74x12
Well-Known Member
That's a question of human nature; not Christian nature.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Love your neighborhood Jew as yourself
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Huh? I was talking about a crazed John writing rubbish.
What are you talking about there?
By the way, what causes you to believe that the Nazis didn't murder 11+ million folks in concentration, death and extermination camps? The evidence is substantial, you know, and Eye Witnesses make Direct Primary evidence. What is your idea of Direct and Primary evidence?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If you think that Jesus was controlling the Church by the time of the council of Nicea and beyond, how come the Church has done such bad things in its history?
But whilst I do believe about Jesus, I can't believe about a resurrected Christ, so that's the difference.
We must discuss the obvious errors in the gospels some time, the gospels that you think Jesus controlled.
Audie
Veteran Member
"Sayest thou?" Why talk like KJV? Those days
are gone. We dont talk that way now.
Cant begin to answer? I do believe you, there.
But I will say this, for you or anyone else, doctor,
lawyer, scientist, politician etc-
If you cannot express your ideas in clear plain
language, then, you do not understand them yourself.
You cannot think clearly, fo lo, that is what simple
direct language is-clear thinking.
As for precondition that I accept anything as a "sole"
source, no way.
I likewise reject the notion that anyone has special
access to arcane knowledge that "cannot be
explained" to those not initiated.
But suit yourself, if you cannot express your ideas,
you cannot, and I wont press you.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
If you think that Jesus was controlling the Church by the time of the council of Nicea and beyond, how come the Church has done such bad things in its history?
But whilst I do believe about Jesus, I can't believe about a resurrected Christ, so that's the difference.
We must discuss the obvious errors in the gospels some time, the gospels that you think Jesus controlled.
Had you paid any attention, what I said,
I didn't say anything about Jesus controlling the church.
I said Jesus had a difference of opinion about having his book of Revelation added to the bible.
Paula Eilene
Member
Yet History shows that it is Christianity who became the Jews longest enduring and most deadliest of all their oppressors.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
I don't know the history that shows that. In my own experience there have been Jewish friends, and those who I wish would go away.
I did run into a Hasidic (?) couple, wearing all the um stuff, and they were sweet and kind. They even invited me to their home. On the other hand, a Jewish woman once berated me for turning a light switch off. (I was trying to be helpful). She followed me, *****ing at me, clear back to my bed. Doubling my fist, I warned her not to pursue me further.
Personally, if I am aware of their needs, I will try to meet them, but never treat me like a "less than" infidel, Gentile Dog!
rrobs
Well-Known Member
It's not my ability to teach that is the problem. It is your inability or unwillingness to learn that is the problem.
If you asked me to teach you differential calculus, I would have to first ascertain if you know how to add and subtract. If you saw no need to learn addition and subtraction first, I simply couldn't teach you how to differentiate a quadratic equation.
To learn anything from the scriptures it is necessary to first lay a foundation. In the case of calculus, the foundation is addition and subtraction. In the case of word of knowledge and word of wisdom, the foundation is a belief in the scriptures.
You may not agree with this, but God does,
1Cor 1:18,
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
From what I can see, you seem to be highly intelligent. Unfortunately that alone is not enough for me or anyone else to teach you anything from the scriptures. Maybe someday you will change, but not today (at least as of 2:13 PM PST).
rrobs
Well-Known Member
God tells you not to jump off a cliff. You jump anyway a break a leg. Who is to blame?
God is definitely against Christians killing Jews. A Christian kills a Jew anyway. Who is to blame?
The scriptures explain God, not history.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Let's take a look at
1Cor 14:12-13,
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret"
So according to what's written here.
Not even the person who's speaking in tongues knows what they are speaking, otherwise they wouldn't need to pray for the interpretation of what they are praying.
as Verse 13 said, "Wherefore let him that speaks in an unknown tongue, Pray that he may interpret"
If the person doesn't know what they are saying, As to how is anyone else in the church to know. They won't.
So how is anyone in the church, to know for sure what they prayed,
That person could say anything to convince others what they said in speaking in tongues.
So this is where Verse 14 comes in at.
"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful"
This being the person who's praying has no understanding what they are praying. So what good would it do to pray in an unknown tongue, if that person doesn't know what they are praying themselves,
So how is anyone else to know.
They won't.
Verse 19--"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others, Than 10 thousand words in an unknown tongue"
Verse 9--"So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For you shall speak in the air"
Verse 11--"Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a barbarian, And he that speaks shall be a barbarian unto me"
Those back at that time, Who were of another language were called a
( barbarian)
which to day we call them a
( Foreigner) of another language.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret"
So according to what's written here.
Not even the person who's speaking in tongues knows what they are speaking, otherwise they wouldn't need to pray for the interpretation of what they are praying.
as Verse 13 said, "Wherefore let him that speaks in an unknown tongue, Pray that he may interpret"
If the person doesn't know what they are saying, As to how is anyone else in the church to know. They won't.
So how is anyone in the church, to know for sure what they prayed,
That person could say anything to convince others what they said in speaking in tongues.
So this is where Verse 14 comes in at.
"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful"
This being the person who's praying has no understanding what they are praying. So what good would it do to pray in an unknown tongue, if that person doesn't know what they are praying themselves,
So how is anyone else to know.
They won't.
Verse 19--"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others, Than 10 thousand words in an unknown tongue"
Verse 9--"So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For you shall speak in the air"
Verse 11--"Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a barbarian, And he that speaks shall be a barbarian unto me"
Those back at that time, Who were of another language were called a
( barbarian)
which to day we call them a
( Foreigner) of another language.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yeah.......... so you reckon that it was his book, and if he wanted it in the bible, so in the bible it went....... yeah?
Yep..... that's what I was talking about.
And you reckon that the Church was nothing to do with him? OK......
Audie
Veteran Member
I did not ask you to "teach me". I asked whar a weirdly
phrased statement means.
You are making excuses for not being able explain it.
IOW, you have no idea how to express yourself
in plain English, and that is my failing?
And god agrees with you?
I have been around very highly educated people
all my life, my Mom a professor of English lit.
None of my professors, as an undergrad or
grad student made, or needed to make such
excuses, or resorted to obscursntism such
as in the quote I first questioned.
People who actually know things can explain them.
Here is a quick check on whether you are
actually educated, or laying down a smokescreen
like a WW2 destroyer in combat.
Do you believe there was a world wide flood,
Ark and so forth, some few thousand years ago?
No details needed, yes / no would do.
Last edited:
Also extensive photograph evidence including mass executions by firing squad. How does one explain the thousands of empty Jewish villages, many leveled to the ground.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Yeah.......... so you reckon that it was his book, and if he wanted it in the bible, so in the bible it went....... yeah?
Yep..... that's what I was talking about.
And you reckon that the Church was nothing to do with him? OK......
Let's see, it is written in the book of Revelation ( The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God gave unto him)
Therefore the book of Revelation is the book of Jesus Christ.
Well seeing the church didn't know exactly what to do about the book of Revelation, Christ Jesus intervene thru his Spirit,
had the church to leave his book of Revelation added to the bible.
Earthling
David Henson
The Synagogue of Stan, as John mentions at Revelation 2:9 / Revelation 3:9 are the Jews of Smyrna who persecuted the Christians much the same as the Jews had done earlier in Paul's day. (Acts 13:44, 45; 14:19)
I didn't say anything about the number of people in the concentration camps, only the number 6 million which allegedly died. There's no way 6 million Jews died in those camps.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Verse 13 says exactly what I've been saying all along. Tongues is primarily for one's private prayer life. In that case I won't know what I'm saying and I don't need to know what I'm saying. All I need to know is that I am speaking directly to God and not men (1 Cor 14:2), I am speaking the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11), I am speaking mysteries ("mysteries" is better translated as "divine secrets") (1 Cor 14:2), I am magnifying God (Acts 10:46), I am edifying (building up) myself (1 Cor 14:4a), I am giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17), and a few other things. Who could be against these things?
But in a church meeting, not my private prayer life, tongues needs to be accompanied with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues so that not only myself, but everybody in the church meeting gets edified (1 Cor 14:5).
Speaking in tongues with interpretation is equal to prophesy. In both cases the people in the church meeting get edified by getting a message from God meant especially for that group in their own language so everybody can understand and get blessed.
A young group of believers needs to hear the tongues part because it is a sign to them that something super natural is occurring (1 Cor 14:22a). A more mature group of believers does not need that sign so they can go to prophecy to hear from God (1 Cor 14:22b).
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Surely you've read Shakespeare at some point in your education. You can't decipher "what sayest thou?"
Desire and inability are two different things. Check your premise.
Did the verse which God gave say the same thing I said or not? I'm beginning to doubt your intelligence. You seem to have trouble with simple sentences.
Did you tell all your profs they don't know what they are talking about or were you meek to learn what they had to say?
Sounds like a leading question. I'll abstain. Only a mindless fool would judge someone's intelligence with such a simple question.
Thousands of villages remained empty and millions did not return.
Your attitude is nothing more than egregious denial of the suffering andeath of millions.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
simple logic:
Christianity prides itself on forgiveness and love,
A lot of Christians both past and present do not demonstrate that virtue
Therefore Christianirty does not always demonstrate the virtue of love and foregiveness.
The problem I have with your apologist opinion is that often times Christians love to talk about other faiths such as Islam and allocate violent behaviors from extremist with their religion yet when it comes to the violent behaviors of Christians, almost always apologist always use the No True Scotsman fallacy or do as what you do, blame it on human nature. so was it human nature when priests and pastors preach sexism, racism, and bigotry at the pulprit and justify it using scripture is that too human nature or are you going to make another excuse and say they're not real Christians?
74x12
Well-Known Member
Well, when is the last time you actually read the new Testament? I mean Jesus warned us over and over to beware of men. To beware of false prophets who come in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves. To beware of those who portray themselves as one way but are not. Thus Jesus spoke of the tares among the wheat and taught "you shall know them by their fruits". So you can cry "no true scotsman's fallacy" all you want. But the words of Jesus will stand. Furthermore, Jesus warned us all beforehand.
Of course you can probably cite a few passages from the new Testament that prove God is okay with slavery; but it's out of context. God is never okay with cruelty or treating people in a disgusting, degrading way.
At the time the new Testament was written the Roman empire was full of slaves (of all races) and it was bad enough for Christians as it was. They were under constant suspicion from the government. In fact slaves were probably some of the most eager converts to the early Christian faith. My point is, they couldn't just overturn slavery! It would have caused even more harm than was already being caused.
Instead they emphasized that slaves and masters should treat each other well. The golden rule still applies for everyone. Treat your neighbor as yourself.
What people did to Africans taking them in ships and packing them like sardines etc. That was evil. It's not okay with God and never has been.