pajarito

They're a good group. Merry Christmas!

I'd rather be called born again because that's what Jesus said. Judas was a "follower of Christ." He believed just like Satan believes. Repentance & faith. Repentance & faith. (born again)

As far as I know, they don’t represent a particular church (in the traditional sense). The "church" they represent is the "church of believers." The audiences they try and reach are the unbelievers. Their doctrine is Biblical. Customs/traditions as with a particular denomination aren’t what are stressed. It's not that kind of ministry. It's Biblical, not denominational. Following the example of Jesus and the disciples by using God's moral law to bring about the knowledge of sin which leads to repentance and salvation by grace through faith in the Savior (not of works). Making the righteous judgment of God reasonable to the sinner. Seeking to save the lost from the judgment to come. Signs of sincere conversion (born again). First and foremost, evangelism (seeking to save the lost) should be the absolute 1st priority/responsibility of any church. There is no more important task. Repentance & faith. Repentance & faith. Repentance & faith.

If you disagree with me, what's your choice? So far, the only ones answered are options 1 & 2.

None of the above.

Sorry. I'll be sure and get educated before coming back to talk with you.

No. Secondary to escaping the wrath of God and righteous judgment which will be exacted on us due to our rebellion and lawlessness. According to God’s standard, no one does good. The only good that comes from a born again Christian is because of Christ who lives in them. . With regard to God’s standard of goodness, yes. They aren’t good. See God’s moral standard of goodness. 10 Commandments. Repentance and faith in the Savior so that you can have life instead of being dead in your sin. So that you can have the potential to develop into a child of God. Until you are born again, the Bible makes it clear that you are an enemy of God. That doesn’t mean that He doesn’t love you. It means that you don’t love him. We are to continually examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith in order to make our election sure. If a self-proclaimed born again Christian continues in a “pattern” of sin, it is very questionable if that person was ever a born again Christian in the first place. We are known by our fruits and will be righteously judged in the end for everything we have done. DO NOT listen to them. As a hypocrite. If you are born again, you will know it. It will be a radical change which will transform you into a “new creature in Christ.” It is not based on “feelings.” Feelings are deceptive.

I didn't say he was stupid or blind. I said that he was wrong. The leader of the Catholic Church should fully support the scripture he supposedly believes is the word of God.

Christians have one huge testimony to the fact that God exists. The Creation declares the existence of God. It screams every day to each one of us that he is there. A painter has to exist for there to be a painting. It is illogical to think that something came from nothing, exploded, and eventually turned into everything in all its complexity by itself.

I have wondered. With regard to New Darwinian Theory specifically (The word "evolution" is used in a much broader context than it should be.) and Pope John Paul II's acceptance of it, his theology is wrong. In the beginning, the world was perfect. There was no pain and suffering before the fall of Adam. The rebellion of man against God and the ensuing curse of the world because of sin set the deterioration, destruction, immorality, pain, and suffering that we see today in motion. If everything developed to that point through Natural Selection, with predecessors of man killing each other off and different species of them adapting to environments and some dying out (survival of the fittest), there would be a whole lot of pain and suffering going on during the process. Without even getting into the time frame of creation, scripture is diametrically opposed to the theory. My intent isn’t really to argue the validity of the story described above. My suggestion is merely that the Pope was wrong in this regard and did not represent what he was commissioned to do. Being the former leader of the Catholic Church, he should have represented the word of God and not faltered in his efforts to do so.

What have the wrongdoings of men and their misuse of Christianity got to do with God or his standards? How could you possibly know what God would or should have done or what he would have known? How could you possibly know the mind of God or his ultimate plan for mankind? I’m not “defending slavery” in any way. The context of it in the Bible has been explained already. There is a difference between toleration and acceptance. There is also a big difference between the concepts of slavery in ancient Biblical times compared with the slavery that you’re referring to. You have to apply context to anything for proper understanding.

You don't get to insert what you think should be moral law into what God has declared as the moral law. Besides, slavery in those days was very different from what we think of as slavery based on our relatively recent history. It was common practice and a way of life in Biblical times. Slavery was certainly not something God initiated or condoned. He, however, tollerated it but declared ethical rules for treating them. This was counter-culteral to the practices of surrounding nations who abused theirs. It was often practiced as an act of mercy to provide for the poor rather than exploitation. These rules for slave treament existed to protect the slave. Abuse was forbidden and a time limit for servitude was even established. It seems to have been kind of similar to a person bound to a master for a period of time to work for him for mutual benefit. Comparison of Biblical slavery with that of the African slavery in our past is not a very good one.

The Bible is man's attempt at moral law?! Say it again, I think I just fainted. If you're going to misrepresent what I said, you shouldn't quote exactly what I did say in the same post. It looks silly.

God's moral law does. Man's attempt at moral law falls short. Context is important when reading the Bible as with anything else.

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible? Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46), The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20). The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11) The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14) The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11). The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17). The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14) The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."1

Bill, you know as well as I do that there is methodology behind studying text. You're right. It's not an exact science. However, with regard to the Bible, it has been scrutinized probably more than any other document in history. Certainly in a LOT more detail than either of our "silly" simplistic analogies. I'd say it can be trusted for accuracy.

You look outside and tell me that a tree is made of wood. I say, no, not really. To me, I think that tree is really made of jello. I don't care that those who've studied trees decide that it's made of wood. Neither of us is right or wrong. It's all just jello to me.

It's a consensus among those people most qualified in their individual fields concerning areas such as theology, textual criticism, historicity, hermeneutics, translation, etc.

The irrationality of the usual atheist's critical assessment of the Bible is not usually how they would assess any other comparable work. There seem to be different standards. He knows the differences in writing styles. He knows what a parable is and its purpose. He knows that context, intended audience, timeframe, etc. are crucial in determining exactly what an author is trying to convey. They usually just take the simple minded approach in their attacks knowing that most in passing will accept the criticism on its face. That’s easier. I think it's ridiculous. There is so much deeper meaning in this text than most are willing to dig for. The Bible needs to be studied for what it means. Not what I “feel” like it means to me or what you might “feel” like it means to you. This kills me.

This sounds like hell is much more than just separation from God.

From the teachings of Christ. Any passages you can quote/ link to? Matthew 10:28, Matthew 5:22 (quoting Jesus)

Yes, in some cases it was the right thing to do at the time and in some cases it wasn't. Either way it makes me a bad person because it was a bad thing to do, not because some mythical being says it was a bad thing to do. Which is the point of this whole thread. Motive is everything. Remember, God sees your heart. He sees your thought life. The Bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Absolutely, probably at least once a day. I just don't agree with the book that says that it is a bad thing to do. Looking with lust is a healthy natural reaction to a beautiful thing. You believe some book that says otherwise, I don't. Even if I don’t believe in or agree with the speed limit, if I break it and get caught, I still have to pay the price. Jesus said that whoever looks at another woman with lust (that is, outside the sanctity of marriage) has committed adultery with her already in his heart. All the time, but it means nothing since I don't have any reason to believe that such a being exists. To me it is a term that I have been taught to use when the doody hits the fan. Not because I believe that there is any being that is listening. Just like when I stub my toe and exclaim "Shit". I don't expect a pile shit to appear. Please understand I am not comparing your beliefs and shit I am just saying that in my world they are both used as exclamations that have no literal meaning. If I walked around all day exclaiming “Your Dad is an SOB” every time something bad happened to me and in your presence even if I had no idea who he was, would it start to piss you off? How much more do you think it offends a completely holy and just God who gave you everything including the breath that keeps you alive? The Bible says God will not hold him blameless who takes his name in vain.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’ve probably got a worse record than you. I’ve broken every one of God’s moral laws countless times. You’re right. There is nothing you or I can do to work ourselves out of debt. However, I will not need that fireproofing because my fine has been paid in full.

God has no limitation. He created time & space. He is above his creation. He is not his creation nor is he bound by it.

Not everyone is a child of God. God allows weeds to grow alongside the tares so as not to damage any tares by cutting down the weeds. That is, until time for the harvest. The unrepentant sinner is actually described in the Bible as an enemy of God and a child of the devil. Because it doesn't say so in the Bible.