In fact, the world has been rising up and fighting terrorism for over 20 years and had it not been for September 11th, the US would still have not been involved.
This is an excellent point. For those accusing the United States of "dragging the whole world into war," please take note. This is the way it always is. If there is a true accusation of evil against the U.S., it is that we have not acted swiftly and thoroughly enough in going to war against terrorists (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, bin Laden).
War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger.
This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.
We are not war-mongers. We never enjoy the taking of life, but removing threatening, unbridled corruption from the earth is the sober duty of a moral people.
If you had sufficiently studied the ancient culture of the early Messianic Jews and Gentiles, you would understand the context of most of your bulleted objections. You've got to dig deep when you study the Bible to understand the underlying principles of the instructions. I can't adequately fire off rebuttals to your particular objections off the top of my head, but I'll address a similar, albeit, less controversial issue. When the Bible tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss, does this mean that we today should do the same? Not necessarily. A sincere, caring handshake, hug, or pat on the back serves the same purpose in our culture. In fact, if men were to openly kiss one another in public today, it would appear that we were sinning because of the homosexual promiscuity in our society.
Your ejaculation about "genocide" shows that you have not grasped the concept of holiness and its inherent intolerance, or, dare I say it, "bigotry." Yes, God is a Bigot with a capital B. Bigotry has become a loaded word and a political epithet, but it is nothing more than intolerance (another loaded and greatly abused word *sigh*), and even a cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely intolerant of evil. And, of course, God and only God makes the rules about what is evil.
The nations that God commanded Israel to destroy were nations of people who had rebelled against God for many generations. It was chronic, consistent, unrepentant evil and repudiation of God. So God rightly and justly commanded His chosen people to destroy them. Earlier, God had used the Flood to do the same thing. Also, this "genocide" serves as a great illustration of the eternal condemnation that awaits all people who reject God. There is no contradiction here. As individuals, we are not to murder from a personal agenda except for self-defense (this is explicitly biblical). But government is a human institution established and sanctioned by God. If God-fearing leaders justly wage war, there is nothing wrong with it, even if it wipes out a whole nation. I whole-heartedly agree with Deuteronomy 7:3: "make no treaty" with an evil people. That's why the United Nations is completely ineffectual in making progress towards peace. Treaties with liars and cheaters do not work! Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of evil (i.e., the presence of Christ). Destroying the menacing threats of corrupt nations results in greater peace. Appeasement with evil only helps it to flourish. There's no reason to have guilt when destroying evil. We never celebrate the taking of life, but removing unbridled corruption from the earth is the SOBER DUTY of a moral people. (Moral being defined only by the single living God of the Bible.) This is wholly just and righteous because it is the way of God. It is the reason we destroyed the Taliban, and it is the reason we are going to war with Iraq.
As for your last point, Jesus instructs us to always live as if He were coming back at any moment. This is the proper way to live, regardless of when He actually does return. It is the perfect attitude of a Christian whether it's 35 A.D. or 2035 A.D. or 4000 A.D.
You are ticked that I have a "monopoly" on God. Unlike the capitalist free market system, truth is exclusionary by its nature. It can't help but be monopolistic. If you're not in line with that single, narrow truth, then you believe in a falsehood. (Hold off on the knee-jerk reaction; read on for clarification.) Jesus said,
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
Yes, only a few. Straight from the Savior's mouth. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude.
Since God is Truth, and Truth is exclusive, then God is exclusive. Unholy things cannot be in the presence of His holiness. It's not an issue of fairness or hateful condemnation. Trust me, you don't want fairness. The fair and just thing for God to do is to throw us all into Hell. But He exhibits grace that is available to all people.
The only way in which I consider myself "somehow special" is that God showed me grace, which I do not deserve. I am far from holy and have no worth in myself except that which God gave me. I do not claim to be better than anyone else. The more I grow spiritually, the more I can understand why Paul called himself "chief of sinners." Little by little, God opens my eyes to deeper (hidden) levels of sin in my life.
By nature of being saved by grace, I am indeed part of an exclusive group of people. (defs. 1-2 without qualifications; defs. 3-5 with qualifications; def. 7 invalid) However, it is by no means an exclusionary group of people. The church I attend (like most others where the Spirit is not quenched) welcomes all people. We love all people. If you are anywhere near Greenville, SC, I'd be happy to invite you to my church. Send me an e-mail. We have contemporary music in the late service. I really want you have a chance to see the "hatred" in our church.:-)
The notion that there is no Hell is a lie straight from Hell. Just go here and search for all the references to eternal life and eternal judgment/punishment/death. The acceptance of Christ does cleanse all sin once and for all. I just don't know where to begin in trying to correct you on this. These themes run throughout the entire Bible. I don't see how you miss it.
You accused me of having hatred in my world view. I don't say that someone is going to hell because they don't believe what I believe. It's not about me! I have no inherent authority to say what is true or not. All authority descends from the Father. The writers of the Bible were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" to write God's truth. I'm just reading the words on the pages and "literally" interpreting them in the proper linguistic, cultural, and literary form contexts with great deliberation, reverence, and care. I do not sacrifice core Christian doctrines because they disagree with my politics or personal "logical" reasoning of fairness. Paul wrote that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's "wisdom." I have not imposed my will on the Bible. My values and moral framework have been greatly changed as a result of studying the Bible.
It is arrogant to say that the eternal punishment that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of is hateful just because it turns [fallen, corrupted] man's sense of fairness on its head. No man is capable of giving increase to God's store of logic. It is arrogant to think that you can.
Kiwi, I feel exactly the same way you do. A narrow way of salvation and a broad avenue of damnation does seem hateful at first. It's hard to reconcile it with our feelings about fairness. I think that's because we have no idea how abhorrent our sin is to God. If we had even an inkling of a clue how outrageous and repulsive even our "smallest" sins appear in the eyes of God, I think we would all willingly jump into the lake of fire because of our overwhelming burden of shame. Many people never come to terms with the reality of God's punishment, but it is better to ultimately die with the hard truth than to live with a comforting lie.
Condemnation is not wrong or unfair. In the beginning, God created a perfect world for us, and He lived openly among us. But we rejected His commands and we hid from Him (Genesis 3). Our sin is the veil that separates us from Him, and we continue to hide from Him because of our sinful disposition.
Sin cannot be in the presence of holiness. It's like oil and water; they do not mix! Righteousness and wickedness have nothing in common; light cannot have fellowship with darkness, thus saith the Bible. It's not a matter of fairness. That's just the way it is. It's not hateful on God's part or mine. People end up in Hell because they've broken down the door trying to get in.
Be careful not to believe something just because it appears to be good. "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) That last statement sounds awfully sinister, doesn't it? Wonder what he means by "their end"?
To say "you are going to hell because you belive differently than me" is the ultimate arrogance; I belive in a God which brings out the good things in myself, not the bad things like my arrogance.
The God I know says that there is no good in ourselves.
Isaiah says that "we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags."
The Lord Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone."
Since it is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than to speak a lie that will comfort and then kill, I will say this...
I believe that the ultimate arrogance is to create a god according to your preferences, and then set it apart from you (as if it were pre-existing) and bogusly superimpose it over the God of the Bible. Now you worship your idol-god as if it were the eternal living God of the Bible. Your idol-god comforts you for now, massaging your personal ideas about morality and home-brewed theories concerning eternal truth, but it leads ultimately to eternal punishment.
Hell is not exclusive to "Fundamentalism" but it is fundamental. It starts way back in Genesis 2. (Btw, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are not Christian. Jesus Christ = God is a core principle.) You may want to read my previous post on Heaven and Hell. I don't know why you'd want to jettison the fundamentals (core, foundation) of the body of belief you claim to adhere to.
You appear to be a victim of liberal biblical scholarship. Instead of studying the Bible to apply it to your life, you've basically taken to the Bible with a big, black marker and a pair of scissors (this is a slight exaggeration, but just as dangerous). It's no wonder you're biblically illiterate. I hate to be so blunt, but I want you to realize the gravity of what you're doing. The Bible is to be revered and studied for application and instruction for life. As a self-described Christian, I would expect you to enthusiastically agree with me on this. Any other kind of biblical study is of no real (i.e. eternal) value.
Since when was the whole point of Christianity getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell?
I used to be disconcerted that many Christians viewed their faith as nothing more than "death insurance." They would act as though they'd gotten a "ticket to Heaven" and were free to do their own thing without consquence. You can imagine (or I guess you can't) how your post blew me away! No afterlife in Christianity??
Jesus' whole life is about Heaven and Hell. In fact, His name is about them! Jesus actual Hebrew name, Yeshua, means "the Lord saves." Saves from what? Boredom? He saves from Hell by allowing us into Heaven in spite of our sin. Lots of prophecy throughout the OT is tied up in all of this. Heaven and Hell are integral parts of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and especially the Gospels. The relevance of sin, salvation, the "Great Commission," the crucifixion, resurrection, sacrifices, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' second coming, election, grace, and prophecies are practically dependent upon the premise that Heaven and Hell exist. Not to mention the beloved 23rd Psalm and John 3:16. (I'm starting to wonder if I've been trolled.) What is all that talk in the Bible about eternal life for? There are hundreds of references to both eternal life and eternal death in the Bible. I did a search on my computer.:-) Jesus concludes a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 25 by saying, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
That's because you get only one earthly life to put your faith in Christ. When you die, your eternal fate is set forever.
The Bible talks more about this life than the afterlife because the Bible is our:
Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
God tells us things on a need-to-know basis, and right now we don't need to know very much about the details of Heaven or Hell. We'll find out soon enough.
First, it is necessary for you to have at least a "mustard seed" of faith in the existence of germs before you will approach the microscope to look through its lens.
To un-paraphrase what Larry Wall paraphrased:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly and diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
Also, note that you can not see germs with the naked eye. It is necessary for you to use the appropriate tool to see those germs.
The microscope is the tool that allows you to see things that are too small to be perceived with the naked eye.
Faith is the tool that allows you to see things that are too big to be perceived with the naked eye.
Think about this analogy:
You have heard people talking about germs and you hope to see them for yourself.
You have some faith in the existence of germs.
Believers in germs introduce you to the microscope, a tool of science that allows you to see these mysterious tiny critters.
Believers teach you how to use the microscope to view slides containing the objects of your hope. They tell you what germs look like so you know what to look for.
You choose to use the microscope.
You earnestly seek the germs.
You find germs!
You believe in germs.
You learn more about germs.
You realize that germs were with you the whole time. You didn't find germs. Germs found you!
You need a "macroscope" to see things that are bigger than your literal world view - the material world you are able to sense and comprehend.
Choosing faith is like putting new eyes in your eye sockets. But having just any faith is not enough. Eyes allow you to see both big truths and big lies. The object of faith (what is being believed) is just as important as faith itself. The real problem is knowing what to have faith in.
I agree with Agnostics to some extent... that (much of) the truth of God is unknowable. That is, I believe it is largely unknowable unless a special divine revelation rips through the veil separating the natural and supernatural realms. Fortunately, this has happened!
Winston Churchill was too understated when he said, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it and carry on." Yes, and sometimes he flogs it and crucifies it.
Choosing faith is like putting new eyes in your eye sockets, and knowing the Bible is like turning on the flashlight to know what to believe in. Jesus Christ is the Door, the Bible reveals the path to the Door, and faith is the key that opens the Door.
These claims are testable, but they must be tested with the applicable tools. It's been said, "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." That's the problem with most scientists. Put down your hammer, and pick up your fresh eyes of faith. I challenge you to test this claim. Earnestly, diligently seek God with your whole heart and mind. Desire Him as desperately as you desire your next breath. Approach the Door with faith using the Bible as your guide, and God will find you. Once God has given you understanding, you will then see that the natural world and creation confirm your new knowledge.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Granted, God won't condemn somebody simply for reading a book. However, He did tell Adam and Eve concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Christians are to be holy and set apart from evil things. "For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence and is honorable and seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely and lovable, whatever is kind and winsome and gracious, if there is any virtue and excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on and weigh and take account of these things [fix your minds on them]." (Philippians 4:8 Amplified)
On a side note, an angel is NOT a god. Angels are creations of God like you and me. They are paranormal or supernatural spirits, but they are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. - Exodus 22:18 KJV (Modern translations say "sorceress.")
Witchcraft is the performance of magic forbidden by God for non-biblical ends.
Why, exactly, is witchcraft evil? The most damning thing I've ever seen in the bible about it is it being listed along with other "desires of the flesh" like sex and anger. Hardly a "damn on name" thing, if you ask me.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry,
sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
If witchcraft isn't evil, why is God forbidding them, as alleged children of God, their inheritance of the kingdom? The truth must be that God is not their father, for what father would deny his children their rightful inheritance? It angers me that a Christian sees the bar of righteous conduct set so low in his own eyes when God has clearly told us over and over in the Bible: "Be holy for I am holy."
Holy 1. Properly, whole, entire or perfect, in a moral sense. Hence, pure in heart, temper or dispositions; free from sin and sinful affections. Applied to the Supreme Being, holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character; and man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions.
2. Hallowed; consecrated or set apart to a sacred use, or to the service or worship of God.
4. Perfectly just and good; as the holy law of God.
- Webster's 1828 Dictionary
More Biblical Damnation of Witchcraft/Sorcery
You shall not... practice divination or soothsaying. (Leviticus 19:26)
Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:27)
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so. (Deuteronomy 18:10,11,14)
For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king. (1 Samuel 15:23)
When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:6-10)
He who sits on the throne said... "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars*, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Hell)" (Revelation 21:5,8) * the gravest lie being the denial of Jesus Christ as sole Deity
Hmmm I just can't figure it out. Does God condone witchcraft or doesn't He? (There's a lot more that I could've quoted, all negative.)
To be fair, we must look at Wicca as it is today. This neo-witch religion seems to me like a combination of humanism, Gnosticism, New Age, and political correctness. Wiccans worship a "Goddess," have little structure, and they emphasize religious tolerance. Tolerance is easy for Wiccans since their body of doctrine is so shallow. In our times, rigorous cults are OUT. Ambiguous, lawless, free-thinking, free-loving, feel-good ideologies are IN. It's as if you're just supposed to be nice and good karma will come your way. Pantheistic do-gooders. Neither bliss nor judgment comes. In reality, the lake of fire awaits them, but Satan has deceived them with the enticing lures of licentious philosophies and the magic of his angels (demons).
It's hard to tell Neo-Wicca's extent of evil, because its adherents are so diverse. There are even so-called "Christian Wiccan" covens. However, the fact that they serve a "god(dess)" that is not the triune God of the Bible - Father, Son (Christ), and Holy Spirit - they can rightly be considered evil. They are idolaters because they serve a false god. Even if they did nothing else wrong, their idolatry would be enough to earn them eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone.
Wicca's history is undeniably evil. Medieval requirements for becoming a witch are:
Denial of the Christian Faith: "I deny the Creator of heaven and earth. I deny my baptism, I deny the worship I formerly paid to God. I adhere to the devil and believe only in thee." Trampling the cross, which accompanied this oath, had been from very early times an important part of the ritual.
Rebaptism by the devil with a new name.
Symbolic removal of the baptismal chrism (the consecrated oil mingled with balm).
Denial of godparents and assigning of new sponsors.
Token surrender to the devil of a piece of clothing.
Swearing allegiance to the devil while standing within a magic circle on the ground.
Request to the devil for their name to be written in the Book of Death.
Promise to sacrifice children to the devil, a step which led to the stories of witches murdering children.
Promise to pay annual tribute to the assigned demon. Only black-coloured gifts were valid.
Marking with the devil's mark in various parts of the body... so that the area marked became insensitive. The mark might vary in shape - a rabbit's foot, a toad, or a spider.
Vows of service to the devil; never to adore the sacrament; to smash holy relics; never to use holy water or candles; and to keep silence on their traffic with Satan.
- Francesco-Maria Guazzo, Compendium Maleficarum, 1608, translated by Dr. R. H. Robbins
You believe in an unwavering, judgemental dogma that brands "witchcraft" as satanism
Since Neo-Wiccans are a pantheon of self-described free-thinkers, it's impossible to make many sweeping statements about the whole religion. Many doctrines will vary from person to person, and perhaps from moment to moment.
The one important thing to remember is that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is God is effectively a Satanist. Every person is born with Adam's nature - a rebellious, sinful nature. We are born as Satan's children. That is why we must be born again - the first birth is of the flesh, but the second birth is of the spirit. Every person is born spiritually dead. Whoever does not know God as Father has Satan as Father by default.
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
- says the Lord Jesus to the Pharisees in John 8:44
This is crucial: Until one accepts Christ, he is of the devil. All religions outside of a biblical faith in Christ are under the umbrella of Satanism regardless of whether they actually acknowledge Satan's existence. 1 John 3:8 says, "The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning."
When I said "parts of some [books] are parables," I was referring to the parables told by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In each instance, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that He is telling a fictional story as a parable. In the larger sense, the telling of the parable is of an historical account, although the story itself is not historical. If Moses had been telling a parable, he would have designated it so.
Okay, so how is this any different from downloading an MP3 and using it as part of the soundtrack in a movie that grosses $50 million?
Your analogy is wrong, too. According to the Wired article, an Army spokesperson said that MIT won the award "based on the substance of the proposal."
Also, in the article:
"They can get to court, but whether they can prevail is another issue," said Joseph Walsh, a New York City intellectual property lawyer with the firm Ladas & Parry. "The defense would be that there's no harm to the market.
It's not like they went out and did another comic book."
"Can't we all just get along?" - Jesus... No, sorry. Jesus didn't say that. Quite the contrary, actually. I'm going to be harsh here, but it is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than to speak a lie that will comfort and then kill.
The reason there is no middle ground is because it's clearly wrong as seen from both sides. Add even a drop of vinegar to your glass of pure water, and the whole of it becomes distasteful.
I take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that every passage is literal. The Bible (from the Greek biblion - a collection of writings) is composed of many different kinds of writing; some are musical lyrics, some poetry, some historical account, some epistles, some prophecy or apocalyptic, and parts of some are parables. You have to read each book or passage according to what kind of writing it is.
Now, Genesis was clearly not written as poetry. Forms of poetry are as easy to discern from prose in Hebrew as they are in English. Even if they lay person should have some trouble with discernment, it is not difficult for language scholars. Genesis is also not a book of songs. Obviously not a letter. Not prophetic as a whole. It is written as a historical account of origins that pertain to us. Historical accounts are written in as literal a manner as possible. Furthermore, when reading Genesis (or any other book), it's disingenuous to haphazardly switch between reading literally and figuratively depending upon the verse's "believability". That's no way to go about interpreting any writing.
What theistic evolutionists, such as yourself, try to say is that evolution occurs within the boundaries of Genesis. Even if we suppose that Moses meant to write "many a millennia" instead of "day," it doesn't work. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day).
Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological. Here is just a sampling.
2. Bible: Oceans before land (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.
3. Bible: First life on land (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
4. Bible: First life was land plants (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
5. Bible: Earth before sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
6. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: All fishes before fruit trees.
7. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20,21)
Evolution: Fishes evolved over hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
8. Bible: Birds before insects (Genesis 1:20-31; Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.
9. Bible: Whales before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
10. Bible: Birds before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.
11. Bible: Man before rain (Genesis 2:5)
Evolution: Rain before man.
12. Bible: Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22)
Evolution: Woman before man (by genetics).
13. Bible: Light before the sun (Genesis 1:3-19)
Evolution: Sun before any light (on earth).
14. Bible: Plants before the sun (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
15. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man evolved.
16. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.
17. Bible: Man's sin is the cause of death (Romans 5:12)
Evolution: Struggle and death existent long before the evolution of man.
So you see, they are not compatible. You can't fit man's BADC into God's ABCD. God is not a "god of the gaps" for man's "truth." Science is what should be used to fill in the gaps of God's truth. Wipe a clean slate, and START with the Bible for your foundation of Truth; THEN, interpret scientific observations in light of what the Bible says.
Does this seem extreme to you, Christianfreak? Is the emphasis on "Christian" or "freak"? I don't mean to be insulting; I'm just asking a probing question. You have Christ in your name, but you seem to have Darwin in your heart. Having Jesus there too is like being a house divided against itself. Since you believe in Jesus, you should believe also in what Jesus believed. As a follower and student of the Master, Teacher, Creator of the Universe, Son of God, Jesus Christ, it should be the yearning of your heart to believe all things and do all things as He did.
Do you suppose that Jesus believed in evolution? Many people will argue that the scribes of the Bible didn't know much about science. But remember, Jesus was both fully man and fully God. Jesus is the Creator in human form as told in John 1:1 - the other "In the beginning" passage. If evolution were true, then Jesus would have known it! However, there is no evidence that Jesus believed in evolution.
The six literal workdays of the week are based on the six literal workdays of Creation. When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for performing miracles, which they deemed to be "work," on the Sabbath day (the seventh day for rest), in Mark 2:27, He explicitly said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Here you have the Lord's personal endorsement of the establishment of a literal day to be the Sabbath in parallel to God's literal day of rest.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
- Genesis 2:2-3
You are lying to yourself if you try to read millions or billions of years into this. It demonstrates a lack of faith if you can't believe Genesis the way it's plainly written. You are using Evolutionary premises as your foundation for interpreting the Bible, rather than the other way around. You need to sit down and think about what really is your foundation - what you believe first and foremost.
For brevity's sake I will put my last point in a nutshell, although it is extremely important.
Since we know that the Gospels are literal, historical accounts of the Redeemer (who was born of the virgin Mary), then Genesis also has to be a literal, historical account of the first sinner (the "Faller") (who was made directly from the dust of the ground - no hint of via tadpoles, pygmies, and chimps in Genesis 2:7 or anywhere else in the Bible).
Since we know that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, is a literal man, then Adam of the Garden of Eden, the first man, must have been a literal man (created on the sixth day), as well.
Notice how the accounts of both men's lives are inextricably linked to the accounts of their orgins. Six-day-Creation-Adam-Sin and Virgin-birth-Christ-Redemption are all bound together. If one is literal, they must all be literal.
If there was no Adam, then there is no need for a Savior. Christianity stands on Jesus, and Jesus stands on the six-day Creation.
(I have not actually tested this on NS 7, but it allegedly works on NS 6.)
The functionality is probably in the code; there's just no way to access it from the GUI menu-based preferences.
Look for these lines in the prefs.js file in your profile directory, and make sure that they have the values indicated below. If the lines don't exist, just copy and paste the lines below into your prefs.js file.
Popup blocking IS in Netscape 7.0
on
Netscape 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The functionality is in the code, but there's no way to access it from the GUI menu-based preferences. You have to set some "hidden" preferences like this by manually editing the file where your preferences are stored.
Look for these lines in the prefs.js file in your profile directory, and make sure that they have the values indicated below. If the lines don't exist, just copy and paste the lines below into your prefs.js file.
I don't think I have a lack of faith.
OK, I don't know how to say this any clearer. Jesus is God, and therefore is the Creator. He knows that it took 6 days to make it because He made it! If you deviate from what Jesus (God) believes to be true, then you have a lack of faith. If you don't trust Him to tell the truth about Creation, why should you trust Him to tell the truth about salvation? or anything else?
You are relying on man's science and logic, which is severely limited. Compared to God, we have the intelligence of rocks. Besides, science is still in its infancy in its study of the universe. No man has yet ventured beyond our own moon! Our theories are in a constant state of flux and splintering and fizzling out. To rely on science to determine truth instead of the Bible is major folly.
The world does seem to look billions of years old to many people because their minds have been molded and colored by the biases of materialistic philosophical prejudice and erroneous premises of humanistic science. People have been indoctrinated with these unbiblical precepts since elementary school (myself included). The media constantly reinforces these falsehoods by spouting whatever any secular [philosopher-]scientist claims to have discovered or concluded from research.
You have to throw out all of that! Wipe a clean slate, and START with the Bible for your foundation of Truth; THEN, interpret scientific observations in light of what the Bible says.
God is not a "god of the gaps" for man's "truth." Science is what should be used to fill in the gaps of God's truth. I think you would agree with that, but the fact is that evolution does not fit into the gaps of the Creation account in Genesis because there are fundamental contradictions. And whenever there appears to be a conflict, it is man's science that is in error, not God. The Bible is the final authority of truth; certainly not the science of fallible, mortal sinners, especially those who deny the existence and lordship of Creator and Lord God. This is what I mean by putting on your Biblical glasses. Proverbs states: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (or, knowledge)" - twice! Important things bear repeating.
Science is in a really bad pickle now, because scientists, professors, and even psychologists have fabricated such a comprehensive framework of scientific hypotheses based on faulty, naturalistic, humanistic premises concerning the age and origins of the world and life. The evolution egg is starting to crack because of the Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creation movements, but there is tremendous resistance because entire companies, college departments, careers, reputations, and whole fields of psuedo-science are at great risk of absolute devastation.
I'm telling you, the world does not look billions of years old when you take off your evolution glasses (you thought you were looking through naked eyes, didn't you?) and put on your Biblical glasses. I pray that you will subscribe to the newsletter I told you about.
This article will probably be closed for comments soon. If you'd like to continue this conversation, feel free to e-mail me.
Just one question: Why did God create the universe so that all scientific applications and measurments make it *look* like it's billions of years old?
He didn't. The problem is that we have accepted many unbiblical premises without even realizing it. By default, we look at the world through worldly glasses instead of Biblical glasses.
Jesus has everything to do with it. You're not understanding the parallel between Adam and Jesus. We are spiritually dead because of Adam, but we can be spiritually alive because of Jesus. Since Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection were literal, then Adam's sin must also be literal.
I take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that every passage is literal. The Bible (or Biblios, meaning "small books") is composed of many different kinds of literature; some are musical lyrics, some poetry, some historical account, some epistles, some prophecy or apocalyptic, and parts of some are parables. You have to read each book or passage according to what kind of writing it is.
Now, Genesis is clearly not poetry. It's not a book of songs. Obviously not a letter. Not prophetic as a whole. It is written as a historical account of many origins - the beginning of the universe, our solar system, Earth, life, organisms, marriage, family, sin, salvation (Tree of Life), the Church, the nations (Babel). Historical accounts are written in as literal a manner as possible. Furthermore, when reading Genesis (or any other book), it's disingenuous to haphazardly switch between reading literally and figuratively depending upon the verse's "believability". That's no way to go about interpreting any writing.
When you say that you don't believe in a literal creation story, you are insinuating that Jews and Christians have ALL been wrong, including Moses, Abraham, Jesus, the twelve disciples - basically all the writers of both Old and New Testaments and every believer that ever lived up until the Darwinian heresy. If evolution is true, that would mean that Darwin was a prophet since he has spoken this divine revelation of Truth that has (according to you) been obscured by God's Word for all these millenia.
Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all.
There was no need for Jesus to teach doctrines that were already universally accepted. The Pharisees were hypocrites, but they believed in a six-day creation. In fact, the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing wrong because He healed on woman on the seventh day, the day of rest.
Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." (Luke 13:14)
Jesus rebukes them concerning only their strictness and hypocrisy: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (from slightly different context)
Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
Yes, He did. Let's first admit that masturbation causes us to think lustfully about women - to desire them only as a means to satisfying our flesh. The Lord Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 25:7-8)
Genesis explains the purpose of sex, and it is not for gratifying the self. Of course, there is pleasure in giving it to your spouse to whom you "cleave" (Genesis 2:24 KJV).
So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or --
Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
This nicely parallels the discussion about the Sabbath above. Please read this passage, paying special attention to verse 8. Also, notice footnote 2, referring to Hosea 6:6. The purpose of the Law in the OT is to demonstrate that man cannot earn his salvation by keeping the law. The emphasis was on relating the weight and seriousness of the Law, but also on the neccessity of God's grace for one's salvation as in Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."
I'm troubled that you don't want to believe that something in the Bible is literal unless thousands of people saw what was being written about. By that standard, we can believe little of the Bible. The only events recorded in the NT that were witnessed by thousands were the crucifixion, the resurrected body of Christ, and the beginning of the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost. Those events provide text for part of the Gospels and Acts. That leaves a whooole lot of the Bible in the questionable/unbelievable category. However, without the rest of the Bible, the crucifixion and resurrection are absolutely meaningless! You can't have two windows on the second story of a house suspended in mid-air without the rest of the house to support it.
Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith. There should not be qualifications in order to believe what the Bible says. The Lord Jesus told the doubting Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Since you believe in Jesus, you should believe also in what Jesus believed. As a follower and student of Master, Teacher, Creator of the Universe, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, it should be the yearning of your heart to believe all things and do all things as He did.
P.S. If you didn't follow the links in the last post, I hope you will go back and do so. I recommend that you sign up for this weekly newsletter about Creationism. I find it very interesting. There's no risk of spam, and it's just one e-mail per week.
Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist.
The point of evolution is to describe the universe so that there is no need to believe in God. That's why you so often see evolutionists invoking Occam's Razor in their arguments.
The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
It looks like the Bible is right, and evolution is wrong.
One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant.
Genesis and evolution conflict on many fundamental issues. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day).
Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological.
If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity.
It is a fundamental issue! Invalidating creation invalidates the Bible. Every Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification, for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16) This was written by Paul, a former Pharisee and multilingual (Hebrew, Greek, Latin?) Torah scholar who studied under the famous rabbi Gamaliel and being God's chosen "Apostle to the Gentiles" "carried along by the Holy Sprit" to write what he wrote. Now tell me, Kymermosst, what are your credentials that you feel justified in undermining the author of half the New Testament?
The main discrepancy between the Bible and evolution is the issue of death. Evolution asserts that millions of years of death, disease, bloodshed, and suffering existed before man evolved. But the Bible teaches that it was man's action in the Garden of Eden that brought about the world's fallen state. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God had to hide the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24). The entire earth was cursed, but not until Adam and Eve were created and disobeyed God. If death and destruction existed before people existed, then there is no purpose for Jesus Christ. We know that Christ was a literal man, performed literal miracles, and literally died on a wooden execution stake with a crossbeam for the sins of billions of literal people. For this reason, it is reasonable and logical to believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals in an actual garden and talked openly and plainly with their Creator. By logical extention, the account of the creation should be read plainly and literally. To insert myriad beliefs of evolution and millions of years into the Creation story is just mind-boggling distortion and wild speculation. Since the Bible clearly states that creation occured over six days, why is this so hard to accept?
Don't feel so threatened.
I'm threatened because I will not compromise the truth. Biblical creation and evolution are incompatible. The study of creation leads to godliness; the study of evolution leads to atheism. Notice that there are no prominent Christians in evolutionary fields. The leaders are always atheist/agnostic. Creation glorifies God; evolution tries to disown God. I am not just guessing that this is true; I know it's true. Read what evolutionists say. Theistic evolution is a slippery slope away from God.
Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it. Jews believe that it took six days to create the world. That is, traditional Jews do. Since there is dissension among Hebrew speakers (only after Darwin's prominence), this really brings out the true reason for the division of belief. If language were the issue, then all Jews would believe one way or the other. The issue, then, is actually an unwillingness to believe what the Torah/Bible plainly says. It is the compromising of beliefs because of the influences of the secular/pagan culture.
But this really is about interpretation, ien't it?
No. It's about Christians wanting to get along with everybody else. It's an issue of pride and not wanting to look foolish in the eyes of academia and the scientific community. As Christians, we know that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)
Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
I encountered such a person when I read your post.
Look, Jesus of Nazareth was a rabbi. He knew the Torah inside and out, and he believed in the literal creation account. You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word = Jesus)
You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations.
games like Grand Theft Auto III, Postal, and Doom should never make it into the hands of minors.
What good does it do to keep violent games out of the hands of minors, but let adults have them? Kids learn how to behave by watching older people. I've never understood why parents feel that it's OK to immerse themselves in all kinds of corruptive situations (violent games, R movies, porn, dirty jokes, sleazy clubs, bars) and pretend that it's not going to affect their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Garbage in, garbage out. You think you can protect yourself, but you can't very much. You will be changed no matter how vigilant you are to fend off unwanted influences.
It's a conflict of effort to try to keep children pure but let adults run wild. The two realms cannot be compartmentalized. IMHO, if there's anything that would be inappropriate for a child, it's probably also inappropriate for an adult. If we're going to fight violence in society, we need to realize that we're all in this together! If something is too violent for kids, then adults, in most cases, should not have need or want of it either. If the adults are really serious - if they truly care - about blunting the effects of violence, they should be willing to sacrifice some entertainment and pleasure for themselves for the sake of the children and society. This goes for consumers of entertainment, producers of entertainment, and promoters of entertainment. Any effort to wipe out violent influences (but not all violent content; context and tone are everything - compare Schindler's List to GTA3) must be a concerted effort.
...if we're serious. But, of course, we're not. ("My life, my rights, blah blah")
Most of you don't think there's enough evidence of the influence of video games. Advertisers certainly have full confidence that what appears on the screen powerfully both affects and effects (produces) behavior. It's ironic that the video game-producing companies argue that their games don't influence behavior, but then turn around and spend lots of money on advertising which they obviously believe does influence behavior. Follow the money - that's what they really know to be true.
Many corporations line up every year to pay up to $2,200,000 for 30 seconds of screen time during the Super Bowl. Maybe they have some research you don't know about? C'mon! We need evidence that media influences behavior like we need evidence that gravity influences behavior. Remember this story about the fast and furious influence of TV in Bhutan (the last place on earth to legalize TV)? The fact that TV (a passive medium) profoundly influences people is well established. Doesn't it make sense that an active medium such as video games would also have a powerful influence (albeit different in some ways)?
Furthermore, games don't last for a single 30 seconds, but hours and hours, days, months, repeated endlessly, being drummed into your mind. And YOU get to play the action in a first person situation, thereby internalizing its content much more than an advertisement. But you think you're so strong that you're not influenced? Yeah, right.
"What we think about when we are free to think about what we will, that is what we are or soon will become."
- A. W. Tozer
It troubles me that people have an appetite for violent content in the first place. Is amusement more important than character? Ha, stupid question to ask on Slashdot. I know I'm different.
It's ironic that people are screaming for peace between nations, but they don't want peace in their own homes.
You're missing my point. China outlaws information that is public domain - pieces of information that a person or organization cannot reasonably claim to own. The U.S. outlaws the distribution of products - original (technically speaking) works of art - that were produced at considerable expense and represent the livelihood of the artists. (The scoundrel behavior of recording companies toward artists is beyond the scope of my original post.)
This is not just about what is a law and what is not a law. I'm talking about a difference of principle behind the laws - the principle that differentiates why our laws are different. China outlaws plain old information about what's going on in the world. Except for the planning stages of military operations and such, the U.S. does not prohibit the transfer of information about current events, world history, religion, etc.
Theoretically, you're right; it only takes a stroke of the pen to change that. But I believe that because our laws are based on different principles, that kind of law would not be made here. Of course, given enough time anything might happen, but I wouldn't worry about the near future.
The closest law we have to China's way of doing things is the recently passed so-called Campaign Finance Reform act, which bans party-funded political ads 60 days before an election. This denies voters information that could be crucial to their making knowledgeable decisions, thereby impeding the ability to elect true representatives. I've heard someone name it "the Incumbent Protection Act." Now, that is a small step toward totalitarianism.
My post above is not meant to defend the RIAA's actions, but just to make a point. China's motivation is totalitarian control. The RIAA's motivation is money. Legally, the RIAA is only trying to enforce property rights, but they are doing so through unreasonable means.
There's a big difference between blocking a site that contains information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ and blocking a site that allows and encourages the acquisition of illegally obtained (without owners' permission) products.
The Jewish festival of Pentecost occurred seven weeks after Jesus' resurrection. On this day, Jesus' apostles were given the gift of speaking in tongues.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an excellent point. For those accusing the United States of "dragging the whole world into war," please take note. This is the way it always is. If there is a true accusation of evil against the U.S., it is that we have not acted swiftly and thoroughly enough in going to war against terrorists (i.e. Hitler, Hussein, bin Laden).
We are not war-mongers. We never enjoy the taking of life, but removing threatening, unbridled corruption from the earth is the sober duty of a moral people.Your ejaculation about "genocide" shows that you have not grasped the concept of holiness and its inherent intolerance, or, dare I say it, "bigotry." Yes, God is a Bigot with a capital B. Bigotry has become a loaded word and a political epithet, but it is nothing more than intolerance (another loaded and greatly abused word *sigh*), and even a cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely intolerant of evil. And, of course, God and only God makes the rules about what is evil.
The nations that God commanded Israel to destroy were nations of people who had rebelled against God for many generations. It was chronic, consistent, unrepentant evil and repudiation of God. So God rightly and justly commanded His chosen people to destroy them. Earlier, God had used the Flood to do the same thing. Also, this "genocide" serves as a great illustration of the eternal condemnation that awaits all people who reject God. There is no contradiction here. As individuals, we are not to murder from a personal agenda except for self-defense (this is explicitly biblical). But government is a human institution established and sanctioned by God. If God-fearing leaders justly wage war, there is nothing wrong with it, even if it wipes out a whole nation. I whole-heartedly agree with Deuteronomy 7:3: "make no treaty" with an evil people. That's why the United Nations is completely ineffectual in making progress towards peace. Treaties with liars and cheaters do not work! Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of evil (i.e., the presence of Christ). Destroying the menacing threats of corrupt nations results in greater peace. Appeasement with evil only helps it to flourish. There's no reason to have guilt when destroying evil. We never celebrate the taking of life, but removing unbridled corruption from the earth is the SOBER DUTY of a moral people. (Moral being defined only by the single living God of the Bible.) This is wholly just and righteous because it is the way of God. It is the reason we destroyed the Taliban, and it is the reason we are going to war with Iraq.
As for your last point, Jesus instructs us to always live as if He were coming back at any moment. This is the proper way to live, regardless of when He actually does return. It is the perfect attitude of a Christian whether it's 35 A.D. or 2035 A.D. or 4000 A.D.
You are ticked that I have a "monopoly" on God. Unlike the capitalist free market system, truth is exclusionary by its nature. It can't help but be monopolistic. If you're not in line with that single, narrow truth, then you believe in a falsehood. (Hold off on the knee-jerk reaction; read on for clarification.) Jesus said,
Yes, only a few. Straight from the Savior's mouth. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude.Since God is Truth, and Truth is exclusive, then God is exclusive. Unholy things cannot be in the presence of His holiness. It's not an issue of fairness or hateful condemnation. Trust me, you don't want fairness. The fair and just thing for God to do is to throw us all into Hell. But He exhibits grace that is available to all people.
The only way in which I consider myself "somehow special" is that God showed me grace, which I do not deserve. I am far from holy and have no worth in myself except that which God gave me. I do not claim to be better than anyone else. The more I grow spiritually, the more I can understand why Paul called himself "chief of sinners." Little by little, God opens my eyes to deeper (hidden) levels of sin in my life.
By nature of being saved by grace, I am indeed part of an exclusive group of people. (defs. 1-2 without qualifications; defs. 3-5 with qualifications; def. 7 invalid) However, it is by no means an exclusionary group of people. The church I attend (like most others where the Spirit is not quenched) welcomes all people. We love all people. If you are anywhere near Greenville, SC, I'd be happy to invite you to my church. Send me an e-mail. We have contemporary music in the late service. I really want you have a chance to see the "hatred" in our church. :-)
The notion that there is no Hell is a lie straight from Hell. Just go here and search for all the references to eternal life and eternal judgment/punishment/death. The acceptance of Christ does cleanse all sin once and for all. I just don't know where to begin in trying to correct you on this. These themes run throughout the entire Bible. I don't see how you miss it.
You accused me of having hatred in my world view. I don't say that someone is going to hell because they don't believe what I believe. It's not about me! I have no inherent authority to say what is true or not. All authority descends from the Father. The writers of the Bible were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" to write God's truth. I'm just reading the words on the pages and "literally" interpreting them in the proper linguistic, cultural, and literary form contexts with great deliberation, reverence, and care. I do not sacrifice core Christian doctrines because they disagree with my politics or personal "logical" reasoning of fairness. Paul wrote that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's "wisdom." I have not imposed my will on the Bible. My values and moral framework have been greatly changed as a result of studying the Bible.
It is arrogant to say that the eternal punishment that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of is hateful just because it turns [fallen, corrupted] man's sense of fairness on its head. No man is capable of giving increase to God's store of logic. It is arrogant to think that you can.
Kiwi, I feel exactly the same way you do. A narrow way of salvation and a broad avenue of damnation does seem hateful at first. It's hard to reconcile it with our feelings about fairness. I think that's because we have no idea how abhorrent our sin is to God. If we had even an inkling of a clue how outrageous and repulsive even our "smallest" sins appear in the eyes of God, I think we would all willingly jump into the lake of fire because of our overwhelming burden of shame. Many people never come to terms with the reality of God's punishment, but it is better to ultimately die with the hard truth than to live with a comforting lie.
Condemnation is not wrong or unfair. In the beginning, God created a perfect world for us, and He lived openly among us. But we rejected His commands and we hid from Him (Genesis 3). Our sin is the veil that separates us from Him, and we continue to hide from Him because of our sinful disposition.
Sin cannot be in the presence of holiness. It's like oil and water; they do not mix! Righteousness and wickedness have nothing in common; light cannot have fellowship with darkness, thus saith the Bible. It's not a matter of fairness. That's just the way it is. It's not hateful on God's part or mine. People end up in Hell because they've broken down the door trying to get in.
Be careful not to believe something just because it appears to be good. "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) That last statement sounds awfully sinister, doesn't it? Wonder what he means by "their end"?
The God I know says that there is no good in ourselves.
Isaiah says that "we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags."
The Lord Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone."
Since it is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than to speak a lie that will comfort and then kill, I will say this...
I believe that the ultimate arrogance is to create a god according to your preferences, and then set it apart from you (as if it were pre-existing) and bogusly superimpose it over the God of the Bible. Now you worship your idol-god as if it were the eternal living God of the Bible. Your idol-god comforts you for now, massaging your personal ideas about morality and home-brewed theories concerning eternal truth, but it leads ultimately to eternal punishment.
Hell is not exclusive to "Fundamentalism" but it is fundamental. It starts way back in Genesis 2. (Btw, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are not Christian. Jesus Christ = God is a core principle.) You may want to read my previous post on Heaven and Hell. I don't know why you'd want to jettison the fundamentals (core, foundation) of the body of belief you claim to adhere to.
You appear to be a victim of liberal biblical scholarship. Instead of studying the Bible to apply it to your life, you've basically taken to the Bible with a big, black marker and a pair of scissors (this is a slight exaggeration, but just as dangerous). It's no wonder you're biblically illiterate. I hate to be so blunt, but I want you to realize the gravity of what you're doing. The Bible is to be revered and studied for application and instruction for life. As a self-described Christian, I would expect you to enthusiastically agree with me on this. Any other kind of biblical study is of no real (i.e. eternal) value.
I used to be disconcerted that many Christians viewed their faith as nothing more than "death insurance." They would act as though they'd gotten a "ticket to Heaven" and were free to do their own thing without consquence. You can imagine (or I guess you can't) how your post blew me away! No afterlife in Christianity??
Jesus' whole life is about Heaven and Hell. In fact, His name is about them! Jesus actual Hebrew name, Yeshua, means "the Lord saves." Saves from what? Boredom? He saves from Hell by allowing us into Heaven in spite of our sin. Lots of prophecy throughout the OT is tied up in all of this. Heaven and Hell are integral parts of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and especially the Gospels. The relevance of sin, salvation, the "Great Commission," the crucifixion, resurrection, sacrifices, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' second coming, election, grace, and prophecies are practically dependent upon the premise that Heaven and Hell exist. Not to mention the beloved 23rd Psalm and John 3:16. (I'm starting to wonder if I've been trolled.) What is all that talk in the Bible about eternal life for? There are hundreds of references to both eternal life and eternal death in the Bible. I did a search on my computer. :-) Jesus concludes a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 25 by saying, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
That's because you get only one earthly life to put your faith in Christ. When you die, your eternal fate is set forever.
The Bible talks more about this life than the afterlife because the Bible is our:
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
God tells us things on a need-to-know basis, and right now we don't need to know very much about the details of Heaven or Hell. We'll find out soon enough.
First, it is necessary for you to have at least a "mustard seed" of faith in the existence of germs before you will approach the microscope to look through its lens.
To un-paraphrase what Larry Wall paraphrased:
Also, note that you can not see germs with the naked eye. It is necessary for you to use the appropriate tool to see those germs.The microscope is the tool that allows you to see things that are too small to be perceived with the naked eye.
Faith is the tool that allows you to see things that are too big to be perceived with the naked eye.
Think about this analogy:
- You have heard people talking about germs and you hope to see them for yourself.
- You have some faith in the existence of germs.
- Believers in germs introduce you to the microscope, a tool of science that allows you to see these mysterious tiny critters.
- Believers teach you how to use the microscope to view slides containing the objects of your hope. They tell you what germs look like so you know what to look for.
- You choose to use the microscope.
- You earnestly seek the germs.
- You find germs!
- You believe in germs.
- You learn more about germs.
- You realize that germs were with you the whole time. You didn't find germs. Germs found you!
You need a "macroscope" to see things that are bigger than your literal world view - the material world you are able to sense and comprehend.Choosing faith is like putting new eyes in your eye sockets. But having just any faith is not enough. Eyes allow you to see both big truths and big lies. The object of faith (what is being believed) is just as important as faith itself. The real problem is knowing what to have faith in.
I agree with Agnostics to some extent... that (much of) the truth of God is unknowable. That is, I believe it is largely unknowable unless a special divine revelation rips through the veil separating the natural and supernatural realms. Fortunately, this has happened!
Winston Churchill was too understated when he said, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it and carry on." Yes, and sometimes he flogs it and crucifies it.
Choosing faith is like putting new eyes in your eye sockets, and knowing the Bible is like turning on the flashlight to know what to believe in. Jesus Christ is the Door, the Bible reveals the path to the Door, and faith is the key that opens the Door.
These claims are testable , but they must be tested with the applicable tools. It's been said, "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." That's the problem with most scientists. Put down your hammer, and pick up your fresh eyes of faith. I challenge you to test this claim. Earnestly, diligently seek God with your whole heart and mind. Desire Him as desperately as you desire your next breath. Approach the Door with faith using the Bible as your guide, and God will find you. Once God has given you understanding, you will then see that the natural world and creation confirm your new knowledge.
Wicca is embraced as a lifestyle; there is no confession of sin, and repentence to follow. They think it is fine, and thus call God a liar.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Granted, God won't condemn somebody simply for reading a book. However, He did tell Adam and Eve concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Christians are to be holy and set apart from evil things. "For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence and is honorable and seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely and lovable, whatever is kind and winsome and gracious, if there is any virtue and excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on and weigh and take account of these things [fix your minds on them]." (Philippians 4:8 Amplified)
On a side note, an angel is NOT a god. Angels are creations of God like you and me. They are paranormal or supernatural spirits, but they are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. - Exodus 22:18 KJV (Modern translations say "sorceress.")
Witchcraft is the performance of magic forbidden by God for non-biblical ends.
Why, exactly, is witchcraft evil? The most damning thing I've ever seen in the bible about it is it being listed along with other "desires of the flesh" like sex and anger. Hardly a "damn on name" thing, if you ask me.
If witchcraft isn't evil, why is God forbidding them, as alleged children of God, their inheritance of the kingdom? The truth must be that God is not their father, for what father would deny his children their rightful inheritance? It angers me that a Christian sees the bar of righteous conduct set so low in his own eyes when God has clearly told us over and over in the Bible: "Be holy for I am holy." More Biblical Damnation of Witchcraft/Sorcery- You shall not... practice divination or soothsaying. (Leviticus 19:26)
- Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:27)
- There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so. (Deuteronomy 18:10,11,14)
- For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king. (1 Samuel 15:23)
- When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:6-10)
- He who sits on the throne said... "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars*, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Hell)" (Revelation 21:5,8)
Hmmm I just can't figure it out. Does God condone witchcraft or doesn't He? (There's a lot more that I could've quoted, all negative.)* the gravest lie being the denial of Jesus Christ as sole Deity
To be fair, we must look at Wicca as it is today. This neo-witch religion seems to me like a combination of humanism, Gnosticism, New Age, and political correctness. Wiccans worship a "Goddess," have little structure, and they emphasize religious tolerance. Tolerance is easy for Wiccans since their body of doctrine is so shallow. In our times, rigorous cults are OUT. Ambiguous, lawless, free-thinking, free-loving, feel-good ideologies are IN. It's as if you're just supposed to be nice and good karma will come your way. Pantheistic do-gooders. Neither bliss nor judgment comes. In reality, the lake of fire awaits them, but Satan has deceived them with the enticing lures of licentious philosophies and the magic of his angels (demons).
It's hard to tell Neo-Wicca's extent of evil, because its adherents are so diverse. There are even so-called "Christian Wiccan" covens. However, the fact that they serve a "god(dess)" that is not the triune God of the Bible - Father, Son (Christ), and Holy Spirit - they can rightly be considered evil. They are idolaters because they serve a false god. Even if they did nothing else wrong, their idolatry would be enough to earn them eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone.
Wicca's history is undeniably evil. Medieval requirements for becoming a witch are:
- Denial of the Christian Faith: "I deny the Creator of heaven and earth. I deny my baptism, I deny the worship I formerly paid to God. I adhere to the devil and believe only in thee." Trampling the cross, which accompanied this oath, had been from very early times an important part of the ritual.
- Rebaptism by the devil with a new name.
- Symbolic removal of the baptismal chrism (the consecrated oil mingled with balm).
- Denial of godparents and assigning of new sponsors.
- Token surrender to the devil of a piece of clothing.
- Swearing allegiance to the devil while standing within a magic circle on the ground.
- Request to the devil for their name to be written in the Book of Death.
- Promise to sacrifice children to the devil, a step which led to the stories of witches murdering children.
- Promise to pay annual tribute to the assigned demon. Only black-coloured gifts were valid.
- Marking with the devil's mark in various parts of the body... so that the area marked became insensitive. The mark might vary in shape - a rabbit's foot, a toad, or a spider.
- Vows of service to the devil; never to adore the sacrament; to smash holy relics; never to use holy water or candles; and to keep silence on their traffic with Satan.
- Francesco-Maria Guazzo, Compendium Maleficarum, 1608, translated by Dr. R. H. RobbinsYou believe in an unwavering, judgemental dogma that brands "witchcraft" as satanism
Since Neo-Wiccans are a pantheon of self-described free-thinkers, it's impossible to make many sweeping statements about the whole religion. Many doctrines will vary from person to person, and perhaps from moment to moment.
The one important thing to remember is that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is God is effectively a Satanist. Every person is born with Adam's nature - a rebellious, sinful nature. We are born as Satan's children. That is why we must be born again - the first birth is of the flesh, but the second birth is of the spirit. Every person is born spiritually dead. Whoever does not know God as Father has Satan as Father by default.
This is crucial: Until one accepts Christ, he is of the devil. All religions outside of a biblical faith in Christ are under the umbrella of Satanism regardless of whether they actually acknowledge Satan's existence. 1 John 3:8 says, "The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning."When I said "parts of some [books] are parables," I was referring to the parables told by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In each instance, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that He is telling a fictional story as a parable. In the larger sense, the telling of the parable is of an historical account, although the story itself is not historical. If Moses had been telling a parable, he would have designated it so.
Your analogy is wrong, too. According to the Wired article, an Army spokesperson said that MIT won the award "based on the substance of the proposal."
Also, in the article:
The reason there is no middle ground is because it's clearly wrong as seen from both sides. Add even a drop of vinegar to your glass of pure water, and the whole of it becomes distasteful.
I take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that every passage is literal. The Bible (from the Greek biblion - a collection of writings) is composed of many different kinds of writing; some are musical lyrics, some poetry, some historical account, some epistles, some prophecy or apocalyptic, and parts of some are parables. You have to read each book or passage according to what kind of writing it is.
Now, Genesis was clearly not written as poetry. Forms of poetry are as easy to discern from prose in Hebrew as they are in English. Even if they lay person should have some trouble with discernment, it is not difficult for language scholars. Genesis is also not a book of songs. Obviously not a letter. Not prophetic as a whole. It is written as a historical account of origins that pertain to us. Historical accounts are written in as literal a manner as possible. Furthermore, when reading Genesis (or any other book), it's disingenuous to haphazardly switch between reading literally and figuratively depending upon the verse's "believability". That's no way to go about interpreting any writing.
What theistic evolutionists, such as yourself, try to say is that evolution occurs within the boundaries of Genesis. Even if we suppose that Moses meant to write "many a millennia" instead of "day," it doesn't work. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day). Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological. Here is just a sampling.
1. Bible: Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3)
Evolution: Creative processes continuing.
2. Bible: Oceans before land (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.
3. Bible: First life on land (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
4. Bible: First life was land plants (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
5. Bible: Earth before sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
6. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: All fishes before fruit trees.
7. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20,21)
Evolution: Fishes evolved over hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
8. Bible: Birds before insects (Genesis 1:20-31; Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.
9. Bible: Whales before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
10. Bible: Birds before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.
11. Bible: Man before rain (Genesis 2:5)
Evolution: Rain before man.
12. Bible: Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22)
Evolution: Woman before man (by genetics).
13. Bible: Light before the sun (Genesis 1:3-19)
Evolution: Sun before any light (on earth).
14. Bible: Plants before the sun (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
15. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man evolved.
16. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.
17. Bible: Man's sin is the cause of death (Romans 5:12)
Evolution: Struggle and death existent long before the evolution of man.
So you see, they are not compatible. You can't fit man's BADC into God's ABCD. God is not a "god of the gaps" for man's "truth." Science is what should be used to fill in the gaps of God's truth. Wipe a clean slate, and START with the Bible for your foundation of Truth; THEN, interpret scientific observations in light of what the Bible says.
Does this seem extreme to you, Christianfreak? Is the emphasis on "Christian" or "freak"? I don't mean to be insulting; I'm just asking a probing question. You have Christ in your name, but you seem to have Darwin in your heart. Having Jesus there too is like being a house divided against itself. Since you believe in Jesus, you should believe also in what Jesus believed. As a follower and student of the Master, Teacher, Creator of the Universe, Son of God, Jesus Christ, it should be the yearning of your heart to believe all things and do all things as He did.
Do you suppose that Jesus believed in evolution? Many people will argue that the scribes of the Bible didn't know much about science. But remember, Jesus was both fully man and fully God. Jesus is the Creator in human form as told in John 1:1 - the other "In the beginning" passage. If evolution were true, then Jesus would have known it! However, there is no evidence that Jesus believed in evolution.
The six literal workdays of the week are based on the six literal workdays of Creation. When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for performing miracles, which they deemed to be "work," on the Sabbath day (the seventh day for rest), in Mark 2:27, He explicitly said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Here you have the Lord's personal endorsement of the establishment of a literal day to be the Sabbath in parallel to God's literal day of rest.
You are lying to yourself if you try to read millions or billions of years into this. It demonstrates a lack of faith if you can't believe Genesis the way it's plainly written. You are using Evolutionary premises as your foundation for interpreting the Bible, rather than the other way around. You need to sit down and think about what really is your foundation - what you believe first and foremost. For brevity's sake I will put my last point in a nutshell, although it is extremely important.Since we know that the Gospels are literal, historical accounts of the Redeemer (who was born of the virgin Mary), then Genesis also has to be a literal, historical account of the first sinner (the "Faller") (who was made directly from the dust of the ground - no hint of via tadpoles, pygmies, and chimps in Genesis 2:7 or anywhere else in the Bible).
Since we know that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, is a literal man, then Adam of the Garden of Eden, the first man, must have been a literal man (created on the sixth day), as well.
Notice how the accounts of both men's lives are inextricably linked to the accounts of their orgins. Six-day-Creation-Adam-Sin and Virgin-birth-Christ-Redemption are all bound together. If one is literal, they must all be literal.
If there was no Adam, then there is no need for a Savior. Christianity stands on Jesus, and Jesus stands on the six-day Creation.
If there is Dynamic HTML, then one day Lynx will explain it.
The functionality is probably in the code; there's just no way to access it from the GUI menu-based preferences.
Look for these lines in the prefs.js file in your profile directory, and make sure that they have the values indicated below. If the lines don't exist, just copy and paste the lines below into your prefs.js file.
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
For lots of details about prefs, go here.
Look for these lines in the prefs.js file in your profile directory, and make sure that they have the values indicated below. If the lines don't exist, just copy and paste the lines below into your prefs.js file.
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
For lots of details about prefs, go here.
OK, I don't know how to say this any clearer. Jesus is God, and therefore is the Creator. He knows that it took 6 days to make it because He made it! If you deviate from what Jesus (God) believes to be true, then you have a lack of faith. If you don't trust Him to tell the truth about Creation, why should you trust Him to tell the truth about salvation? or anything else?
You are relying on man's science and logic, which is severely limited. Compared to God, we have the intelligence of rocks. Besides, science is still in its infancy in its study of the universe. No man has yet ventured beyond our own moon! Our theories are in a constant state of flux and splintering and fizzling out. To rely on science to determine truth instead of the Bible is major folly.
The world does seem to look billions of years old to many people because their minds have been molded and colored by the biases of materialistic philosophical prejudice and erroneous premises of humanistic science. People have been indoctrinated with these unbiblical precepts since elementary school (myself included). The media constantly reinforces these falsehoods by spouting whatever any secular [philosopher-]scientist claims to have discovered or concluded from research.
You have to throw out all of that! Wipe a clean slate, and START with the Bible for your foundation of Truth; THEN, interpret scientific observations in light of what the Bible says.
God is not a "god of the gaps" for man's "truth." Science is what should be used to fill in the gaps of God's truth. I think you would agree with that, but the fact is that evolution does not fit into the gaps of the Creation account in Genesis because there are fundamental contradictions. And whenever there appears to be a conflict, it is man's science that is in error, not God. The Bible is the final authority of truth; certainly not the science of fallible, mortal sinners, especially those who deny the existence and lordship of Creator and Lord God. This is what I mean by putting on your Biblical glasses. Proverbs states: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (or, knowledge)" - twice! Important things bear repeating.
Science is in a really bad pickle now, because scientists, professors, and even psychologists have fabricated such a comprehensive framework of scientific hypotheses based on faulty, naturalistic, humanistic premises concerning the age and origins of the world and life. The evolution egg is starting to crack because of the Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creation movements, but there is tremendous resistance because entire companies, college departments, careers, reputations, and whole fields of psuedo-science are at great risk of absolute devastation.
I'm telling you, the world does not look billions of years old when you take off your evolution glasses (you thought you were looking through naked eyes, didn't you?) and put on your Biblical glasses. I pray that you will subscribe to the newsletter I told you about.
This article will probably be closed for comments soon. If you'd like to continue this conversation, feel free to e-mail me.
Is that supposed to be a compliment or an insult?
He didn't. The problem is that we have accepted many unbiblical premises without even realizing it. By default, we look at the world through worldly glasses instead of Biblical glasses.
Jesus has everything to do with it. You're not understanding the parallel between Adam and Jesus. We are spiritually dead because of Adam, but we can be spiritually alive because of Jesus. Since Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection were literal, then Adam's sin must also be literal.
I take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that every passage is literal. The Bible (or Biblios, meaning "small books") is composed of many different kinds of literature; some are musical lyrics, some poetry, some historical account, some epistles, some prophecy or apocalyptic, and parts of some are parables. You have to read each book or passage according to what kind of writing it is.
Now, Genesis is clearly not poetry. It's not a book of songs. Obviously not a letter. Not prophetic as a whole. It is written as a historical account of many origins - the beginning of the universe, our solar system, Earth, life, organisms, marriage, family, sin, salvation (Tree of Life), the Church, the nations (Babel). Historical accounts are written in as literal a manner as possible. Furthermore, when reading Genesis (or any other book), it's disingenuous to haphazardly switch between reading literally and figuratively depending upon the verse's "believability". That's no way to go about interpreting any writing.
When you say that you don't believe in a literal creation story, you are insinuating that Jews and Christians have ALL been wrong, including Moses, Abraham, Jesus, the twelve disciples - basically all the writers of both Old and New Testaments and every believer that ever lived up until the Darwinian heresy. If evolution is true, that would mean that Darwin was a prophet since he has spoken this divine revelation of Truth that has (according to you) been obscured by God's Word for all these millenia.
Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all.
Jesus rebukes them concerning only their strictness and hypocrisy: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (from slightly different context)There was no need for Jesus to teach doctrines that were already universally accepted. The Pharisees were hypocrites, but they believed in a six-day creation. In fact, the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing wrong because He healed on woman on the seventh day, the day of rest.
Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
Yes, He did. Let's first admit that masturbation causes us to think lustfully about women - to desire them only as a means to satisfying our flesh. The Lord Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 25:7-8)
Genesis explains the purpose of sex, and it is not for gratifying the self. Of course, there is pleasure in giving it to your spouse to whom you "cleave" (Genesis 2:24 KJV).
So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or --
Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
This nicely parallels the discussion about the Sabbath above. Please read this passage, paying special attention to verse 8. Also, notice footnote 2, referring to Hosea 6:6. The purpose of the Law in the OT is to demonstrate that man cannot earn his salvation by keeping the law. The emphasis was on relating the weight and seriousness of the Law, but also on the neccessity of God's grace for one's salvation as in Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."
I'm troubled that you don't want to believe that something in the Bible is literal unless thousands of people saw what was being written about. By that standard, we can believe little of the Bible. The only events recorded in the NT that were witnessed by thousands were the crucifixion, the resurrected body of Christ, and the beginning of the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost. Those events provide text for part of the Gospels and Acts. That leaves a whooole lot of the Bible in the questionable/unbelievable category. However, without the rest of the Bible, the crucifixion and resurrection are absolutely meaningless! You can't have two windows on the second story of a house suspended in mid-air without the rest of the house to support it.
Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith. There should not be qualifications in order to believe what the Bible says. The Lord Jesus told the doubting Thomas, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Since you believe in Jesus, you should believe also in what Jesus believed. As a follower and student of Master, Teacher, Creator of the Universe, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, it should be the yearning of your heart to believe all things and do all things as He did.
P.S. If you didn't follow the links in the last post, I hope you will go back and do so. I recommend that you sign up for this weekly newsletter about Creationism. I find it very interesting. There's no risk of spam, and it's just one e-mail per week.
The point of evolution is to describe the universe so that there is no need to believe in God. That's why you so often see evolutionists invoking Occam's Razor in their arguments.
The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
It looks like the Bible is right, and evolution is wrong.
One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant.
Genesis and evolution conflict on many fundamental issues. According to Genesis, plants were created on the third day... but the sun was not created until the fourth day! Please tell me what version of evolution is compatible with this. Photosynthesis before the sun? Materialistic science would reject this miracle, and it would not accept the notion that (life-sustaining) light on the earth existed before the sun (light created on first day). Also, the order that animals were created conflicts with the supposed order of evolution. There are many, many other irreconcilable conflicts, both physical and theological.
If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity.
It is a fundamental issue! Invalidating creation invalidates the Bible. Every Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification, for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16) This was written by Paul, a former Pharisee and multilingual (Hebrew, Greek, Latin?) Torah scholar who studied under the famous rabbi Gamaliel and being God's chosen "Apostle to the Gentiles" "carried along by the Holy Sprit" to write what he wrote. Now tell me, Kymermosst, what are your credentials that you feel justified in undermining the author of half the New Testament?
The main discrepancy between the Bible and evolution is the issue of death. Evolution asserts that millions of years of death, disease, bloodshed, and suffering existed before man evolved. But the Bible teaches that it was man's action in the Garden of Eden that brought about the world's fallen state. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God had to hide the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24). The entire earth was cursed, but not until Adam and Eve were created and disobeyed God. If death and destruction existed before people existed, then there is no purpose for Jesus Christ. We know that Christ was a literal man, performed literal miracles, and literally died on a wooden execution stake with a crossbeam for the sins of billions of literal people. For this reason, it is reasonable and logical to believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals in an actual garden and talked openly and plainly with their Creator. By logical extention, the account of the creation should be read plainly and literally. To insert myriad beliefs of evolution and millions of years into the Creation story is just mind-boggling distortion and wild speculation. Since the Bible clearly states that creation occured over six days, why is this so hard to accept?
Don't feel so threatened.
I'm threatened because I will not compromise the truth. Biblical creation and evolution are incompatible. The study of creation leads to godliness; the study of evolution leads to atheism. Notice that there are no prominent Christians in evolutionary fields. The leaders are always atheist/agnostic. Creation glorifies God; evolution tries to disown God. I am not just guessing that this is true; I know it's true. Read what evolutionists say. Theistic evolution is a slippery slope away from God.
Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
Jews believe that it took six days to create the world. That is, traditional Jews do. Since there is dissension among Hebrew speakers (only after Darwin's prominence), this really brings out the true reason for the division of belief. If language were the issue, then all Jews would believe one way or the other. The issue, then, is actually an unwillingness to believe what the Torah/Bible plainly says. It is the compromising of beliefs because of the influences of the secular/pagan culture.
But this really is about interpretation, ien't it?
No. It's about Christians wanting to get along with everybody else. It's an issue of pride and not wanting to look foolish in the eyes of academia and the scientific community. As Christians, we know that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Prov. 9:10)
Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
I encountered such a person when I read your post.
Look, Jesus of Nazareth was a rabbi. He knew the Torah inside and out, and he believed in the literal creation account. You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word = Jesus)
You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations.
I'm getting really sick of this.
from the know-it-all dept.
"Any respectable scientist..."
"Any intelligent person..."
"'Normal' Christians..."
"Real scientists..."
"People who actually think..."
"... agree with me. (the poster)"
What good does it do to keep violent games out of the hands of minors, but let adults have them? Kids learn how to behave by watching older people. I've never understood why parents feel that it's OK to immerse themselves in all kinds of corruptive situations (violent games, R movies, porn, dirty jokes, sleazy clubs, bars) and pretend that it's not going to affect their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Garbage in, garbage out. You think you can protect yourself, but you can't very much. You will be changed no matter how vigilant you are to fend off unwanted influences.
It's a conflict of effort to try to keep children pure but let adults run wild. The two realms cannot be compartmentalized. IMHO, if there's anything that would be inappropriate for a child, it's probably also inappropriate for an adult. If we're going to fight violence in society, we need to realize that we're all in this together! If something is too violent for kids, then adults, in most cases, should not have need or want of it either. If the adults are really serious - if they truly care - about blunting the effects of violence, they should be willing to sacrifice some entertainment and pleasure for themselves for the sake of the children and society. This goes for consumers of entertainment, producers of entertainment, and promoters of entertainment. Any effort to wipe out violent influences (but not all violent content; context and tone are everything - compare Schindler's List to GTA3) must be a concerted effort.
Most of you don't think there's enough evidence of the influence of video games. Advertisers certainly have full confidence that what appears on the screen powerfully both affects and effects (produces) behavior. It's ironic that the video game-producing companies argue that their games don't influence behavior, but then turn around and spend lots of money on advertising which they obviously believe does influence behavior. Follow the money - that's what they really know to be true.
Many corporations line up every year to pay up to $2,200,000 for 30 seconds of screen time during the Super Bowl. Maybe they have some research you don't know about? C'mon! We need evidence that media influences behavior like we need evidence that gravity influences behavior. Remember this story about the fast and furious influence of TV in Bhutan (the last place on earth to legalize TV)? The fact that TV (a passive medium) profoundly influences people is well established. Doesn't it make sense that an active medium such as video games would also have a powerful influence (albeit different in some ways)?
Furthermore, games don't last for a single 30 seconds, but hours and hours, days, months, repeated endlessly, being drummed into your mind. And YOU get to play the action in a first person situation, thereby internalizing its content much more than an advertisement. But you think you're so strong that you're not influenced? Yeah, right.
It troubles me that people have an appetite for violent content in the first place. Is amusement more important than character? Ha, stupid question to ask on Slashdot. I know I'm different.It's ironic that people are screaming for peace between nations, but they don't want peace in their own homes.
individualism != selfishness
No, it's public domain.
This is not just about what is a law and what is not a law. I'm talking about a difference of principle behind the laws - the principle that differentiates why our laws are different. China outlaws plain old information about what's going on in the world. Except for the planning stages of military operations and such, the U.S. does not prohibit the transfer of information about current events, world history, religion, etc.
Theoretically, you're right; it only takes a stroke of the pen to change that. But I believe that because our laws are based on different principles, that kind of law would not be made here. Of course, given enough time anything might happen, but I wouldn't worry about the near future.
The closest law we have to China's way of doing things is the recently passed so-called Campaign Finance Reform act, which bans party-funded political ads 60 days before an election. This denies voters information that could be crucial to their making knowledgeable decisions, thereby impeding the ability to elect true representatives. I've heard someone name it "the Incumbent Protection Act." Now, that is a small step toward totalitarianism.
My post above is not meant to defend the RIAA's actions, but just to make a point. China's motivation is totalitarian control. The RIAA's motivation is money. Legally, the RIAA is only trying to enforce property rights, but they are doing so through unreasonable means.
There's a big difference between blocking a site that contains information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ and blocking a site that allows and encourages the acquisition of illegally obtained (without owners' permission) products.
Here's the reference.