Really depends on your point of view. Believing in the divinity of christ is one thing, Believing in the Father Son and holy ghost a bit different.
Not hugely. If you already accept that the one God can be two persons, adding a third isn't a huge leap. Much smaller than the leap from one to two persons.
Like I said this probably far more about ingorance among the flock than among the sheperds. This is not something you will find among the prime Protestant Roots ( Lutheran etc ) But among the schismatic nightmare in American Christan Denominations resulting of the process brought about by Luther's action.
Schisms aren't Luther's fault. They are the fault of human nature, our inability to get on well when we disagree. There are some issues which necessitate different denominations (such as church government - episcopal, presbyterian or congregational), but the continued fragmenting of some groups is certainly not encouraged or required by the Reformation. Most Christians are within one of the larger blocks anyway.
It is a pretty fundamental sticking point where alot of people can't get past the fundamental difference in terms. To someone of this ilk of which I am speaking the concept of any seperation of God and Christ is unthinkable. Blaspheme, your going to hell kinda unthinkable. It is not something which often results in enlightend discourse. They also are invariably weak on the concept of judge not lest ye be judged as well.
That's a big generalisation to make. There are good reasons to say that Christ's divinity is essential for salvation. Only God can forgive sins, therefore if you ask a man to forgive them, they cannot be forgiven. Only God could have lived a perfect life and therefore been a perfect substitutionary sacrifice for us, so trusting in a man's sacrifice to take away your sin and alleviate God's anger achieves nothing.
I would also argue that you can very much indeed question the divinity of christ ( to a degree.. hang with me here ) and still be a christian. That was something essentially laid out as a tenant of the faith at the convention in Nicene and resulted in the Nicene Creed. The tenents which all could agree to at that time.
It's plainly stated in the bible that he is God. If someone claims he is not, then they either do not understand the Bible or are calling it a lie.
That is not to say the question of the nature of the divinity of Christ was not and is not hotly debated.
The Bible leaves no room for debate. The debate then becomes trusting the authority of the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible, how can you trust the message of the gospel?
All the creed laid out as basic tentant of the faith was that Jesus was of one subtance with the father and made incarnate by the holy spirit of the virgin mary. Thus the divine nature of Christ is still up for debate.
'I believe [...] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father'
That seems to be a fairly conclusive statement of the divinity of Christ. Besides, the Bible is the ultimate authority, not a manmade creed.
Of Divine origins is not the same as divine in life. Jesus was made man.
Read John 1. He is clearly God. The very fact that he was not created, but was instead the creator, shows that he must be God. The Hebrew word used for creation is 'bara' which signifies that only god could have done the creating. If Jesus is the creator as John 1 and Colossians 1 are fairly clear on, then he must be God. Yes, he was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, but you cannot shrink the infinite into the finite w
When the original king james version translators did their thing, they took care to note which parts were literal translations of the greek, and which parts were put in by them to make it proper english. They did this with itallics Anything in itallics is a word inserted by the translators.
I don't use the King James. Given that its language is a little archaic and it worked off less reliable manuscripts than we now have, I prefer to use a modern literal translation such as the English Standard Version. I augment it with a Greek New Testament and the New International Version as well.
Also, for the new testament, there in no punctuation of any sort in the original greek. All letters are capitalized, and not as much as spaces between the words, Like this: THENEWTESTAMENTWASWRITTENWITHCAPSLOCKONANDABUSTESS PACEBAR
My job is to study and teach the Bible, so I already know, thanks:^)
So let's look at the verse again. Notice how your interpretation of the verse depends on that first 'is' being there. Also notice how it is in itallics. Take it out and reread the verse. Now it only says that those parts of scripture that are given by inspiration of god are profitable, etc. It allows for some scripture to not be given by god, and says nothing about the profitablity etc. of those scriptures
That's a poor interpretation. The Greek, literally translated into English goes along the lines of:
ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING FOR REPROOF FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT PROFICIENT MAY BE THE OF GOD MAN FOR EVERY GOOD WORK HAVING BEEN EQUIPPED.
Now it's quite obvious that without an 'is' in there, the sentence makes no sense. Given that 'is' does not have to be in the sentence, but can be implied, we can drop it in in the most logical place that will give us a readable sentence. i.e. between 'scripture' and 'God-breathed.' It makes more sense of the first half of the sentence and gives reason for 'that' being there.
There are many passages in the Bible that have greatly changed meanings when you move a comma around, or put in those itallic words etc. Other than looking at context or other passages, we no longer have the abillity to determine the correct meaning of these passages.
But we can look at the context and get a very good idea of what it should be in 99.9% of the cases. Or by simply applying rules of grammar, as in this case.
Please try to understand the book that you are using, failure to do so will (as possibly in this example) lead to incorrect assumptions
Paul is encouraging Timothy to remain faithful to God's word and preach it. The interpretation accepted by leading Biblical scholars, that appears in English translations of the Bible and that obeys the rules of grammar, fits with the context of the book and is much more likely to be right that your interpretation. Given that there are other passages validating scripture as being from God, this is quite logical.
Actually I'm right handed, but ambidextrous when it comes to the trackpad since I've spent years using my left hand on it. Frees up my right hand to use the cursor keys or type.
Jesus is God, being the second person of the trinity, therefore he is eternal and was present in the OT, in Revelation and today. Indeed, we are told that Christ created and sustains the world (see Colossians 1), so he's been at work since Genesis. And almost anywhere you see God talked about, it's referring to the trinity. LORD is the personal name YHWH used by the whole trinity. And Jesus himself told his disciples on the road to Emmaus that the whole OT was about him. Read Luke 24.
I use keyboard shortcuts to scroll. Much faster than moving my hand to the mouse when I'm doing text-based stuff. If I'm doing any graphical work, then I'll have a mouse plugged in anyway because graphics work with a trackpad sucks.
If you derive your morals for yourself, what makes them real, or any more valid than the next person's morals? In fact, without an objective standard to measure against, how can anything be moral or amoral?
Incidentally, the guy I was responding to said that he liked Christian values.
I'm curious, what did I say that you consider to be idiotic? Would you care to point out the flaws in my reasoning? And which Christian value are you displaying your agreement with in that comment?
Any rational being should run away from this sort of masochistic pseudo-philosophy.
Why? Incidentally, it's revelation from God, not man-made philosophy.
The idea that I commited a so called sin by simply being born is beyond preposterous, and a complete waste of my time and intelligence.
Do you love God with all of your being? Do you worship him above all else? Is your entire live summarised by glorifying him and enjoying him? If not, then you're not giving God what he deserves and therefore sinning, by the Bible definition of it.
Christianity can go on and on about love and forgiveness and all the other nice things it likes to talk about while happily killing those who oppose it
I've never seen a belief go round killing people. I also recall that Jesus told people to love their neighbours. People's sinfulness and ineptitude in following this doesn't change the fact that this was his teaching.
as long as it postulate an a priori 'sin', it is nothing but another type of voodoo masquerading as 'truth'.
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead and proved himself to be God and valided the Bible as being true, then we must accept that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. If he didn't, then the Bible is irrelevant. You're attacking the wrong thing. If it's revelation form God, you can't argue with him. If it's not, then what it says doesn't matter. So look at whether it is revelation from him.
Quoth Nabokov in Pale Fire: "No free man needs a god".
Emphasis on 'free'.
Nice sound bite, but what makes it in any way true? Besides, there are non free men. Can you do anything you want? Can you forgive your own sins?
P.S. Besides, over-reliance on a single source of information, supposedly containing all the truth and wisdom one needs, is not only silly but also bad management of resources. An informational mono-culture is A Very Bad Thing (tm).
Why, if that source is an omniscient, infinite God? Surely he would be the very best source, rendering others unnecessary?
For what it's worth, CTRL+Click does not always do the same thing as the right mouse button.
In 99% of programs it does.
me programs (including Photoshop) have special functions that only the right click or right drag will do.
You're gonna ask anyway so here is a Photoshop example. Right click with the eyedropper lets you pick an average color of touching pixels. It does other cool stuff with other tools too.
Actually, that works fine with a CTRL-click. Mac apps are designed to benefit from 2+buttons, but only require 1. It's a set-up I like because I find a 1-button trackpad more pleasant to use than a 2+ button one, but a 2+ button mouse even more.
A lot of people who would call themselves Christian (and some who genuinely are) don't know much about the Trinity, or understand the doctrine very well. That's very different though from Protestant doctrine denying it, or not focussing on it. You can't be a Christian unless you accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, so every Christian at least partly understand the Trinity.
Jesus' main teaching was about repentance and our need to seek God's forgiveness, because he will return to judge the world. Anyone who doesn't believe that is denying the message of Christianity. Anyone who doesn't tell it to others is displaying shame about God and a totally uncaring attitude towards the people who are headed for Hell unless they believe. There are gracious ways of saying it and ungracious ways, but it needs to be said and it is the loving thing to say.
I can find guys today who'll tell me about how they saw Elvis last week at the 7-11. Don't mean it happened.
Okay, take 12 guys who follow Elvis around for a while, don't want him to die, are scared of the police and run off and desert him when he's arrested. He's very publicly killed and the 12 guys are so terrified they'll be next that they don't turn up for the execution or the funeral. Or venture into the city at all really. A few days later, they're all running round the place, fearlessly proclaiming that Elvis has risen from the dead and go on to die for proclaiming this, still testifying to its veracity, with the authorities unable to produce a body or any other evidence that they're lying.
That's a much closer analogue to what happened with the disciples and lends what they say a lot more credibility.
Jeshua's biographers stole liberally from Mithraism - from story elements like twelve followers
If you read the gospel of Mark, it's clear that the 12 followers symbolise the new Israel and are based the 12 tribes of Israel
death and resurrection
Which appears in the Bible when Abraham goes to sacrifice his son, believing he will be resurrected. It may appear before that even, but I can't think of any occurrences off the top of my head. The resurrection was certainly a part of Judaism, as was the idea of sacrifice and the necessity of it to cleanse from sin.
a last supper
A reference to the passover in exodus actually.
the "light of the world" image
Appears in the Bible from Genesis 1 onward.
to ritual elements like the timing of Christmas
Err, that was decided on by the Romans well after the gospels were written.
the use of miters as sign of bishop's office, the title of "Father" for priests
And as for Christianity having nothing to do with Jesus, I say that because although they do point to him as the focus of their faith, there are few Christian groups out there who follow the teachings of Jesus.
Your problem here is with Christians (or at least people who call themselves Christians), not with Christianity.
Christianity as a mainstream religion is based not on the Gospels, but on the writings of Paul of Tarsus.
The gospels and Paul are in agreement. In fact, Paul's greatest writing, the letter to the church in Rome, is the greatest exposition (explanation) of the gospel.
All the violence, bigotry, misogyny and intolerance so prevalent in Christianity over its entire history is a direct result of Paul.
Paul who turned from violently persecuting Christians to instead enduring all things for Christ's sake? Paul who said that all men and women were equal before God? Equally values, equally loved, equally able to be saved? The same Paul who lambasted Adam over the Fall, instructed husbands to sacrificially loving towards their wives, and reminded Timothy that salvation came through Christ, born of a woman, rather than a man? The same Paul who said that we should love our enemies and do what we can to encourage them to repent, rather than seeking revenge? The same Paul who said that we should be law-abiding citizens?
Jesus was a pacifist, willing to die for what he believed.
Jesus was no pacifist. Just look at the wars in the OT. Or at his reaction to the money-lenders. Or his prophesied return in Revelation. He's a pretty scary guy. And as for dying for what he believed in... well dying was the purpose he came to earth, so you're right on that one. Thing is, Paul did that too.
How many Christians today are pacifists, and how many are willing to sacrifice their lives for the ideals of Jesus?
The Bible says nothing about having to be a pacifist, but does day that Christians should be willing to lay down their lives for thier borthers or for the sake of the gospel i.e. for the message that all men are fallen from glory and need to ask God for forgiveness and turn from a life of wrong-doing and self-centredness to a life that is God-centred.
But just because people are bad at that doesn't mean that Christianity suddenly becomes invalid. It doesn't change history. Jesus still taught the same tihngs, died on the cross and was raised from the dead. Whether I follow him well or badly does not and cannot change that. Surely you should be more interested in the history that the response of the world? Especially when the teachings themselves say that the world is going to suck in terms of its reponse.
Funny, I thought you Christians aren't supposed to hate anything
Nothing in the Bible saying that.
since yours claims to be a religion of love and everything.
The Bible says we should love God and love our neighbours. We should love good and hate evil, to quote Amos 5:14. The Bible speaks of a just and righteous God who hates unrighteousness, injustice, evil, sin, etc. and calls us to be likeminded. That kind of hate is an expression of love.
Besides, come on - Christianity means nothing without the sin, it is its very foundation.
Actually, the foundation of Christianity lies in the nature of God, who is sinless, rather than in the nature of man, who is sinful.
If Christians hate sin and not the sinner, why all the anger at people that have different beliefs and lifestyles from you?
Because, by definition, any Christian is a sinner and does not become perfect until after they are dead. Therefore they still do things wrong like hate people. Hating other religions however would be perfectly right as they are offensive to God, constituting a lie about him and dangerous to people, as they mislead them about how to be saved.
Why get upset over science when it might prove some belief in a book you read?
Most Christians I know are teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians and engineers, in both Oxford and Northern Ireland. No problems with science. That includes a number of 6-day creationsists. They have no problem with science at all. There's nothing about Christianity that demands or encoruaged a hatred of science. In fact, it encourages an examination of the physical world as it says it is ordered and by looking at God's creation, we can give him glorify for it.
Oh and it's history, not science, that provides the evidence for the Bible. You'd turn to a historian, not a physicist to find out what Julius Caesar did, wouldn't you?
WHy be so angry all the time at those that you view as evil, godless, baby-killing, collee educated liberals?
Before, during and after my university education, I was quite aware that I myself was evil and godless prior to God intervening and that I should love everyone else in the same situation. The best way to do that is to show theme the way out, so that they can be saved.
Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, which is precisely why Protestant denominations testify that they are not Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is of paramount importance to Christianity as without it, Christ could not be our saviour. That idea that Protestants deny the Trinity is absurd. In fact, I can find the Trinity affirmed in the first article of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, in the third point of the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (formulated by divines of many Protestant denominations and used by Presbyterians, among other), and the second section of the Baptist Faith and Message.
The Reformation wasn't to do with the Trinity; it was to do with the church having drifting form its scriptural roots. Reformed churches emphasise the authority of the Bible. And Protestant doctrine is very much that God is Trinitarian. In fact the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit are central tenets of faith. Anyone who says Jesus wasn't God is denying the claims of the Bible, including those of Jesus and therefore cannot be a Christian, regardless of whether they call themselves one or not.
Not deprecated. Jesus upheld OT law. The 'eye for an eye' law was to ensure that a fair judgement was passed on someone rather than say killing someone when they steal a loaf of bread. And there's a difference between the responsibility of the judicial system and personal response to people. We can forgive and help people who hurt us, while still endorsing a judicial system that punishes wrong.
It's a literary device to show where our priorities must lie. There are other examples, such as Jesus telling people to gouge out their eye if it causes them to sin. You need to read a passage baring in mind how language is used (i.e. not always completely literally) and the context of the rest of the book. Otherwise you're doing very poor literary analysis.
The Christians aren't. Christ deprecated the rules.
On the contrary, Christ said that not one jot would be removed from the law and that he had in fact come to fulfil it.
My point is not to argue that Catholocism is right or not, but to argue that we believe that the Bible is not the only source of truth. Take this however you will
Well, in the process you are arguing that the RC view is right, since you're arguing the RC view. The problem with it is that apostolic authority was only granted to those who had seen the risen Christ and the Bible speaks explicitly against amending canon. The Pope cannot speak as an apostle and has no right to amend what constitutes scripture. And while there is truth outside of the Bible, there can be none contradicting it (since it is God-breathed) and it is through the Bible that God has chosen to reveal himself and his method of salvation.
Well Paul spoke with the authority of Jesus in 2 Timothy 3:16, saying that all scripture is God breathed, therefore we can trust the original autographical version of the Bible to be exactly the words that God intended to be conveyed. God often spoke and acted through history and certainly was also responsible for the laws found in the Mosaic books. One of the purposes of them was to show just how impossible it is to remain clean through human effort, thereby pointing the way to the need for a redeemer i.e. Jesus.
Doesn't take two hands on my iBook either. Little finger on CTRL and thumb on track-pad button is pretty fast and simple. Even two-handed, the other hand is on the keyboard anyway and I don't type while I'm right-clicking, so it's not exactly an issue.
I have a suggestion. How about changing the Genre (or Composer) of each song to the first letter of the Artist or Album. That way you'll have an alphabetical sorting method available. If you're on a Mac, you could write an Applescript to automate the process. Even without Applescript, would be simple enough to select all the Artists beginning with 'A,' get info and then change the Genre to 'A.'
Out of curiosity, why do you have thousands of different artists and albums?
Slashdot Mirror
Not hugely. If you already accept that the one God can be two persons, adding a third isn't a huge leap. Much smaller than the leap from one to two persons.
Schisms aren't Luther's fault. They are the fault of human nature, our inability to get on well when we disagree. There are some issues which necessitate different denominations (such as church government - episcopal, presbyterian or congregational), but the continued fragmenting of some groups is certainly not encouraged or required by the Reformation. Most Christians are within one of the larger blocks anyway.
That's a big generalisation to make. There are good reasons to say that Christ's divinity is essential for salvation. Only God can forgive sins, therefore if you ask a man to forgive them, they cannot be forgiven. Only God could have lived a perfect life and therefore been a perfect substitutionary sacrifice for us, so trusting in a man's sacrifice to take away your sin and alleviate God's anger achieves nothing.
It's plainly stated in the bible that he is God. If someone claims he is not, then they either do not understand the Bible or are calling it a lie.
The Bible leaves no room for debate. The debate then becomes trusting the authority of the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible, how can you trust the message of the gospel?
'I believe [...] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father'
That seems to be a fairly conclusive statement of the divinity of Christ. Besides, the Bible is the ultimate authority, not a manmade creed.
Read John 1. He is clearly God. The very fact that he was not created, but was instead the creator, shows that he must be God. The Hebrew word used for creation is 'bara' which signifies that only god could have done the creating. If Jesus is the creator as John 1 and Colossians 1 are fairly clear on, then he must be God. Yes, he was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, but you cannot shrink the infinite into the finite w
I don't use the King James. Given that its language is a little archaic and it worked off less reliable manuscripts than we now have, I prefer to use a modern literal translation such as the English Standard Version. I augment it with a Greek New Testament and the New International Version as well.
My job is to study and teach the Bible, so I already know, thanks :^)
That's a poor interpretation. The Greek, literally translated into English goes along the lines of:
ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING FOR REPROOF FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT PROFICIENT MAY BE THE OF GOD MAN FOR EVERY GOOD WORK HAVING BEEN EQUIPPED.
Now it's quite obvious that without an 'is' in there, the sentence makes no sense. Given that 'is' does not have to be in the sentence, but can be implied, we can drop it in in the most logical place that will give us a readable sentence. i.e. between 'scripture' and 'God-breathed.' It makes more sense of the first half of the sentence and gives reason for 'that' being there.
But we can look at the context and get a very good idea of what it should be in 99.9% of the cases. Or by simply applying rules of grammar, as in this case.
Paul is encouraging Timothy to remain faithful to God's word and preach it. The interpretation accepted by leading Biblical scholars, that appears in English translations of the Bible and that obeys the rules of grammar, fits with the context of the book and is much more likely to be right that your interpretation. Given that there are other passages validating scripture as being from God, this is quite logical.
Actually I'm right handed, but ambidextrous when it comes to the trackpad since I've spent years using my left hand on it. Frees up my right hand to use the cursor keys or type.
Jesus is God, being the second person of the trinity, therefore he is eternal and was present in the OT, in Revelation and today. Indeed, we are told that Christ created and sustains the world (see Colossians 1), so he's been at work since Genesis. And almost anywhere you see God talked about, it's referring to the trinity. LORD is the personal name YHWH used by the whole trinity. And Jesus himself told his disciples on the road to Emmaus that the whole OT was about him. Read Luke 24.
I use keyboard shortcuts to scroll. Much faster than moving my hand to the mouse when I'm doing text-based stuff. If I'm doing any graphical work, then I'll have a mouse plugged in anyway because graphics work with a trackpad sucks.
If you derive your morals for yourself, what makes them real, or any more valid than the next person's morals? In fact, without an objective standard to measure against, how can anything be moral or amoral?
Incidentally, the guy I was responding to said that he liked Christian values.
I'm curious, what did I say that you consider to be idiotic? Would you care to point out the flaws in my reasoning? And which Christian value are you displaying your agreement with in that comment?
Why? Incidentally, it's revelation from God, not man-made philosophy.
Do you love God with all of your being? Do you worship him above all else? Is your entire live summarised by glorifying him and enjoying him? If not, then you're not giving God what he deserves and therefore sinning, by the Bible definition of it.
I've never seen a belief go round killing people. I also recall that Jesus told people to love their neighbours. People's sinfulness and ineptitude in following this doesn't change the fact that this was his teaching.
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead and proved himself to be God and valided the Bible as being true, then we must accept that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. If he didn't, then the Bible is irrelevant. You're attacking the wrong thing. If it's revelation form God, you can't argue with him. If it's not, then what it says doesn't matter. So look at whether it is revelation from him.
Nice sound bite, but what makes it in any way true? Besides, there are non free men. Can you do anything you want? Can you forgive your own sins?
Why, if that source is an omniscient, infinite God? Surely he would be the very best source, rendering others unnecessary?
In 99% of programs it does.
Actually, that works fine with a CTRL-click. Mac apps are designed to benefit from 2+buttons, but only require 1. It's a set-up I like because I find a 1-button trackpad more pleasant to use than a 2+ button one, but a 2+ button mouse even more.
A lot of people who would call themselves Christian (and some who genuinely are) don't know much about the Trinity, or understand the doctrine very well. That's very different though from Protestant doctrine denying it, or not focussing on it. You can't be a Christian unless you accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, so every Christian at least partly understand the Trinity.
Jesus' main teaching was about repentance and our need to seek God's forgiveness, because he will return to judge the world. Anyone who doesn't believe that is denying the message of Christianity. Anyone who doesn't tell it to others is displaying shame about God and a totally uncaring attitude towards the people who are headed for Hell unless they believe. There are gracious ways of saying it and ungracious ways, but it needs to be said and it is the loving thing to say.
The greatest Christian value is the glory of God.
The greatest Christian commandment is to love God.
The greatest Christian message is God's offer of salvation that can reconcile us to God following our turning away from him.
Without God, there are no Christian values because there is no Christianity and every value is tied to God.
Okay, take 12 guys who follow Elvis around for a while, don't want him to die, are scared of the police and run off and desert him when he's arrested. He's very publicly killed and the 12 guys are so terrified they'll be next that they don't turn up for the execution or the funeral. Or venture into the city at all really. A few days later, they're all running round the place, fearlessly proclaiming that Elvis has risen from the dead and go on to die for proclaiming this, still testifying to its veracity, with the authorities unable to produce a body or any other evidence that they're lying.
That's a much closer analogue to what happened with the disciples and lends what they say a lot more credibility.
If you read the gospel of Mark, it's clear that the 12 followers symbolise the new Israel and are based the 12 tribes of Israel
Which appears in the Bible when Abraham goes to sacrifice his son, believing he will be resurrected. It may appear before that even, but I can't think of any occurrences off the top of my head. The resurrection was certainly a part of Judaism, as was the idea of sacrifice and the necessity of it to cleanse from sin.
A reference to the passover in exodus actually.
Appears in the Bible from Genesis 1 onward.
Err, that was decided on by the Romans well after the gospels were written.
Nothing about these in the Bible.
Your problem here is with Christians (or at least people who call themselves Christians), not with Christianity.
The gospels and Paul are in agreement. In fact, Paul's greatest writing, the letter to the church in Rome, is the greatest exposition (explanation) of the gospel.
Paul who turned from violently persecuting Christians to instead enduring all things for Christ's sake? Paul who said that all men and women were equal before God? Equally values, equally loved, equally able to be saved? The same Paul who lambasted Adam over the Fall, instructed husbands to sacrificially loving towards their wives, and reminded Timothy that salvation came through Christ, born of a woman, rather than a man? The same Paul who said that we should love our enemies and do what we can to encourage them to repent, rather than seeking revenge? The same Paul who said that we should be law-abiding citizens?
Jesus was no pacifist. Just look at the wars in the OT. Or at his reaction to the money-lenders. Or his prophesied return in Revelation. He's a pretty scary guy. And as for dying for what he believed in... well dying was the purpose he came to earth, so you're right on that one. Thing is, Paul did that too.
The Bible says nothing about having to be a pacifist, but does day that Christians should be willing to lay down their lives for thier borthers or for the sake of the gospel i.e. for the message that all men are fallen from glory and need to ask God for forgiveness and turn from a life of wrong-doing and self-centredness to a life that is God-centred.
But just because people are bad at that doesn't mean that Christianity suddenly becomes invalid. It doesn't change history. Jesus still taught the same tihngs, died on the cross and was raised from the dead. Whether I follow him well or badly does not and cannot change that. Surely you should be more interested in the history that the response of the world? Especially when the teachings themselves say that the world is going to suck in terms of its reponse.
Nothing in the Bible saying that.
The Bible says we should love God and love our neighbours. We should love good and hate evil, to quote Amos 5:14. The Bible speaks of a just and righteous God who hates unrighteousness, injustice, evil, sin, etc. and calls us to be likeminded. That kind of hate is an expression of love.
Actually, the foundation of Christianity lies in the nature of God, who is sinless, rather than in the nature of man, who is sinful.
What is it that you think is stupid or a lie or both?
Because, by definition, any Christian is a sinner and does not become perfect until after they are dead. Therefore they still do things wrong like hate people. Hating other religions however would be perfectly right as they are offensive to God, constituting a lie about him and dangerous to people, as they mislead them about how to be saved.
Most Christians I know are teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians and engineers, in both Oxford and Northern Ireland. No problems with science. That includes a number of 6-day creationsists. They have no problem with science at all. There's nothing about Christianity that demands or encoruaged a hatred of science. In fact, it encourages an examination of the physical world as it says it is ordered and by looking at God's creation, we can give him glorify for it.
Oh and it's history, not science, that provides the evidence for the Bible. You'd turn to a historian, not a physicist to find out what Julius Caesar did, wouldn't you?
Before, during and after my university education, I was quite aware that I myself was evil and godless prior to God intervening and that I should love everyone else in the same situation. The best way to do that is to show theme the way out, so that they can be saved.
Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, which is precisely why Protestant denominations testify that they are not Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is of paramount importance to Christianity as without it, Christ could not be our saviour. That idea that Protestants deny the Trinity is absurd. In fact, I can find the Trinity affirmed in the first article of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, in the third point of the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (formulated by divines of many Protestant denominations and used by Presbyterians, among other), and the second section of the Baptist Faith and Message.
The Reformation wasn't to do with the Trinity; it was to do with the church having drifting form its scriptural roots. Reformed churches emphasise the authority of the Bible. And Protestant doctrine is very much that God is Trinitarian. In fact the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit are central tenets of faith. Anyone who says Jesus wasn't God is denying the claims of the Bible, including those of Jesus and therefore cannot be a Christian, regardless of whether they call themselves one or not.
Not deprecated. Jesus upheld OT law. The 'eye for an eye' law was to ensure that a fair judgement was passed on someone rather than say killing someone when they steal a loaf of bread. And there's a difference between the responsibility of the judicial system and personal response to people. We can forgive and help people who hurt us, while still endorsing a judicial system that punishes wrong.
It's a literary device to show where our priorities must lie. There are other examples, such as Jesus telling people to gouge out their eye if it causes them to sin. You need to read a passage baring in mind how language is used (i.e. not always completely literally) and the context of the rest of the book. Otherwise you're doing very poor literary analysis.
On the contrary, Christ said that not one jot would be removed from the law and that he had in fact come to fulfil it.
Well, in the process you are arguing that the RC view is right, since you're arguing the RC view. The problem with it is that apostolic authority was only granted to those who had seen the risen Christ and the Bible speaks explicitly against amending canon. The Pope cannot speak as an apostle and has no right to amend what constitutes scripture. And while there is truth outside of the Bible, there can be none contradicting it (since it is God-breathed) and it is through the Bible that God has chosen to reveal himself and his method of salvation.
Well Paul spoke with the authority of Jesus in 2 Timothy 3:16, saying that all scripture is God breathed, therefore we can trust the original autographical version of the Bible to be exactly the words that God intended to be conveyed. God often spoke and acted through history and certainly was also responsible for the laws found in the Mosaic books. One of the purposes of them was to show just how impossible it is to remain clean through human effort, thereby pointing the way to the need for a redeemer i.e. Jesus.
Doesn't take two hands on my iBook either. Little finger on CTRL and thumb on track-pad button is pretty fast and simple. Even two-handed, the other hand is on the keyboard anyway and I don't type while I'm right-clicking, so it's not exactly an issue.
I have a suggestion. How about changing the Genre (or Composer) of each song to the first letter of the Artist or Album. That way you'll have an alphabetical sorting method available. If you're on a Mac, you could write an Applescript to automate the process. Even without Applescript, would be simple enough to select all the Artists beginning with 'A,' get info and then change the Genre to 'A.'
Out of curiosity, why do you have thousands of different artists and albums?