|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love. 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3 "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18) God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7 Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors. The OT does not describe a God of Love; "God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' The Bible does not say that God is cruel and vindictive in any of those passages. Furthermore it seems you don't understand the Biblical definition of agape love nor do you recognize that love needs to harmonize with His justice and holiness. You simply make up a definition of love and ignore His other attributes.God loved loved David dearly but He still punished Him for murder. You act as though love is mutually exclusive to justice or vengeance against sin--which it is not.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do. Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible. Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc. That's religion. What is you belief system and what has it done for world?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
"God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.' This is another example of you lack of Bible knowledge or context. 1Cor.13 is describing the characteristics that God asks of believer. This passage is not describing the attributes of God. God has said His ways are above our ways. He says we are not to avenge ourselves because vengeance belongs to Him. God can take a life when He pleases and we may not. You views and post demonstrate you Biblical illiteracy. Even when you are shown where you are logically in error you only response is to repeat the non sequitur.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
The sabbath and all the Mosaic laws of the OT were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus (New Testament). The 4th commandment (the sabbath one) was a labor law back in those days. Sin was under the authority of death.
Jesus replaced the law as our authority. The coming of Christ cancelled all 613 laws (not just the Big Ten) when they were all nailed to the cross. We are no longer judged and put to death in regard to a sabbath day, weekly, monthly, or yearly celebration, or for eating such and such, etc.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of sin and death, and now we have rest and eternal life in Him. All the OT signs (keeping the sabbath, circumcision,,,,,) have been replaced with Jesus. The sabbath is about resting in Jesus because of his finished work. Huh.....Thunderstick says you are wrong the the Big 10 were not cancelled..... Another contradiction between Christians..... God did not cancel the moral law of the 10 commandments as a moral standard, but He did cancel the death penalty it placed us under for sin when we believe in Christ. It is canceled as a way of righteousness as our righteouness comes now from Christ. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes. The teachings of Christ supersede the 10 commandments and they are fulfilled in loving God and our neighbor according to the gospel. The moral law still serves as guide for those who will not believe and obey the gospel. It still points out sin and morality but it will never save us. The gospel goes beyond the law and thus fulfills it. Whereas the law say we are not to commit adultery, Jesus exceeds that and say we are not lust after another woman. However the NT says the Law is still in effect as a moral guide for the unbeliever. "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures.
Last edited by DBT; 07/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1 |
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do. Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible. Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc. That's religion. What is you belief system and what has it done for world? Irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is not with me or what I happen to 'believe' but what is written in the bible. Trying to divert the focus of attention onto a poster, me in this instance, is a ploy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love. 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3 "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18) God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7 Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors. The OT does not describe a God of Love; "God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies. "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there... There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.
We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do. Not so. I am doing nothing more than pointing out what the bible says in terms of a God of Love and showing verses that contradict everything attributed to this 'God of Love' instead of 'love is kind' we are told that God curses generations for the sins of the ancestors. Instead of ''Love keeps no record of wrongs'' we have original sin, the whole world cursed for the naive action of one man, Adam. And that's just the start of the absurdity of the wholly contradictory collection of books we call the bible. Not that it's just the bible that has problems The Quran is even worse. A sizable portion of the Quran is devoted to how to subjugate, kill or mistreat non believers in various ways. Mohammad the prophet was a killer, raider of caravans, a war lord, etc. That's religion. What is you belief system and what has it done for world? Irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is not with me or what I happen to 'believe' but what is written in the bible. Trying to divert the focus of attention onto a poster, me in this instance, is a ploy. Typical skeptic, quick to make false allegations about another person, but afraid to be credible enough to declare their own beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,092
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,092 |
The OT laws were shadows pointing to the coming of Jesus, which He fulfilled, including the law. Not a thing about the 10 commandments was eternal, as they didn’t exist until about 430 yrs after Abraham. They only lasted until Jesus’ arrival. The Big Ten were merely a shadow.....(long sigh)
The 10 commandments were a political treaty between Israel and God. Morality is not limited to the Big Ten. God didn’t need any help conveying moral law to us with crude stone tablets. Jesus (as through the Transfiguration), took the place of the stone tablets, and now we follow Jesus, not the old law. The 10 commandments were ceremonial law, not moral law, and were words from the old covenant.
Neither testament separates ceremonial law from moral law. One law is mentioned in Exo 12:49, Lev 7:7, Lev 14:22, Num 15:16, Num 15:29, Num 9:14, Num 15:15, Num 19:2, Num 31:21
Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5). Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments, which were only temporary, as was the entire Jewish law.
Gal 3:17-25
We now live in the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7-18)
God wouldn’t given Israel 603 more laws if the Big Ten had been a morally complete set of laws. Strangely, those other 603 laws were not included in the Big Ten.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Here's what's so funny.
I was told they had hundreds of proofs the Bible was true. When it turned out none could hold up to scrutiny, then they tried the Faith card.
Oh, we have no evidence, that doesn't matter, just believe it anyway!!
Outside of your religion, what else do you accept on Faith in in spite of evidence to the contrary? Be honest you were given a lot of historical and prophetic evidence. The bottom line is that you would reject Christ no matter how much evidence was presented.You're unbelief is not allowing you to be impartial.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Yep.
Thunderstick approves of dashing babies against the rocks.
Like I said, his religion broke his morality. Another example of biblical illiteracy and lack of looking at the context. Israel is wishing on Babylon what they have experienced. This was in the day of an eye for an eye. We are not under that moral code any more so it would not be right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God? First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson. I was taught from the cradle that violating the Sabbath was a Capitol Offence resulting in eternal death. I was trained that when civil law requires one to break the Sabbath, one had better take the punishment handed down by the court, rather than face God's wrath. As one of the commandments, the Sabbath is sacrosanct and the cornerstone of all that follows. Oh, and the Sabbath is the seventh day, not the first. But yes, punishing one man for breaking the Sabbath might be compared to a parent punishing one child for feeding poison to all of his siblings. You would kill one of your own children for trivially breaking the Sabbath? Because by gathering his toys on the Sabbath he is poisoning the others toward the Laws of God? We went from the OT to present and went from responsible adult who was deliberately being traitorous to a little child playing with toys. Can you provide more logically equivalent illustrations? This sounds like liberal news media.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do They congregation asked for guidance on the type of sentence--the death penalty was already understood.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. Would you support hanging a traitor if they were using sticks in code to pass messages to the enemy or would you simply say it was a trivial offense no different than a child playing with toys?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
No, sorry, the explanations that were offered did absolutely nothing to reconcile these contradictions. They were excuses rather than rational arguments. The chronology of time and events and statements indicate that the Psalmist considered all of God previous works to be merciful. That is simply a fact, please explain how that is an excuse? Excuses made at the expense of ignoring what the verses actually say about the nature of love, not vindictive, does not keep a record, always forgiving in opposition to cruelty, vindictness, This is a NT verse that you brought in later after posting the contradiction. This being dishonest about how you framed the original contradiction. Furthermore those verses are referring to human conduct and not divine conduct. God does keep a record of all wrongs until they are repented of and they will all be on display at the final judgment.. However we are not God and it is not in our place to keep records of wrongs and to hold offenses against our brothers--we let that in God's hands. ready to condemn generations for the transgression of their forebears, etc.....glibly brushing the undeniable incompatibility aside with inane remarks like 'you need to understand the bible' 'you need to list your own moral code' etc. Which does nothing to address these contradictions. Explain how you can critique a document you don't understand. That would never fly in any other discipline so why would it here? If God is love and does not keep a record of wrongs, God cannot curse generations for the 'sins' of their fathers, for example. Again your lack of understanding and recognizing context as noted above--that passage is describing our conduct and not God's attributes. I should not need to explain the need to get the context right. It seems that believers are incapable of recognizing a contradiction when it comes to a matter of faith. None of those proposed would pass the test logical test of understood within the obvious context. Sorry, but the excuses offered so far fail to make the grade. [/quote] We are not looking to pass your grade. We are only concerned with truth.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,950 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,950 Likes: 7 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Would a human parent have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience?
What does this say about God? First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson. Through the years thousands upon thousands have been executed for lesser heresies. And more than a 1000 years after Christ changed the laws. Unfortunately this is true. This is an example of what happens when Christians do not follow the example of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,657 Likes: 1 |
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love. 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3 "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18) God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7 Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors. The OT does not describe a God of Love; "God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies. "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there... There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing. That's neither an explanation or a valid argument.....try to focus on the proposition that we are talking about a timeless God with timeless values, which means that It's not OK to kill someone for a minor transgression at any time or place..just because ancient people had hard lives and were cruel is not an excuse for God to be portrayed in the same way, no better than the people of the time. Unless of course we create our gods in our own image. Which, given the NT facelift, appears to be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
It is understood by sceptics, who have no emotional investment in the bible, but not by those who are. The filter of faith does not permit clarity of vision. Each believer being convinced of their own 'truth' while unwilling to consider other possibilities or that they may be mistaken. Do you have faith in what you believe or do you doubt your own beliefs also? If you don't believe them why waste the time to pass them on to us? If you believe them then they are your faith--because faith is ascribing to your beliefs. Your emotion makes it obvious that you believe in your viewpoints and have faith that they are correct--but now your faith in your viewpoint is obscuring your vision--because you say that is what faith does. Just making the logical extrapolation here and showing how you assessed yourself.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
415 members (204guy, 117LBS, 1Longbow, 10gaugeman, 10gaugemag, 1minute, 47 invisible),
2,618
guests, and
1,126
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,972
Posts18,499,393
Members73,984
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
