Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2012, 06:59 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Well yes, this is the most epic post.

Everz. Thumbsup

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
07-06-2012, 07:35 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Hello Shiruba, thank you for the response, I can tell it is from the heart, and I will address it as best as I can. It has taken me about an hour to separate it, so I will just start the response and the rest will have to await until I return, and with work as busy as it is, it will probably be Saturday morning before I get back. So bear with me, and give a little space to get to this.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 02:56 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I think I mentioned that the first mistake of this thread is the conclusion that the statistics that show there "are more Christians than any other kind of believer" is valid information.

Scripture teaches, certainly, a many/few ratio between believers and unbelievers. The problem is...you have it reversed.

As an example, look at the statement in a recent post that scripture teaches "there are three Gods," this would have been sufficient in some countries for this man to be put to death, though he and those that would take offense at this statement both call themselves muslim.

Well yes, those who describe themselves as Christian are among one of the largest religions in the world(Despite the ridiculous amount of different sects and ideas.)

This is true, and it raises the question: what is it that separates those groups?

The answer is, in large part...their doctrine. Many that claim to be Christian are outright rejected by the majority of those that run in similar patterns of theology. Even among those that differ on doctrine that could be called important, though secondary to the Gospel Message, there can be found at times fellowship among them.

So I would first call your attention to the Doctrine of the various groups, and how that separates even those that I would without question believe there are Christians found among those groups. It is not a matter of "Everybody in this group is saved and no-one else," but, I believe that there are born-again believers found across the world in many different groups.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  You may say these people aren't Christian but remember that they likely say the same to you(Which I find hilarious because it basically reveals that all Christians are wrong to somebody.)

Not all. Christianity is the result of the New Birth, which has as promised the indwelling of God in the believer.

However, for many, their Christianity is actually a form of religion only, rather than a relationship with God. And what is an evidence of salvation? Understanding God's word, for one. Scripture teaches that man is born separated from God by sin, and in this state he is called "natural." The natural man cannot, according to scripture, understand the spiritual things of God, scripture being one of those things.

So when we talk about a spiritual book, and it is not understood, there are two possibilities: 1) the person is a young believer, not having studied scripture nor been taught of God; 2) the person cannot understand the scriptures because he is natural. This would be like me trying to read French. I might grasp a word here or there, but I will have no idea as to what is being said.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Yes, we should also absolutely follow a two thousand year old book written by sixteen authors over a span of more than a thousand years.

This is one of the reasons I view scripture to be a work that had direction other than simply man's intent: roughly forty writers over roughly 1500 years, and despite the "contradictions" some see...there is a harmony of God's will and His plan for man's redemption.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I mean really? Is this the best we can do? Not believe in ourselves but some pink unicorn fairy tale we made ages ago that takes parts of other past religions?

A faith in God and His word has nothing to do with a person's sense of self worth, nor his abilities.

In fact, it is not uncommon for Christian's to show a lack of faith by trying to manage on their own.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I mean it surprises me how little faith we put in ourselves but how much we put in a myth that holds no ground against modern science and its achievements.

Could you provide for me what it is that modern science has to offer that proves there is no God?

That there is no spiritual realm, which like the existence of the atom, was previously unknown to man?

That those that claim to have seen Angels, demons, and ghosts...have not?

The fact is, there are scientists that have faith in both.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I understand you want to keep talking about scripture and I hope you continue to do so. I became a non believer after reading and understanding it.

I will continue to do so.

And I question your understanding of scripture, which even in the first few segments shows a misunderstanding of Christianity and the merging of Judaism with it, that the conclusion comes out wrong. I do not say this to offend, simply to state that if you "understood" scripture, you would not ask questions such as are presented in this response. I will address them, as I said, as best as I can, I just ask that you bear with me a bit for my time is gone this evening.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I know the Bible has different meanings for different people

This is true from the perspective that people come to different conclusions, but, it is false when viewed in the light of the purpose of God in revealing Himself and His will for man, which is, that we might know Him.

The claim cannot be that God has revealed Himself and sought to keep that revelation's meaning hidden, and difficult to understand.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  but some things are just blatantly obvious wrong and/or weird.

Love to look at those things with you. It would make me very happy to look at the basis of your unbelief.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Do you mean to tell me that the son of and all knowing, all powerful, completely stupid(I mean omnipotent being) didn't know when figs were in season?

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Have you considered that when certain tree's produce fruit that the presence of leaves may hold a promise of fruit? That sometimes fruit comes before the season?

If it were a case of knowing the season only, this would not be too hard to look at, as if there was an expectation of fruit, it may be that other trees have produced fruit also, and finding one that did not have fruit would have been disappointing.

Here is a quote for your consideration:

Quote:F.F. Bruce noted:

"The other miracle is the cursing of the barren fig tree (Mk. xi 12 ff.), a stumbling block to many. They feel that it is unlike Jesus, and so someone must have misunderstood what actually happened, or turned a spoken parable into an acted miracle, or something like that. Some, on the other hand, welcome the story because it shows that Jesus was human enough to get unreasonably annoyed on occasion. It appears, however, that a closer acquaintance with fig trees would have prevented such misunderstandings. ‘The time of the fig is not yet,’ says Mark, for it was just before Passover, about six weeks before the fully-formed fig appears. The fact that Mark adds these words shows that he knew what he was talking about. When the fig leaves appear about the end of March, they are accompanied by a crop of small knobs, called taqsh by the Arabs, a sort of fore-runner of the real figs. These taqsh are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. They drop off before the real fig is formed. But if the leaves appear unaccompanied by taqsh, there will be no figs that year. So it was evident to our Lord, when He turned aside to see if there were any of these taqsh on the fig-tree to assuage His hunger for the time being, that the absence of the taqsh meant that there would be no figs when the time of figs came. For all its fair foliage, it was a fruitless and a hopeless tree." (Bruce, Are The New Testament Documents Reliable? [Intervarsity Press; Downers Grove, Ill, fifth revised edition 1992], pp. 73-74; bold emphasis ours)

Is this simply "explaining this away?" You be the judge. Not having a knowedge of middle-eastern fig trees, I have to take this with a grain of salt, but, it seems it would be easy enough to research this particular issue.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Hallelujah! I see the light(I mean the indoctrination my parents have given me over the years) and believeth in this man who doesn't knoweth when figs are in season. Does that make farmers Gods for knowing this information?

Keep in mind the many times fig trees are used as a picture. A "tree" that has the appearance of a fruit bearing tree yet is fruitless brings to mind the "believer" that is also fruitless. If a fig tree does not produce figs, would a farmer call it a fig tree?

Or would he cut it down?

Okay, all I have time for right now, but again, thanks for the response, I look forward to addressing it and getting the chance to discuss the "wierd stuff" of scripture...lol.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most misidentified religion
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Also what

of slavery?

What is it that troubles you about slavery as it is found in scripture?

Keep in mind that as the Law is being given, the Israelites were on a march to conquer the promised land. For the native inhabitant, slavery was a better outcome than death.

Now there are just a couple of thoughts I would present for consideration concerning this:

First, it has to be kept in view that Israel...descends from Gentile heritage. Abraham was a gentile. The inhabitants of Canaan were a people, like most at this time, that had fully departed from God and were themselves about to suffer the judgment of God, even as we see in Israel's history, that they were judged of God for their idolatry and departure from Him, and the Lord used other nations to bring this about. So when judgment falls upon the people dwelling in that land, it should not be something we are surprised about. We have the judgment which falls upon Sodom as an example. Before that, we see the judgment upon those that settled in the land of Shinar. Before that, we see the judgment upon all men, women, and children in the flood.

So for those that view the judgments of God to occur in extreme fashion when men depart from Him, we are not surprised that...people die. From a biblical perspective physical death is nothing compared to the second death. At times, the Lord puts to death those that belong to Him for their sin. That includes Christians, who, really, are held to a higher standard of accountability than non-believers.

Secondly, just as we see in the example of the Ten Commandments, it is not strange that God would stipulate certain regulations for a people that He is fully aware will commit the very acts He is commanding against. For example, why command, "You shall not murder?"

Because He knows that men will commit murder.

Now when we take this basic principle and apply it to slavery, what the Lord knows is that there will be those that will engage in slavery in the different forms that it comes in. Looking at the regulations given to Israel and making them equal to those of early America is a bit off. Closer to that particular slavery would be that carried out by Egypt, and to be fair here, I would point out Joseph, and the fact that his brothers sold him into slavery.

It is for this reason, I believe, that the Lord made it clear that they were not to engage in practices such as these, for they are wicked.

And if you read what scripture says concerning Israel and their behavior toward their countrymen, you will see that it is not just a matter of someone kidnapping another, or their own countrymen selling them to another nation, and then subjecting them to forced labor, but a matter of conquest (in which it can be said that all in the nation conquered are slaves, such as "king" Herod was in effect a slave of Rome) and one of neccessity.


Leviticus 25

King James Version (KJV)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Now you seem familiar with this part, which causes you to question God, but have you read on a bit more?

47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

Here we have a foreigner purchasing an Israelite, who because he has become destitute and in need, sells himself as a servant to the foreigner.

So if we look at "slavery" concerning Israel, we also see that it was permissable for one who was not an Israelite to actually buy an Israelite. Kind of evens things out just a little, though the terms are more in favor of God's people (which should not surprise us). Now think about that: while the terms are different, the servitude is basically the same. Should we think that the Lord is going to allow some horrible existance for His own people?

For this man, the Israelite that has sold himself, he can be redeemed by a kinsman. But I still think that while the Lord makes these conditions known, it is not a matter of God condoning slavery as we in America usually look at it. If you read all passages dealing with this subject, and keep in mind the type of "slave" that is in view, it will give this a little different view than the slavery of early America, where treatment of slaves was based upon the owner's own idea of how to treat his "possessions."

And lastly, "slavery" is not a foreign concept for those that worship God:

Leviticus 25:55

King James Version (KJV)

55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

The reason, I believe, the Lord gives the conditions concerning slavery has at it's heart the fact that Israel was the servant of God. God expects mercy to be shown when He has extended mercy, as well as mercy to be shown to receive mercy.

This is a good topic of study, and I admit that I have not given this a great deal of attention, but I will take a closer look at it. One note of interest would be that when a countryman is released from servitude in the Year of Jubilee, he returns to the "possession" of his fathers. Is this to say that he returns to servitude or becomes a "poseession of his fathers? I don't think so, but I will have to take a closer look at that.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  The bible completely and absolutely got this utterly wrong. Instead of saying slavery should not exist it tells us how to own our slaves.

Should the Bible have also said murder should not exist? Why is it that there is a command against it? Because men will...murder. Men will, like Joseph's brothers, sell even their own flesh and blood to others for profit and hatred.

To think that the Lord condones this practice cannot be seen from the regulations given to Israel. That the terms are different for other nations is focused on when it is overlooked that God was not regulating Gentile nations, but judging them.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Bibles were waived during the civil war as a reason to continue to own slaves.

I am not surprised. Despite popular opinion, the thought that all Americans were Christians is as erronious as the thought that all the sects, denominations, and cults...are Christian.

And while my American history is lacking, I have been given the impression that slavery was not the only issue concerning the War.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

This was true, though I don't think "buying children" is in view, but, as is typical of servants, if a slave has a child he/she belongs to the master.

God also gave details concerning the slaves that remained in bondage of their own choosing:

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

King James Version (KJV)

12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

18 It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  You may treat them as your property. Whenever such occurs usually people are treated horrendously. How could something so sickening be within the bible?

I think you underestimate mankind, lol. Just kidding. As in the passage above, there is provision for those that, because things "are well" with them, refuse to leave their masters. Must not have been all bad for one to make that choice.

But slavery in it's wickedest form is not, I believe, something that God condones.

The book of Philemon is written to a "slave-owner" on behalf of a runaway slave. We see Paul, believe it or not...send him back to his master. However, Paul also promises to redeem the man, but he is not commanding (though perhaps calling in a favor) Philemon to free this man, but urges him to do so, showing the attitude of a Christian concerning slavery in that day.

Can I just throw in that we are dealing with a culture far different from our own?

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
How could I worship something that supports such a disgusting act and call it moral?

That is for you to decide. But I would give slavery in scripture as regulated by God a better look, rather than conjure up images of the history of America.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  The simple truth is that even you don't follow the bible word for word and even though you may defend and claim it to be true.

And I think I will have to end this here, as I am a little tired.

I will comment on this and try to give a little food for thought: this statement is based upon the thought that Christianity follows the laws given under the First Covenant. We do not. While we acknowledge that the Law is given for man to benefit by, we understand that it was given to...Israel. Specifically.

The thought that we are commanded to follow dietary laws within this Covenant shows that the difference between Israel and the Church (the Bodyof Christ, those that are born again and partake of relationship with and to God under the New Covenant) is not recognized.

I admit freely that I do not "follow the bible word for word," for tqo reasons: 1) I personally believe it impossible for men to be perfect practically (though Christians are "perfect"/complete positionally) while yet in unredeemed flesh; 2) I would have to say that I was absolutely sinless if I were to make that claim.

I have just begun in my walk with the Lord, and have much to learn, and much to put away in my life. It is God, according to scripture, that conforms believers to the image of Christ, and He does this through instruction. He promised to teach, as long as we are obedient to listen.

I have a long way to go.

At the end of your response to me you say that "you want a reason to believe," basically, and while I do not "make people believe," God does, I hope that by looking at a few things in scripture which you may not have been aware of when you believed you were saved...you may at the least have something to think about.

Thanks again, hope to be back in the morning.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 02:49 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most misidentified religion
(08-06-2012 06:37 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Can I just throw in that we are dealing with a culture far different from our own?

So where's the relevance? Tongue

I'm with the masked man on this one. Peeps talking about "slavery" don't know wtf they are talking about. That dang Gwynnies owns me. In the same kinda sense, we are all god's little slaves to the believer. And that ain't the worst of it. What's bad is a buncha relativists hiding behind an absolute, again. What's worse is that anybody with a lick of sense should know that the primary purpose of the Bible is entertainment. Pimping manumission in that age is a sure way to get your scrolls seized and yer thumbs screwed.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
09-06-2012, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 05:49 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Why Christianity is the most misidentified religion
(09-06-2012 02:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(08-06-2012 06:37 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Can I just throw in that we are dealing with a culture far different from our own?

So where's the relevance? Tongue

I'm with the masked man on this one. Peeps talking about "slavery" don't know wtf they are talking about. That dang Gwynnies owns me. In the same kinda sense, we are all god's little slaves to the believer. And that ain't the worst of it. What's bad is a buncha relativists hiding behind an absolute, again. What's worse is that anybody with a lick of sense should know that the primary purpose of the Bible is entertainment. Pimping manumission in that age is a sure way to get your scrolls seized and yer thumbs screwed.

The relevance? It is twofold: not only do we sometime classify slavery and slave-owners over the worst possible examples, such as is commonly seen in early America, but far worse, the conditions of Israel's existance are imposed upon the Christian Way. Both are misleading.

Joseph was a slave, yet held a position of great power, for example. But look at the circumstances that led to his servitude. He was sold into slavery, contrary to the Law, by his own brothers, and we are told "they meant it for evil." Keep in mind that the Lord looked toward events well beyond the immediate into the time when, like He judged the inhabitants of the land He had promised to the seed of Abraham for their idolatry, He would also judge Israel for their idolatry. Their experience as captives, just as they were in Egypt, would play a part in their redemption at a later date. Once captive turned conquerer.

And you are correct to view service to God as servitude, slavery, in a sense. It is not much different than the servitude of those who work for someone, or that of a faithful subject to a king. I would point out that just as Israel was redeemed from bondage to Egypt for the purpose of becoming subjects of God, even so Christians view service to God as reasonable as we feel we have been redeemed from the world system. We have become pilgrims and strangers in this world, foreigners, looking for the final phase which is our bodily redemption from this world.

As far as manumission (and by the way, thanks: I was previously unaware of that term), again the focus in the Law dealt primarily with Israel, not other nations. Manumission was written into the law for Israelites.

One of the things that the Lord meant to teach Israel in the Law is where their hearts needed to be. What should have been gleaned from the regulations concerning slavery in regards to their countrymen should have affected their attitudes toward slavery concerning foreigners. But as I said, I believe that just like our law posts speed limits because they know people are going to go faster than is safe, even so the Lord dealt with this issue that guidelines be met.

Thanks for the input, and the term manumission.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 06:02 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Actually meant "where's the relevance" between a dusty old tome and a modern, technological society. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan
dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
You as well, pick and choose which parts you like and which you definitely don't.
Can you rightly say that? Would you not have to actually know me in order to make such a statement?
Nevertheless, from what I have read in this post it is understood why this might be thought. And I will admit that what you say is true, though not for the reasons you express in your post. What I mean is this: I read scripture and from that I learn the heart of God and His will for my life. It is completely in my understanding that which God would have me to do, yet, I am unable to accomplish this perfectly. For example, I have a temper. Have had one all my life. I have it under control now far better than in my previous life (before I was saved). I look back at right after I was saved and remember, to my shame, many instances where my temper, rather than the Lord, ruled my actions. Another area would be discpline concerning my actions. Again a matter of self-control, a trait which should be present in the life of a Christian. But I also understand that I am growing, and just as everyone matures. I also am in the process of...growing up. If perfection is expected of me, all I can provide is disappointment.
And I would just throw in at this point that because perfection is expected of Christians by the world, and even in the case of a child being raised by Christians (or those that call themselves Christians), often the result is a charge of hypocrisy, because it is not allowed that those under scrutiny are in a maturing process. This same level of expectation is not enforced on others, even those who sit in judgment, but, for the Christian, if perfection is not found they are demonized without mercy.
And this is just one reason that it is not so easy to be a Christian.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Also, if some of you have notice it is our favorite part of the book Leviticus! This part is filled with so much stupidity alone. I still love how people only choose to hate homosexuals in the bible
Again, this is just not true. I have seen the phrase "Hate the sin but love the sinner" mocked and ridiculed, but, this is what scripture teaches. For those that have more than the basic introductory familiarlity with scripture, who set out to "read the whole bible," they start in Genesis which is interesting, but get hung up when the Law is introduced. Thanks to ministries that are not discipling converts, teaching them the different ministries of God toward man, there is a blurring of doctrine, and the reader oftentimes walks away confused.
Want to know why? I will tell you my view: because the Law of God still does in the heart of man that which it was meant to do when it was given, and has done for millennia...it convicts of sin. The Law was meant, not as a means of salvation, but to direct man to He Who is the Savior...God. When the Law of the First Covenant is read, rebellion will be the natural instinct of the natural man. However, if the simple fact that the Law was given to Israel (and those proselytes that chose to follow God) under a Covenant specifically meant for that nation alone and not for the world, much confusion would dissipate. Now that Messiah has come, and has instituted the New Covenant which He promised to Israel, we understand the progressive nature of redemption and the role which the First Covenant played for the time it was given.
This does mean we ignore the Law of God, for all laws were given for their good. Even the restriction of eating shrimp...lol. Do you suppose that shrimp are healthy? One of the ocean's garbage bins, really.
While we are not subject to the individual laws of the First Covenant, and certainly not subject to the oral traditions of Judaism, we are subject to the implicit teaching of the Law. For example, not only are we subject to the universal command not to murder, we are to strive to actually have love for our enemies. The Lord said on occasion, "You have heard it said," which I view to deal with oral tradition rather than "It is written." So ineffect, the Law is in fact easier to keep than the commands of Christianity, primarily because the Law, while it was meant to instruct spiritually, rather than externally, did not give the means to actually accomplish that.
Whereas the New Covenant, the relationship with God that is highly personal and intimate due to the promised Spirit, that is, the indwelling of God...does. It does not happen overnight, as the world would expect (and even some Christians), but is, like a babe growing up physically, a maturing process.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  and yet they completely ignore that Leviticus also says that shellfish are an abomination.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the
waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
For the man that still seeks to be under the First Covenant despite the fact that it is now commanded to believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and enter relationship with Him under the New Covenant, he will still be under obligation to follow this regulation.
It really has no relevance to the Christian except to say that the body is now the Temple of God (rather than an earthly construct made with hands) and most of us are aware that we are to treat our bodies accordingly. So some of us may choose to avoid shrimp as it really it not that healthy. I eat it occasionally, and enjoy it when it is good, but I try not to do so that often.
Now if the prohibition had been blowfish, this might have been an example that would be easier to understand in that context, meaning, a warning to avoid something that is harmful to man.
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  [img]
Sorry, but the video would not play.
But the thought that "God hates shrimp" is just as erroneous as "God hates homosexuals."
Just not true. God extends His mercy to all that will come to Him, regardless of the particular sins of people. The problem is, for some, their sin (that which has been deemed unacceptable by God, which is in voilation of His will for man) is their god. They are ruled by it, oftentimes enslaved to it. And while homosexuality carries the distinction of being an abominable practice in the eyes of the Lord, the homosexual is extended the same grace and mercy that a liar, or a thief would be. It is unfortunate that there are those that show hatred for homosexuals and cause God's name to be blasphemed by their actions, but sexual sin is sexual sin. The person that engages in intimate relations outside of marriage is still held accountable for their sin whether they are homosexual or not.
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan
pid='121974 Wrote:  
And yet you don't see fish restaurants get attacked by Christians but somehow abortion clinics are.
Never been to the resaurants on Sunday, have you? lol
Seriously, you bring up a relevant point which I hope you will give some thought to: do you really consider people that commit such things which include destruction of property and loss of life...to be taught in scripture? Does the Lord, or Paul, or any of the Apostles for that matter, teach that this is activity the Christian is to be engaged in?
Despite the fact that those that commit crimes such as these call themselves "Christians" does not make them Christians. In fact, their actions pointedly betray that the reverse is true. If the doctrine by which the Christian is to live is examined, you will see that there is no justification found in God's word for actions such as these.
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan
dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Which is strange because God kills numerous infants in the bible and currently ends their lives with miscarriages.
Understand the difference between "killing" and the inevitable consequences of sin from a biblical perspective.
It is true that women and children have died due to the judgment of God in many passages, such as the flood or the Conquest of Canaan, and if this bothers you...it should. Yet the blame is laid at the feet of God and personal responsibility is denied. What I mean by that is God ha instructed man from the beginning. Man refused to obey. Judgment was the result.
It is taught in scripture that it is the responsibility of the parent to instruct their children in the way they should go, and while this is viewed as indoctrination (as well it should be) by those that reject God's authority, even in secular humanism the same principle applies. Does not every parent have a responsibility to raise their children to know good from evil? To understand there are consequences to actions, and if the actions are bad, it is likely the consequences will be also? What parent ever intentionally (and rationally, I would add) raised their children that they might spend their life in prison?
This happens. For some today, a prison term is a badge of honor. To have murdered a man gains respect for the murderer.
So from day six (lol), it has been God's intention to bless man, and that man should be obedient to Him. In about a century's (according to the timeline provided and the ages given at times of death) time, man had given himself over to his natural self and on a global scale had departed from God, resulting in judgment.
So who is at fault? You say God, but I would point the finger at...parents. This is of course dealing with man in the temporal, we could expand this to deal with man's nature which is a result of disobedience and man's separation from God spiritually.

Quote:and currently ends their lives with miscarriages.

Again, blame is laid at the feet of the Lord, rather than keeping all relevant matters in view. You can say, "God could keep babies from dying in miscarriages if He was truly an omnipotent God." However, God has judged mankind and this creation lays under a curse as a result of sin. Do you blame God for those that died from asbestos? How about those that overdose on drugs or alcohol. Yet miscarriages are God's fault.
Something that I have yet to see in ancient archaelogical finds is a prevalent tendency of births defects on a scale as we see today. Perhaps the information is out there and I have just not seen it. But consider: our culture breeds the unfortunate result of birth defects and miscarriage. One factor would be the size of population. But the very foods we eat play a major role in events surrounding births. The garbage that is put in food these days are killing us, causing cancer, and health issues. Is a child ever born a heroin addict apart from the actions of the mother?
Bottom line, while mankind pats himself on the back for scientific progess, he cannot escape the fact that the tendencies of his nature and what I call the "winding down" of nature will directly affect his circumstances. Man has been able to put a check on many things that cause early death, but that is available primarily to those that can afford it.
For example: men would be healthier if they ate vegetables grown organicly, yet, the cost of fresh vegetables is high, and those that are limited in their resources can feed a family of four with hamburger helper better than something that would be more nutritious.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan
dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
Leviticus again! Oh how I love his insane stupidity.
This speaks of judgment, again. It is spoken to Israel, not the world in general, and certainly not to those that are under the provision of the New Covenant.
Obedience was mandatory for the people that would be God's witness to the world. Obedience and belief cannot be separated in scripture: if you say you believe and do not obey, you prove that in fact you do not believe through your disobedience.
Especially when you have been chosen by God to represent His name. It is no different for the Christian. We show the world our unbelief when we are disobedient to the commands of God, and the world is right there waiting to pounce when we fail.
And we will, at times, fail.
I would just recommend that at the very least, it be noted that if you hold someone to the "letter of the law," you must also examine your own actions toward them. Hypocrisy is inevitable for all of us at times, believer and non-believer alike, as we strive to accomplish that which in our hearts is the pattern of what is good.
Okay, sorry for getting longwinded, I will break this up as I go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 07:20 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(09-06-2012 06:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Actually meant "where's the relevance" between a dusty old tome and a modern, technological society. Tongue
Sorry, I mistook it as relevant, rather than rhetorical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
This will be the second time answering this, I will have to be brief as my time is about up.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Instead of praising scripture
praise our own intelligence and accomplishments!

We deserve much more faith in ourselves than in absolutely nothing.

Whereas human accomplishment apart from divine guidance is not something Christians should strive for. Dependance upon God is simply a matter of humility, not a matter of condemning all things human.

Pride in our accomplishments can vary between extremes, good and bad, and can be seen in most of us.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Well
I will finally move on and I still realize I'm on the first part of your post.

lol...we are "brethren" in this area. I too...am a windbag.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  You also said that Atheism is
the easiest religion to follow and I call that an insurmountable amount of bullshit.

Of course we have to look at the circumstances surrounding one's professed beliefs, and certainly through history there has been variance concerning beliefs, so that we cannot say "being a Christian has always been easy or hard," nor can we say that "being an Atheist has always been easy or hard."

However, in the context of this thread, I stand by my assertion. Today, it is far easier to be an atheist than to be a Christian in reality. And, for that matter, true Christianity has always been harder on two different fronts: 1) for the simple fact that Christians are held to a higher standard not only by God Himself, but by the world; 2) persecution of Christians threads it's way through history right up until present day.

For the American Atheist, who has the freedom to live in a manner that is right in his own eyes...it is all too easy.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Even though we are in a modern era hatred is rampant.

Is it thought that mankind will get to a point of "enlightenment" in which hatred will not exist in human nature?

Want to know what I believe is the greatest cause of hatred? Parents. While it is true that we can gain hatred for something or someone through experience, it is just as true that hatred is taught by parents to children. The responsibility of parents is a significant teaching in scripture, starting first with knowledge of God and His will for their lives, and exampled by practicing that which is taught in scripture.

We often think of hatred in terms of black and white only, but the truth is, there is racism even among the same race. Hispanics from one part (of their homeland) will hate others from another part. What is the root? The teaching and actions of their parents.

Some will overcome the hatred of their parents, some will not. I remember when I was very young a couple consisting of a black man and an asian woman being frowned upon, and I was confused at this because they were genuinely nice people. I was myself raised in an environment where there was a racist element, and chose to reject such an attitude toward people who had not given me sufficient reason to hate them.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Atheist's in third world countries will probably be put to death.

Okay, this is something we should be able to look at statistics about. Persecution of atheists pales in comparison with that of Christians. And I am quite sure that if there were an instance of it, it would be front-page news, unlike the lack of reporting concerning the daily persecution of Christians.

I did run across this in a short look for reported statistics. It is interesting the distinction made between atheists and the "non-religious."

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Even though we don't
have to follow unmoral laws you at least have the security blanket that you believe will
constantly take care of you and will give you an infinite life when you die.

But you do not allow for the very diversity of belief among believers. First thing to understand that because someone claims to profess belief (i.e. "I believe I will go to Heaven when I die.") does not mean that this person actually embraces this. More probable is that most say it without actually believing it. Security and Assurance are only learned, I believe, by understanding how a person comes into relationship with God.

And you will not get that by simply embracing the beliefs of others, but only through dilgent pursuit of understanding God's word.

I do believe I will go to Heaven when I die. I do believe that when a man is saved...he is saved eternally. If the basis of this belief is in question, then, the basis itself has to be examined.

The flip-side of this is recognition that among atheists and the non-religious, there is likely a tendency among them to question their belief that when they die, life is over. How many, on either side, would be willing to admit the truth of this?

Not too many, if you ask me, as it would bring their "faith" into question, and it is imperative not to show weakness in our faith...right?

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  (One thing I find strange is
God made the universe perfect for humans and yet when we die we go to the most perfect
place for humans? Confusing.)

Nowhere does scripture teach that God created the world "perfect." If that were the case, then Adam would not have sinned, and the world would not have suffered the result of sin.

Which means, man would have likely remained vegetarian in his dietary habits, there would have been no thorns and thistles (in other words...weeds), and animals would not go around eating each other, as they also were created vegetarian. But hostility in nature is a result, according to scripture, of sin and it's consequences.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Anyways we have to come to terms that nothing is there and that we unfortunately will never see loved ones again(But I believe we cherish the memories of our loved ones that much more) We also are unsurprisingly the most hated group in america.

I would question that. If you ask me, probably the greatest hatred we have as an example would be, if we looked at it from a perspective of numbers...found in political circles. The hatred of Republican for Democrat and vice versa makes issues such as hatred for blacks, gays, Christians, illegal immigrants...you name it, these issues pale in comparison. Every four years people are consumed with political activity and buy into the propaganda offered by both sides to promote both hatred and fear.

Both sides, mind you.

As to the former part of your statement, for those that understand sin, redemption, and what it actually means to be a Christian, understanding is a two-edged sword: we are forced to question whether we will see certain of our relatives again. This is harder than a belief that when they are gone...they are gone.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  [video=youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xbwAmPXxU [/video]

Sorry, but the video would not come up, so I cannot comment.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

pid='121974 Wrote:  
You make the completely false presumption that it is ridiculously easy.

It is not an assumption. Are you not at liberty to believe one thing one day, and something entirely different the next?

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Just because you believe it to be easy doesn't make it so. Just like as you may believe in God doesn't make it so.

This is true.

However, we can look at the basis of certain beliefs and compare the conclusions with that which scripture teaches. For example, there would be a unanimous agreement by all that claim to be Christians that bombing an abortion clinic is not the activity of a born-again believer.

Concerning Eternal Security we can easily discuss what is in scripture and come to a conclusion. Usually, when the security of the (true) believer is held as false doctrine we can see that the group which denies it is confused on a number of points concerning salvation. And only by addressing all of those points can one come to understand that salvation is wholly the work of God, from start to finish. It cannot be resolved by bible-pong or an attempt to proof-text. Understanding the issue is a matter of understanding many things, not just a simple "OSAS" statement.

And this is true of many issues in the bible. But salvation be the primary reason for scripture, I have focused much attention to this many-faceted issue, and through this, I can say that I am saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.

And I have no fear of losing something that was a gift that I did not earn, nor can I improve upon that salvation in the eternal sense (though I can improve my walk in the temporal sense).

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I believe it to be the easiest religion to follow because it is very easy to indoctrinate people in.

Was it you that said you were "indoctrinated?" So who do you feel is responsible for your departure from the once delivered faith?

If you say your parents, you deny this statement. If you say yourself, you deny this statement.

While I would agree it is easy to indoctrinate people, understanding that Christianity is as popularized a "personal relationship with the Lord" will shed light on the "Christianity" of many people. You simply cannot teach someone to be a Christian, you can only point them toward Christ. The decision will ultimately be up to the individual, and the reality of their salvation will exhibit definite evidences, though these also can be "religiously" counterfeited.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Atheism requires you to think and realize nothing is there which many can't come to terms too because they strongly fear death(What!? You say you have to think to be an atheist?? Well... Yes... I'm not saying all atheists are smart but compared to theists. They at least asked the question of is that being there?

Intellect plays a small role in the professed beliefs of most. Man's nature plays the greater role. And what is man's natural proclivity?


We do not need scientific studies to see this to be true. This is why we have to teach our children the difference between good and evil, no matter what the parent's view on what is good and what is evil. THink about your own assessment that goodness and morality come from within, yet, sidfe by side with that belief is the assertion that as man becomes more knowledgable...he becomes more "enlightened."

Using this kind of reasoning we would have to say that the "barbarians" of the past were incapable of good, because they were ignorant of the vast knowledge that science has given to man.

Right? See the problem there? It cutsa both ways resulting in the destruction of knowledge determining good and evil.

The Nazi regime boasted some very advanced and intellectual men, yet, the conclusion of such knowledge resulted in one of the most evil periods in human history.

I would ask you to give your assessment of R.C. Sproul, and tell me if you consider the man an idiot.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  A huge majority of Christians haven't even moved past the first page of the bible

I agree. But can you say that you yourself are any different from those that you would use as an example? Have you actually put a valid effort in understanding Christian Doctrine, apart from what people claim to be Christian Doctrine?

Not trying to be a smart-aleck, just asking if you have considered this.

Okay, had to do this one twice, and the first response was much better, really...lol. Just kidding. Such is life, right?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  and while you may say they Tongue Tongue aren't Christians they still strongly believe they are.)

Just to clarify, I have never once said that an individual was, or was not...a Christian. It is not my place to judge the spiritual condition of a person to the point I claim to have an omniscient knowledge of their condition.

But, what I will judge...is the doctrine of these groups. As I have said before, I believe there are born-again believers in many of the groups that are out there, and do not think that is a particular denomination one must be a member of if they are in fact saved. God will place believers, I believe, even among cults for the purpose of working through that individual.

And again I would strongly disagree that the audible profession of a "believer" equates to an individual having a sense of security concerning their salvation. This is a gift of God, I believe.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

pid='121974 Wrote:  
Christianity was easy to follow a long time ago because it was hard to follow the numerous amount of Gods we created.

Seeing that Chritsianity began in the 1st century, and that it was persecuted in it's early stages, I am not sure how you can say that.

We also look at the fact that idolatry predates Christianity and can be seen in the early history of recorded events in scripture. You do not have to embrace that history as true, but, you cannot deny that idolatry was prevalent throughout man's history. This is one reason for the institution of the First Covenant. Which is just one phase of the progressive revelation of redemptive history.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  So we created a god which united them all into one being.

And this still takes place despite the record of scripture. We pat ourselves on the back that in this "enlightened" age most of us do not actually whittle wood or carve stone to replicate the god we seek to create. This happens among Christians too, to a certain extent. Many are satisfied to worship the God their Pastor beleves in, without ever questioning the basis of his belief.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Which was brilliant because it made it ridiculously simple.

While I would agree it is simple in a sense, understanding the One True Living God is by no means simple. Just as salvation can be viewed as simple enough for a child to understand, yet complex enough for very intellectual scholars to be mystified by.

But one thing that should be kept in view: while we have that which God has revealed to us and come to conclusions based upon that revelation, we would be foolish to think that the Lord has revealed all there is to know about Himself. But this has been the case throughout scripture: God reveals only that which He feels man needs to know concerning Himself and His will.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  It also has a feel good story because it offers something that humans strongly want. They want to live forever and are frightened of not existing. But just because you strongly want something doesn't make it anymore true.

Not all are frightened about "not existing." If that were true, suicide statistics would be dramatically different.

And again, our belief of something does not make it true. Nor does our unbelief, either, affect reality.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Now to move on. Now who are you to say who is or is not a Christian?

Again, I have not said anyone was, or was not...a Christian.

What I have said my entire time here on this forum was, "Who are you to say who is or is not a Christian?"


This is my approach, please find your own...lol. Just kidding.

What I have said is that if you are to have an informed opinion on the subject, is it not reasonable that yuo at least have a familiarity with the subject? For example, when charismatic preachers are used to represent Christianity, is this fair to the teachings of scripture? I say it is not. But many look at that and despise Christianity based upon the actions of men (and women) like that.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Or who is a believer or not a believer? Believers outrageously outnumber non believers.

This is true. But what is in question is...what they believe.

It is not all believers adhere to Christian doctrine, and while the argument that "We can't really have one understanding of God's word" may be appealed to, this makes a mockery of God's intention in revealing Himself to man and is simply an excuse not to go to the source.

For example: Mormons are pluralistic in their beliefs, believing that they will become gods themselves. They have embraced prophets that, according to scripture, were not of the Lord based upon their error and the fact that many of their prophecies went unfulfilled. Their theology does not correspond to previous revelation, but in fact changes significantly.

Can I, by looking at scripture, judge their doctrine? I believe I can, as well as believe that I am commanded to be skeptical of the doctrine produced by men.

If it contradicts something God has already taught...it is false.

Now, can I judge the spiritual condition of the adherents of such doctrine? Not truly. I can judge the fruit of their faith. But, I have to do this on an individual basis, rather than making a broad statement that "all Mormons are not saved." It is my hope that many within this group are ignorant of what this faith teaches that it does not interfere with their faith in Christ. But that is wishful thinking. And even of groups that I would say hold to sound doctrine, I am also aware of the possibility, rather, the probability that many in these groups are also ignorant of the doctrinal distinctives of their "professed faith."

I think that if a doctrinal quiz were given to the separate congregations, most would flunk the test. If some people were actually aware of the doctrine of their chosen fellowship, it may be that many of them might seek out another that better matches their own beliefs.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

pid='121974 Wrote:  
Even though you may say religions aren't the same

I would change that to state "Religious practice is basically the same." It's adherents can be traced far back into history, and it the distinctive beliefs that differ.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  they are surprisingly similar especially the three Abrahamic faiths.

This is something that I see as a no-brainer: man had knowledge of God originally, according to scripture, and that this knowledge has been corrupted, as well as counterfeited should surprise no-one.

For example, I view this...

Genesis 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

...to be the first occurence of the Gospel. Is it any wonder that other religions present "mother/child" deities?

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
People believe in the Mormon Jesus as fervently as you believe in the God of the bible.

To be honest, it is not just Mormons that believe in the Mormon Jesus. Joseph Smith is not the originator of some of the Mormon distinctives. There are many "faiths" that view Christ as "just a man," hobeit a "good man," highly revered.

The question is, does scripture teach that Jesus is simply one god among many, and that God was once a man, and that men can become gods?

And the answer of any serious Bible student is going to be a resounding, "No, it does not." Mormon doctrine departs from that which is taught in sripture, and while I donot harbor a hatred for Mormons as some people do, I have no qualms about condemning Mormon doctrine as false doctrine based upon the word of God.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  So you can't question that they don't believe but you will say that they are wrong.

I do not question that they are believers, only the basis of their belief. Any time that a group insists that they have literature (whether in book, magazine, or pamphlet form) that takes pre-eminence over the word of God...that is the first red flag.

And keep in mind there is a significant difference between saying that Mormons are wrong and the doctrine of the Mormons is wrong. I have no misconceptions or preconceived notions that all Mormons are knowledgable about Mormon doctrine.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  I will argue that we are both Atheists the only difference is that I believe in one less God than you do.

Well, there is the very real possibility that I am a practical atheist, merely making a confession of faith in God. This is not something that is not a concern for believers. We are instructed to make sure our calling and election, to determine if we are (actually) in the faith or not.

Self examination is a priority for Christians, having not just skepticism concerning others.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  
(15-06-2011 12:06 PM)Buddy Christ

pid='35080 Wrote:  
While not a groundbreaking claim, it's my answer to the

question of "if Christianity is false, how come there are so many Christians?" Just think about it.

(28-05-2012 02:56 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  And this is syllogistic at best, taking one from an acceptation of statistics as being valid to a conclusion that scripture
does not itself agree with, and the reasoning goes something like this:

It is reported there are more Christians than any other faith/religion.

It is not questioned whether they are actually Christians, nor is what it means to be a Christian known (as evidenced by this post).

Conclusion: those reported to be Christians are...actually born again members of the Body of Christ, the Church.

While I can understand the need to strengthen one's own position, let's try o keep things in a realistic frame.

Well, again, Scripture doesn't even agree with itself.

Lets look at some inaccuracies.

This is the part I love the best. Actually looking at what is written, and examining the conclusions.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan

dateline='1338790811' Wrote:  
Yes, the people whom call themselves Christian are a majority.

Unfortunately again, you do not have the right to say they aren't Christian because they believe otherwise.

Nor, I would add, should one presume to identify someone as a Christian when they have very little understanding of Christianity.

(04-06-2012 12:20 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Do you stone your unruly children?(For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. Leviticus 20:9 )

No, I usually just..."shush" them.

But seriously, you have to keep in mind that this was commanded to Israel, and Israel alone. As God created this people to be a witness nation for Himself, giving them the oracles of God...it was necessary that they live in a manner that did not cause other (nations) to blaspheme the God they professed to represent and worship.

Think of the Marines, I think we can see a good example of this with them. They are held to a high standard, and if that standard is not met then they are disqualified a Marines.

It is no different for the commands given to Israel. Now, I ask you: how many times was this punishment carried out and recorded in scripture?

Look at public schools today. In the past, Principals were strict and in many cases feared. Being sent to the Principal's office was the worse thing that could happen, apart from expulsion.

Today? Discipline being treated as child abuse in the eyes of many, the failure of proper instruction at home, and a general lack of respect for anyone other than self has just about dfestroyed what was once an excellent program.

Deny that.

Now take the rigid standard that was vital to a proper representation of God by a people that were historically idolaters. Now apply that to the Church. When discipline breaks down, do not be surprised that...there is no discipline. This is why we have this guy swinging "coat of righteousness" and people falling down, and that guy babbling unrecognizable speech contrary to scriptural teaching that language is to be understood by the hearers or it is just a bunch of worthless noise, and another guy teaching that God means for all to be healthy and wealthy, contrary to the example in scripture as well as the direct teaching of Jesus Christ that while we are in this world...we will suffer tribulation.

So can I question the doctrine of those that claim to be Christians? Yes. At the very least on a personal level, and if more people did that...there would be far less "groups" than we have at present. But it goes back to "man creating God in their own image," rather than seeking to learn of the God Who revealed Himself in scripture.

And...I think that is it for the day. Enjoyed it, and I look forward to the rest of this post.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: