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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whilst I agree on your definition of christians perspective; what I stated was:
Igive you my best wishes. Nice reaarranging of my words.
Please indulge me in other evidence, "accepted" or not
i wasnt sure where you stood on thisMelody said:
even though you assert that it is written by man with his own agenda? man's agenda is consistent throughout the bible then?
so even though the bible was written by man with his own agenda, thats fine with you then? man's agenda is fine?
certainly they havent translated perfectly from the original; all translations have errors
is the current role of women culturally appropriate for today? for example, women are not legally allowed to serve as President of the United States; or what about slavery in Paul's day? was slavery culturally appropriate for the times? Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters in the bible
you didnt seem too enthused about the old testament a while back
christ was speaking to the jews about jewish commandments; are you jewish?
i suggest that when you espouse the two love commandments, that you are also espousing the law of moses with the ten commandments; they are really inseparable, are they not? especially if the bible is consistent throughout, as you assert
your truth? by this do you mean your personal belief system and/or experience?
and what specifically is the truth of christ? i believe that christ, although not a god, exhibited the same spark of physical immortality which inherently exists within all human beings
the love of God does not negate the violence of God; no more than good deeds will atone for the acts of a violent criminal
i already understand why God made those decisions in the OT; the reason was ethnic cleansing; this is why six nationalities were exterminated by moses and joshua under the direction of the god of the bible
actually, the old testament covers approximately 3500 years of history, which constitutes 1/2 to 1/3 of the earth's entire recorded timeline; whereas the new testament records no more than a mere half century of time; thus the old testament records about 70 times the total number of years that the new testament does
if the bible is consistent throughout, even though written by man with his own agenda as you assert, shouldnt i look at the whole bible? and not merely at the new testament?
the bible specifically mentions hellfire, does it not?
our chance for what is gone?
actually, i hadnt claimed that you had said anything whatsoever; the claim that i made was my own; you mistook my claim for yoursMalus 12:9 said:
then youll have to speak to them about it, not me; and i really have no control over people from another forum; nor this one for that matter; thats between you and them; i prefer not to be dragged into your conflict with them
actually, i had quoted you directly and completely with no word rearrangements; whereas you have not done so with me; the only word rearragements which occured were within your own imagination, and not within the actual written text of the page; youre fighting against an imaginary opponent here
thats precisely my point; they are two different statements with two different meanings; you had somehow confused them with each other; i was not attempting to represent you as youve imagined; youre just getting pedantic at this point to argue a trivial matter like thisMalus 12:9 said:
no, you got bent out of shape because one of my statements was not in direct alignment with one of your statements, so you started claiming some form of misrepresentation
youre just getting emotional over some tiny statement that youve misinterpreted, and so youve blown it way out of proportion; your response is vastly over-exaggerated; if youre going to engage in heated debate over something, at least make it something good; not this petty stuff
what wagon are you referring to? is this something else which exists within your wild imagination? or are you simply spewing some generalized projection?
what in the world are you talking about? is this another one of your unresolved conflict issues? try not to worship the other forum members; just be yourselfMalus 12:9 said:
please dont involve me with your conflictsMalus 12:9 said:
What if my conflict, in the case of this thread, was with you?Immortal Awakened said:
then simply work through it; conflict resolution skills will helpMalus 12:9 said:
, but you have the honour of continuing the debate at hand.:162: whatever works best for youMalus 12:9 said:Rather than accept that, I shall return to the main topic.
:biglaugh:Immortal Awakened said:
you've really provoked a serious issue,this happens in almost all religions,but,let me tell you something,when anyone believes in a God,he doesn't worship him at the beginning because he loves him,but only because he wants things from him(even if he tells himself: oh i love my God),many worship just to be satisfied about their own characters,because anyone who first describes himself,describes himself as a good one,so if anyone renders himself free of all of that,he can really get what he wants and taste the wonderful feeling of faithImmortal Awakened said:
Well, it's a bit rich having a go at me for judging you as something you aren't when you are happy to judge my apology as insincere. It was not, but if you wish to take it as such that is your prerogative. I didn't actually confuse textual infallibility with sola scriptura. The two are intimately related. You cannot have the latter without the former and the only people (up to now) who I've ever come across who argue for textual infallibility have been sola scripturalists. I have already apologised, however, for misinterpreting your stance as sola scripturalist. Please try to understand that the only evidence I had to go on was what you wrote in your posts. That this lead me to an incorrect conclusion is unfortunate but I wasn't attacking you. As for your ignorance, I referred specifically to your apparent lack of knowledge on the development of the canon, and did not call you ignorant in general. There are plenty of subjects that I am ignorant of, this just doesn't happen to be one of them, but if you can't distinguish between a specific comment that you appear to lack an understanding of a certain topic and a general insult then perhaps it would be better that we don't correspond further. I genuinely do not have, and nor did I ever have, any interest in upsetting you unnecessarily.Immortal Awakened said:
arent religionists often simply attempting to appease their own conscience by worshipping a god?Mujahid said:
