Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power. A majority of unaffiliated Americans say God is either a person with whom people can have a relationship (22%) or an impersonal force (37%). Only one-third (33%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they do not believe in God. Strong majorities of Americans who belong to the major Christian religious traditions hold a personal conception of God. Compared to Christians, Americans who identify with a non-Christian tradition are significantly less likely to hold a personal conception of God (33%) and are more likely to say God is an impersonal force in the universe (49%
Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power. A majority of unaffiliated Americans say God is either a person with whom people can have a relationship (22%) or an impersonal force (37%). Only one-third (33%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they do not believe in God. Strong majorities of Americans who belong to the major Christian religious traditions hold a personal conception of God. Compared to Christians, Americans who identify with a non-Christian tradition are significantly less likely to hold a personal conception of God (33%) and are more likely to say God is an impersonal force in the universe (49%
Exactly.
Not to mention the large numbers leaving the church. If they can't retain people who have been raised in the system, how do they expect to gain and keep new converts?
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Religion, thus "churches" should provide the marketplace with two things:
1. An avenue for charitable works.
2. Provide spiritual nourishment to its congregation.
With the expansion of spiritually based self-help [a contradiction in terms for sure] groups AND the rise of non-traditional worship groups - locally we have Cowboy Churches for instance - which are not included in the data, those traditional congregations which have neglected the two essentials are losing market share.
...Not to mention the large numbers leaving the church. If they can't retain people who have been raised in the system, how do they expect to gain and keep new converts?
Why do you care? You have made it very obvious here that you are vehemently opposed to religion, much less faith. There is a difference, you know.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" as the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power. A majority of unaffiliated Americans say God is either a person with whom people can have a relationship (22%) or an impersonal force (37%). Only one-third (33%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they do not believe in God. Strong majorities of Americans who belong to the major Christian religious traditions hold a personal conception of God. Compared to Christians, Americans who identify with a non-Christian tradition are significantly less likely to hold a personal conception of God (33%) and are more likely to say God is an impersonal force in the universe (49%
Exactly.
Not to mention the large numbers leaving the church. If they can't retain people who have been raised in the system, how do they expect to gain and keep new converts?
Are you trying to point out the difference between religion and God? For example, religion is a creation of man, not God. Therefore you can still believe in God, but not be religious.
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Are you trying to point out the difference between religion and God? For example, religion is a creation of man, not God. Therefore you can still believe in God, but not be religious.
Umm,
No you can't.
Definition of religion:
:the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
Obviously, your vision is lousy - like your logic. The question/request was not about the study, it was with regard to the poster.
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Revelation of the Man of Lawlessness and the Great Falling Away:
2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the [a]coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a [c]message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
Matthew 24: Signs of the End of the Age, A Great Falling Away:
As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the [b]end of the age?”
4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the [c]Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 [b]At that time many will [d]fall away and will [e]betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, [f]most people’s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [g]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Last edited by Robert_White; 09/25/16.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
Obviously, your vision is lousy - like your logic. The question/request was not about the study, it was with regard to the poster.
If you'd read the study you would know there was questions in it addressing exactly this question, pre-nullifying your question. If you wanted to address this question, you could of done so more effectively address the study, but that was not your intent. Per usual, you are just here to throw stones.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
America was never really a christian nation. Most identified as Christians, but really had no intention of actually following Christ. I am fine with a decline in church attendance.
Are you trying to point out the difference between religion and God? For example, religion is a creation of man, not God. Therefore you can still believe in God, but not be religious.
Umm,
No you can't.
Definition of religion:
:the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
One is a subset of the other and both are failing as evidenced by the research.
The false separation of 'religion' from 'believers' is a tactic invented by Christians to explain/excuse away the fact they have been losing (lost) the intellectual, scientific, moral, and cultural wars for a long time now. In this way, they can explain away unfavorable religious demographic shifts and lousy personal examples of Christianity as not representing the 'true faith'.
It's called the fallacy of equivocation and it is a bedrock of Christian apologetics. (Also falls under the example of 'No True Scot' fallacy)
What's interesting is WHY the cultural shift. While the survey touched on disgust with religion's treatment of of certain groups, it showed that the majority of UA was due to rejection of the teachings of religion. I'm curious as to why so many reject those teachings in today's world--especially as many were taught them from an early age, which is the best way to indoctrinate people.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
I'm afraid that and Mark 10 won't go over too well with many American Christians.....
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Are you trying to point out the difference between religion and God? For example, religion is a creation of man, not God. Therefore you can still believe in God, but not be religious.
Umm,
No you can't.
Definition of religion:
:the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
Incorrect...I am not religious, in point of fact I would be most comfortable with seeing all organised religious entities and organisations physically forced upon the sharpened stake.
America was never really a christian nation. Most identified identify as Christians, but really had have no intention of actually following Christ. I am fine with a decline in church attendance.
Excellent point, Calvin (I 'updated' it for you!).
I refer to those people as 'practical atheists'. People who say they believe in God (and even Jesus as God), but whose lives are indistinguishable from other moral, non believers (including other religions). I have many friends that fall into this category. Their belief in God makes no appreciable difference in their lives vis-á-vis my unbelieving friends. Doesn't make them evil or bad people--just no different....
I believe other surveys have shown that ~80%+ Americans self-identify as 'christians'. Given the state of America (with regards to fundagelical standards), it would seem there are many 'practical atheists'.
Btw, the survey showed that it is not just church attendance declining but a significant reduction in 'believers'.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Definition of religion: :the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
Incorrect...I am not religious, in point of fact I would be most comfortable with seeing all organised religious entities and organisations physically forced upon the sharpened stake.
There is God...and only one God.
BTW....who is he and what is he like?
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
The PC culture has made it harder to identify as a "believer". That's fine. Those folks were never really that into it to begin with. A time is coming where a person will really have to count the costs. And I am not talking some idiots who wouldn't bake a cake or some other self inflicted victim hood.
If everyone who said they believed in God attended church this Sunday , the buildings would not hold them all. You need to read Matt 16:18 regarding church. The Bible talks of members of the body with Christ being the head. You may not want to be involved with the body but I think it's required. Hasbeen
hasbeen (Better a has been than a never was!)
NRA Patron member Try to live your life where the preacher doesn't have to lie at your funeral
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
Not according to the article you posted:
"Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power."
All unaffiliated means is they are no longer affiliated with a denomination, not that they are now atheists.
I get that many are disenfranchised by incorrect the teaching of churches and stated in my post that churches fail many.
All this article proves is many, like me, have left traditional denominations for groups that truly rightly divide the word. I'm also sure that many just leave their denomination and are left confused and broken in their faith. Sad, but inevitable, in these times.
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I know what is true by my experiences that validate my faith. That you don't, no doubt is the reason you and others believe they have to denigrate the faith of those who hold it. Carry on. Most Christians on here are of rock solid faith and posts like this are not even a speed bump in their awesome walk with the God of All.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
The PC culture has made it harder to identify as a "believer". That's fine. Those folks were never really that into it to begin with. A time is coming where a person will really have to count the costs. And I am not talking some idiots who wouldn't bake a cake or some other self inflicted victim hood.
Calvin,
That's always been part of the equation. For some of the Religious categories in the survey 80% married within their own religion. If your group is only 10% of the population, there can be a significant interplay between romance and belief.
Historically the stakes were often much higher, including a cord of dry wood for those who did not toe the line.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
Not according to the article you posted:
"Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power."
All unaffiliated means is they are no longer affiliated with a denomination, not that they are now atheists.
I get that many are disenfranchised by incorrect the teaching of churches and stated in my post that churches fail many.
All this article proves is many, like me, have left traditional denominations for groups that truly rightly divide the word. I'm also sure that many just leave their denomination and are left confused and broken in their faith. Sad, but inevitable, in these times.
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I know what is true by my experiences that validate my faith. That you don't, no doubt is the reason you and others believe they have to denigrate the faith of those who hold it. Carry on. Most Christians on here are of rock solid faith and posts like this are not even a speed bump in their awesome walk with the God of All.
Reading comprehension is not your strength.
Read further into the article and look at the deeper trends. As Curdog's generation die off, as Generation Z joins the rank of this survey age, the trend will only accelerate.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
I'm afraid that and Mark 10 won't go over too well with many American Christians.....
I think Wesley was right in his observation. Great wealth and ease tend to destroy Christians from the inside. Manifested grace decreases in proportion as wealth increases.
But the persecuted Church in China is exploding in growth:
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
No True Scotsman’ Fallacy Explanation The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about. Example The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has. If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge. (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
Whilst the West struggles with islam...the irony is almost too much to bear.
One is a subset of the other and both are failing as evidenced by the research.
The false separation of 'religion' from 'believers' is a tactic invented by Christians to explain/excuse away the fact they have been losing (lost) the intellectual, scientific, moral, and cultural wars for a long time now. In this way, they can explain away unfavorable religious demographic shifts and lousy personal examples of Christianity as not representing the 'true faith'.
It's called the fallacy of equivocation and it is a bedrock of Christian apologetics. (Also falls under the example of 'No True Scot' fallacy)
What's interesting is WHY the cultural shift. While the survey touched on disgust with religion's treatment of of certain groups, it showed that the majority of UA was due to rejection of the teachings of religion. I'm curious as to why so many reject those teachings in today's world--especially as many were taught them from an early age, which is the best way to indoctrinate people.
The "bedrock of Christian apologetics" is not the "No True Scot" fallacy.
The bedrock of Christian apologetics is best exemplified by John Locke's treatise, "The Reasonableness of Christianity", an appeal to empirical evidence that leads one to reasonably conclude that the claims of Christianity are in fact, true.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
It is very easy to understand if you read an American history book printed about one hundred years ago and one printed about seventy years ago. The newer one presents information that is inconsistent with the facts.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
One is a subset of the other and both are failing as evidenced by the research.
The false separation of 'religion' from 'believers' is a tactic invented by Christians to explain/excuse away the fact they have been losing (lost) the intellectual, scientific, moral, and cultural wars for a long time now. In this way, they can explain away unfavorable religious demographic shifts and lousy personal examples of Christianity as not representing the 'true faith'.
It's called the fallacy of equivocation and it is a bedrock of Christian apologetics. (Also falls under the example of 'No True Scot' fallacy)
What's interesting is WHY the cultural shift. While the survey touched on disgust with religion's treatment of of certain groups, it showed that the majority of UA was due to rejection of the teachings of religion. I'm curious as to why so many reject those teachings in today's world--especially as many were taught them from an early age, which is the best way to indoctrinate people.
The "bedrock of Christian apologetics" is not the "No True Scot" fallacy.
The bedrock of Christian apologetics is best exemplified by John Locke's treatise, "The Reasonableness of Christianity", an appeal to empirical evidence that leads one to reasonably conclude that the claims of Christianity are in fact, true.
That Thesis fall on it's first supposition in the first sentence:
"IT is obvious to any one, who reads the New Testa ment, that the doctrine of redemption, and conse quently of the gospel, is founded upon the supposition of Adam s fall."
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
Obviously, your vision is lousy - like your logic. The question/request was not about the study, it was with regard to the poster.
If you'd read the study you would know there was questions in it addressing exactly this question, pre-nullifying your question. If you wanted to address this question, you could of done so more effectively address the study, but that was not your intent. Per usual, you are just here to throw stones.
AS, you are hopeless when it comes to honest discussion. I asked the poster a question about his/her understanding of a dichotomy. You leaped in, set up a diversionary premise, and attacked on that basis. Not good form - weak - revealing, once again.
Throwing stones? Moi?? Shut down the diversionary part of your brain, open the rest, and try to get this. The content of that study is one thing, the thinking of the poster is another matter. Can you grasp that?
I don't know your values or beliefs, so I can't comment on those. But, I know your demonstrated BEHAVIOR on here, so that is fair game. If calling out your demonstrated behavior is throwing stones, so be it. If you are going to behave in a way that makes you a target, maybe develop a more effective ducking technique.
No True Scotsman’ Fallacy Explanation The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about. Example The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has. If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge. (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
Not according to the article you posted:
"Despite their lack of connection to formal religious institutions, most unaffiliated Americans retain a belief in God or a higher power."
All unaffiliated means is they are no longer affiliated with a denomination, not that they are now atheists.
I get that many are disenfranchised by incorrect the teaching of churches and stated in my post that churches fail many.
All this article proves is many, like me, have left traditional denominations for groups that truly rightly divide the word. I'm also sure that many just leave their denomination and are left confused and broken in their faith. Sad, but inevitable, in these times.
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I know what is true by my experiences that validate my faith. That you don't, no doubt is the reason you and others believe they have to denigrate the faith of those who hold it. Carry on. Most Christians on here are of rock solid faith and posts like this are not even a speed bump in their awesome walk with the God of All.
Reading comprehension is not your strength.
Neither is it yours:
Quote
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I know what is true by my experiences that validate my faith. That you don't, no doubt is the reason you and others believe they have to denigrate the faith of those who hold it. Carry on. Most Christians on here are of rock solid faith and posts like this are not even a speed bump in their awesome walk with the God of All.
I had read enough by then. I have no doubt religion will shrink and also the numbers of Christians. The world is winding down. It's simply a last days thing. Anyone who doesn't see that has no eyes to see or ears to hear.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
I'm afraid that and Mark 10 won't go over too well with many American Christians.....
I think Wesley was right in his observation. Great wealth and ease tend to destroy Christians from the inside. Manifested grace decreases in proportion as wealth increases.
But the persecuted Church in China is exploding in growth:
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
China will kill them by the tens or hundreds of millions before they let that happen. So will Hillary.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
China will kill them by the tens or hundreds of millions before they let that happen. So will Hillary.
Were the leadership of China so inclined they would have already done so, the Chinese government does not piss about.
Right or wrong the world is changing at a phenomenal rate due to information and travel being available at the fingertips of each person, something only previously in the realm of those in the know and elitists.
The ride is going to be a doozy and guaranteed to be wild and rough, but interesting.
China will kill them by the tens or hundreds of millions before they let that happen. So will Hillary.
Were the leadership of China so inclined they would have already done so, the Chinese government does not piss about.
Right or wrong the world is changing at a phenomenal rate due to information and travel being available at the fingertips of each person, something only previously in the realm of those in the know and elitists.
The ride is going to be a doozy and guaranteed to be wild and rough, but interesting.
we got a new board of directors installed once upon a time. the boss told us all that we should buckle up. the ride is going to be a doozy.
for anyone interested in minutiae, and i know many aren't, i'd recommend the reading of the writings of Dr. Matthew Fox, formerly of the catholic persuasion before jining the episcopalian priesthood. his take on the co-creation theology is about as good as it gets. god & man buckled (partnered, joined) together to fashion a better world kinda stuff. it's not for everyone. one good read is Original Blessing, another is the Coming of the Cosmic Christ. there are others. (and i wish i could spell better).
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
I'm afraid that and Mark 10 won't go over too well with many American Christians.....
I think Wesley was right in his observation. Great wealth and ease tend to destroy Christians from the inside. Manifested grace decreases in proportion as wealth increases.
But the persecuted Church in China is exploding in growth:
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
China will kill them by the tens or hundreds of millions before they let that happen. So will Hillary.
chiner has some catching up to do sounds like. there's 1.3 billion people over there, and there's some .3 billion people over here.
sounds like there's room for some evangelizing to be done over there by folks who are in that line of business.
looking back through the ages, religion has always been in tough territory. there's a multitude of gods carcasses laying in the ditch on both sides of the road in the sweep of human history. there's been few, or very few survivors. and we're still whittling down the population of gods that purport to have an interest in the humans down here on the earth.
just a quick example for attention are the mayan, aztec, etc group. the viking gods, the german gods, the old roman gods. some say the egyptian gods are extinct. i don't know if they are or not. but through time, many of the lesser gods have been kicked to the curb. ol YHWH himself doesn't seem to be faring all that well in the face of newer competition.
i know the religious ecology has managed to whittle the number of Greeks gods down from an initial number greater than a 100, down to about 3 maximum in the current day. reckon that number might go lower?
Fuck knows, and any that tell you different is a lying piece of rubbish bent upon control.
Or your money.
Jim Bridger on organized Religion.....
Bridger knew well enough that the price of Utopia is always a man's liberty and that salesmen of Utopia's demand immediate payment, though they can only promise delivery at some future date. So far Bridger had never heard of a Utopia that had been delivered.
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
Yeah, and no nookie outside of marriage too.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Interesting that despite this being the core fundagelical claim, many are still rejecting and leaving 'religion'. Most of whom (according to the survey) are doing so because they reject the idea of a personal God and/or the teachings of the 'faithful'.
Yeah, and no nookie outside of marriage too. That and no cornholing is a real kick in the nuts.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Definition of religion: :the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
Incorrect...I am not religious, in point of fact I would be most comfortable with seeing all organised religious entities and organisations physically forced upon the sharpened stake.
There is God...and only one God.
BTW....who is he and what is he like?
He's like no one you ever knew.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Definition of religion: :the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
Incorrect...I am not religious, in point of fact I would be most comfortable with seeing all organised religious entities and organisations physically forced upon the sharpened stake.
There is God...and only one God.
BTW....who is he and what is he like?
He's like no one you ever knew.
according to the ancient hebrews it's impossible to know a god, or the god, etc.
now, panentheism (what?) allows that god is in us, and we are in god simultaneously. but, how can that possibly be?
I believe that there are going to be a lot of people, who when they die and face their Maker, are going to be very surprised to learn that they're destined to burn in Hell for Eternity. And all they had to do was just give their life to God. It's all so easy, and trust me, you are not going to miss anything you can't live without when you do.
I believe that there are going to be a lot of people, who when they die and face their Maker, are going to be very surprised to learn that they're destined to burn in Hell for Eternity. And all they had to do was just give their life to God. It's all so easy, and trust me, you are not going to miss anything you can't live without when you do.
I'll miss a lot Sundays that are better spent at the range or gun show.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Definition of religion: :the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Furthermore, your claim that religion (and you're using the second, more specific, definition) is man made is demonstrably false.
Incorrect...I am not religious, in point of fact I would be most comfortable with seeing all organised religious entities and organisations physically forced upon the sharpened stake.
There is God...and only one God.
BTW....who is he and what is he like?
He's like no one you ever knew.
according to the ancient hebrews it's impossible to know a god, or the god, etc.
now, panentheism (what?) allows that god is in us, and we are in god simultaneously. but, how can that possibly be?
Guy, that's why with discussion involving god(s) definitions are so important.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
chiner has some catching up to do sounds like. there's 1.3 billion people over there, and there's some .3 billion people over here.
sounds like there's room for some evangelizing to be done over there by folks who are in that line of business.
looking back through the ages, religion has always been in tough territory. there's a multitude of gods carcasses laying in the ditch on both sides of the road in the sweep of human history. there's been few, or very few survivors. and we're still whittling down the population of gods that purport to have an interest in the humans down here on the earth.
just a quick example for attention are the mayan, aztec, etc group. the viking gods, the german gods, the old roman gods. some say the egyptian gods are extinct. i don't know if they are or not. but through time, many of the lesser gods have been kicked to the curb. ol YHWH himself doesn't seem to be faring all that well in the face of newer competition.
i know the religious ecology has managed to whittle the number of Greeks gods down from an initial number greater than a 100, down to about 3 maximum in the current day. reckon that number might go lower?
Gus, most of the members of this forum are atheist towards all gods except their own. I just go one god further.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
Obviously, your vision is lousy - like your logic. The question/request was not about the study, it was with regard to the poster.
If you'd read the study you would know there was questions in it addressing exactly this question, pre-nullifying your question. If you wanted to address this question, you could of done so more effectively address the study, but that was not your intent. Per usual, you are just here to throw stones.
AS, you are hopeless when it comes to honest discussion. I asked the poster a question about his/her understanding of a dichotomy. You leaped in, set up a diversionary premise, and attacked on that basis. Not good form - weak - revealing, once again.
Throwing stones? Moi?? Shut down the diversionary part of your brain, open the rest, and try to get this. The content of that study is one thing, the thinking of the poster is another matter. Can you grasp that?
I don't know your values or beliefs, so I can't comment on those. But, I know your demonstrated BEHAVIOR on here, so that is fair game. If calling out your demonstrated behavior is throwing stones, so be it. If you are going to behave in a way that makes you a target, maybe develop a more effective ducking technique.
Says the guy who introduced the Red Herring.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Even though the numbers of people who say they are religiously unaffiliated is increasing, there is no real increase in the numbers of people who say they are atheist or agnostic. People aren’t saying they don’t believe in God...they’re saying they don’t believe in religion. People aren't saying they reject Jesus...they're saying they reject church.
Jesus Christ has not failed us and will not fail us. We have failed Him.
Our schools have done great since we got Him kicked out of school.
Our muzzy and South American refugees have done well since we elected heathens to office.
He didnt fail us. He told us what would happen to our country when we turned from Him and to our own understanding. He showed us what would happen to us by punishing Israel for the world to see.
He had Moses tell Pharaoh what would happen to him and his country for defying Him. He then did to Pharaoh and his country what he said He would.
He will do it here too.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Jesus Christ has not failed us and will not fail us. We have failed Him.
Our schools have done great since we got Him kicked out of school.
Our muzzy and South American refugees have done well since we elected heathens to office.
He didnt fail us. He told us what would happen to our country when we turned from Him and to our own understanding. He showed us what would happen to us by punishing Israel for the world to see.
He had Moses tell Pharaoh what would happen to him and his country for defying Him. He then did to Pharaoh and his country what he said He would.
He will do it here too.
You realize Moses was a fictional character, right?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
chiner has some catching up to do sounds like. there's 1.3 billion people over there, and there's some .3 billion people over here.
sounds like there's room for some evangelizing to be done over there by folks who are in that line of business.
looking back through the ages, religion has always been in tough territory. there's a multitude of gods carcasses laying in the ditch on both sides of the road in the sweep of human history. there's been few, or very few survivors. and we're still whittling down the population of gods that purport to have an interest in the humans down here on the earth.
just a quick example for attention are the mayan, aztec, etc group. the viking gods, the german gods, the old roman gods. some say the egyptian gods are extinct. i don't know if they are or not. but through time, many of the lesser gods have been kicked to the curb. ol YHWH himself doesn't seem to be faring all that well in the face of newer competition.
i know the religious ecology has managed to whittle the number of Greeks gods down from an initial number greater than a 100, down to about 3 maximum in the current day. reckon that number might go lower?
Gus, most of the members of this forum are atheist towards all gods except their own. I just go one god further.
I have no desire to engage in a theological debate on the internets....but suffice to say that one can know and accept Jesus Christ as your saviour without attending and participating in church....but if you have truly accepted him as your saviour, and adhere to his teachings, you won't want to.
Jesus Christ has not failed us and will not fail us. We have failed Him.
Our schools have done great since we got Him kicked out of school.
Our muzzy and South American refugees have done well since we elected heathens to office.
He didnt fail us. He told us what would happen to our country when we turned from Him and to our own understanding. He showed us what would happen to us by punishing Israel for the world to see.
He had Moses tell Pharaoh what would happen to him and his country for defying Him. He then did to Pharaoh and his country what he said He would.
He will do it here too.
You realize Moses was a fictional character, right?
And you are a fictional animal.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Mojo, as the starter of this thread, do you understand any distinction between "religion" as "religious organizations" and "religion" the religious beliefs and commitments of individuals (including those of like faith who bond in beliefs and worship)? If you do, kindly explain such understanding(s).
Looks like you didn't read the study.
Obviously, your vision is lousy - like your logic. The question/request was not about the study, it was with regard to the poster.
If you'd read the study you would know there was questions in it addressing exactly this question, pre-nullifying your question. If you wanted to address this question, you could of done so more effectively address the study, but that was not your intent. Per usual, you are just here to throw stones.
It's just what he does. He can't help it, it would seem.
He likes to make personal attacks while feigning intellectual superiority.
Watch him do it again soon.
Last edited by Snyper; 09/25/16.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Jesus Christ has not failed us and will not fail us. We have failed Him.
Our schools have done great since we got Him kicked out of school.
Our muzzy and South American refugees have done well since we elected heathens to office.
He didnt fail us. He told us what would happen to our country when we turned from Him and to our own understanding. He showed us what would happen to us by punishing Israel for the world to see.
He had Moses tell Pharaoh what would happen to him and his country for defying Him. He then did to Pharaoh and his country what he said He would.
He will do it here too.
You realize Moses was a fictional character, right?
And you are a fictional animal.
Humans are animals, but there is nothing fictional about me.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Yes, like stupidly accusing someone he is who he isnt?
Like saying a country developed by believers with its precepts based on Biblical truths and which became the strongest nation in the history of the earth, and the wealthiest, a nation dictated by Him to control the gates of its enemies and prophecied to do so, was not wealthy because it had been a christian nation?
The truth is not in you or AS.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Even though the numbers of people who say they are religiously unaffiliated is increasing, there is no real increase in the numbers of people who say they are atheist or agnostic. People aren’t saying they don’t believe in God...they’re saying they don’t believe in religion. People aren't saying they reject Jesus...they're saying they reject church.
Exactly where I am....for almost forty years.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Last edited by BRISTECD; 09/25/16. Reason: Spelling
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Yes, like stupidly accusing someone he is who he isnt?
Like saying a country developed by believers with its precepts based on Biblical truths and which became the strongest nation in the history of the earth, and the wealthiest, a nation dictated by Him to control the gates of its enemies and prophecied to do so, was not wealthy because it had been a christian nation?
The truth is not in you or AS.
This country is not bases on the Bible.
Lets compare the 10 Exodus version of the 10 commandments to the 10 Amendments of our Constitutuion.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
vs. our First Amendment..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
Within the Second Commandment:
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
vs. our Fifth Amendment, 6th, and 7th Amendments:
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th: n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
7th: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law
3rd Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
vs. First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How about the 10th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet...
This is the imposition of a THOUGHT CRIME.
vs. the 4th Amedment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And how about the whole Hell thing introduced by Jesus,
vs. the 8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Our legal system is in no way brought to us by the religion that brought us the Inquisition.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Vicarious redemption.
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Vicarious redemption.
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
You are right, it does not make sense. But God said " without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins". God also said his ways are hgher than your ways and beyond finding out, so I expect we'll just have to believe he knows best how to forgive sins.
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Vicarious redemption.
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
You are right, it does not make sense. But God said " without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins". God also said his ways are hgher than your ways and beyond finding out, so I expect we'll just have to believe he knows best how to forgive sins.
No.
I don't have to believe anything without sufficient reason, and there is no sufficient reason to believe the all powerful, all knowing all kind creator of the universe could not forgive without the shedding of blood.
In addition, your assertion that his ways are beyond finding out is an assertion without evidence, that can be dismissed without evidence.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Matthew 6:11
You cannot combat my logic, so you return with threats.
Such a good loving christian you are....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Vicarious redemption.
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
You are right, it does not make sense. But God said " without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins". God also said his ways are hgher than your ways and beyond finding out, so I expect we'll just have to believe he knows best how to forgive sins.
No.
I don't have to believe anything without sufficient reason, and there is no sufficient reason to believe the all powerful, all knowing all kind creator of the universe could not forgive without the shedding of blood.
In addition, your assertion that his ways are beyond finding out is an assertion without evidence, that can be dismissed without evidence.
Oh, you are right again. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to. But just so you know, one day you WILL confess with your own tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, as will we all.
The word religion or religious is mentioned only 7 times in he King James bible. In most instances, it was in a derogatory manner. Jesus wasn't looking for religious people, he was looking for sinners in need of salvation. Muslims are religious, buddists are religious, mormons are religious....in fact, there are over 20,000 different religions in the world. But there is only ONE way to get into heaven and you CAN'T earn it....it is a free gift that you either accept or reject. Most people are trying to be "good enough", hoping their good deeds outweigh the bad, but it doesn't work like that. All our good deeds are like filthy rags before a holy God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. Belief in Christ as a person is not how you get saved, even the devils believe. Uou must accept that you are a sinner, cannot save yourself, that Christ died for you, arose from the grave. He gave his life in your place because you had no way to get to heaven on your own. Allah had no son and is a false god at best.
Vicarious redemption.
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
You are right, it does not make sense. But God said " without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins". God also said his ways are hgher than your ways and beyond finding out, so I expect we'll just have to believe he knows best how to forgive sins.
No.
I don't have to believe anything without sufficient reason, and there is no sufficient reason to believe the all powerful, all knowing all kind creator of the universe could not forgive without the shedding of blood.
In addition, your assertion that his ways are beyond finding out is an assertion without evidence, that can be dismissed without evidence.
Oh, you are right again. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to. But just so you know, one day you WILL confess with your own tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord, as will we all.
Another loving Christian with his threats of Hell!!
You do realize, there are a thousand other religions saying the same about you?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Matthew 6:11
According to some interpretations of that passage,come Judgement Day ol' Antelope Sniper can expect God to motion for a dump truck and dump a whole load of sand at his feet, saying;"This is the testimony against you. Remember all the times you demanded evidence? Here's mine."
Actually, I hope ol' A.S. needs God at some point in his life. Lots of folks can't believe until they NEED to.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Matthew 6:11
According to some interpretations of that passage,come Judgement Day ol' Antelope Sniper can expect God to motion for a dump truck and dump a whole load of sand at his feet, saying;"This is the testimony against you. Remember all the times you demanded evidence? Here's mine."
Actually, I hope ol' A.S. needs God at some point in his life. Lots of folks can't believe until they NEED to.
I cannot be judged by one who does not exist.
Maybe someday you will be lost in the woods and need to be rescued by Centaurs or Wood Elves, that doesn't mean either exists.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Didn't John Adams say something about the Constitution being suitable only for a moral and religious people? Seems like I remember something about that.
Didn't John Adams say something about the Constitution being suitable only for a moral and religious people? Seems like I remember something about that.
At a minimum, Adams was a Unitarian, if not a Deist like his good friend Thomas Jefferson.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I have no idea what his beliefs were. I think the point is that he that he believed that religion (most likely Christianity) was beneficial to society.
I have no idea what his beliefs were. I think the point is that he that he believed that religion (most likely Christianity) was beneficial to society.
Yet according to the study at the start of this thread, more Americans now believe religion does more harm them good.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Well I don't know about you, but I'm guessing Mr. Adams had put a little more thought into it then the average American today. He might of had just a touch more intellectual horsepower to work with than most also. YMMV of course.
Well I don't know about you, but I'm guessing Mr. Adams had put a little more thought into it then the average American today. He might of had just a touch more intellectual horsepower to work with than most also. YMMV of course.
And the Modern American has the benefit of an additional 219 years of knowledge and progress.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Didn't John Adams say something about the Constitution being suitable only for a moral and religious people? Seems like I remember something about that.
John Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which states "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
I have no desire to engage in a theological debate on the internets....but suffice to say that one can know and accept Jesus Christ as your saviour without attending and participating in church....but if you have truly accepted him as your saviour, and adhere to his teachings, you won't want to.
Good post. It is very obvious that there are many atheists on here, and even though I don't agree with them, I respect their right to post their thoughts. But, because they have no relationship with the Lord, they have no idea how it is with those who do know our Lord. I hope they figure it out before it is too late.
Excerpt from Wesley's Sermon, 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.
17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.
18. But is there no way to prevent this -- to continue Christianity among a people Allowing that diligence and frugality must produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.
19. I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,
I give up every plea beside, -- Lord, I am damn'd! but thou hast died!
Dublin, July 2, 1789.
Edited by George Lyons with corrections by Ryan Danker for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, ID).
Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact webmaster for permission.
I'm afraid that and Mark 10 won't go over too well with many American Christians.....
I think Wesley was right in his observation. Great wealth and ease tend to destroy Christians from the inside. Manifested grace decreases in proportion as wealth increases.
But the persecuted Church in China is exploding in growth:
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
China will kill them by the tens or hundreds of millions before they let that happen. So will Hillary.
No, China will not kill them all.
As soon as Hillary is POTUS and Obama runs the UN every country will turn on Christians. Even America. We see that now already. Open your eyes.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
The people at the grass roots level were overwhelmingly Protestant Christian. And revived and alive in their faith via Whitfield and the Great Awakening.
Mass had a state religion until 1830 or so.
John Adams read the bible daily and exhorted his children to do the same. His cousin Sam was an orthodox Protestant, through and through as was Patrick Henry and George Washington and the sons of the Scot Covenanters that filled the ranks of his army.
The Laws of Nature and Nature's God is the opening salvo in Jefferson's defense of the American secession, and this phrase is precisely defined by Blackstone and Locke in their writings; that Jefferson openly admitted he was guided by.
Our entire law system was framed by "The laws of nature and nature's God," every inch and ounce of it. And Blackstone more than any other precisely defines it in his commentary on English law; and it is the eternal moral law of God revealed in scripture and natural law, ie., God's moral law revealed in nature and written into human conscience even before the revelation of the law of Moses.
Stop telling lies about America's founding generation; it makes you look desperate and small minded and vindictive. Just face open honest facts of the case and deal with it.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
The supremacy of God’s law was generally recognized in the English common law. Sir William Blackstone, the preeminent English legal authority widely followed by the American founders, recognized the binding legal nature of the law of God as understood in its basic principles. Blackstone maintained that English law (and therefore, American law) had its roots in the laws of God.
Blackstone recognized that “law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action.” He identified the essential legal relationship that exists between God and his creation by observing, “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.”20 God was acknowledged as the lawgiver and therefore the one who laid down certain immutable rules of action, that is, of right and wrong conduct.
Recognizing the relevance of the creation and the Bible, Blackstone noted that “[u]pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”21 In other words, the law of God whether written in God’s creation (nature) or in the Bible (revelation), spoke with a unified voice. Moreover, this law is absolute: any law of man to the contrary is of no effect.
Various individuals, peoples, and governments have interpreted God’s laws differently at different times.22 The framers of the American system of government, however, were in one accord in “presuppos[ing] the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.”23 In other words, the framers recognized that God laid down rules that governed the universe and nations and that these laws could be sufficiently understood because they are communicated by a God who wants people to know them.24 They presupposed a God who is not silent.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration’s reliance on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” He observed that the American people’s “charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration.”25
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty, but which are found necessary, for the benefit of society, to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and, from these prohibitions, arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
"Our legal system is in no way brought to us by the religion that brought us the Inquisition."
The Protestant Huguenots fled to the new world in huge numbers after the St Bartholowmew's Day Massacre, where 70 thousand Protestants were murdered in one day in Paris and more all over France. The river was choked with bodies and the wolves came down to eat them.
School children used to be quite familiar with our Protestant roots and how the persecuted Protestant Christians founded a nation out of a wilderness for the un-coerced free expression of the Christian Faith.
Have you never read Alexis de Toqueville?
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.
Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.
I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.
In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...
Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...
I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.
Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.
America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other
Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
I'm a firm believer that these religious postings are made by dickheads just to see their name in print because folks jump on 'em like Garrett on snuff!!
there's a lot to it. there's little to no doubt about that. for instance, most kings & monarchs of the world claim they're descended from gods (or are appointed by God in a few cases).
even it's been said that the royal family of england is descended from god. my folks got banished from scotland due to the king of england. so, if he's a direct descendent of god, where does that leave us descendents of protestants that he kilt?
there's a lot to it. there's little to no doubt about that. for instance, most kings & monarchs of the world claim they're descended from gods (or are appointed by God in a few cases).
even it's been said that the royal family of england is descended from god. my folks got banished from scotland due to the king of england. so, if he's a direct descendent of god, where does that leave us descendents of protestants that he kilt?
I don't believe any monarch of Christian lineage has ever claimed to be a descendant of God, but have believed themselves ordained to rule by God, and there is scripture for that. Certainly, most kings took it further than intended, which gave rise to the divine right of kings doctrine. Christians are in lineage with God, but by the adoption of salvation, being heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Obviously, none of us live up to that gift but is something to strive for and perhaps the reason.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
I don't have to believe anything without sufficient reason, and there is no sufficient reason to believe the all powerful, all knowing all kind creator of the universe could not forgive without the shedding of blood.
Often you claim to use the Bible to support your lack of belief. Then, contrary to the God of the Bible, you create a god you don't want to believe in by often describing your god as "all kind creator of the universe". The God of the Bible is NOT all kind. He is a vindictive Omnipotent God Who thrashes entire countries at His will. Other times He sends His emissaries to kill every man, woman, and child in a city. At one time He sent His only Son and planned His death to atone for sin because He set the rule that that is the way to get things where He wants them.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Originally Posted By liliysdad "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Matthew 6:11
You cannot combat my logic, so you return with threats.
Such a good loving christian you are....
He is not threatening. If in fact he no longer posts on this thread to you he is obeying God's Word.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I have no idea what his beliefs were. I think the point is that he that he believed that religion (most likely Christianity) was beneficial to society.
Yet according to the study at the start of this thread, more Americans now believe religion does more harm them good.
What people believe does not establish facts. Even the least religious founder, Benjamin Franklin, suggested the convention start with prayer. I base this opinion on reading his autobiography.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I'm a firm believer that these religious postings are made by dickheads just to see their name in print because folks jump on 'em like Garrett on snuff!!
Do you think the atheists do it for a different reason?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
there's a lot to it. there's little to no doubt about that. for instance, most kings & monarchs of the world claim they're descended from gods (or are appointed by God in a few cases).
even it's been said that the royal family of england is descended from god. my folks got banished from scotland due to the king of england. so, if he's a direct descendent of god, where does that leave us descendents of protestants that he kilt?
I don't believe any monarch of Christian lineage has ever claimed to be a descendant of God, but have believed themselves ordained to rule by God, and there is scripture for that. Certainly, most kings took it further than intended, which gave rise to the divine right of kings doctrine. Christians are in lineage with God, but by the adoption of salvation, being heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Obviously, none of us live up to that gift but is something to strive for and perhaps the reason.
we agree an awful lot of past kings/monarchs/queens claimed a divine right to rule. whether direct descendent of the gods, or appointed by the divine. we also know that most if not all encouraged their serfs, or commoners to know & believe that. and if they refused to accept that trifling detail, the king's legions were pointed at them for further indoctrination. in the christian world, i believe the pope serves under divine right, at least according to his bureaucracy.
there's a lot to it. there's little to no doubt about that. for instance, most kings & monarchs of the world claim they're descended from gods (or are appointed by God in a few cases).
even it's been said that the royal family of england is descended from god. my folks got banished from scotland due to the king of england. so, if he's a direct descendent of god, where does that leave us descendents of protestants that he kilt?
I don't believe any monarch of Christian lineage has ever claimed to be a descendant of God, but have believed themselves ordained to rule by God, and there is scripture for that. Certainly, most kings took it further than intended, which gave rise to the divine right of kings doctrine. Christians are in lineage with God, but by the adoption of salvation, being heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Obviously, none of us live up to that gift but is something to strive for and perhaps the reason.
we agree an awful lot of past kings/monarchs/queens claimed a divine right to rule. whether direct descendent of the gods, or appointed by the divine. we also know that most if not all encouraged their serfs, or commoners to know & believe that. and if they refused to accept that trifling detail, the king's legions were pointed at them for further indoctrination. in the christian world, i believe the pope serves under divine right, at least according to his bureaucracy.
Not to offend my catholic campfire brothers but, it was not a good time. It was the dark ages, and that was the worst of "modern" times. But the one thing that even those self-absorbed medieval monarchs knew, was they could not bow the knee to islam. Now look at Europe. Their insane rulers nearly begging the hordes of islam to come and put their subjects to the sword. We won't be far behind. The abomination of desolation is nearly upon us.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
i was just thinking that it might not be to far into the near future that we postmodern era americans might be asked to bow a knee to the one appointed by god himself. and yes, i'm speaking of the mighty caliph.
These ridiculing posts remind me of the loud braying of a high school pep squad. Hooray for our team and boo on you guys.
Oh well, it seems to me that the fortunes of Christianity have waxed and waned over the past two thousand years. It varies with time and geography as well. Some have made the comment that there are more born again Christians in China today than in the US.
Further, there are eschatological scholars who posit that prior to the return of Christ, apostasy abounds and the evil associated with the antichrist rules the world.
We would do well to live our lives as best we can and let God take care of the future.
Ah, but some of you don’t believe in God do you? If God does not exist then why are “you guys” here? Some of you are obvious trolls. Some are here for entertainment. Some are here to boost their tiny little egos. Some call that the “little man” or “little weeny” syndrome. IDK about that.
But there is a common link: You don’t want me (us Christians) to believe the way we do.
Are you intolerant? Yep. You cannot stomach those who disagree with you. You leave no room for their ideas and ways.
You are offended and challenged by those who believe differently from you. In general, your posts are inflammatory, paranoid (as if you have to save the world from Jesus) and illogical.
You have no altruistic agenda other than what you dream up as to “fight religious bigotry.” Yet it seems on this site, the atheist crew are the zealous bigots trying to drive the herd into their way of thinking.
Ah, but you atheists cannot leave it alone can you?.
I suspect your braying will continue until there is a stop put to it one way or the other. Your tools are mockery and ridicule. Oh wait, yes, the unthinking and self absorbed high school “Yay for our team” mentality.
Meh....
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
there's only two possible arguments available for the return of the christos, no?
one, is that the human condition, spiritual type, arises to the point that jesus, the christos is met in the air at a level of common denomination. Or, the human condition fails so miserably that the fall is occurring, and jesus, the christos, sweeps in and down, and rescues the humans who would otherwise fall into the abyss. in other words, he saves the world.
so, which way or set of conditions might the Christos finally enter the world? anyone know for sure?
I'm a firm believer that these religious postings are made by dickheads just to see their name in print because folks jump on 'em like Garrett on snuff!!
I agree....only thing worse is a political posting.....course....without Religion and Politics to fight about the campfire would just be a bunch of guys killing time while they're supposed to working and bitching about...fill in the blanks...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....
there's only two possible arguments available for the return of the christos, no?
one, is that the human condition, spiritual type, arises to the point that jesus, the christos is met in the air at a level of common denomination. Or, the human condition fails so miserably that the fall is occurring, and jesus, the christos, sweeps in and down, and rescues the humans who would otherwise fall into the abyss. in other words, he saves the world.
so, which way or set of conditions might the Christos finally enter the world? anyone know for sure?
Originally Posted by Gus
there's only two possible arguments available for the return of the christos, no?
one, is that the human condition, spiritual type, arises to the point that jesus, the christos is met in the air at a level of common denomination. Or, the human condition fails so miserably that the fall is occurring, and jesus, the christos, sweeps in and down, and rescues the humans who would otherwise fall into the abyss. in other words, he saves the world.
so, which way or set of conditions might the Christos finally enter the world? anyone know for sure?
Good question there. My view is that there is no known set of human or mankind conditions that must be met that would precipitate the return.
I believe the bible is silent on this. Others may disagree.
He will return when the Father tells him. We do not know,when and I think we cannot look at the world situation and derive a time or even a season.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
If you want to catch ol Antelope Sniper just post about religion. It is kind of like hunting over a baited field. The dude is fascinated with the subject.
there's a lot to it. there's little to no doubt about that. for instance, most kings & monarchs of the world claim they're descended from gods (or are appointed by God in a few cases).
even it's been said that the royal family of england is descended from god. my folks got banished from scotland due to the king of england. so, if he's a direct descendent of god, where does that leave us descendents of protestants that he kilt?
I don't believe any monarch of Christian lineage has ever claimed to be a descendant of God, but have believed themselves ordained to rule by God, and there is scripture for that. Certainly, most kings took it further than intended, which gave rise to the divine right of kings doctrine. Christians are in lineage with God, but by the adoption of salvation, being heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Obviously, none of us live up to that gift but is something to strive for and perhaps the reason.
we agree an awful lot of past kings/monarchs/queens claimed a divine right to rule. whether direct descendent of the gods, or appointed by the divine. we also know that most if not all encouraged their serfs, or commoners to know & believe that. and if they refused to accept that trifling detail, the king's legions were pointed at them for further indoctrination. in the christian world, i believe the pope serves under divine right, at least according to his bureaucracy.
Not to offend my catholic campfire brothers but, it was not a good time. It was the dark ages, and that was the worst of "modern" times. But the one thing that even those self-absorbed medieval monarchs knew, was they could not bow the knee to islam. Now look at Europe. Their insane rulers nearly begging the hordes of islam to come and put their subjects to the sword. We won't be far behind. The abomination of desolation is nearly upon us.
Are we for certain the scripture was correctly interpreted?
Had the correct interpretation been, "...the Obamanation of desolation..."?
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
Your faith is strong. You demonstrate again you don't begin to comprehend the rules the Rule Maker made.
Previously you've also admitted that it makes no sense at all to you that the Creator of the Universe would require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.
Not really all powerful if forgiveness requires the blood sacrifice of a innocent.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You forget that murdering the innocent is Yahweh's most noticeable trait.
As far as penal substitutionary atonement goes, it contradicts itself. Forgiveness means to 'release a debt'. If God is 'paid off' by a blood sacrifice that pays for all of humanity's sins then there is nothing to forgive....he's gotten his payoff. All men are now 'justified'.
Christians like to claim that your debt is paid but you must 'accept' this free 'gift' for you to be forgiven. Complete comtradiction.
If, say, I owe Gus a debt and you pay it off for me, YOU are showing mercy, not Gus. Gus has gotten his payment and I am now free and clear of my debt to him whether I accept it as being true or not!
He will not/can not punish me for not believing or accepting my debt has been paid off much less condemn me to pay it off forever (that's a lot of vig!). The debt has been paid...period. Gus has not 'forgiven' me...he got his payoff.
The entire 'theory' of substitutionary atonement is so bizarre, contradictory, stupid and evil that it could only have been dreamt up by superstitious, ancient humans. This was no doubt to control the populace for in a Monotheistic society where sacrifices are demanded by 'God' and those sacrifices are administered completely by the 'priesthood', guess who is in control? Israel's Kings were basically emasculated rulers. The real powers were the Levites--but that's another whole topic for another thread.
Oh, and don't forget...god 'does not delight in the blood of bulls or lambs' nor takes 'delight in sacrifices' but the 'sacrifices of the lord are a broken spirit; a broken spirit and a contrite heart he will not despise.'
Someone shoulda told Jesus....
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
if we gonna dig down into the details at the 17 decimal point level, we all know a mere human can't kill a God. even the lowly commoners know that.
but, i'm sure there's a theological way or argument to side-step or by-pass the obvious. the cohen were good at that. ol Aaron had it down pat for his tribe or crowd. we'll just have to show patience and wait for the work-around to show up.
if we gonna dig down into the details at the 17 decimal point level, we all know a mere human can't kill a God. even the lowly commoners know that.
but, i'm sure there's a theological way or argument to side-step or by-pass the obvious. the cohen were good at that. ol Aaron had it down pat for his tribe or crowd. we'll just have to show patience and wait for the work-around to show up.
Gus,
Humans have killed many god. As our ideas shift the old gods have died.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Christianity (and all religions) have perfected the 'side-step' and excuses--indeed they MUST for their contradictions to 'work'. I call them Lordy Loopholes.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Christianity (and all religions) have perfected the 'side-step' and excuses--indeed they MUST for their contradictions to 'work'. I call them Lordy Loopholes.
So, you think Gus has come up with a loophole? Mere humans can't kill a God?
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Christianity (and all religions) have perfected the 'side-step' and excuses--indeed they MUST for their contradictions to 'work'. I call them Lordy Loopholes.
So, you think Gus has come up with a loophole? Mere humans can't kill a God?
Human's can't kill a god for the same reason we can't kill a vampire. None exist.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
What was there BEFORE god? Who made God? Out of what?
Don't quote scripture, that was written by men and went through translation after translation.
I'd like someone to try to answer without using scripture.
In fact, I'd like to know how the Bible defines time.
You ask questions "before God and Who made God?" This is like asking, To whom is the bachelor married? The questions make no sense. If God exists and called the universe into existence by the Power of His Word then He is infinite. Infinite has no "Before" or a maker. Infinite is without bounds of time, material, knowledge, space or anything else one might think of.
The Bible defines time in Its first chapter. It says it is marked by the sun and moon. It also establishes that the sun and moon would be for signs, and seasons and days and years.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
Your faith is strong. You demonstrate again you don't begin to comprehend the rules the Rule Maker made.
Previously you've also admitted that it makes no sense at all to you that the Creator of the Universe would require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.
Not really all powerful if forgiveness requires the blood sacrifice of a innocent.
How would you know since you are a finite human judging an Infinite God?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
Your faith is strong. You demonstrate again you don't begin to comprehend the rules the Rule Maker made.
Previously you've also admitted that it makes no sense at all to you that the Creator of the Universe would require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.
Not really all powerful if forgiveness requires the blood sacrifice of a innocent.
How would you know since you are a finite human judging an Infinite God?
I can forgive without a blood sacrifice. Your god cannot, therefore you concept of god is not an infinite, but a small, petty, finite being.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/26/16.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Christianity (and all religions) have perfected the 'side-step' and excuses--indeed they MUST for their contradictions to 'work'. I call them Lordy Loopholes.
So, you think Gus has come up with a loophole? Mere humans can't kill a God?
Human's can't kill a god for the same reason we can't kill a vampire. None exist.
So, you opted for a loophole?
Last edited by TF49; 09/26/16.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
As far as penal substitutionary atonement goes, it contradicts itself. Forgiveness means to 'release a debt'. If God is 'paid off' by a blood sacrifice that pays for all of humanity's sins then there is nothing to forgive....he's gotten his payoff. All men are now 'justified'.
Christians like to claim that your debt is paid but you must 'accept' this free 'gift' for you to be forgiven. Complete comtradiction.
You seem to be missing the part where the One Who says there is a debt established the rules on how to take advantage of the sacrifice. He set it up so that the Blood of Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world but The Same Rule Maker set up the rule that one must asked for it by word or deed.
Quote
Christians like to claim that your debt is paid but you must 'accept' this free 'gift' for you to be forgiven. Complete comtradiction.
If, say, I owe Gus a debt and you pay it off for me, YOU are showing mercy, not Gus. Gus has gotten his payment and I am now free and clear of my debt to him whether I accept it as being true or not!
He will not/can not punish me for not believing or accepting my debt has been paid off much less condemn me to pay it off forever (that's a lot of vig!). The debt has been paid...period. Gus has not 'forgiven' me...he got his payoff.
This is written by someone trying to put the Infinite God in a box of his manufacturing. God is not influenced by this logic.
Quote
The entire 'theory' of substitutionary atonement is so bizarre, contradictory, stupid and evil that it could only have been dreamt up by superstitious, ancient humans. This was no doubt to control the populace for in a Monotheistic society where sacrifices are demanded by 'God' and those sacrifices are administered completely by the 'priesthood', guess who is in control? Israel's Kings were basically emasculated rulers. The real powers were the Levites--but that's another whole topic for another thread.
You continue with the same flawed human logic to put the Creator of all the rules in your manufactured box.
Quote
Oh, and don't forget...god 'does not delight in the blood of bulls or lambs' nor takes 'delight in sacrifices' but the 'sacrifices of the lord are a broken spirit; a broken spirit and a contrite heart he will not despise.'
Someone shoulda told Jesus....
Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. He is the One who inspired the writing of desiring a broken spirit.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
Your faith is strong. You demonstrate again you don't begin to comprehend the rules the Rule Maker made.
Previously you've also admitted that it makes no sense at all to you that the Creator of the Universe would require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.
Not really all powerful if forgiveness requires the blood sacrifice of a innocent.
How would you know since you are a finite human judging an Infinite God?
I can forgive without a blood sacrifice. Your god cannot, therefore you concept of god is not an infinite, but a small, petty, finite being.
You are not the One who has been sinned against. You cannot set up the rules for forgiveness.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You were bad, so let's murder an innocent......yea....that doesn't really make any sense......
Your faith is strong. You demonstrate again you don't begin to comprehend the rules the Rule Maker made.
Previously you've also admitted that it makes no sense at all to you that the Creator of the Universe would require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.
Not really all powerful if forgiveness requires the blood sacrifice of a innocent.
How would you know since you are a finite human judging an Infinite God?
I can forgive without a blood sacrifice. Your god cannot, therefore you concept of god is not an infinite, but a small, petty, finite being.
So, you reject the God you are referring to, the one you say does not exist.?
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
TF and Rich both completely miss the point in their scramble to play Semantic Twister.
Forgiveness stands independently of any version or notion of 'God'. The definition of 'letting go of a debt' is as it is used in their Bible! (Perhaps read Jesus' own parable of the wicked servant)
Rich has also fallen back on the default apologetic position of those who can't intelligently defend their beliefs....'because he's God'.
This is the most facile and puerile 'argument' that the religious can come with and they use it to cover any and all reprehensible actions and unprovable assertions concerning their deity.
Of course, that same line of 'reasoning' can be used to 'prove' or excuse any other religions FSM, as well.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
TF and Rich both completely miss the point in their scramble to play Semantic Twister.
Forgiveness stands independently of any version or notion of 'God'. The definition of 'letting go of a debt' is as it is used in their Bible! (Perhaps read Jesus' own parable of the wicked servant)
Rich has also fallen back on the default apologetic position of those who can't intelligently defend their beliefs....'because he's God'.
This is the most facile and puerile 'argument' that the religious can come with and they use it to cover any and all reprehensible actions and unprovable assertions concerning their deity.
Of course, that same line of 'reasoning' can be used to 'prove' or excuse any other religions FSM, as well.
Nope, not missing the point at all. Perhaps you can answer the question.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
TF and Rich both completely miss the point in their scramble to play Semantic Twister.
Forgiveness stands independently of any version or notion of 'God'. The definition of 'letting go of a debt' is as it is used in their Bible! (Perhaps read Jesus' own parable of the wicked servant)
Rich has also fallen back on the default apologetic position of those who can't intelligently defend their beliefs....'because he's God'.
This is the most facile and puerile 'argument' that the religious can come with and they use it to cover any and all reprehensible actions and unprovable assertions concerning their deity.
Of course, that same line of 'reasoning' can be used to 'prove' or excuse any other religions FSM, as well.
MH,
You miss the point that my question posed to AS does not require "God" in the answer.
You are playing Semantic Twister, not me.
This is an easy question, the answer is obvious but you both avoid it.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
You are not the One who has been sinned against. You cannot set up the rules for forgiveness.
Are you really saying that if I am wronged by someone I'm not allowed to forgive them?
Jesus want you to forgive them if you feel wronged. You are not qualified to forgive their sin.
If I am the one wronged, I am the only one who can forgive them. And I can do so without the spilling of blood.
Again, this demonstrates your concept of a god is a petty, finite god, and an example of how Divine Command Theory and Vicarious Redemption are the foundation for a moral system.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You are not the One who has been sinned against. You cannot set up the rules for forgiveness.
Are you really saying that if I am wronged by someone I'm not allowed to forgive them?
Jesus want you to forgive them if you feel wronged. You are not qualified to forgive their sin.
If I am the one wronged, I am the only one who can forgive them. And I can do so without the spilling of blood.
Again, this demonstrates your concept of a god is a petty, finite god, and an example of how Divine Command Theory and Vicarious Redemption are the foundation for a moral system.
You were a little closer but you still miss it. Let me try it again.
This is what Ringman posted:
“You are not the One who has been sinned against. You cannot set up the rules for forgiveness.”
This is the AS response:
“Are you really saying that if I am wronged by someone I'm not allowed to forgive them?”
No, AS, he is not saying that. You can forgive all you want when someone sins against you. But when YOU sin against someone else, it is not up to YOU to decide how, when where or why that person forgives YOU. That is up to the person who has been sinned against. An example, Joe steals Bob’s car and then wrecks it. But Joe reasons that Bob has a lot of money and he should just blow off the theft and the loss because JOE thinks that’s how BOB should forgive JOE’s sin. Simple, but AS either missed it or blew right by it.
AS ignores the obvious. If one has wronged someone else, the person doing the wrong doing cannot dictate the rules by which he should be forgiven. AS has it exactly bass ackwards and will not admit it.
So, I asked AS two simple questions. First: “If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?”
Second: “If YOU wrong someone, can you dictate the rule about how, why and should they etc, forgive YOU?”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
Carbon12,
You surprise me. Your response contributes.
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
Carbon12,
You surprise me. Your response contributes.
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
I guess you missed the part (point) where Bob (God) made Joe (you) with an absolute thieving (sinful) nature. When you inevitably stole (failed at not sinning), you were only fulfilling Bob's perfect plan.
Isn't that the crux of the Christian Redemption narrative?
So simple and for most Christians, familiar. But yet, you still managed to miss it.
What was there BEFORE god? Who made God? Out of what?
Don't quote scripture, that was written by men and went through translation after translation.
I'd like someone to try to answer without using scripture.
In fact, I'd like to know how the Bible defines time.
You ask questions "before God and Who made God?" This is like asking, To whom is the bachelor married? The questions make no sense. If God exists and called the universe into existence by the Power of His Word then He is infinite. Infinite has no "Before" or a maker. Infinite is without bounds of time, material, knowledge, space or anything else one might think of.
The Bible defines time in Its first chapter. It says it is marked by the sun and moon. It also establishes that the sun and moon would be for signs, and seasons and days and years.
OK lemme make it simple enough so you'll understand it.
-Where did God come from? -Who made god and how? Out of what? -Before God existed, what was there?
Because your answer sounds a lot like "God only exists in my mind because I say so"
well, at least the Good News is that no mere mortal can kill a Real (True) God. now, ol antelope snipe is correct in his understanding that mankind has been killin' off gods from nearly the beginning. the numbers are constantly shrinking. they, or most of them might actually go extinct some day, like the tasmanian tiger, or dodo bird or passenger pigeon.
a constant sorting has been going on for aeons, just like with the diverse number of human languages that are out there. but, it's all for good reason. as a side thought, might we all be better off if every swingin' dick & harry on the globe spoke (& understood) the same language?
What was there BEFORE god? Who made God? Out of what?
Don't quote scripture, that was written by men and went through translation after translation.
I'd like someone to try to answer without using scripture.
In fact, I'd like to know how the Bible defines time.
You ask questions "before God and Who made God?" This is like asking, To whom is the bachelor married? The questions make no sense. If God exists and called the universe into existence by the Power of His Word then He is infinite. Infinite has no "Before" or a maker. Infinite is without bounds of time, material, knowledge, space or anything else one might think of.
The Bible defines time in Its first chapter. It says it is marked by the sun and moon. It also establishes that the sun and moon would be for signs, and seasons and days and years.
OK lemme make it simple enough so you'll understand it.
-Where did God come from? -Who made god and how? Out of what? -Before God existed, what was there?
Because your answer sounds a lot like "God only exists in my mind because I say so"
I see you don't understand the word "infinite".
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
What was there BEFORE god? Who made God? Out of what?
Don't quote scripture, that was written by men and went through translation after translation.
I'd like someone to try to answer without using scripture.
In fact, I'd like to know how the Bible defines time.
You ask questions "before God and Who made God?" This is like asking, To whom is the bachelor married? The questions make no sense. If God exists and called the universe into existence by the Power of His Word then He is infinite. Infinite has no "Before" or a maker. Infinite is without bounds of time, material, knowledge, space or anything else one might think of.
The Bible defines time in Its first chapter. It says it is marked by the sun and moon. It also establishes that the sun and moon would be for signs, and seasons and days and years.
OK lemme make it simple enough so you'll understand it.
-Where did God come from? -Who made god and how? Out of what? -Before God existed, what was there?
Because your answer sounds a lot like "God only exists in my mind because I say so"
I see you don't understand the word "infinite".
I get it man. Jesus held hands with dinosaurs and schitt.
The analogy is not about God.......... it's about you.
If you were not open minded enough to believe in the possibility of there being current in the wiring, you would never plug into it to find out so it might as well NOT exist.
And all those lights on in other folk's houses are just figments of their imagination as far as you can tell.
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
Carbon12,
You surprise me. Your response contributes.
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
I guess you missed the part (point) where Bob (God) made Joe (you) with an absolute thieving (sinful) nature. When you inevitably stole (failed at not sinning), you were only fulfilling Bob's perfect plan.
Isn't that the crux of the Christian Redemption narrative?
So simple and for most Christians, familiar. But yet, you still managed to miss it.
Nope, didn't miss it. But I will finish the Joe/Bob story.
So Joe stole the car and wrecked it. He did it, he did it knowingly and he is guilty. But he has pride and he cannot bring himself to confess to Bob and does not have the courage to ask for forgiveness. But Joe is angry with himself so he tells himself and others that Joe is really at fault for leaving the keys in it and so on and so forth.
Well, Bob hears about this and decides to just wait to see if Joe ever comes around. Joe avoids Bob and Bob sees that Joe does not want to address this crime that prevents Joe and Bob from being friends. Joe does not want a relationship with Bob and Bob just lets him go his merry way.
But, Bob is not going to invite Joe to the Party either for he knows Joe really does not want to be there.
Simple, if Joe does not want a relationship with Bob, Bob won't force it but Joe should not expect a party invitation. Bob will let him go the way he desires.
Now, why is it that so many "atheists" have a problem with this?
You don't want a relationship with God. God allows that. Go the way you choose to.
Oh, btw, there will be no excuses, for Joe really did steal the car and he really did avoid God and these were his choices.
Flip Wilson used to say "The devil made me do it." Funny but still a flimsy excuse. Won't hold up in court.
Ah, but you atheists should not feel threatened in any way.
There is no god that you are obligated to.
Last edited by TF49; 09/27/16.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Nor can you or anyone else TRULY understand it. Not in the sense that we UNDERSTAND other things.
Are you going to claim that your mind can really grasp a "thing" with no boundaries?
C.S. Lewis said that since we can't COMPREHEND God, we must APPREHEND Him.
It takes action to catch something which explains Atheists.
You are constantly telling how the Spirit helps you in life. If I claim the Spirit helped me understand infinite would you accept that?
Only if you could explain how your knowing it resulted in different ACTIONS on your part AND if you could explain it to the rest of us.
Are you now limiting one's spiritual experience to a human's ability to explain it?
Are you deliberately ignoring the first stipulation I made?
I don't believe the Holy Spirit is in the business of providing answers just to satisfy our curiosity. In my case, He just removes the question from my mind if something is troubling me.
I suspect you and I are hung up over the true meaning of "understanding", NOT over the ability of the Spirit to edify us.
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
Carbon12,
You surprise me. Your response contributes.
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
I guess you missed the part (point) where Bob (God) made Joe (you) with an absolute thieving (sinful) nature. When you inevitably stole (failed at not sinning), you were only fulfilling Bob's perfect plan.
Isn't that the crux of the Christian Redemption narrative?
So simple and for most Christians, familiar. But yet, you still managed to miss it.
Nope, didn't miss it......
....Ah, but you atheists should not feel threatened in any way.
There is no god that you are obligated to.
Yeah, right.
You only got it once it was neon lit for you.
So why limit your thinking to atheist?
Are there not theistisms that have concepts of personal accountability but not thoroughly gut-hooked by the 'Christ the Redeemer' mythology?
Are there not theistisms that have concepts of personal accountability but not thoroughly gut-hooked by the 'Christ the Redeemer' mythology?
The answer to your question is "Yes", but only if you change "mythology" to "Theology".
The "christ mythology", like the "corn king mythology" exists in many cultures and some probably predate Christianity.
That actually lends credibility to the idea of the Creator placing "something" in the minds of His creatures to compel them to seek Him.
But it is only in the New Testament that the "myth" becomes a full fledged theological statement and one that has survived for centuries.
One cannot be truly called a "Christian" if he denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the Deity in human form.
But there are some of us that suspect that His actual role is much greater than the one ascribed to Him in the Bible. His role as "Christ the Redeemer" is probably as close as our finite mental capacity can come toward understanding. That doesn't make it less true by any means.
But there exists a nagging "spiritual suspicion" - backed up by scripture, btw - that being "gut hooked" as you put it is just a necessary first step in coming to appreciate something we can never truly understand.
That's why I've posted before that my "problem" with the bible being used as the sole source of revelation is that it results in Jesus being too small.
Were you open minded, you could walk with Jesus and questions of dinosuars would flee your mind.
Religion fails everyone. Church's fail most. A relationship with the God of all Creation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and nurtured by the Holy Spirit fails no one. Even you.
Amen to that!!!
Its all right to be white!! Stupidity left unattended will run rampant Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
Are you deliberately ignoring the first stipulation I made?
Quote
Are you going to claim that your mind can really grasp a "thing" with no boundaries?
Yes.
Quote
I don't believe the Holy Spirit is in the business of providing answers just to satisfy our curiosity. In my case, He just removes the question from my mind if something is troubling me.
I suspect you and I are hung up over the true meaning of "understanding", NOT over the ability of the Spirit to edify us.
And I believe and suspect you are wrong. That makes us exctly the same.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?
Well......
If they created the entire situation and knowingly set you up for absolute failure in the first place, perhaps they have all if not the greater part of the culpability.
Perhaps they should be the party asking for forgiveness.
Carbon12,
You surprise me. Your response contributes.
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
I guess you missed the part (point) where Bob (God) made Joe (you) with an absolute thieving (sinful) nature. When you inevitably stole (failed at not sinning), you were only fulfilling Bob's perfect plan.
Isn't that the crux of the Christian Redemption narrative?
So simple and for most Christians, familiar. But yet, you still managed to miss it.
Nope, didn't miss it. But I will finish the Joe/Bob story.
So Joe stole the car and wrecked it. He did it, he did it knowingly and he is guilty. But he has pride and he cannot bring himself to confess to Bob and does not have the courage to ask for forgiveness. But Joe is angry with himself so he tells himself and others that Joe is really at fault for leaving the keys in it and so on and so forth.
Well, Bob hears about this and decides to just wait to see if Joe ever comes around. Joe avoids Bob and Bob sees that Joe does not want to address this crime that prevents Joe and Bob from being friends. Joe does not want a relationship with Bob and Bob just lets him go his merry way.
But, Bob is not going to invite Joe to the Party either for he knows Joe really does not want to be there.
Simple, if Joe does not want a relationship with Bob, Bob won't force it but Joe should not expect a party invitation. Bob will let him go the way he desires.
Now, why is it that so many "atheists" have a problem with this?
You don't want a relationship with God. God allows that. Go the way you choose to.
Oh, btw, there will be no excuses, for Joe really did steal the car and he really did avoid God and these were his choices.
Flip Wilson used to say "The devil made me do it." Funny but still a flimsy excuse. Won't hold up in court.
Ah, but you atheists should not feel threatened in any way.
There is no god that you are obligated to.
In our story, Joe could go see Bob, shake his hand, and even see his name on the title of the car he wrecked. So in your story Bob is actually a real person, vs. the god claims in this life which are of fictions beings.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
well, at least the Good News is that no mere mortal can kill a Real (True) God. now, ol antelope snipe is correct in his understanding that mankind has been killin' off gods from nearly the beginning. the numbers are constantly shrinking. they, or most of them might actually go extinct some day, like the tasmanian tiger, or dodo bird or passenger pigeon.
a constant sorting has been going on for aeons, just like with the diverse number of human languages that are out there. but, it's all for good reason. as a side thought, might we all be better off if every swingin' dick & harry on the globe spoke (& understood) the same language?
Sure,
So long at it was English.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
So, Joe steals Bob's car. But since Bob had much, Joe thinks Bob should let him lightly since Bob is so rich. But Joe has perpetrated a wrong and is not sure how,to right the wrong or how to set things right with Bob. Bob is very powerful and might prosecute Joe and Joe is fearful of that.
Joe has a couple of choices. He might stay away from Bob out of the embarrassment of his own crime. He might react by cursing Bob for leaving the keys in it in the first place. After all, it really is Bob!s fault in the first place, right? Or not.
Bob might see Joe's dilemma and communicate to Joe what must,be done to make things right, Joe can admit his wrongdoing and get right with Bob or he can refuse to admit his wrong and simply curse Bob and never accept responsibility for his crime.
So simple.
Anyway, the point has been made.
I am gone on another trip. Pls play on.
[/quote]
I guess you missed the part (point) where Bob (God) made Joe (you) with an absolute thieving (sinful) nature. When you inevitably stole (failed at not sinning), you were only fulfilling Bob's perfect plan.
Nope, didn't miss it. But I will finish the Joe/Bob story.
So Joe stole the car and wrecked it. He did it, he did it knowingly and he is guilty. But he has pride and he cannot bring himself to confess to Bob and does not have the courage to ask for forgiveness. But Joe is angry with himself so he tells himself and others that Joe is really at fault for leaving the keys in it and so on and so forth.
Well, Bob hears about this and decides to just wait to see if Joe ever comes around. Joe avoids Bob and Bob sees that Joe does not want to address this crime that prevents Joe and Bob from being friends. Joe does not want a relationship with Bob and Bob just lets him go his merry way.
But, Bob is not going to invite Joe to the Party either for he knows Joe really does not want to be there.
Simple, if Joe does not want a relationship with Bob, Bob won't force it but Joe should not expect a party invitation. Bob will let him go the way he desires.
Now, why is it that so many "atheists" have a problem with this?
You don't want a relationship with God. God allows that. Go the way you choose to.
Oh, btw, there will be no excuses, for Joe really did steal the car and he really did avoid God and these were his choices.
Flip Wilson used to say "The devil made me do it." Funny but still a flimsy excuse. Won't hold up in court.
Ah, but you atheists should not feel threatened in any way.
There is no god that you are obligated to.
[/quote]
AS posted:
In our story, Joe could go see Bob, shake his hand, and even see his name on the title of the car he wrecked. So in your story Bob is actually a real person, vs. the god claims in this life which are of fictions beings. [/quote]
You keep bringing God into this. Forget God for the sake of this exchange.
Three questions:
First: “If you do someone wrong, are they obligated to forgive you?”
Second: “If YOU wrong someone, can you dictate the rule about how, why and should they etc, forgive YOU?”
Third: Can one demand forgiveness from he has wronged?
You've been bobbing and weaving and avoiding for a couple of pages.
What are your answers?
TF
Last edited by TF49; 09/28/16.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
well, at least the Good News is that no mere mortal can kill a Real (True) God. now, ol antelope snipe is correct in his understanding that mankind has been killin' off gods from nearly the beginning. the numbers are constantly shrinking. they, or most of them might actually go extinct some day, like the tasmanian tiger, or dodo bird or passenger pigeon.
a constant sorting has been going on for aeons, just like with the diverse number of human languages that are out there. but, it's all for good reason. as a side thought, might we all be better off if every swingin' dick & harry on the globe spoke (& understood) the same language?
Sure,
So long at it was English.
not to belabor the point, yes could well be some version of English as the last (first?) standing universal language. a dark horse like madarin chinese might come stalking up to overcome it though.
we all know that IF there's one true god, that god represents all of humanity and not just a fraction or portion of it. just working out the details now is about all that's left to be done.
A lot of people might be 'losing their religion', but that doesn't mean that their faith is waning.
A lot of people are no longer interested in being part of an organized religion. They may have been let down by a church, or disappointed by a church, and there's some baggage there for whatever reason.
Religion focuses on outward behavior. A relationship with our Creator is an inward transformation. Religion focuses on what we do, while a relationship focuses on what our Creator did...and does. Religion is about us. A relationship is about Him.
Churches likely need to change some things in order to reach this current generation, and the generations to come. Not change the message...but change the way the message is presented.
Even though religious affiliation is on the decline, there is much interest among individuals in a spiritual life. Instead of seeing these research trends as a threat...churches should likely see them as an opportunity.
