Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Jim

Love rules...even if you're gay!

This is a beautiful article regarding a very caring, Christian pastor from North carolina.
Definately worth a read whether you're Christian or not.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovem...a_minister_if_i_have_gay_children
Leonard James

Re: Love rules...even if you're gay!

Jim wrote:
This is a beautiful article regarding a very caring, Christian pastor from North carolina.
Definately worth a read whether you're Christian or not.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovem...a_minister_if_i_have_gay_children


Damn you, Jim, I can't see the screen for tears.

A wonderful, wonderful man.
Shaker

An excellent article about a good man.

I can't help thinking, though, that the fact that it caused such a stir in the US in a way in which it simply wouldn't over here (or indeed anywhere in Europe generally) speaks volumes.
Ketty

That's the sort of dad-attitude every child deserves. God bless John Pavlovitz.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
An excellent article about a good man.

I can't help thinking, though, that the fact that it caused such a stir in the US in a way in which it simply wouldn't over here (or indeed anywhere in Europe generally) speaks volumes.


I wouldn't put money on that, Shakes!  See here :-

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10...se-they-are-not-a-regular-couple/

It's not the same thing, but a very similar mindset.
JamesJah

Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA-tSKiyHP0
Ketty

JamesJah wrote:
Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.


A father's love for his children is lust?  
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.


A father's love for his children is lust?  


Did you look at the URL to see what the other stiff was?
trentvoyager

Quote:
Did you look at the URL to see what the other stiff was?


No - but I sure will do now!
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:
Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA-tSKiyHP0


A person with any intelligence can see that such "proofs" of sexual status are far from conclusive. Many men and women deviate enormously from the "norm", in their sex, their sexuality, their physical attributes and many other respects.

That is the way evolution works ... if deviations are positive they are preserved, if they are negative they are not, and if they make no difference to the survival and reproduction of the group as a whole, they may or many not be preserved.

If such were not the case, life would never have got past the first self-reproducing  organism.
Ketty

JamesJah wrote:
Ketty wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.


A father's love for his children is lust?  


Did you look at the URL to see what the other stiff was?


Has it got anything to do with your statement?

So, do you still maintain that in context with the topic of this thread ie a father's love for his children, such love is lust?  Or have you realised that your statement is not accurate?
Jim

One of the things which irritate me about certain groups which label themselves Christian is their Pharasaical attitude.
They quote Scriptures like parrots on ecstasy at the drop of a black pudding, but that is precisely NOT what Jesus did.

Oh, of course He knew the Scriptures - who could know them better? - but instead of moralising and flinging a Bible verse at someone He felt needed a helping hand, he went in first, with a hand to heal, or restore, and words of comfort and forgiveness. Then He stated what the Scriptures had to say.
Note that never once did He ever compromise the Law - He fulfilled it, and, in the process, showed God as He truly is - Love personified, not, as some groups would have us think, a legalistic slot machine spewing scripture and thunderbolts in equal measure.

And, if we read and try to understand that same Scripture, aren't we supposed to be 'imitators of Christ'?
Leonard James

Our intelligence is such that we can work things out for ourselves.

By all means, listen to other people's ideas and weigh them up according to your own yardstick, but you should never believe and obey anything said or written (regardless of who said or wrote it) unless it fits into your own perception of life. That is being true to yourself.

To follow slavishly the dictates of anybody else is to negate your own intelligence.
JamesJah

Leonard James wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
Jesus showed what real love is the other stuff is lust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA-tSKiyHP0


A person with any intelligence can see that such "proofs" of sexual status are far from conclusive. Many men and women deviate enormously from the "norm", in their sex, their sexuality, their physical attributes and many other respects.

That is the way evolution works ... if deviations are positive they are preserved, if they are negative they are not, and if they make no difference to the survival and reproduction of the group as a whole, they may or many not be preserved.

If such were not the case, life would never have got past the first self-reproducing  organism.


That is deformity due to a life style based on a lack of knowledge of the workings of this planet, take thalidomide as a prime example.

John 17:3
This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

Evolution was invented by the self indulgent who think they can become as smart as the creator of all things, when they do not know their left hand from their right.

How do you turn light into a solid???????
Leonard James

JamesJah wrote:

That is deformity due to a life style based on a lack of knowledge of the workings of this planet.


       

Give up, James! What knowledge you have of the workings of this planet could be written on a postage stamp.
JamesJah

Leonard James wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

That is deformity due to a life style based on a lack of knowledge of the workings of this planet.


       

Give up, James! What knowledge you have of the workings of this planet could be written on a postage stamp.


You could be right it is amazing what one can squeeze onto something so small these days.

How did the universe inside your head get squeezed in there?

How did they manage to evolve so quickly?

Or did you cheat and create it?

Proverbs 10:21
The lips of the righteous one nourish many, But the foolish die for lack of sense.
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:

How do you turn light into a solid???????


Create a structure made of superconducting materials that contains 100 billion atoms engineered to act as a single 'artificial atom.'

Place the artificial atom close to a superconducting wire containing photons.

By the rules of quantum mechanics, the photons on the wire inherit some of the properties of the artificial atom – in a sense linking them.

Normally photons do not interact with each other, but in this system you are able to create new behaviour in which the photons begin to interact in some ways like particles.


Now a much more difficult question -
how does anyone get Jamesjah to stay on a subject and actually answer questions, without him wandering off at many tangents, quoting random scripture along the way?
JamesJah

Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

How do you turn light into a solid???????


Create a structure made of superconducting materials that contains 100 billion atoms engineered to act as a single 'artificial atom.'

Place the artificial atom close to a superconducting wire containing photons.

By the rules of quantum mechanics, the photons on the wire inherit some of the properties of the artificial atom – in a sense linking them.

Normally photons do not interact with each other, but in this system you are able to create new behaviour in which the photons begin to interact in some ways like particles.


Now a much more difficult question -
how does anyone get Jamesjah to stay on a subject and actually answer questions, without him wandering off at many tangents, quoting random scripture along the way?


Do you mean like this???

Proverbs 1:22
How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?


What is the difference between the love Jesus illustrated and the lusts and desires of the flesh??????





[

Click to see full size image
Sebastian Toe

JamesJah wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
JamesJah wrote:

How do you turn light into a solid???????


Create a structure made of superconducting materials that contains 100 billion atoms engineered to act as a single 'artificial atom.'

Place the artificial atom close to a superconducting wire containing photons.

By the rules of quantum mechanics, the photons on the wire inherit some of the properties of the artificial atom – in a sense linking them.

Normally photons do not interact with each other, but in this system you are able to create new behaviour in which the photons begin to interact in some ways like particles.


Now a much more difficult question -
how does anyone get Jamesjah to stay on a subject and actually answer questions, without him wandering off at many tangents, quoting random scripture along the way?


Do you mean like this???

Proverbs 1:22
How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?


What is the difference between the love Jesus illustrated and the lusts and desires of the flesh??????





[

Click to see full size image

Just like that.

Duderonomy 2:11
When confronted by unfortunate circumstances, forget about it. You can't be worrying about that shit. Life goes on.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
One of the things which irritate me about certain groups which label themselves Christian is their Pharasaical attitude.
They quote Scriptures like parrots on ecstasy at the drop of a black pudding, but that is precisely NOT what Jesus did.


Indeed.  Christ's anger was directed at the legalistic, pious, religious, 'do as I say, not as I do', of His day (and beyond).
Powwow

Christ never approved of sin. That woman Christ did not condemn, He told her to go home and NOT to sin anymore. Paul use to go right to the pagan temple steps and what did he do? Flap his arms around and tell the pagans it's ok to be pagan?
I'm shocked at liberals that are so scared they might offend, that they won't try and warn nor correct. My mom loved me but she would tell me off from time to time. And when I was living my wild days, she loved me but also voiced her sorrow at what i was doing. I respected her for that. If I got no warnings from mom and dad about my partying and living in sin, drinking and drugs, I wonder if I would have ever come back. I would probably have partied myself to death by now.
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
Jim wrote:
One of the things which irritate me about certain groups which label themselves Christian is their Pharasaical attitude.
They quote Scriptures like parrots on ecstasy at the drop of a black pudding, but that is precisely NOT what Jesus did.


Indeed.  Christ's anger was directed at the legalistic, pious, religious, 'do as I say, not as I do', of His day (and beyond).


Those who added to the law and those who could not listen to the prophets who pointed to who Jesus was in reality.

But they did not invent the Trinity that came hundreds of yeas later by the modern Pharisee.


(Galatians 3:19-22
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.

 Now there is no mediator when just one person is involved, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law.

But the Scripture handed all things over to the custody of sin, so that the promise resulting from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
Ketty

pow wow wrote:
Christ never approved of sin. That women Christ did not condemn, He told her to go home and NOT to sin any more.


Agreed.  

And those who have ears to hear and eyes to see know that continues to be God's message for our lives.   Christ continues to be in conflict with the "Sadducees" and the "Pharisees" of this time - and we know what His message is for the pagans too.
Jim

[quote="JamesJah:121929"]
Ketty wrote:
Jim wrote:
One of the things which irritate me about certain groups which label themselves Christian is their Pharasaical attitude.
They quote Scriptures like parrots on ecstasy at the drop of a black pudding, but that is precisely NOT what Jesus did.


Indeed.  Christ's anger was directed at the legalistic, pious, religious, 'do as I say, not as I do', of His day (and beyond).


Those who added to the law and those who could not listen to the prophets who pointed to who Jesus was in reality.

But they did not invent the Trinity that came hundreds of yeas later by the modern Pharisee.


(Galatians 3:19-22
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.

 Now there is no mediator when just one person is involved, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law.

But the Scripture handed all things over to the custody of sin, so that the promise resulting from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

-
This post proves my point.
The LORD never neglected Scripture or the Law, of which He is the fulfillment. He never neglected to correct someone who was going down the wrong road - such as the woman caught in adultery or Zacchaeus. But instead of scattering scriptures at them in the vain hope that they would listen, He met them in their situation, met them in their need - and then -and ONLY then - did He back up the action He took with word or Scripture.
JamesJah

How many humans managed to keep all the law?
Jim

JamesJah wrote:
How many humans managed to keep all the law?

-
None.
Not one human being could.
Only one - Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, who fulfilled it in Himself in the demonstration of the supreme act of love.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
How many humans managed to keep all the law?

-
None.
Not one human being could.
Only one - Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, who fulfilled it in Himself in the demonstration of the supreme act of love.


That's not so rare. Many humans have given their lives in acts of love, even though they weren't perfect!
Jim

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:
JamesJah wrote:
How many humans managed to keep all the law?

-
None.
Not one human being could.
Only one - Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, who fulfilled it in Himself in the demonstration of the supreme act of love.


That's not so rare. Many humans have given their lives in acts of love, even though they weren't perfect!


-
James' question, though, was refering to the Law of Moses, Len.
No-one ever managed to keep all of it, though the Pharisees had a darn good try, telling everyone exactly what the law said and exactly where they were going wrong (though doing nothing whatsoever to help those who needed help while happily condenming those who tried to help....sound familiar?)
Christians accept that, by the uniqueness of His status, He alone became the fulfillment of the Law we could never manage to attaimn, no matter how hard we try.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:

James' question, though, was refering to the Law of Moses, Len.
No-one ever managed to keep all of it, though the Pharisees had a darn good try, telling everyone exactly what the law said and exactly where they were going wrong (though doing nothing whatsoever to help those who needed help while happily condenming those who tried to help....sound familiar?)
Christians accept that, by the uniqueness of His status, He alone became the fulfillment of the Law we could never manage to attaimn, no matter how hard we try.


Moses was just a man, Jim. There is no reason to suppose that his law was any more correct than others.

Humans can never be perfect ... in fact I doubt that "perfection" exists anywhere. I can think of nothing in this universe that cannot be improved on, and that is what I take to be the definition of "perfect".
Jim

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:

James' question, though, was refering to the Law of Moses, Len.
No-one ever managed to keep all of it, though the Pharisees had a darn good try, telling everyone exactly what the law said and exactly where they were going wrong (though doing nothing whatsoever to help those who needed help while happily condenming those who tried to help....sound familiar?)
Christians accept that, by the uniqueness of His status, He alone became the fulfillment of the Law we could never manage to attaimn, no matter how hard we try.


Moses was just a man, Jim. There is no reason to suppose that his law was any more correct than others.

Humans can never be perfect ... in fact I doubt that "perfection" exists anywhere. I can think of nothing in this universe that cannot be improved on, and that is what I take to be the definition of "perfect".


-
Yep.
Moses was only a man...and an annoying man at times, with all the faults and failings we all have.
If God was going to wait for a perfect man to communicate His words through, we'd still be waiting.
However God chose Moses.
Why?
Not a clue.
But He did, as far as I'm concerned - and that's OK with me, because I'm far from perfect either.
That's OK, though, because the one person in whom perfection is personified - Christ Jesus - and it took God to become man in a way I'll never even hope to understand to do it - Christ Jesus fulfilled ALL the Law...
No-one else has ever done that - or even come close to doing it,
That's good enough for me.
I can submerge my imperfection in His perfection, and together we might make a man of me yet!
My point, though, is that if we are to use Christ as our example - and Paul keeps banging on about that - we should serve and love, meet people in their need, be non-judgemental about doing it, while not neglecting the scriptures we claim to honour.
It's perfectly possible to get an understanding of what we believe over to those we're working with without ramming scripture down their throat at the drop of a black pudding.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:

Yep.
Moses was only a man...and an annoying man at times, with all the faults and failings we all have.
If God was going to wait for a perfect man to communicate His words through, we'd still be waiting.
However God chose Moses.
Why?
Not a clue.
But He did, as far as I'm concerned - and that's OK with me, because I'm far from perfect either.
That's OK, though, because the one person in whom perfection is personified - Christ Jesus - and it took God to become man in a way I'll never even hope to understand to do it - Christ Jesus fulfilled ALL the Law...
No-one else has ever done that - or even come close to doing it,
That's good enough for me.
I can submerge my imperfection in His perfection, and together we might make a man of me yet!
My point, though, is that if we are to use Christ as our example - and Paul keeps banging on about that - we should serve and love, meet people in their need, be non-judgemental about doing it, while not neglecting the scriptures we claim to honour.
It's perfectly possible to get an understanding of what we believe over to those we're working with without ramming scripture down their throat at the drop of a black pudding.


Yes, Jim, it's all a lovely story, but totally unconvincing for me. The very concept of "God loves all of us" falls flat on its face when I look at the world he says he created. This world and its natural disasters cause enormous suffering and misery to millions of people, and is a total contradiction to the claim that God loves us.

God may have his reasons, but in this case, love is conspicuous by its absence.
Jim

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:

Yep.
Moses was only a man...and an annoying man at times, with all the faults and failings we all have.
If God was going to wait for a perfect man to communicate His words through, we'd still be waiting.
However God chose Moses.
Why?
Not a clue.
But He did, as far as I'm concerned - and that's OK with me, because I'm far from perfect either.
That's OK, though, because the one person in whom perfection is personified - Christ Jesus - and it took God to become man in a way I'll never even hope to understand to do it - Christ Jesus fulfilled ALL the Law...
No-one else has ever done that - or even come close to doing it,
That's good enough for me.
I can submerge my imperfection in His perfection, and together we might make a man of me yet!
My point, though, is that if we are to use Christ as our example - and Paul keeps banging on about that - we should serve and love, meet people in their need, be non-judgemental about doing it, while not neglecting the scriptures we claim to honour.
It's perfectly possible to get an understanding of what we believe over to those we're working with without ramming scripture down their throat at the drop of a black pudding.


Yes, Jim, it's all a lovely story, but totally unconvincing for me. The very concept of "God loves all of us" falls flat on its face when I look at the world he says he created. This world and its natural disasters cause enormous suffering and misery to millions of people, and is a total contradiction to the claim that God loves us.

God may have his reasons, but in this case, love is conspicuous by its absence.


-
I understand - but, given my circumstances, and those of other disabled Christians, Len, I don't share your view.
People like Joni Eareckson, or Marilyn Baker, are some of the most positive people I know - despite horrendous suffering and disabilities. Joni, in particular, is a very bubbly, outgoing, actively concerned, loving Christian - despite being quadroplegic (google "Joni and Friends").
Suffering is part of nature, part of the human condition. It happens to good and bad, rich and poor.
If what we want in life is a cozy, airy-fairy existance from a candy coated god, then we better invent one - because God never promised such an existance. He did promise to go through our lives with us, walk with us, be with us and helpus through the problems and trials he knew we'd face.
He even, in Christ, went through the torture, derision, anguish and death that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
... God never promised such an existance. He did promise to go through our lives with us, walk with us, be with us and helpus through the problems and trials he knew we'd face.


... knew about because either (a) actively created or (b) passively allowed by him, presumably?
JamesJah

Who in heaven received the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, it is not really complicated, t it is if we have our gods mixed up for us by the teachings of the modern Pharisees, is that not the case?

Where are the wheat Christians and what are they doing?
Leonard James

Jim wrote:

I understand - but, given my circumstances, and those of other disabled Christians, Len, I don't share your view.
People like Joni Eareckson, or Marilyn Baker, are some of the most positive people I know - despite horrendous suffering and disabilities. Joni, in particular, is a very bubbly, outgoing, actively concerned, loving Christian - despite being quadroplegic (google "Joni and Friends").
Suffering is part of nature, part of the human condition. It happens to good and bad, rich and poor.
If what we want in life is a cozy, airy-fairy existance from a candy coated god, then we better invent one - because God never promised such an existance. He did promise to go through our lives with us, walk with us, be with us and helpus through the problems and trials he knew we'd face.
He even, in Christ, went through the torture, derision, anguish and death that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies.


If you can convince yourself that this God can arbitrarily subject people to all kinds of pain and suffering and yet still love them, then your ability to reason is seriously impaired!

We don't expect a life without vicissitudes, but we certainly don't believe that a God who loves us all could single some of us out for dreadful suffering and yet let others live charmed lives. Believe that and you'll believe anything.

It's all Tommy-rot, my friend.
Shaker

This is one of the most infuriating things about the theistic mindset, the fast-and-loose approach to the powers, capacities and capabilities that this theistic god is deemed to have.

When you need a god around to be able to magic a universe into existence out of absolutely nothing, no problem, say the theists. Yeah, like, God like totes did that, definitely.

Yet when you would naturally think you'd need a god around to do something serious and important and worthwhile - such as preventing six million people, babies and children amongst them, from being butchered in the Holocaust, for instance, or not giving or at least allowing sentient creatures to suffer the most horrific agonies of pain and misery - all of a sudden, in an instant, it's "Oh, well, no, God doesn't work like that."

So God is powerful enough to create a cosmos and suspend any of its physical laws at a whim if it's sufficiently far back that there can be no challenge to such a belief, but when it gets down to the real nitty-gritty of being, like, you know, useful in eliminating suffering and increasing the general good, God's straight out of the picture - mighty enough for the one, curiously cack-handed not to say downright silent when it comes to the other.

Hm.
trentvoyager

Shaker wrote:
This is one of the most infuriating things about the theistic mindset, the fast-and-loose approach to the powers, capacities and capabilities that this theistic god is deemed to have.

When you need a god around to be able to magic a universe into existence out of absolutely nothing, no problem, say the theists. Yeah, like, God like totes did that, definitely.

Yet when you would naturally think you'd need a god around to do something serious and important and worthwhile - such as preventing six million people, babies and children amongst them, from being butchered in the Holocaust, for instance, or not giving or at least allowing sentient creatures to suffer the most horrific agonies of pain and misery - all of a sudden, in an instant, it's "Oh, well, no, God doesn't work like that."

So God is powerful enough to create a cosmos and suspend any of its physical laws at a whim if it's sufficiently far back that there can be no challenge to such a belief, but when it gets down to the real nitty-gritty of being, like, you know, useful in eliminating suffering and increasing the general good, God's straight out of the picture - mighty enough for the one, curiously cack-handed not to say downright silent when it comes to the other.

Hm.


Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
If you can convince yourself that this God can arbitrarily subject people to all kinds of pain and suffering and yet still love them, then your ability to reason is seriously impaired!

Frankly Lenny I've very often thought of theism as a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
JamesJah

The Almighty ruler of the universe explained all things not understood by his creation by having all the legalistic details written down in sixty six books, all one has to do is read them for one self to find the explanation.

He explains how he used dynamic energy to create.

He showed how he offered our first parents his guidance but they chose to be self determining. This has many problems that they did not see but we only see it today now the earth has so many people on it.

He explained how the universe is subject to his standards of law which he holds to and does not change just for peoples convenience.

The Almighty pictured all things so they could be understood, by using the Hebrew nation the seed of Abraham, through whom he would provide a seed that man could accept if they no longer desired to suffer under the curse of their forefather Adam.

So the choice is yours stay with the road to disaster or choose To follow the new ruler and saviour of the human race Jesus the Christ.


Revelation 7:14, 15
These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them.



Click to see full size image
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
This is one of the most infuriating things about the theistic mindset, the fast-and-loose approach to the powers, capacities and capabilities that this theistic god is deemed to have.

When you need a god around to be able to magic a universe into existence out of absolutely nothing, no problem, say the theists. Yeah, like, God like totes did that, definitely.

Yet when you would naturally think you'd need a god around to do something serious and important and worthwhile - such as preventing six million people, babies and children amongst them, from being butchered in the Holocaust, for instance, or not giving or at least allowing sentient creatures to suffer the most horrific agonies of pain and misery - all of a sudden, in an instant, it's "Oh, well, no, God doesn't work like that."

So God is powerful enough to create a cosmos and suspend any of its physical laws at a whim if it's sufficiently far back that there can be no challenge to such a belief, but when it gets down to the real nitty-gritty of being, like, you know, useful in eliminating suffering and increasing the general good, God's straight out of the picture - mighty enough for the one, curiously cack-handed not to say downright silent when it comes to the other.

Hm.


There ya go, Shakes! It's one of the more serious flaws of the human brain, this ability to believe anything if it suits you.

Many people are born without it, or override it as they mature (as in my case), but it seems there are an awful lot who are stuck with it and just can't do anything about it.

Funny old world, ain't it?  
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
... knew about because either (a) actively created or (b) passively allowed by him, presumably?


In the context within which we're talking, neither.
Shaker

Innit just, Leonardo, innit just  

But this on-off/flip-flop approach to God's list of cans and can'ts is one of the more egregious examples. Frinstance:

CAN:

- bring forth a universe out of absolutely nothing by means and methods unspecified (in other words, magic);

- suspend/bend/break the laws of physics (which is to say, magic);

- assume human form but cheat death by resurrection (i.e. magic again);

CAN'T:

- undertake the (to my mind at least infinitesimally easier task) of arranging events such that, for example, missing 14 year-old girls are found alive, safe, well and happy. An entity who can supposedly do the CAN list without breaking into a sweat could presumably do something like this, almost infinitely far down on the scale of tasks, with nary a first let alone second thought in the Divine Mind. It doesn't tie up that a theistic deity is invoked for one set of things so far back in the distant past that you can't touch it with the evidence-o-meter but always given a pass when it comes to anything we could actually probe.  

Eeh, what some people believe!
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If you can convince yourself that this God can arbitrarily subject people to all kinds of pain and suffering and yet still love them, then your ability to reason is seriously impaired!

Frankly Lenny I've very often thought of theism as a form of Stockholm Syndrome.


It's all very confusing, but I suppose somewhere back in prehistory it was a strategy for survival, or it wouldn't be there.
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
It's all very confusing, but I suppose somewhere back in prehistory it was a strategy for survival, or it wouldn't be there.

Perhaps so - that seems to be the evolutionary approach that most people in the relevant fields favour, i.e. that it had some sort of advantage then which is superfluous today.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
... knew about because either (a) actively created or (b) passively allowed by him, presumably?


In the context within which we're talking, neither.

Which context specifically? If you believe in a theistic god (deistic one obviously doesn't apply) then what third option is there?
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Innit just, Leonardo, innit just  

But this on-off/flip-flop approach to God's list of cans and can'ts is one of the more egregious examples. Frinstance:

CAN:

- bring forth a universe out of absolutely nothing by means and methods unspecified (in other words, magic);

- suspend/bend/break the laws of physics (which is to say, magic);

- assume human form but cheat death by resurrection (i.e. magic again);

CAN'T:

- undertake the (to my mind at least infinitesimally easier task) of arranging events such that, for example, missing 14 year-old girls are found alive, safe, well and happy. An entity who can supposedly do the CAN list without breaking into a sweat could presumably do something like this, almost infinitely far down on the scale of tasks, with nary a first let alone second thought in the Divine Mind. It doesn't tie up that a theistic deity is invoked for one set of things so far back in the distant past that you can't touch it with the evidence-o-meter but always given a pass when it comes to anything we could actually probe.  

Eeh, what some people believe!


Well, as long as we make sure they do no harm to others and don't frighten the horses, I suppose we shouldn't worry about it too much.  
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
So God is powerful enough to create a cosmos and suspend any of its physical laws at a whim if it's sufficiently far back that there can be no challenge to such a belief, but when it gets down to the real nitty-gritty of being, like, you know, useful in eliminating suffering and increasing the general good, God's straight out of the picture - mighty enough for the one, curiously cack-handed not to say downright silent when it comes to the other.


Creation:  God did it.  Eternity:  God did it.  Here and now, the bit in between: we do it - some of us with Him (and so for some of us we see his miracles, even in amongst life's challenges), and some of us without Him.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Creation:  God did it.


Assertion

Quote:
Eternity:  God did it.


Assertion

Quote:
Here and now, the bit in between: we do it - some of us with Him (and so for some of us we see his miracles, even in amongst life's challenges), and some of us without Him.


Why's that then? Is it because that's the bit we could in principle actually see some sign of a goddish power at work but don't? Backwards (creation) and forwards (eternity) are a doddle - you can just say Goddidit and nobody can disprove your assertions. That we're responsible for the way things are right in the here and now - doesn't that strike you as a bit, well, convenient for the God-defender?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

Assertion


You love it when I'm assertive.

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
Here and now, the bit in between: we do it - some of us with Him (and so for some of us we see his miracles, even in amongst life's challenges), and some of us without Him.


Why's that then? Is it because that's the bit we could in principle actually see some sign of a goddish power at work but don't?


Why?  I don't know, it just 'is'.  But yes, in principle some could see God's power at work but don't.  For others of us we do see it - sometime, what would be to others in the tiniest insignificant things, and sometimes, for believers, with might and power.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
You love it when I'm assertive.



Oooooooh not half!

Quote:
Why?  I don't know, it just 'is'.  But yes, in principle some could see God's power at work but don't.  For others of us we do see it - sometime, what would be to others in the tiniest insignificant things, and sometimes, for believers, with might and power.

So believing is seeing, in other words?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
So believing is seeing, in other words?


In a sense, yes.  The Bible has several references to seeing and hearing - and those who can do neither.
Shaker

But - as I've pointed out a good many times in the past - this seems to me to be rather an arse-about-face way of proceeding; that you only see/understand by the adoption first of a prior belief in the thing you're supposed to see - credo ut intelligam and what have you.

Why is the (monumentally and demonstrably successful and validated) edifice of Western rationality - in science especially - the exact opposite of this?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
But - as I've pointed out a good many times in the past - this seems to me to be rather an arse-about-face way of proceeding; that you only see/understand by the adoption first of a prior belief in the thing you're supposed to see - credo ut intelligam and what have you.


I agree.  It certainly does seem upside down and inside out.  It was my biggest stumbling block before coming to faith in Christ Jesus whom I'd never seen.  Within our own intellect, it simply does not make sense.
Shaker

So is there some sense in which what you're actually talking about is turning off the intellect, the rational mind?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
So is there some sense in which what you're actually talking about is turning off the intellect, the rational mind?


Again, in a sense, yes.  'Dying to self' is the soundbite and is part of the journey of faith:  having confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Shaker

But there isn't a tremendously happy record of consequences when people turn off their brains, is there?
JamesJah

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
But - as I've pointed out a good many times in the past - this seems to me to be rather an arse-about-face way of proceeding; that you only see/understand by the adoption first of a prior belief in the thing you're supposed to see - credo ut intelligam and what have you.


I agree.  It certainly does seem upside down and inside out.  It was my biggest stumbling block before coming to faith in Christ Jesus whom I'd never seen.  Within our own intellect, it simply does not make sense.


What does the bible say the sacred secret of the judgement is?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
But there isn't a tremendously happy record of consequences when people turn off their brains, is there?


Oh, I don't know.  We're not talking brain stem death here.  The 'happiest', or at least most 'peaceful' (as in, heart-ease) folk I know are the ones who know Christ Jesus.  Mind you, some of them are the wappiest too!  
Rose

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
But there isn't a tremendously happy record of consequences when people turn off their brains, is there?


Oh, I don't know.  We're not talking brain stem death here.  The 'happiest', or at least most 'peaceful' (as in, heart-ease) folk I know are the ones who know Christ Jesus.  Mind you, some of them are the wappiest too!  


Wappiest?



🌹
Rose

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
But there isn't a tremendously happy record of consequences when people turn off their brains, is there?


Oh, I don't know.  We're not talking brain stem death here.  The 'happiest', or at least most 'peaceful' (as in, heart-ease) folk I know are the ones who know Christ Jesus.  Mind you, some of them are the wappiest too!  


Wappiest?



🌹
cymrudynnion

?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum