Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
When people are not grounded in what the Lord God says in His word they are then wide open for any false and deceptive arrow the enemy can launge from his arsenal. In todays world those arrows are flying high and fast for he knows his time is short. The question remains as it always has been...Who do we choose this day to serve? We are either on one side or the other....for or against...sitting on the fence will always be on the wrong side of the right...until one chooses.
As the Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us...
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]
Of the Chruch
Very interesting site, thanks for the ping, here’s another page I liked, telling how to make salve and infused oils,
http://www.bulkherbstore.com/Salve-Mix-Kit
So, kosta50, in response to my earlier request for a point of information, you replied, “You are welcome to join in, if we can keep it theological/biblical and not let it drift into personal attacks because we may disagree.” (post 3627)
After which I asked: “So, as you see it, are we all simply left with opinion ... of one or another flavor? Is there no such thing as truth? Which, if answered in the negative, would seem to lead to the corollary that Pontius Pilatus was the wisest of men.” (post 3631)
So ... ?
Nope. Not even close.
We have Roman Catholics on this thread congratulating and high-fiving an agnostic who says he does not know who or what God is and does not know whether or not He even exists.
This same poster has offered the Nativity story as fiction and Christ's resurrection as speculation.
At least the Unitarian and the LDS believe God exists. We may disagree with their definition, but they do not doubt there is a God.
Rome and the agnostic. A match made somewhere other than heaven.
It reveals a total bankruptcy of faith to see the Catholics admiring such a one and saying that it *helped* their faith.
If dismissing the Bible as fiction and errant is an improvement, .....
Well, the Catholic church claims to have written the Bible and be based on it. Such a dismissal of the written word destroys the foundation of the Catholic church as well. All that's left is hearsay, aka *Tradition*.
Satan's then won.
More sophism.
First you need to define it and then know that it's indeed *real*. Then you have to make a determination of whether something is indeed part of or not part of the *real world*.
You don't know what is real? I was afraid we may finally uncover that secret.
What objective criteria do you use? Surely there must be a method to your madness. How do you propose doing that?
I am afraid if I suggest that you try something you may actually do it an hurt yourself, so I think I will pass. Perhaps just holding your breath until the rel world overrules you is a more benign experiment.
After a certain age, as you know, humans do learn to differentiate between the fantasy and reality, at which point they don't try to fly like Peter Pan or Superman by leaping off of high places, they learn not to touch a hot stove top, or to try to walk on water...they also learn (well not all of them) that there are no talking donkeys, talking snakes, voices from the clouds, that dead people don't get up half putrefied and walk away (except in Hollywood movies), and that everything they see in magic shows, no matter how "real" it may appear, is a trick. Thus when David Copperfield makes a tank disappear, it's a trick because things just don't disappear in the real world.
What material evidence can cast doubt about the veracity of any god?
They "behave," "talk," "react," and "think" like humans who made them, except they are "more powerful."
Why do you disagree with them [Cathoic Church]?
Because the world they describe is not real, no one else recorded it, it has no basis in fact; because they cannot prove it. The fact that for the last 2000 years no one has seen a person raised from the dead, and yet billions believe it, is a perfect proof that it is blind belief. All we have are writings of a few individuals without references, evidence or even their own positive identity. A legend.
Now, the only reason I am saying this is because you asked me. I am not here to preach what I think, or to discourage others from their faith, but to ask those who state their faith as fact to show me the facts.
But if you ask me what I think I am not going to censor my thought and make them politically correct just because they may clash with someone's belief.
I am not anti-God by any stretch. I do nto disocunt the possibility that there is a Creator or God, whatever he or it may be. I confess I don't know what God is. I ask those who claim they do, in vain. And for that I am reviled. No one is under any obigation to answer my questions or to read my posts if they find them disagreeable.
Those who are interested in a discussion will engage, and if they do then all bets are off, and all cards are on the table. So, if you can't stand the heat, don't participate. I am interested in beliefs, not the character of the poster, and therefore I am not interested in flaming and personal barbs. So, either we can have an open discussion or not. Your choice.
Just when you thought their sources couldn't be stupider or more random, they go and prove no underestimation is too low for them. Sigh.
I stand by my description of Metmom's lack of honesty. She directly accused me of having two accounts when I didn't and never have had two accounts. Why would she make that up? This was in response to a post I guess she didn't agree with. Instead of arguing my post, she went and falsely accused me of breaking the rules. If that's not a liar, I don't know what is.
I asked if lying was a part of her religion. I think that's a fair question. I've seen her lie about things kosta has said many times, and I've read the lies here about Catholics worshiping Mary, statues and icons here way too many times for it not to raise the possibility the lying about other faiths may be at the core of Protestantism.
It's not just a few times either. The lies are relentless. They continue on long after very polite and thoughtful Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks here have explained the errors in the Protestants views of Catholics.
I do believe Protestants are much closer to Muslims than they are to being Christians. Both Muslims and Protestants believe in sola scriptura, and both reduce Christ to level of "prophet" and a few chapters in a magic book. The Muslims prefer Mohammed over Christ, and Protestants prefer Paul over Christ. That's where they differ. I don't know if that subject has been addressed in a book or not, but I think a full study of this subject would be a very interesting read.
That's certainly the orthodox view of the catholic Church and, I imagine, of the majority of Protestant sects. However, there is a problem with that because either the world is exactly as he willed it or it's not; either he is in charge or he is not.
He wasn’t lonely or bored. He is eternally self-sufficient and perfect and doesn’t need anything
Then why did he bother creating the world? That's is a self-contradiciton. If you are perfectly content then why do something? Speaking of doing, when you say God wasn't bored, what exactly was he "doing" for all eternity by himself?
The answer lies within God’s nature; God is love (1 John 4:16, “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love ;…”) and the nature of love is to give
Well, good, since God is Three, there was plenty of love to give and to receive in this perfect loving triangle, the three divine hypostases entangled in an eternal give-and-take, which is perfect, sufficient and lacking in nothing. Why make the world?
Without this fall, ultimately no death would be necessary to atone for them and without that death, the greatest act of love could not be demonstrated and the truest and most perfect quality of love would not be fulfilled. God may very well have made a universe in which sin existed so that He Himself could show the greatest and most perfect act of love by laying down His life for His friends.
But why was there a need or reason to demonstrate it? Who is God trying to impress and why?
That sounds positviely islamic to me, and smacks of "official truth" suporters who wil not tolerate any dissenting opinions. Christian societies have created a world of inquiry and democracy rather than theocracies we see in the islamic world. There are unforuitnate exceptions, of cours,e in every group.
The days of Catholic and Putritan persecutions are over. Perhaps because of them atheism is so rampant in the west. I am all for free thinking and my heroes are the English and American thinkers of the Age of Reason who, among other things, shaped our American democracy while not being afraid to tackle most fundamental quesitons about God, even his own existence.
If by “truth” you mean the cause, yes.
And you somehow think this isn't obvious?
You entirely missed the point of my comment. You appear to have opposition to all and any religion. Which also isn't surprising as your posts attest to. Someday you will realize that reading all the books of "thinkers", though they have their place, are read to remind us we are not alone...as C.S. Lewis so aptly stated. The word of God far surpasses mens writings....and it will always stand the test of time, man, and arguements opposing it. Fact remains...it is still here....still active in the life of people... and will continue to be the most respected and read book in History. How and if one 'applies' it to their life is and always will be, the choice of each man.
“Who is God trying to impress and why?”
I have often asked myself the same question; but find myself coming back to Gandalf’s observation at the end of “The Hobbit”. In the book’s last passage, Gandalf jokingly chides the Bilbo about his insignificance, telling him that he is “only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!”
Gandalf the Grey: “Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies because you helped bring them about? You don’t really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You’re a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I’m very fond of you, but you’re only quite a little fellow in a wide world, after all.”
Paul says we fight a battle that is beyond our imagining, (Eph 6:12) “ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”
I think the writer of Hebrews was making an observation similar to Gandalf’s,
Heb. 2:9, 14-18, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”.....”Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
Rev 12:7, “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,”
My response is similar to Bilbo’s,
Bilbo Baggins: “Thank goodness!”
Very nice use of Gandalf!
I re-read The Hobbit and the Ring Trilogy about every two years to remind me of my insignificance. When reading The Hobbit or quotes from The Hobbit I hear John Houston’s voice.
kosta50 wrote:
“If by ‘truth’ you mean the cause, yes.”
OK. Cause, then. My next question would be this: By cause do you mean, per Aristotle, the “efficient cause”? Or do you mean, per Thomas, the “prime cause” or “prime mover”? And, as corollary to that last question, do you favor any one of Thomas’ five ways above the others? And, if so, which one and why? Or are you using “cause” in another non/semi-Aristotelian, non/semi-Thomistic way not enumerated here?
I am not asking these questions to be troublesome, only to understand where you are coming from and how to talk to you.
blue-duncan wrote:
“I re-read The Hobbit and the Ring Trilogy about every two years to remind me of my insignificance.”
Wise. I have several good friends who do something similar. I just laugh at myself a lot, and then read Numbers 20:10ff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.