PDA

View Full Version : Rock n Roll All Nite, and PARTY Every Day



Aristotle
11-14-2014, 01:49 PM
“The Lord never says that the Kingdom of God is a show,” said Pope Francis Thursday. “It’s a party! But it is different. And a party is beautiful, of course. A big party. And Heaven will be a party.”

In his homily during Mass at the chapel in his Saint Martha residence, Francis contrasted the idea of show or spectacle—where people go to see and be seen—with the idea of a feast or party, where people rejoice together.

As an example of a spectacle, Francis proposed a wedding, where “people often come for a fashion show, to be seen, out vanity, rather than to receive a sacrament.”

Heaven, and the kingdom of God, are different. It is not this sort of show; it’s a true feast, and it begins now, the Pope suggested.

“The Kingdom of God is not far from us,” the Pope stated. “It’s close! This is one of its features: It’s close to us every day.”

“The Kingdom of God is humble, like a seed” Francis said. “It is humble but becomes great, by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Our job, the Pope said, “is to let it grow in us, without boasting. Let the Spirit come, change our souls and brings us forward in silence, in peace, in quiet, in closeness to God,” he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/11/14/Heaven-Will-Be-a-Party-Says-Pope-Francis

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 02:52 PM
“The Kingdom of God is humble, like a seed” Francis said. “It is humble but becomes great, by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Our job, the Pope said, “is to let it grow in us, without boasting. Let the Spirit come, change our souls and brings us forward in silence, in peace, in quiet, in closeness to God,” he said.

Would this be a hint toward ending proselytizing? It would be nice if the Saturday morning holy rollers would read and heed.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 03:50 PM
No, I don't think he is saying that. He would also recognize Jesus sent Christians into the world to proselytize.

But I think you're half-right. He is telling the ones who turn people off with their glitz and glamour (I'm looking at you, Benny Hinn,et al) to dial it back a few notches.

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 04:47 PM
No, I don't think he is saying that. He would also recognize Jesus sent Christians into the world to proselytize.

But I think you're half-right. He is telling the ones who turn people off with their glitz and glamour (I'm looking at you, Benny Hinn,et al) to dial it back a few notches.

It is at the very least a start.

Barry Morris
11-14-2014, 04:51 PM
No, I don't think he is saying that. He would also recognize Jesus sent Christians into the world to proselytize.

But I think you're half-right. He is telling the ones who turn people off with their glitz and glamour (I'm looking at you, Benny Hinn,et al) to dial it back a few notches.

Glitz.. Hmmm.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpjymebDFcOUnmCj3yw3ya-KeYBd-DNPPlmkjoTQNalPjR8nyU

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 04:53 PM
I have to admit a certain fascination with Bennie's hair style.

Barry Morris
11-14-2014, 04:57 PM
I don't have much respect for Benny Hinn.

But I doubt too many here know much about him, or the effect he has had on some people for good.

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 04:59 PM
I have no respect for any TV evangelist since Billy Graham and only slightly for him.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 07:41 PM
Glitz.. Hmmm.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpjymebDFcOUnmCj3yw3ya-KeYBd-DNPPlmkjoTQNalPjR8nyU

Based on the Jewish heritage of the Church, but I wouldn't expect someone who subscribes to a version of Christianity that is no older than 150-years-old to know anything about tradition and history.

But if you want to defend the Benny Hinn's of Christianity let me get right out of the way and let you do so.

Just don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously on Christian issues anymore.

Barry Morris
11-15-2014, 01:08 AM
Based on the Jewish heritage of the Church, but I wouldn't expect someone who subscribes to a version of Christianity that is no older than 150-years-old to know anything about tradition and history.

But if you want to defend the Benny Hinn's of Christianity let me get right out of the way and let you do so.

Just don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously on Christian issues anymore.

The Roman Catholic denomination started up about 300 years after Christ.

It's common knowledge.

And it's better not to worship tradition and history,

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 11:08 AM
The Roman Catholic denomination started up about 300 years after Christ.



Peter was the first Pope, yet he was also one of Christ's disciples. So, are you saying Peter was about 460 or so when he became Pope?

Barry Morris
11-15-2014, 12:51 PM
Peter was the first Pope, yet he was also one of Christ's disciples. So, are you saying Peter was about 460 or so when he became Pope?

You read what I write, but you answer what you comprehend. I get that.

The catholic (universal body of Christ) church started with Christ. The Roman Catholic denomination began 300 years later.

To call Peter a pope is just back-dating.

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 02:11 PM
You read what I write, but you answer what you comprehend. I get that.

The catholic (universal body of Christ) church started with Christ. The Roman Catholic denomination began 300 years later.

To call Peter a pope is just back-dating.

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).



Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 02:12 PM
"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).



Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).



Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).



Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).



Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).



Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).



Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).



Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).



Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

Barry Morris
11-15-2014, 06:00 PM
Sorry, you can quote your man made works all day long, and not make a real connection between the Body of Christ that Peter was at the beginning of, and the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Body of Christ, His church is NOT and never will be centred in one denomination.

Anapeg
11-15-2014, 07:21 PM
Sorry, you can quote your man made works all day long, and not make a real connection between the Body of Christ that Peter was at the beginning of, and the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Body of Christ, His church is NOT and never will be centred in one denomination.


At the risk of looking really foolish, was not Catholicism not the first christian religion where the others sprang from?

Barry Morris
11-15-2014, 11:59 PM
At the risk of looking really foolish, was not Catholicism not the first christian religion where the others sprang from?

No, not the only one.

Aristotle
11-16-2014, 11:31 AM
No, not the only one.

Yes, it was.

Barry's Bible came from the Catholic Church!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
11-16-2014, 11:32 AM
Sorry, you can quote your man made works all day long, and not make a real connection between the Body of Christ that Peter was at the beginning of, and the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Body of Christ, His church is NOT and never will be centred in one denomination.

So, you have NO refutation.

NEXT!!! :) :) :)

Anapeg
11-16-2014, 11:34 AM
No, not the only one.

According to any reading I have done it was so.

Aristotle
11-16-2014, 11:36 AM
Barry makes it up as he goes.

Aristotle
11-16-2014, 01:01 PM
No, not the only one.

the others were ...

Barry Morris
11-17-2014, 10:15 AM
Barry makes it up as he goes.

I know you would like to think so.

Naturally, it's much more difficult to read the bible and study for oneself. I have some ideas about scripture that I raise once in a while, but I don't treat them as dogma.

You see, evangelicals don't have a cult-like central command to tell them what to believe. There is, however, agreement on basic doctrines shared among evangelicals. Sometimes a group will emphasize one aspect over another, but it is quite clear that those churches end up becoming smaller and smaller.

Basically it seems that some churches believe that the Holy Spirit only moves in a select group. Naturally, that group wants to keep that power for themselves. But the bible does not teach that, and so, it it relegated to a lesser status, a lesser authority than the select group.

So in other words, as we have seen in recent pronouncements by a certain white robed leader, they make it up as they go.

Barry Morris
11-17-2014, 10:20 AM
the others were ...

As I look into this history, a quick note.

The First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, was described as an "Ecumenical Council".

Interesting. One does not have an ecumenical council with only one denomination.

Aristotle
11-17-2014, 11:13 AM
As I look into this history, a quick note.

The First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, was described as an "Ecumenical Council".

Interesting. One does not have an ecumenical council with only one denomination.

Barry, it was ecumenical in the sense that it brought together churches from all over, to clarify certain dogmas, etc.

are you truly going on record to say there were multiple branches of Christianity before 325 AD?

Aristotle
11-17-2014, 11:15 AM
I know you would like to think so.

Naturally, it's much more difficult to read the bible and study for oneself. I have some ideas about scripture that I raise once in a while, but I don't treat them as dogma.

You see, evangelicals don't have a cult-like central command to tell them what to believe. There is, however, agreement on basic doctrines shared among evangelicals. Sometimes a group will emphasize one aspect over another, but it is quite clear that those churches end up becoming smaller and smaller.

Basically it seems that some churches believe that the Holy Spirit only moves in a select group. Naturally, that group wants to keep that power for themselves. But the bible does not teach that, and so, it it relegated to a lesser status, a lesser authority than the select group.

So in other words, as we have seen in recent pronouncements by a certain white robed leader, they make it up as they go.

And you believe the Holy Spirit will keep everyone from error when reading the Bible, and each interprets Scripture on their own.

Meanwhile, thousands of Protestant denominations later ...

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"
- former Protestant Henry Newman

IMHO
11-23-2014, 05:00 PM
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BIBLE written in todays English ?? I find that old stuff hard to understand.

Barry Morris
11-23-2014, 09:53 PM
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BIBLE written in todays English ?? I find that old stuff hard to understand.

There are all kinds of them. Some better than others, most having a slant of some kind.

If you want one, check at the Scripture Gift store on Queen. They can advise you.

Barry Morris
11-23-2014, 09:53 PM
And you believe the Holy Spirit will keep everyone from error when reading the Bible, and each interprets Scripture on their own.

Meanwhile, thousands of Protestant denominations later ...

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"
- former Protestant Henry Newman

The usual hyperbole.

Aristotle
11-24-2014, 11:01 AM
The usual hyperbole.

The usual deflection from an uncomfortable truth

Barry Morris
11-24-2014, 12:21 PM
The usual deflection from an uncomfortable truth

Well, my beliefs aren't dictated from another bunch of people like yours, who make things up as they go.

As to "truth", you have no idea what it is unless your denomination tells you.

Aristotle
11-24-2014, 12:23 PM
Well, my beliefs aren't dictated from another bunch of people like yours, who make things up as they go.

As to "truth", you have no idea what it is unless your denomination tells you.

That's exactly what your beliefs are, and your Christian "heritage" dates no further back than 150-some years.

You're a part of the John Darby school.

Read up on him.

Then weep.

Barry Morris
11-24-2014, 12:24 PM
Barry, it was ecumenical in the sense that it brought together churches from all over, to clarify certain dogmas, etc.

are you truly going on record to say there were multiple branches of Christianity before 325 AD?

There is, and always will be, only one Body of Christ. There were branches, yes, with no central authority to tell them exactly what to believe until the DENOMINATION of the RCC began to claim it.

But they were, and remain, wrong.

hobo
11-24-2014, 12:38 PM
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BIBLE written in todays English ?? I find that old stuff hard to understand.


You might find something that is to your liking here - http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm

Aristotle
11-24-2014, 02:30 PM
There is, and always will be, only one Body of Christ. There were branches, yes, with no central authority to tell them exactly what to believe until the DENOMINATION of the RCC began to claim it.

But they were, and remain, wrong.

You doubt what the RCC has to say, and their lineage can be traced back 2,000 years. Yet you are perfectly fine with what your Darby-inspired doctrine says., and he basically made it all up in the 1850s.

Amazing. Nothing short of amazing.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Barry Morris
11-24-2014, 04:07 PM
You doubt what the RCC has to say, and their lineage can be traced back 2,000 years. Yet you are perfectly fine with what your Darby-inspired doctrine says., and he basically made it all up in the 1850s.

Amazing. Nothing short of amazing.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Sure, like you can prove that.

Frankly, I don't worship the Roman Catholic Church. It's just another denomination. Sure it can trace it's lineage back 2000 years. But so can all members of the Body of Christ, which existed at least 300 years before the RCC.

Barry Morris
11-24-2014, 04:08 PM
Search Marthoma.

Aristotle
11-24-2014, 05:13 PM
Sure, like you can prove that.

Frankly, I don't worship the Roman Catholic Church. It's just another denomination. Sure it can trace it's lineage back 2000 years. But so can all members of the Body of Christ, which existed at least 300 years before the RCC.

That simply is not true. And, if you actually believe it (which I doubt) then whatever preacher told you that should have his license suspended immediately.

There is no core to your dogma. It is a hodgepodge borne out of a great *******ization of Protestantism int he mid-19th century.

Aristotle
11-24-2014, 05:16 PM
Search Marthoma.

That's wonderful. Too bad Jesus didn't call Thomas "The Rock"on which His Church would be built.

Having said that, I'd be willing to bet Marthoma is a lot closer to being a legitimate denomination than many of the fly-by-night Protestant denominations around today.

Light_Keeper
01-02-2015, 02:07 PM
May I ask a question here, without being belittled??
I thought that the Pagan religion was one (1) of the first religions and during the Roman Crusades they were over thrown by the Catholic followers.
I mean NO disrespect to anyone, but I believe first we must quantify what the word religion means to one's self. Otherwise this conversation would be mute. JMOP

Barry Morris
01-02-2015, 03:59 PM
May I ask a question here, without being belittled??
I thought that the Pagan religion was one (1) of the first religions and during the Roman Crusades they were over thrown by the Catholic followers.
I mean NO disrespect to anyone, but I believe first we must quantify what the word religion means to one's self. Otherwise this conversation would be mute. JMOP

I would think we also need to quantify what you mean by Pagan religion.

I was unaware it was in any way as organized as any Christian denomination.

Light_Keeper
01-02-2015, 06:03 PM
This is the definition, that I follow

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, belief system or sometimes set of duties;[3]

Light_Keeper
01-02-2015, 06:05 PM
I would think we also need to quantify what you mean by Pagan religion.

I was unaware it was in any way as organized as any Christian denomination.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is the only religion

Barry Morris
01-02-2015, 07:08 PM
Are you suggesting that Christianity is the only religion

No, that would obviously be incorrect.
But I do believe there is One God almighty, omnipresent , omniscient God, beside whom there is no other. Anyone who seeks Him is on the only correct path.

Barry Morris
01-03-2015, 12:53 AM
So is religion unnecessary? Is every religion that encourages one to seek God (regardless of the search methodology) correct?

In your opinion, could I seek God, and successfully come to him, by way of, say, Druidic practices?

Are religions just tools to be used?

A lot of religions DO encourage one to seek God. So in that I personally think they might be on the right track.

When the PRACTICES of a religion do not honour God, I would have to say no, you can't come to God that way. I believe that, as the bible says, all out righteousness is as a filthy rag. So, IMO, there is NO physical thing we can do to gain acceptance by Him. Only submitting to Him will do that, and seeking Him. God knows the heart.

Are religions tools?? I guess so, and are all to often used for the wrong reasons.

Barry Morris
01-03-2015, 11:23 PM
I think radical jihadists are submissive to God, seeking Him, and I think if God knows the heart, then he knows that those crazies believe what they're doing is honouring God (in their mind).

But I guess the bottom line is, your book says they're wrong, and their book says they're right.

I think you have to admit, that for all your conjecture, you have a fundamental and unspoken assumption; seeking God, submitting to God, etc, is all irrelevant if it's not done the way it's prescribed in 'your' book.

I suggest you try to find the Golden Rule in the Koran.

That's a simple, logical, premise, further emphasized by Christ's words in the book, "Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself".

And this simple thing leads me to believe that it isn't really religion driving jihadists, not fundamentally. They only started their actions relatively recently. They had easy access to North America for many, many years before they began their jihad. Why didn't they??

I think they are being used.

Barry Morris
01-04-2015, 10:21 AM
So, now that we have established that the golden rule is in the Qur'an (it's actually a frequently mentioned concept), can we not say the Qur'an is equal to your New Testament as a path to God? Is Islam a perfectly acceptable alternative to Christianity if one is seeking salvation?

Jihadists aside, there's plenty of crazies in every religion who misinterpret their holy books. Re: Westboro Baptist Church.

Then it should be obvious to you that jihadists are on the wrong track.

Now, I DO believe that those who seek God are on the right track. But there is something very important that they will eventually find. And denying it will keep them from salvation.

Check this, I found it interesting, on several levels.

http://jerusalemchannel.tv/koran-converted-christianity/

Light_Keeper
01-04-2015, 12:49 PM
Maybe we should ponder is thought, " There is but One GOD, and that GOD is known by many names".
Kindness, Love, Respect and many other positive emotions are seen in most religions.

I look at it as a journey, there are many different modes of transportation to get to the same place, so is it with , GOD and "Religion. JMOP

Example here would be; I may walk to Sudbury and make many stops on the way, while another many fly and get there sooner, or perhaps one might drive and spend a night in a cabin on the way.
No one is wrong , they all end up at the same place, just different times.

Light_Keeper
01-04-2015, 02:27 PM
We're all going to the same place, and in a roundabout way, we're going back to the beginning; before we were.

What that is, may or may not be God.

how true that feels to me, call it what you may but don't condemn those who need to label everything. I have come to understand that some people have a need to fit every idea and thought into a nice box , otherwise I think they would simple fall to pieces.
JMOP

Barry Morris
01-04-2015, 02:28 PM
Maybe we should ponder is thought, " There is but One GOD, and that GOD is known by many names".
Kindness, Love, Respect and many other positive emotions are seen in most religions.

I look at it as a journey, there are many different modes of transportation to get to the same place, so is it with , GOD and "Religion. JMOP

Example here would be; I may walk to Sudbury and make many stops on the way, while another many fly and get there sooner, or perhaps one might drive and spend a night in a cabin on the way.
No one is wrong , they all end up at the same place, just different times.

There is just one problem.

A Man, who claimed to be God, said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

Now, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that, unlike many Christians believe that one might not have to know who Jesus is, fully, to be accepted by God. But whoever denies Him has a clear and final fate.

God know the heart. He will judge.

Barry Morris
01-04-2015, 02:31 PM
I'm paraphrasing here, and I'm not trying to be condescending towards your beliefs, but this is what I'm getting.

So all religions are not wrong, but they're not wholly complete, and they must lead to Christianity and accepting Jesus to be of any real value.

Not quite in line with the above, but I think it's your assertion that truthfully accepting Christ is the only way to submit to God; and He knows if you're faking.

Fair enough, I was curious about your stance on other religions, and their viability as paths towards God. I got answers.

Quickly back to this: It's not obvious from a theological perspective. It's kind of obvious if you're any sort of decent human being, but jihadists are picking and choosing from their book, the same way radical Christians pick and choose from their book (actually they generally pick and choose from the Jews' book). Overt radicalized tendencies seem to be most pervasive in religious groups with no centralized authority.

Blunt, I commend you on a very clear comment.

Please note my comment to Light keeper, also.

I certainly agree with your last statement. But though many Christian denominations have no central authority, they certainly have a core group of beliefs, often promoted and taught by independent bible colleges.

Barry Morris
01-04-2015, 02:36 PM
We're all going to the same place, and in a roundabout way, we're going back to the beginning; before we were.

What that is, may or may not be God.

I do believe in the judgement of God, and He waits for us, at the end, to "separate the sheep from the goats".

Light_Keeper
01-05-2015, 01:05 AM
I do believe in the judgement of God, and He waits for us, at the end, to "separate the sheep from the goats".

I do not believe that GOD is as cruel as Christians believe, JMOP
I believe in a Spiritual entity that is based in LOVE, LIGHT, all forgiving. I do not believe that a Superior Being such as GOD , needs anything from me, as that being is able to achieve much greater things. IF "GOG" is all there is what could s/he possible need that s/he doesn't already have.

Barry Morris
01-05-2015, 10:22 AM
I do not believe that GOD is as cruel as Christians believe, JMOP

AS Christians believe?? We believe this is a God who sent His own Son, part of Himself, to pay the price of our sin. What could be more loving than that??



I believe in a Spiritual entity that is based in LOVE, LIGHT, all forgiving.

I believe that too. BUT. I also believe in His Holiness, and purity. And as such, He will not, cannot allow sin into His presence. Those who will not submit to Him will have to go elsewhere, as that is where their choices led them.

I do not believe that a Superior Being such as GOD , needs anything from me, as that being is able to achieve much greater things. IF "GOG" is all there is what could s/he possible need that s/he doesn't already have.

You called God "loving". Wouldn't you agree that loving is properly aimed at one who has the choice to love??? If you could force someone to love you, how would that be?? Really love?? No.

One more comment. He/she does not apply to God. God is not a man, or part of Mankind. God has the characteristics of both genders, and passed them on to us, in two parts, male and female, so that together they become the "one flesh" in marriage.

Light_Keeper
01-07-2015, 02:09 PM
Tell people they are DAMED to HELL, for their choices, after you give them freedom of choice is both Cruel and a use of Force. Forcing others to change their believes or spending their afterlife in a burning Hell is a definite use of fear and trying to force others to join you.

Barry Morris
01-07-2015, 04:00 PM
Tell people they are DAMED to HELL, for their choices, after you give them freedom of choice is both Cruel and a use of Force. Forcing others to change their believes or spending their afterlife in a burning Hell is a definite use of fear and trying to force others to join you.

All of that would be, if it were true.

I never told anyone they were going to hell. Neither did I believe it's a place of fire.

The basic truth is God will not allow sin near Him. Now, since being near Him is heaven, then those who choose not to love and submit to Him won't be near Him.

There will be no force, no fear, no torture, no cruelty. The absence of God is worse than any of that.

And that is what free will and choice is all about.

Barry Morris
01-08-2015, 05:14 AM
If He's all-powerful, and benevolent; why doesn't he just absolve us of our sin when we die, and allow us to be with Him?

Seems to me like anything less than that would either be:

A.) Not all-powerful
or
B.) Not benevolent

Because God is holy.

And if one rejected God all his life, where would he go?? :) :) :)

Once again, you want the free will without the consequences.

Bluesky
01-08-2015, 09:37 AM
If He's all-powerful, and benevolent; why doesn't he just absolve us of our sin when we die, and allow us to be with Him?

Seems to me like anything less than that would either be:

A.) Not all-powerful
or
B.) Not benevolent

He did absolve everyone of their sin. But people have to accept the absolution. It's called forgiveness.

Here is how that works. (I know you won;t believe it, but I will explain it nonetheless.)

You speak of absolution as if it doesn't cost anyone anything. That God can just snap his fingers and be done with it.

When someone owes you $1000, but they come to you and ask you to forgive them, you can either grant them forgiveness or not.
If you grant them forgiveness, you are the one who pays the debt. You swallowed the $1000. It is your loss, but your debtor is now free of the debt.

If you choose not to forgive, the debtor needs to keep working to pay off the debt.

Jesus Christ died to pay your moral debt to God.
He offers you forgiveness, but of course you need to accept the fact that you have rebelled against God and are a sinner.
If you choose not to accept what Jesus Christ, the Son of God has done for you, you have chosen to pay the debt nonetheless. And of course you do not have the resources to pay that debt.
So you must suffer the consequences of your actions and your choices.
It's the way all of life works. If it wasn't, justice as an absolute standard would not exist.
If you choose not to be forgiven, you choose to pay the price yourself. And that is tragic.

Thus He is both all powerful and benevolent. And He leaves you with a choice to boot.

Barry Morris
01-12-2015, 11:28 PM
I believe God loves, and that He is holy.

Trying to drag down God to man's level is a common practice.

The Left Sock
01-13-2015, 03:27 AM
"Note to self: Creating inferior beings using my omnipotent image tends to confuse the crap out of my creations. Will have to rethink that strategy, in my next project."

- The Almighty.

Barry Morris
01-13-2015, 09:04 AM
Like I said!! :) :) :)

Bluesky
01-13-2015, 11:44 AM
It wouldn't cost Him anything; not if he's all powerful. Only if he weren't all powerful would there be any drain on Him.


You're assuming that because God is all powerful, He can do things that are logically impossible. This is not a question of might; it is a question of justice.



Yes, but for the purpose of an equal comparison, wherein I am as the Lord, then I would have an infinite amount of money; so does $1000 truly cost me anything? No. Not at all.

That's where the money analogy fails. We are not talking about money. We are talking about moral obligation; i.e righteousness and justice.



Agree to disagree I guess.

Thanks for the civil interaction. Agreed with your final statement :)