Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2012, 03:21 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
No. It's. Not. In. The. Language.

And, holy crap, what are you talking about? "Sabbath" doesn't change in any meaning in any commentary. It is still referenced as it's understood as a day of rest and holiness. It's used as an example, a picture, an illustration of how to have rest in Christ. The idea and meaning of "Sabbath" remained unchanged.

You're not even making sense in what you're arguing.

Also, you speak of atheists as if they're lower life forms. I asked someone else because they are just as capable of retrieving data and posting it instead of me. Just because they post it instead of me doesn't change the facts of the data.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Come to the dark side KC Wink I've been saving a seat for you on the hell bound train. ST can't come though, he's not cool enough Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
31-05-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 03:40 PM)morondog Wrote:  Come to the dark side KC Wink I've been saving a seat for you on the hell bound train. ST can't come though, he's not cool enough Tongue

While Christians have the propensity to make me not believe in God, I could never go back to being an atheist. God is what He is to me and is what He has revealed Himself to me. My life radically changed because of God. I can't change His election and choice of me.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
31-05-2012, 04:03 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 03:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 03:40 PM)morondog Wrote:  Come to the dark side KC Wink I've been saving a seat for you on the hell bound train. ST can't come though, he's not cool enough Tongue

While Christians have the propensity to make me not believe in God, I could never go back to being an atheist. God is what He is to me and is what He has revealed Himself to me. My life radically changed because of God. I can't change His election and choice of me.
I know, I'm just teasing you Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 04:09 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Of course you can be an atheist, KC. In the sense that you're not buying what mainstream Christianity is selling, you're already pretty atheistic. Atheism is lack of belief, not a lack of faith. 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
31-05-2012, 04:12 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 03:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 03:40 PM)morondog Wrote:  Come to the dark side KC Wink I've been saving a seat for you on the hell bound train. ST can't come though, he's not cool enough Tongue

While Christians have the propensity to make me not believe in God, I could never go back to being an atheist. God is what He is to me and is what He has revealed Himself to me. My life radically changed because of God. I can't change His election and choice of me.
Yes. You. Can. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
31-05-2012, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 04:51 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Here... found this in an old post I made.

And, this is just a small part.

I am guessing that what follows is what you meant to give, and that the large space was not supposed to contain something.


(31-05-2012 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  For people who support a 100% literally inerrant Bible, some go-to places are Genesis 1 and 2.

Quote:Genesis 1

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

So, in short, in Genesis 1 it says God created and sprouted plants, and then created animals, and then created man and woman.

Take a look at Genesis 2:

Quote: 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [c]cultivate the ground. 6 But a [d]mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole [e]surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f]being

18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.



In Genesis 2 it states that nothing has sprouted yet, that man was created before animals, and that woman was created last.
[s]


This first:

Quote:For people who support a 100% literally inerrant Bible, some go-to places are Genesis 1 and 2.

You have spent a little too much time on this forum...you reasoning echoes much of what I see here.

The statement above does not allow for symolism, metaphor, hyperbole, sarcasm, the statments of men in scripture as opposed to the statements of God, so it is a general statement that is supposed to deny that scripture should be accounted credible.

I have no problem at all recognizing that there are manuscipt issues that I for one do not see as something amazing, but rather expected, seeing that men were involved. However, not one major doctrine is affected in all of this.


Concerning the commentary and assertion above, let's look at it:



Genesis 2

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Creation of Man and Woman

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.

2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created [a]and made.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

5 [b]Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [c]cultivate the ground
. [/b]
[b]


Quote:In Genesis 2 it states that nothing has sprouted yet, that man was created before animals, and that woman was created last.

If you will notice, not only does it say " no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted," but it also says..."there was no man to cultivate the ground."

Now you are trying to place this in a chronological order, rather than the view that this is reiteration, so, tell me how it is that if this is supposed to be chronological, why is it that both shrubs, plants, and man are not yet in existance? This is our first clue this account does not continue from ch. 1, but is, as I said, a reiteration.


6 But a [d]mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole [e]surface of the ground.

7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f]being.

8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


Now, look at what it actually says, and consider that you are seeing the formation of the ground and the planting of the Garden and equating that with the events spoken of in ch.1.

This is your error.

This account does not, as you are saying, say that God creates man and then shrubs and plants. Look at your syllogistic nature of your interpretation:

Quote:So, in short, in Genesis 1 it says God created and sprouted plants, and then created animals, and then created man and woman.

Quote:In Genesis 2 it states that nothing has sprouted yet, that man was created before animals, and that woman was created last.

So you try to discredit scripture in two ways at least here, implying that the bird's-eye view of ch.1 contradicts the closer view of ch.2. is different, not allowing that man was created on one day, with the thought that the reiteration contradicts by showing that woman is formed after what seems to be a period of time that Adam has spent in the Garden.

The second issue is the chronological order of man's creation, and the creation of shrubs and plants.

Concerning the first, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that within the text there are statements included, such as found here:


27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The fact that God created mankind male and female does not necessitate that woman was created on the first day, though this is generally accepted.


26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


As we see here, God says "Let them rule." Them. Does this refer to Adam and Eve? Or is it a general reference to mankind? As the writer gives the account, some of the statements can be seen as general. I am reminded of the Telmarines in The Chronicles of Narnia that had the habit of saying "May he live forever." Similarly, just as we see in chapter two, information is given within the text that does not have to suggest chronological order, merely the presentation and insertions of facts that the writer is compelled to put down.


27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

When we look at the NASB, it states it in a way that indicates this is a general statement, rather than the way it is in the KJV:


27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


This indicates that God said "Let Us," and then did.


28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “ Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.”

Does man also, on the sixth day, have dominion in the practical sense? Or would this dominion only be expressed according to his experience. For example, were all of the creatures and man...right there in the same spot?

Okay, this is submitted for consideration, we will take it from there.

(31-05-2012 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  A common argument is that Genesis 2 is an account within an account and that it was written in pluperfect tense (which it was); however, that doesn't explain the chronology of the creations; likewise, if any argument like this arises from a Bible literalist, you can always counter with, "So, you think the Bible isn't 100% literal?"

I, for one, have never said the Bible is 100% literal. Not sure how many times symbolism, metaphor, et cetera...have to mentioned.

For example, the sword proceeding out of the mouth of the Lord is not literal, so we can take this as an example that the statement "the Bible is 100% literal" is not an accurate statement.

On the other hand, while some see certain passages as literal and some as metaphor or allegory, this has to be addressed passage by passage, rather than trying to generalize scripture to being one or the other exclusively.

(31-05-2012 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Truthfully, there isn't a literalist that can defend this position as you have to bend "literal" in order to make it fit.

I know of no literalist that does so. This is just a false presentation meant to strengthen one's own position.

The fact that I do see the creation account as literal, though there are aspects that seem confusing, does not mean that I fail to recognize those passages that are not, such as accounts given in parables.

I see it like this: if you say that scripture contradicts itself, even if it is only Genesis 1-3, then at least be honest and also say that it is not inspired. Because what one is saying is that the account is man's creation, not God's.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No. It's. Not. In. The. Language.

Yes. It. Is.

lol

What you are confusing is that it is not in that particular verse (told you I was having a bit of fun at your expense...lol).

But it is most certainly in the greek language.


(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  And, holy crap, what are you talking about? "Sabbath" doesn't change in any meaning in any commentary.

So the rest in Christ is the same thing as the weekly sabbath?

The Ten Commandments speak of the rest in Christ specifically?



(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  It is still referenced as it's understood as a day of rest and holiness. It's used as an example, a picture, an illustration of how to have rest in Christ. The idea and meaning of "Sabbath" remained unchanged.

So the weekly sabbath was a picture of rest and holiness? Now we can't say it is a picture of rest and holiness, and say it is a commandment meant to be fulfilled, and say that the latter was fulfilled weekly, the former fulfilled in Christ...and still say that sabbath doesn't refer to a number of things.

Regardless of the definitoin.

The word soul refers to a number of things as well, this definition also, does not change.

(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  You're not even making sense in what you're arguing.

I can see that...lol.

(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Also, you speak of atheists as if they're lower life forms.

That is false.

Once again seeking to garner support. This is bad enough when the opposing view does it, worse when one who claims to be a Christian does it. And before you get upset and accuse me of questioning your salvation, let me be clear...I am not.

It is your doctrine I am questioning.

I believe saved people can be wrong...I am in error at times, and have been many times in the past.

(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I asked someone else because they are just as capable of retrieving data and posting it instead of me.

Allrightythen.

(31-05-2012 03:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Just because they post it instead of me doesn't change the facts of the data.

Still going to stick with the thought that the greek does not contain the word new?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 06:10 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
ST you're amazingly anal, I was discussing your own misstatement and in turn you're rubbing so much into it. I'm stating that there are plenty of laws that existed within the older forms of christianity which you do not folow due to the modern world. The religion has changed and as far as one of the hurdles you weren't around to oppose let's look to king james. He changed a lot about christianity from the earlier groups of christians well before you were born. Even islam has changed plenty of doctrines. Did you realise that after mohammed died there were other people who declared themselves prophets and wrote additions? Religions change, and after 1000s of years become quite unrecognizeable between eachother. Are you suggesting that you follow all the many rules that would be followed at that time? I supposed that you didn't because following them in our current era would make you quite the outsider.

If you seek to suggest that you do follow all of these rules how many wives do you have and how many children? When did you first find a wife? If you're a woman why are you discussing scripture? Plenty more questions to follow as there are a lot of rules written in those books. Not even orthodox jews follow the complete list of commandments within their torah.

My statement was that by your statement of fundamental islamics being closer to the religion you were suggesting that the actual religion is dead not me. I was simply remarking on what you had said.

I don't use quotes much because you know what you've said and can scroll back to it easy enough. In your next response to me since I'm sure there will be one don't sit here and respond to each line I write. You do nothing but bother the other readers with this style of posting. We want succint because it allows us to grasp things faster. We are not here to discuss every word someone types but the overarching ideas that those words suggest.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
31-05-2012, 06:44 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 06:10 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I don't use quotes much because...

I'm pretty anal. Laughat

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: