- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/9/23 at 2:47 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 7/9/23 at 2:47 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Think about how much you know God exists, the only God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of that God, and following his words and believing in him is the only way to avoid the reckoning. You are 100% sure of it all. Realize that some like me are 100% sure that there will be no reckoning, at least not from any deity described in the Bible. You can’t fathom that we are positive that you are wrong. Trust me, it’s not “pretending” as you call it.
Assumptions. I wish I could say that I never had/have doubts. There are times when I question my own beliefs. There are many things that I don’t understand. There are many questions that go unanswered. But, as I search for the truth I recognize that the evidence for God vastly outweighs the arguments against. I find that when I have these doubts, they tend to precede and/or follow my selfish desires to rebel against God and His Laws.
God’s existence (by design, I believe) cannot be proved, nor disproved, beyond doubt. Which means that we are required, by default, to exercise faith- whether for or against. I find that interesting.
So, whether you admit it or not- you live by faith. What’s the motivation behind your campaign to destroy others’ faith in God? The theist believes that he is acting in the best interests of others- out of love. The atheist, from my personal experience, is acting in selfish rebellion to known truth- consequences be damned.
1
Posted on 7/9/23 at 4:59 pm to Smeg
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/3/24 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 7/9/23 at 5:26 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Anglicans, so probably real.
A friend of mine is a former Anglican Priesr/Presbytery.
He still is involved for some things with Chaplain in the military commissioning but he pretty much gave up on the Global church.
Posted on 7/9/23 at 7:41 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
But, as I search for the truth I recognize that the evidence for God vastly outweighs the arguments against.
There are many things that mankind or individuals cannot understand or explain. People invented stories to explain the natural world the best they could.
So the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, a flat disk, with a firmament (like glass or polycarbonate) to separate the sky water from the oceans. The earth is held up by pillars. The god Yahweh rides on the clouds and sends rain, hail, and lightning from heaven, and his voice is thunder. When he’s really angry, he sends forth fire and sulfur from the earth (volcanoes).
There’s some things man will probably never explain or replicate such as the origin of life. It still doesn’t mean a supernatural being did it. But maybe one did. Who knows? But even if you believe in the supernatural doesn’t mean that you should believe in the gods of the Bible. You can’t prove or disprove any religion. Lack of evidence though would lead to non belief though for most rational people.
quote:
So, whether you admit it or not- you live by faith.
I disagree. You got it completely backwards. Faith is the strong belief in something or an idea with a lack of evidence for, and in many cases overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My beliefs are based on evidence.
quote:
What’s the motivation behind your campaign to destroy others’ faith in God?
I do enjoy pointing out the ignorance of people making hateful comments such as this one:
quote:
The atheist, from my personal experience, is acting in selfish rebellion to known truth- consequences be damned.
Let me shed some light on this…
quote:
known truth
Read Genesis chapter 1. Then read chapters 2-3.
Chapter 1, in order:
-God/gods make heaven and earth
-earth was covered by water
-god made day and night
-god separated the waters with a firmament
-god made dry land
-god made all plants (day and night and plants before he made the sun
) -god made the sun moon and stars
-god made animals
-god made man and women at the same time
-god blesses man and women to be fruitful and multiply, saying he gives them every plant and animal to eat as food…
-6 days of creation, with god resting on the 7th
Chapters 2-3:
-1 day of creation
-god made heavens and earth
-there’s no water covering the earth
-god made man first
-then he made plants
-god told the man he could not eat of every plant
-god tries to make a partner for man by making all the animals, god fails with animals
-so god makes woman. Maybe that’ll be more suitable.
-god does not bless man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, but rather keeps them ignorant of sex and procreation
-god tells Adam he will die if he eats of the tree of knowledge
-talking snake corrects god
-man and women eat forbidden fruit, learn of procreation,
-god cursed man and woman and puts thorns on plants and makes childbirth painful
Ok first, ask yourself if either story sounds ridiculous or not. Then secondly, compare those two lists. Are they the same or are they different. If they’re different then they both can’t be true. Go ahead, re-read genesis chapters 1-3 and see for yourself.
This post was edited on 7/9/23 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 9:57 am to GruntbyAssociation
quote:
They mustn’t read the Bible.
We weren’t exactly hellfire and brimstone to start with. We did of course have Bible school on Sunday, but the social component was always the stronger part of the church when I was a child.
Our problem was the corruption of the church hierarchy, and we were probably quite vulnerable, because we didn’t take our faith, or orthodoxy, very seriously. So we didn’t see the threat coming, and didn’t defend ourselves adequately against it.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:25 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This belief is based on interpretation of evidence that is measured based on presuppositions about the age of the earth and the uniformity of nature. Prior belief directs understanding.
There are so many factors across multiple scientific disciplines that are in direct conflict with the YEC model that it is willful ignorance to believe it.
Not to mention how ridiculous it is (physical evidence aside) that the millions of predatory species that have existed in the history of Earth somehow lived in harmony with all the available prey. God armed predators with teeth, claws, etc., just waiting for the day Adam fricked up and unleashed a battle royale. Until then, they were all as docile as a lapdog.
Utterly insane.
But you go on believing what you want if it helps you get through the day.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:57 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
People invented stories to explain the natural world the best they could.
Or, they passed down firsthand knowledge from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to his descendants- which is all of us.
quote:
So the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old
No, it doesn’t. Man’s attempt to date the earth- based on genealogies in the Bible, do. But, you already knew that. You just prefer to use half-thruths to push your agenda. Weak.
quote:
a flat disk,
Again- no, it doesn’t. In the case of the earth's shape, scripture never explicitly states the shape of our planet, nor does the Bible propose to teach the physical design of earth explicitly at any point, but it does confirm a round earth implicitly in various places. For example, the Creation account in Genesis 1 says that the earth began as water only, and water suspended in space always takes the form of a sphere due to the surface tensions of water molecules. Furthermore, when dry land appeared, Genesis 1 describes all the land as existing "in one place" in Genesis 1:9 while all waters are gathered likewise. Geometrically, this can only happen on a sphere, and therefore Genesis 1 implies a round earth. Round or flat?
quote:
There’s some things man will probably never explain or replicate such as the origin of life. It still doesn’t mean a supernatural being did it. But maybe one did
Most intelligent and intellectually honest thing you’ve said so far.
quote:
the gods of the Bible
One God- Yahweh. Many false gods (false meaning not really God, eh?)
quote:
You can’t prove or disprove any religion.
Agreed. But only Christianity offers logical explanations, time after time, for the unreasonable to refute- like a child who despises wisdom and instruction.
quote:
Lack of evidence
Where’s the evidence that proves God doesn’t exist? I see plenty of evidence for His existence- Intelligent Design; ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for His existence require a lot of mental gymnastics and nonsensical explanations to refute. Evidence for God?
quote:
Faith is the strong belief in something or an idea with a lack of evidence for, and in many cases overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My beliefs are based on evidence.
Again, what evidence do you have? Faith IS the evidence; unto salvation for the believer, and unto destruction for the rejector. Your beliefs are, in fact, faith based.
quote:
I do enjoy pointing out the ignorance of people making hateful comments such as this one: quote: The atheist, from my personal experience, is acting in selfish rebellion to known truth- consequences be damned.
My intent was not hateful, but honest. I suppose the truth does hurt those who wish to escape it.
quote:
Read Genesis chapter 1. Then read chapters 2-3.
You know full well that there are logical, reasonable and readily available explanations for all of this, and more.
Answers in Genesis
Your problem is not intellectual- it is emotional. You don’t need more education, you need a heart transplant. And, only the Holy Spirit can provide that. My purpose here is not to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. It is, however, to show those who are on the fence about answering the call, that no matter which side you land on- it will be a faith based decision, and that the Christian worldview most accurately describes and reflects our existence and current state of affairs.
John 6:37 (NASB95): “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
John 6:44 (NASB95): “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Acts 17:30–31 (NASB95): Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Hebrews 4:14–16 (NASB95): let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
I pray that we all are drawn to Him. I pray that one day, you and I will laugh about this- in Heaven, together. May God give you wisdom, grace and mercy. Amen.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 11:05 am to catholictigerfan
quote:I find it odd that the Apostle Paul would entreat Christians not to withhold conjugal rights from spouses (1 Cor. 7:5) but that it was fine for some prominent people within the church to do that.
celibate before he was a disciple of Jesus no obviously not he had a wife.
Celibate after he followed Jesus and was the first leader on the Church? Debatable.
Regardless of that minor point, if Peter, the alleged first Pope, was married, that didn't set a good precedent for the priesthood, especially since my understanding of "celibacy" for priests in the RCC is centered around marriage.
quote:While your opinion is logical, it is speculative. What we know is that Peter was married. All additional details about the nature of his marriage and the timing of it are not provided.
My own personal opinion is that Peter when he followed Jesus was celibate. Notice there is never a mention of Peter's wife in the New Testament, just his mother in law. There are priests in the Catholic Church who had a wife and are celibate now. If a man's wife dies or his previous marriage was considered invalid, he can become a priest. He would still have a mother in law despite being celibate.
quote:I'm aware of the exception, which I find to be strange, considering the requirements for priesthood.
There is an exception for anglican priests who convert to Catholicism. Not sure where you are from but there is a married priest in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, where I am from.
quote:I don't think the manuscript evidence supports the NAB reading you alluded to, so I'll ignore that for now.
This is how I understand the Church's discipline of celibacy. It's important to understand the passage bellow. (Mt 19:10–12)
Simply put Jesus calls some to make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus isn't saying to literally make yourself a eunuch but act like you are one, the NAB translation says renounce marriage.
Regarding what Jesus was saying here in Matt 19: the topic was about divorce. Jesus had just reaffirmed and defended the creation ordinance of marriage and even strengthened it in light of the leniency Moses gave. This tightening of the requirements of divorce concerned the disciples and said if it were the case, it's better to not marry at all (than to be stuck married to a wife you didn't like), and that's when Jesus talked about eunuchs. His point wasn't to command it (like the RCC does for priests), but to say that was necessary for those who didn't like the strictness of Jesus' teaching on divorce. Nowhere in that passage does Jesus condemn marriage, forbid marriage, or command anyone to remain unmarried.
quote:I'm glad the RCC puts a premium on marriage, generally. All Christians should.
Marriage is a good and upheld as a Sacrament in the Catholic Church. Actually Catholics uphold marriage so high that we don't simply give away divorces or have fault divorces like many protestant denominations. We believe that if a sacramental marriage occurred then it can never be broken. An annulment states a sacramental marriage never took place, but that's for another thread.
quote:IMO, the distinction between a discipline and a doctrine is irrelevant to this issue. The issue at hand is whether or not the RCC actually forbids marriage for priests, and they do, with notable exceptions.
My point is that some men and women are called to sacrifice marriage for the sake of the kingdom. The church's discipline is that all priests (with some exceptions) be celibate. A discipline is basically a teaching that isn't the level of a doctrine. A Pope or a council of the Church in theory could change thet discipline, but the chances of being struck by lightning are much higher than the Church ever changing that discipline.
quote:This is where I'll make the main thrust of my argument against this discipline/practice.
My personal opinion is that is what Jesus desired for his priests. I would argue that all his apostles are celibate. While there is nothing in the scriptures that say they were all celibate, looking a bit deeper and reading some of the ancient christian writings, it's very plausible that they were all celibate. I've already spoke about Peter.
As you rightly point out, the Scriptures do not say that the disciples/apostles were celibate. To the contrary, Paul alludes to the other apostles taking wives, especially Peter. In 1 Cor. 9, Paul talks about his "rights" that he has, which he has denied for himself, and in verse 5, mentions that taking a "sister" (translated as "believing wife") is his right, and says that other apostles have done the same thing, as well as the "brothers of the Lord" and Cephas (Peter).
In addition, though the Scriptures do not have an office for "priest" in the NT church (I believe it teaches the "priesthood of the believer" (Rev. 1:6; 20:6)), it does give qualifications for the office of overseer (episkope) / elder (presbyteros) in 1 Tim. 3, and in Titus 1, and those qualifications include being married to one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), having submissive, believing children (1 Tim. 3:4; Titus 1:7), and that he must manage his household well (1 Tim. 3:5). While I don't believe this is a requirement for elders/overseers to be married or to have children, it certainly isn't excluding such men who have families from the office, but expects such men to aspire to the office.
Something to note is that the Scriptures aren't a proof text for this discipline/requirement. While anyone can use the Scriptures inappropriately to support pretty much anything they want, the Scriptures simply cannot be used rightly to justify this discipline/practice. One glaring evidence for this is that the discipline of forbidding marriage for priests didn't even take hold in the RCC until nearly 1,000 years after Christ, and it was not implemented as a reformation of orthopraxy due to a review of the Scriptures, but a change due to a review of abuses within the church. It wasn't until 1075 that Pope Gregory VII issued a decree barring married priests, and that was approved by the First Lateran Council in 1123, long after the Scriptures were closed.
While this practice wasn't based on the Scriptures (the Scriptures don't support it), the RCC forbade marriage for priests, which I believe is a direct contradiction of Scripture (1 Tim. 4:1-4).
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 11:48 am
Posted on 7/10/23 at 11:13 am to FooManChoo
It is an endless (but not fruitless) battle, my friend. It is our pleasure to present the Gospel. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that will effect change. Keep up the good work, my friend. We are not alone. One + God = A majority.
2 Kings 6:15–17 (NASB95): Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?”
16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”
17 Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
2 Kings 6:15–17 (NASB95): Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?”
16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”
17 Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 11:17 am to Smeg
lolz
The Lord's prayer was really done to show us how to pray to God. Reciting the Lord's prayer as your own is okay and all but it wasn't the intent to be used solely as your prayer.
Everything Jesus Christ did was to show us how to live and treat one another. His life is one big example to us all, as was that prayer.
The Lord's prayer was really done to show us how to pray to God. Reciting the Lord's prayer as your own is okay and all but it wasn't the intent to be used solely as your prayer.
Everything Jesus Christ did was to show us how to live and treat one another. His life is one big example to us all, as was that prayer.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 11:24 am to Globetrotter747
quote:All evidence requires interpretation, which are in turn based on our underlying presuppositions. Science as a methodology requires the belief in uniformitarianism (which it can't account for in an atheistic worldview). If the Biblical narrative is correct, while uniformitarianism may be correct generally, there are instances of God's direct involvement in this world that would necessarily change how we interpret evidence within historical science especially.
There are so many factors across multiple scientific disciplines that are in direct conflict with the YEC model that it is willful ignorance to believe it.
I liken it to an example that I read a while back about assumptions: a scientist walks into a bathroom and sees a bathtub partially filled with water and a slow drip coming from the faucet. He decides to calculate how long the drip had been occurring, so he goes about measuring the amount of water contained in each drip, the rate of the drip, and the volume of water currently in the tub, and he calculates that the water had been slowly filling up the tub for the past 8 hours. He performs all the calculations again to make sure and he comes to the same conclusion. After being satisfied with his work, he explains it to his wife, who proceeds to inform him that she turned on the water an hour ago to wash the dog but then got distracted and must not have turned off the faucet completely.
The point is that if we assume naturalistic uniformity, our interpretations of the evidence may be much different than if we don't assume naturalistic uniformity.
quote:If God can create all things (including those predators), could He not also have given them a nature that prevented them from desiring to kill other creatures? That's precisely what the Bible teaches about man's nature, and how when we are in the "age to come" (in Heaven), we will have perfectly glorified bodies and all sin will be removed from our natures so that we will have no desire (and ability) to kill or hurt others.
Not to mention how ridiculous it is (physical evidence aside) that the millions of predatory species that have existed in the history of Earth somehow lived in harmony with all the available prey. God armed predators with teeth, claws, etc., just waiting for the day Adam fricked up and unleashed a battle royale. Until then, they were all as docile as a lapdog.
In addition, I don't believe there were originally "millions of predatory species" on the earth at the time of that natural peace. Additional species evolved over time from the original "kinds" that were created initially.
quote:I believe the truth. You need to embrace the truth before it is too late for you. You are a sinner who will experience the full wrath of God for eternity if you do not repent of your sins and trust in the perfect obedience, substitutionary death, and resurrection of our God and savior, Jesus Christ.
But you go on believing what you want if it helps you get through the day.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 12:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible, itself, is a historical record. Sorry if you don't accept it as such even though you'll accept every other historical account of antiquity, especially if it seems to contradict the Biblical narrative.
It is considered historical literature, but not historically accurate. For instance, there’s no corroborating evidence for the creation account of genesis 1 or the different creation account of genesis 2-3. On the contrary, there’s overwhelming evidence that what is described in the genesis creation accounts did not happen.
quote:
The Egyptians were punished for their sin and rebellion.
Sin and rebellion against whom? Certainly not Yahweh, who was not the god of the Egyptians, never claimed to be their god, never tried to “convert” the Egyptians, and never wanted nor tried to get Egyptians to worship him. Yet another thing you make up that has no basis in the text.
Some say Yahweh punished the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites. Ask yourself- why did the Israelites “have” to go to Egypt in the first place.
Because Yahweh tried to starve them. Some say Yahweh punished the Egyptians for the pharaoh not releasing the Israelites from slavery. Who, exactly, hardened the heart of the Pharaoh and caused him to not release the Israelites?
Ok so why did Yahweh punish the Egyptians? Why did he plague them and kill them? Yahweh himself states numerous times why he performed so many evil deeds to the Egyptians.
Yahweh punished and harmed the Egyptians…
Drum roll…
…
…
Because he wanted to make them know that he is Yahweh!
Exodus… 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 10:2, 14:4, 14:8
ETA: I read the rest of your jibberish and don’t have time or desire to reply to all that.
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:13 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
quote:So the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old No, it doesn’t. Man’s attempt to date the earth- based on genealogies in the Bible, do. But, you already knew that. You just prefer to use half-thruths to push your agenda. Weak.
So the link to the retards at answers in genesis you provided says the earth is 6000 years old.
quote:
In the case of the earth's shape, scripture never explicitly states the shape of our planet
Where do you think the “flat earthers” come from? They are religious nuts like you but with slightly different interpretations. Certainly you must know about the earth being immovable, pillars/foundations of the earth, ends of the earth, four corners of the earth. The “divinely inspired” text certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
quote:
But only Christianity offers logical explanations, time after time
Yeah, screw science!
quote:
Intelligent Design
Really?
Screw observable facts about biology!
quote:
Again, what evidence do you have? Faith IS the evidence; unto salvation for the believer, and unto destruction for the rejector. Your beliefs are, in fact, faith based.
Up is down, down is up. Come on man, no one is buying this nonsense.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:41 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Much of the historical accounting from the Bible is demonstrably true. While secular archeologists and historians don't put much stock in the supernatural accounts, the peoples, names, and events provided by the Bible are very much regarded to be accurate. I believe the phrase most commonly used is "generally reliable". The Bible isn't just "literature", but has historical narrative genre included.
It is considered historical literature, but not historically accurate.
quote:You can disagree with the account of creation from the Bible based on your secular presuppositions, but that doesn't mean that the account is not true. The Bible teaches creation from a historical perspective, not poetry, as some claim in order to reject the narrative as being factual.
For instance, there’s no corroborating evidence for the creation account of genesis 1 or the different creation account of genesis 2-3. On the contrary, there’s overwhelming evidence that what is described in the genesis creation accounts did not happen
quote:God is the God of all nations and all peoples, because He created them. He created mankind in His image, and all peoples and nations, therefore, owe worship and homage to Him.
Sin and rebellion against whom? Certainly not Yahweh, who was not the god of the Egyptians, never claimed to be their god, never tried to “convert” the Egyptians, and never wanted nor tried to get Egyptians to worship him. Yet another thing you make up that has no basis in the text.
There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours. All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God. -Psalm 86:8-10
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. -Psalm 22:27-28
quote:God sent a famine to drive Jacob and his family to Egypt to set up the redemption that would come in the future by delivering the people from bondage in slavery 400 years later. God sent a famine, but didn't starve Jacob and his sons. That's why He sent Joseph into slavery in Egypt, so that he would be raised up to care for his father and brothers in Egypt. It wasn't until after the Joseph had died that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, and that lasted until the sins of the Canaanites was complete, then God delivered the people and brought them to the land He promised Abraham.
Some say Yahweh punished the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites. Ask yourself- why did the Israelites “have” to go to Egypt in the first place. Because Yahweh tried to starve them.
quote:God hardened his heart, and he hardened his own heart. Pharaoh rejected God and God removed His gracious hand from Pharaoh so that he would harden his heart even more.
Some say Yahweh punished the Egyptians for the pharaoh not releasing the Israelites from slavery. Who, exactly, hardened the heart of the Pharaoh and caused him to not release the Israelites?
I like the analogy of clay: clay remains soft when it is watered, but when you remove water from it, it hardens. God's gracious "water" was removed from Pharaoh, which caused him to harden his heart.
Why? So that God could show His power by judging a wicked people.
quote:They rejected the creator of all things and exchanged the truth about God for a lie (their own idols), and worshipped statues and images made by their own hands. Romans 1 explains this well.
Ok so why did Yahweh punish the Egyptians? Why did he plague them and kill them? Yahweh himself states numerous times why he performed so many evil deeds to the Egyptians.
Yahweh punished and harmed the Egyptians…
Drum roll…
…
…
Because he wanted to make them know that he is Yahweh!
Exodus… 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 10:2, 14:4, 14:8
quote:I feel the same way about your lies. I choose to respond to most of what you say because you try to overload your posts so that no one takes the time to pick apart your false claims and terrible interpretations. I try to take the time since few others will.
ETA: I read the rest of your jibberish and don’t have time or desire to reply to all that.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:43 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
He's jealous for the worship that is owed to Him as creator. Worship of anything other than God is idolatry.
I will reply to this because it is such a stupid comment, and others need to read this rebuttal.
Let’s break this down from a fundamental standpoint. Here’s exodus 20:
3“You shall have no other gods before me.
4“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Verse 3: no other gods before me. I’m using ESV where in this case “above” would be a more accurate translation of Strong’s concordance 5921. It should read “you shall have no other gods above me”. It means don’t consider the other gods to be better or more valuable than Yahweh. It is not denying the existence of the other gods.
Verse 4: don’t make images or likeness of the other gods. It’s because ancient people always use statues and images to represent their gods. Sometimes they even imagined their gods coming down from heaven and inhabiting their statues while they were engaged in worship. The ancient Jews still thought this as they believed Yahweh inhabited the ark as they drug it around the countryside killing Canaanites and trying and failing to kill Philistines. Catholics still fail at the first commandment to this day with images of Jesus and Mary (though they are now free of “the law” including the commandments as Jesus redeemed us of the curse of the law).
Verse 5: don’t bow down to them (don’t worship them). Don’t serve them (don’t do the bidding of the other gods). Kind of hard to serve another god if those other gods don’t really exist, eh? What is the theme here? Yahweh is a jealous god but the explanation for the jealousy is contained in the the preceding statements. He is [b]jealous of other gods[/b]. How dumb would it be to say that Yahweh is jealous of things (gods in this case) that don’t really exist. Yahweh is jealous of a leprechaun! See how dumb that sounds?
Let’s look at an applicable definition of “jealousy” on webster’s dictionary.
Jealous - adj - hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage.
Don’t worship or serve the other gods - the rivals of Yahweh - is the point.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:43 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You should really consider the transcendental argument for God's existence. The argument states that God makes the world intelligible (including science), and that without the existence of God, you would have no basis for using science, math, or logic. In other words, you have to assume God's existence (even if you actively deny it) to make sense of reality.quote:Yeah, screw science!
But only Christianity offers logical explanations, time after time
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The argument states that God makes the world intelligible (including science), and that without the existence of God, you would have no basis for using science, math, or logic. In other words, you have to assume God's existence (even if you actively deny it) to make sense of reality.
That's a stupid argument.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:57 pm to FooManChoo
Catholic Answers, as usual, has the full, complete and correct information on Celibacy of Priests.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:58 pm to Smeg
Stupid protestants. 
Page 7 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News