin to not love your spouse.

If I feel like worshipping, I can. If I don't (which is always), I don't have to. You on the other hand are subject to all the obligations even when you don't feel up to it. Who has more freedom.

Originally posted by saint4God
You can let go. You don't have to play the stupid money and fame games of this world.

I am not required to play these games either, but I can if I choose to. You however, are forbidden. Who has greater freedom?

Originally posted by spamandham
Because I don't care what the Bible labels as sin, and do not consider it to necessarily be "bad". I see nothing inherently wrong with sex outside marriage,

Originally posted by saint4God
I didn't say sex before marriage was and have not heard compelling evidence to say that it is. I believe marriage is a spiritual thing, not a bunch of words in front of people who don't really want to be there (except the couple's parents). Adultry is a different story though. Just my perception, feel free to correct me anyone.

You can not have sex outside of marriage from a Biblical perspective, and once married, Jesus forbids you to ever leave unless your spouse commits adultery. I'm not aware that the Bible ever describes what constitutes marriage.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
You, however, are bound by Biblcal morality.

I have volunteered for Biblical morality. The choice was mine, He let me decide and continues to let me do so in every situation. The Bible doesn't stop me from sinning...if it did though, I'd be very grateful

.

You are still bound by it. You are accountable to someone other than yourself (namely god). That's not liberation.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
If you "sin", you will feel angst over it since you think you are accountable to god for it.

And the problem with that is?

If that's what you want, go for it, but it is not liberating as you previously claimed. That's what this discussion is about.

Originally posted by saint4God
There's the proof: "do not give myself a free pass...". The problem with doing things that appear to 'harm no-one' is that though it may not be immediately apparent, it can in fact harm someone unintentionally whether in the present or later on.

Mindlessly engaging in any activity isn't very smart, but I do not view ancient writers as having more wisdom than anyone else in determining what is and isn't wise.

Originally posted by saint4God
Jesus says "what God has brought together, let no man separate" referring of course to Genesis' one man, one woman model Adam and Eve. It's not that cryptic really.

That is your interpretation, it doesn't specify exclusively or even remotely suggests a one man, one woman model. I also think you don't really know you're bible since Abraham is in Genesis as well and last time I checked, that guy had multiple wives and God seemed perfectly okay with it. He picked out Abraham of all people.

That is your interpretation, it doesn't specify exclusively or even remotely suggests a one man, one woman model. I also think you don't really know you're bible since Abraham is in Genesis as well and last time I checked, that guy had multiple wives and God seemed perfectly okay with it. He picked out Abraham of all people.

if you notice, the law wasnt written yet so having multiple wives might have been ok. there was no law against it. just like when people had to marry within the family in order to start the population, it was ok at first but then GOd had to lay down the law.

dont try to point out the things that you think would be wrong in Gods eye. try to look for the reason God allowed it and you will probably understand a little better. Abraham hay have had more than one wife. God also told him to go sacrifice his son to him.

find out "why" along with "what, where, when, and how" and you might have a better tme understanding.


EC

You know, this thread has been up here for months, and I have never been so inclined to acknowledge it as it has become such an annoyance.

All I've read of this thread is the title, and I just have to say that the reason why I haven't been inclined to respond is because the title is stupid.

A total oxymoron. Contradiction in terms. One which all Christians would have everone believe, mind us. Of course there couldn't be any other way of life, no other recourse to receive that which is allegedly due us upon expiration.

I got news for you, pallies! God ain't so shallow as you.

You've missed your day of rest for about a month of Sundays now.

Speak less. Feel more.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
if you notice, the law wasnt written yet so having multiple wives might have been ok. there was no law against it. just like when people had to marry within the family in order to start the population, it was ok at first but then GOd had to lay down the law.

In case you noticed, God spoke to Abraham, if he had a problem with that he could have at the very least mentioned it casually, after all, God is supposedly all powerful or at least very powerful, right?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
God also told him to go sacrifice his son to him.

Shows how nice God is in certain parts of the bible.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
A total oxymoron. Contradiction in terms. One which all Christians would have everone believe, mind us. Of course there couldn't be any other way of life, no other recourse to receive that which is allegedly due us upon expiration.

According to His son, "no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again" (John 3:3). I didn't make it up. Junglejake didn't, nor anyone else. The power of Christianity is this promise of salvation, not physical long life, money, fame, kingship or anything else in this world. Because of that salvation, the sin-baggage we carry around can be discarded, which is a heavy weight to be relieved of.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I got news for you, pallies! God ain't so shallow as you.

God isn't shallow, but He is the judge. I do not believe this judgement will go easily.

In regards to Him being a 'big meanie', what kind of 'big meanie' guarentees eternal life and happiness? Sends His son to tell us to "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy", then has him pay the cost for the sins we have committed if we choose to accept him?


[edit on 10-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
In regards to Him being a 'big meanie', what kind of 'big meanie' ... Sends His son to ... pay the cost for the sins we have committed if we choose to accept him?

So, god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself, and that not only somehow makes sense, but is glorious as well?

Originally posted by spamandham
So, god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself, and that not only somehow makes sense, but is glorious as well?

Sacrificed His son, so that we would take notice that this time He didn't just wax us. It's a teaching for us, since we "just don't seem to get it" per the Old Testament. And yes, the fact that He loved and cared so much to offer His son to sustain the pain of all the wrongs we'd done to save us, is indeed glorious. If you can feel that enormous measure of love, then it's easy to love Him back.


[edit on 10-8-2005 by saint4God]

The notion that a being has to be tortured and killed for the sins of others is a backwards notion among many of the most primitive religions. It is an escape hatch in many religions so people could believe in that they are still capable of getting to God despite their sins, as long as a sacrifice is many by an innocent and pure animal or human being. The offering of Christ is actually a way of maintaining the old cruel human sacrifices without having to make new human sacrifices as Jesus' sufficed.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666
The notion that a being has to be tortured and killed for the sins of others is a backwards notion among many of the most primitive religions.

And the basis for your judgement is?

Originally posted by Simon666
It is an escape hatch in many religions

What religions specifically?

Originally posted by Simon666
so people could believe in that they are still capable of getting to God despite their sins, as long as a sacrifice is many by an innocent and pure animal or human being. The offering of Christ is actually a way of maintaining the old cruel human sacrifices without having to make new human sacrifices as Jesus' sufficed.

So then Christ was crucified. Glad that's established. Now, where in the the Old Testament was human sacrifices required?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
You know, this thread has been up here for months, and I have never been so inclined to acknowledge it as it has become such an annoyance.

All I've read of this thread is the title, and I just have to say that the reason why I haven't been inclined to respond is because the title is stupid.

A total oxymoron. Contradiction in terms. One which all Christians would have everone believe, mind us. Of course there couldn't be any other way of life, no other recourse to receive that which is allegedly due us upon expiration.

Read the initial post, then, too. The title, written by me, was both sarcastic and ironic and relates to the ACLU and other such groups declaring war on Christianity.

Originally posted by saint4God
and should not be punished according to the sins of the father.

How is this punishing the child? Even if you consider it a child at the point of conception, the fetus does not know it is alive. This child could become a success, but without proper care it will have a troubled life. Anti-Abortion people should offer to adopt the child if they want it born so badly.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know if its been firmly established as non-first hand. Nevertheless, use as many sources as you've got, I say.

Reliable sources, not the rumors and myths that every culture has.

Originally posted by saint4God

Deep! A conversation I have with friends over, usually after watching some kind of whacked movie that spurs such a discussion. I don't know if this is a majority school of thought for Christians or not, but God from what I've seen is a macro manager.

If you want to be really tripped out by a movie, rent Donny Darco. At first I thought it was just stupid, but then once I watched it again I understood.

Albert says no, Hawking says yes. I'd have to agree with Einstein because of how litle we know. Einstein thinks there is no "chance", just our lack of knowledge.

Originally posted by saint4God
I think the problem with pre-destination is very few people can settle on the definition. If you can tell me what pre-destination means to you, I can tell you whether I believe it's the case.

Predestination is like destiny/fate no?

Originally posted by saint4God
Christianity is supposed to be liberating, not enslaving.

.... Sorry I coulnd't help myself.

Originally posted by saint4God
Doh! I'm sure you'll have them back in no time.

I guess I should tell a mod, before its to late. I didn't want to make them think I was a complainer so I said nothing.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
How is this punishing the child?

Call me twisted, but abortion (meaning to stop that which is in process) looks to me like an act of violence, not an act of love.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Even if you consider it a child at the point of conception, the fetus does not know it is alive.

I wish I still had the science book but recall the definition of life as something that consumes, grows and responds to stimuli. A fetus does these things. I think that's an appropriate definiton and was my major course of study.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
This child could become a success, but without proper care it will have a troubled life.

Agreed. Same goes for any parent though, ultimately the proper care is their responsibility.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Anti-Abortion people should offer to adopt the child if they want it born so badly.

I have, albeit through a sponship program, it's the most I can afford at the moment. Her name is Disaya, she's 8 and lives in Thailand. I got a letter from her two weeks ago. She likes singing, drawing, and playing with friends. Recently she had a doctor's check-up. They taught her about Malaria and Hemorrhagic Frever, two common problems there. I'd encourage everyone to look into this kind of program: www.compassion.com... or any of them similar that can show in their annual reports that 80% or more goes to the children.

My hope is, after my own daughter is grown, to look into being a foster parent. I understand that's 'advanced' parenting because not only are you care-taking their present and future, but also helping them through a difficult past.

As far as volunteering to adopt based on someone walking into an abortion clinic for pre-procedure counselling...not a bad idea at all. Do you think it would work? I'm thinking not since the clinic would be losing business though would welcome any correction if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Reliable sources, not the rumors and myths that every culture has.

I don't go by rumors either, I have to check with the source.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If you want to be really tripped out by a movie, rent Donny Darco. At first I thought it was just stupid, but then once I watched it again I understood.

What's it about? I rarely arbitrarily commit 2 hours to something I'm unsure of. I thought some other trippy movies were "The Messenger" (Joan of Arc story with a twist), "Dr. Strangelove", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Last Temptation of Christ", and most recently "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Albert says no, Hawking says yes. I'd have to agree with Einstein because of how litle we know. Einstein thinks there is no "chance", just our lack of knowledge.

Two great minds not able to agree on change. Interesting. I don't feel so bad about not knowing then.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Predestination is like destiny/fate no?

Ah! Well according to that definition I'd say no. My reasoning is this. We have the ability to choose on important and unimportant things. If God already ordained each and every choice, then there would be no point to having a choice. We'd be observers and not do'ers. Now, God has a plan and we can set our course for a particular destiny, but I believe the choice to do so is ours. Else, there'd be no point in sending His son to say "believe, have faith, have hope" etc., because no matter what we'd end up in the same spot. A line of reasoning, not a declaration of fact and am open to other perspectives.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

.... Sorry I coulnd't help myself.

*shrug* Be you, do what you do.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I guess I should tell a mod, before its to late. I didn't want to make them think I was a complainer so I said nothing.

What's the right thing to do? Do that . Just a recommendation.


[edit on 10-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Sacrificed His son,

If Jesus is god, and the father is god, then the son is the father. He sacrificed himself to himself. Does "I and the father are one" ring a bell?

Originally posted by saint4God
so that we would take notice that this time He didn't just wax us. It's a teaching for us,

That sounds a lot nicer, but I'm not aware of any Biblical support for it. Paul made it clear that Jesus was sacrificed for the forgiveness of sin, not for the purpose of getting our attention.

Originally posted by saint4God
And yes, the fact that He loved and cared so much to offer His son to sustain the pain of all the wrongs we'd done to save us, is indeed glorious. If you can feel that enormous measure of love, then it's easy to love Him back.

Isn't god the one making the rules? If he wants to forgive us, why must he sacrifice himself to himself to accomplish that? It makes no sense.