I was reading an article in the L.A. Times today about this author who started an ad campaign in the London tube. He asked for donations to spread the word, and wound up getting $135,000 in contributions
It appears that atheists want to be heard in the U.K.
I will be in London in a few days, so maybe I will see these billboards. I am all about free speech, and I myself don't think I will be at a point where I don't believe in God. It is too wonderful a feeling having a belief that somewhere in the great unknown that some being loves every cell of me, besides my wife and my dad, and my auntie (those come to mind right away, I'm sure there are others)
I do know some atheists, and they make far more sense than any other identifiable group I know of. And they should be able to exercise their beliefs like ad campaigns.
Surprisingly, a poll of college students showed the greatest increase in belief systems are veering toward atheism. The more advanced a society is, the more tolerant it is of beliefs that differ. That's what used to be great about the U.S. and can't help but wonder how this ad campaign would fly in Flatbush, TX.
165 comments:
haven't said that before, huh frank? lol.
what if i said:
"it is amazing to me that we are STILL repeating ourselves like we're saying something new - but aren't, in any way shape or form."
lol.
i've taken gary's advice - i still like coming and reading everyone's mostly (i said mostly) silly banter - but since i "gave up hope", at least in the sense that i would make any sense to any person here on this blog...i totally chillaxed out and found a nice little spot on the bleachers.
although again, even from the bleachers it's mostly people saying the same things over and over.
i do love my e-boy j. green because he's not angry...and i'm liking my other e-homie bobby e. because he's reminiscent of myself on the old blog...and who am i kidding: i'm still like that, i just realized very quickly it wasn't doing me (or anyone else) any good in this forum.
so.....proceed with the repetition!
p.s. love ya's!
lol.
Yes, think there is no God and enjoy life and get all the sexual diseases that are out there for those who practice immorality. Live like there is a God and you will answer to him, will help you live more responsible and STD free.
wow.
I guess I was most concerned, Lightinpsire,
by your immediate jump in thought - I think it says a lot about the way you view others - perhaps.... 'judge' them..
In your mind, it went: 'They don't believe in God... They must be must be having orgies, daily.' (hyperbole aside, you get my point)
Is that how you view it? Because it was quite ridiculous. In fact, you further the point that Dawkins was making. You say, well jokes on you - break the rules, you get the clap.
Because your faith - is rules. You live under a New Law you've created for yourself. It's evident in everything I've ever read from you.
And this is why to shotshot I say, first 'Hey man!', and second. I feel like I've been from day one defending my faith from the 'Christians' on this blog, more than folks like Frank. I understand Frank. I understand where he's coming from. I think like him. We just differ on faith - not fact - but faith. I don't understand folks like lightinspire. I get more heated at fellow Christians than I do anyone else.
A 'non-christian' could spit in Christ's eye, and I wouldn't care. Neither would Christ. Because Christ said to expect it. And to love those people. NOT so they'll turn into Christians because you loved them. NOT so they'll feel guilted into feeling bad and turn from their ways because you love them. But because you love them. Love them, because you ought to love them.
On the other hand, the minute I see a lazy Christian bastardizing the Christian message with their shallow perception of the faith, and poorly defined narrative of Christ... well... ummmmm... I don't like it much ;)
On a personal note, from one Christian to another, Lightinspire - I have never once felt in 1 year or 2, or however long it's been, that you have shown love. Not even a tinge. That is sad and humiliating for me as a Christian.
Rockin Post Jarrett.
And I DO love you. :)
You get the nature of spiritual journeys, rational science AND logical debate. What's not to love about that?
no dude, i totally get the "defending against the defenders" thing. been there, doing that.
and as for frank, he knows i love him too...we've had this talk. ;)
For an interesting discussion of religion and belief:
http://hogueprophecy.com/predictions/
HAMAS: Part 3 (Jan 10 entry)
Love doesn't mean approving but correcting so they will end up in the same heaven you will be in with Christ. Christ loved but if you pay attention to what he said, he was the chief criticizer so I'm a minor league compared to what He did and still does and yet he loved them. I criticize out of love dude, desiring that everyone on the board comes to a saving knowledge of Christ.
I have stayed on the bleachers too recently, but what I'm seeing is a Anti-Christian sentiment that is permeating the media, and even on this blog. I'm not going to judge anyone here because you certainly have the right to believe anyway you want. We Christians also have that same right to believe how we choose, that's what is great about living in a FREE country.
We Christians are called closed-minded because we happen to believe that Jesus is the THE TRUTH, THE WAY, AND THE LIFE. Let me ask everyone here a question, if you have cancer and their is only one cure for that cancer, would you refuse it because you want to be open-minded to other possible cures? No, I'm sure everyone here would accept the cure as soon as it could be given them. I happen to believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and that He is the cure for the world's problems.
I agree that many Christians have done evil in the name of God, but that doesn't change who God is. GOD IS LOVE. The problem many including you Gary have about reading the Bible is that you don't really understand the difference between the old covenant of the old testament, and the new covenant of the new testament, which is also why some have done evil in the name of God. Jesus paid the price for sin, and God is not imputing sin anymore. We now have the ability to have a relationship with God, and can even be a friend of God.
Anyone can choose to believe whether there is a God or not, but that doesn't change whether He actually exists or not. I choose to believe that He does indeed exist, because I have witnessed His touch in my life. I happen to believe the Bible is the Word of the Living God, it's my own personal conviction, and will be the rest of my life. So, Frank nothing you say will ever sway me.
What I find amazing is that Atheists are putting up billboards against God. The truth is that all of our beliefs are shaped by our upbringing and events in our lives. I know Frank seems to think that Christians are against science and that somehow science is proving that there is no God. But, I beg to differ. All the scientific knowledge in the world could never understand truly whether there is a God or not, as knowledge about the universe is so limited that it is laughable. So, it really comes down to a choice on our parts as to whether we believe there is a God or not. What I've found by reading this blog is that many who have turned against Christianity have been brought up in extremely religious churches, and have grown to hate Christianity because of it. Gary, I don't see you posting things against other religions, just Christianity, which leads me to believe that you really have been hurt by Christians, or grew disenchanted with your church. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by the anti-Christian posts, maybe you are just trying to generate traffic for you site, but maybe you really have questions about whether there is a God or not.
Keep searching!
Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Gary may be more of the second than the first definition.
Lightinspire wrote:"...so they will end up in the same heaven you will be in with Christ."
You've got a point, bro. Having studied different religions where a "heaven" is spoken about, and reading John 14:2: "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Many mansions. Sounds like there are more choices than simply "heaven and hell". "Many" rarely defines only two.
Take the Muslim's belief in their heaven. Another "mansion"? Maybe everyone is right.
Now, whether those "mansions" are the inventions of the mind or some kind of twilight zone domain beyond the mind... who really knows?
I guess, it all depends with whom you want to jam with the harp and flute, make love with virgins, or stick around with which religious leader for "eternity".
Frank wrote: "There will NEVER be scientific evidence of the existence of god. Never. And supernatural ideas will NEVER falsify a scientific theory. Never."
How do you know that? I'm sure there was a time when man would never have believed we could fly, go to the moon, etc...
I never said that science was attempting to prove that there is no God. What I said was "somehow science is proving that there is no God". Very different then your characterization. But, I'm sure there are scientists who are attempting to prove there is no God.
Tell me Frank how much knowledge is there about the universe? Is there life on other plants?
Frank wrote: "ps: Its sad that nothing will sway you. I believe quite the opposite. There are lots of things you could say that would sway ME. :)"
I was referring to nothing would sway my faith in God, as I have witness His touch in my life.
Tell me Frank what would sway you?:)
Frank check this out:
The Science Delusion
Bart Busschots
Filed Under Polemics, Morality & Politics, Science & Astronomy on November 9, 2006 at 3:05 am
No, I haven't gone all anti-science or become a creationist, I just needed to grab your attention to highlight a serious issue I have with supposed scientists like Richard Dawkins. This article has been brewing in the back of my mind for months now. For most of its gestation period it went under the working title 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', but it was missing a focus to build around, Dawkins provided that focus, and the ten year anniversary of the death of Carl Sagan provided the spark to get this out of my brain and onto 'paper' as it were.
I consider myself a scientist, I chose to do a science degree, then chose to go back and try for a PhD in science, and took the time to get myself elected a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. As such I have a very personal interest and involvement in science, scientists, and the public perception of science. I've shared some of my reflections on the nature of science on this blog before (see links below) but those reflections didn't really get to what I now realize is at the very core of science, knowing that there is a lot that we don't know, and a need to be open to the possibility that we're wrong. Science does not move forward by digging its heals in and refusing to accept changes in our understanding of the universe, and science is most certainly not served by speaking in absolutes and making unsupported and indeed unsupportable statements in the name of science.
Technorati Tags: Science, Creationism, Dawkins, God
To me one of the central issues can be summed up with a very simple statement that gets hammered into every undergraduate archeologist:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Whenever you hear scientists categorically state that something does not exist because we have no evidence for it, alarm bells should start ringing immediately. The first spark for this post was ignited when I was listening to a science podcast a few months back and heard a supposed scientist categorically state that there is no such thing as telepathy because there is no evidence for it. As a scientist you cannot do that. You have to remove yourself and your emotions from the topic and look only at the evidence to make logical deductions and assertions. It is completely scientific to say that despite numerous attempts to find evidence of telepathy none has been found, it is not acceptable to state that it does not exist because of this lack of evidence. It is even acceptable for scientists to express personal opinions based on scientific research provided it is clear that they are expressions of opinion and not fact. You can say that no one has been able to find evidence of telepathy despite numerous attempts and that you believe this to be because telepathy does not exist. But you cannot say that science proves that telepathy, or ghosts, or telekinesis, or a sixth sense, or indeed, God, does not exist.
When scientists make these kinds of unsupportable statements about something like telepathy they sometimes cause a little controversy, but not much, and they don't really damage science in the eyes of the average person on the street, but if you add God into the mix things heat up very quickly! I've always said that anyone who looks for scientific truths in religious texts is deluded. But it works the other way around too. I also consider anyone who tries to get religious truth out of science to be deluded. The Bible cannot prove that the world is flat, nor that the Earth was made six thousand years ago, but equally, science cannot disprove the existence of God. Sure, science can influence your personal faith, but you cannot use science to make absolute pronouncements about the existence or nature of God. I personally find that science feeds into my spirituality as it gives me a great sense of wonder about the universe around me and makes me ask myself 'why', but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people using science to attempt to justify making absolute pronouncements about the nature, or indeed existence, of God.
Of all the people who attempt to (ab)use science in this way, Dawkins stands out above all others. He does not believe in God, that's his prerogative. He is also perfectly correct in stating that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God because there isn't. However, he goes much further than that, he states that science shows that God is a delusion, and that's the point where he crosses the line from science to faith. Dawkins' statement that God is a delusion is fundamentally no different to intelligent design. Neither is scientific, both are logically flawed, and both do as much harm to science as the other. Intelligent design is a delusion rooted in a refusal to accept that the existence of God cannot be proven, and Dawkins' scientific disproof of God is a delusion based on a miss-understanding of science, or a science delusion if you will. It is a logical fallacy to use absence of evidence as evidence of absence!
When we are thought science in school we think of it in terms of laws and equations and facts, which sets us up to think of science as static and rigid and set in stone. It also gets us comfortable with the idea that science can speak in absolutes, and that's at the very core of this problem. Science is a current best-guess at how the universe works. It's a best guess that has to be firmly rooted in observation and experimentation, but a best-guess none the less. Science cannot prove anything, only lend support to ideas and disprove others. Science does no know everything, it is not categorically right, and hence it has to constantly be open to change. It is not about absolutes and once you start speaking in absolutes you make science rigid and inflexible and effectively slam on the brakes. In my mind a science education should start by driving this home to students, not by making them memorize laws and equations without appreciating how they were arrived at and the weight of evidence that under-lies these current best-guesses.
There is one obvious danger when trying to get across this best-guess idea and that is what I call the It's only a theory syndrome. Yes, evolution is only our current best-guess but there is an absolute wealth of evidence supporting it and in order for any other theory to supersede evolution as our best-guess it will have to have at least as much support and be at least as good at explaining the world we observe around us. Although it is exceptionally un-likely that our current understanding of evolution will prove to be completely right the fact that it does so well at explaining the universe makes it a very compelling theory and implies strongly that there is truth in it. Newton's laws have been shown not to be the whole truth, but that does not take away from the fact that they do give us a very good approximation of how the universe works at the scales we experience in our every-day lives. There is truth in them, but they are not the whole truth.
I'll end by calling on all scientists reading this to stand up and correct anyone who speaks in absolutes in the name of science, or who does not understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'd also call on those who teach science to try to impart an understanding and a love of science and the scientific philosophy and method to their students, as well as teaching them the details of our current best-guess at how the universe works.
Tell me Frank, why is Richard Dawkins spending so much time and money to persuade people that there is no God?
http://www.bartbusschots.ie/blog/?p=330
this is the link to the previous post.
Frank wrote: "But he misses the point (by Dawkins and others) and creates an utter and complete Straw Man argument by suggesting that scientists are out there trying to disprove the existence of god. The burden of proof for a theory is NOT on those that DON'T support it, the burden is on those that DO support it. If you believe there is a God that impacts the physical world in measurable ways, then the burden is on YOU to demonstrate it with evidence. Even if I NEVER submit a falsifying statement, you have not PROVED there is a god, just by submitting it as a theory.
What do YOU think of the article? Since it contradicts a lot of ideas you have put forward here in other posts, I'd be a but surprised if you are big fan of the guy, other than how he bashes Dawkins."
I don't agree with the author's views on many things, but I do admire his candidness about Dawkins claims against the existence of God. The problem is that God is not a theory to me, He is a person. So, I don't have any burden or proof. Yet, people like Dawkins would say unless you prove the existence of God, then He doesn't exist.
If I say that I know someone name John Smith, would you say that the existence of John Smith is a theory that I have to prove?
From the Bart Busschots article:
"Of all the people who attempt to (ab)use science in this way, Dawkins stands out above all others. He does not believe in God, that's his prerogative. He is also perfectly correct in stating that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God because there isn't. However, he goes much further than that, he states that science shows that God is a delusion, and that's the point where he crosses the line from science to faith."
I reposted this quote because I think this is the most revealing about Dawkins.
Didn't Dawkins write the book "The God Delusion" ?
"A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information or certain effects of perception which would more properly be termed an apperception or illusion.
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders and particularly in schizophrenia and mania in episodes of bipolar disorder."
source wikipedia
So, Dawkins evidently considers anyone that believes in God to be mentally ill?
Frank wrote: "So again, if I told you my imaginary friend sitting beside me was telling me what to do, would you think I was delusional?"
Yes, because you said your "imaginary friend", but if you told me that your friend was tell you what to do, I wouldn't consider you to be delusional.
I don't know.
The point I'm making is that stating that anyone that believes in God is delusional is wrong.
I happen to have a relationship with God and He reveals Himself to me through His word. I don't believe we can hear Him talk to us through our conscience. According to what you believe I would then be delusional?
In the last post I meant I believe that we can hear Him talk to us through our conscience.
HAHAHAHA
Whether I am or not is not the problem, but rather calling someone delusional simply because they believe in God and communicate with Him.
Frank, that is a ridiculous statement and you know it.
There are people who claim to be Christians who are delusional, just like there are people like atheists like Dawkins who are delusional.
But, just because I say I talk with God doesn't make me delusional, you may think I am, but just because you think I am doesn't make me delusional.
I'm not just a believer in God, I'm a witness to what He can do. I have witnessed many miraculously things in my life.
You probably won't believe it and it's okay, I really don't care. But, God isn't a theory to me, He is a living being.
I didn't say that Dawkins was delusional, but that there are people who are atheists like him who are.
I don't know Dawkins to be able to state that he himself is delusional. Just as he can't make the statement about those who believe and have a relationship with God are delusional.
Go back and read what I said, I didn't say that Dawkins was delusional, I said "There are people who claim to be Christians who are delusional, just like there are people like atheists like Dawkins who are delusional."
read it over again, I didn't say that Dawkins himself was delusional, he may be but I don't know him to make that statement.
First off I don't believe God would tell you to hurt someone, but I really can't judge you. If I say you are delusional then I would be judging you wouldn't I?
You are obviously going to refer to the old testament which is under the old covenant. We now live under a new and better covenant, Jesus gave His life to redeem us back to the Father.
You evidently grew up in a church that never knew or taught that we now live in a new and better covenant.
There Is A God
Written by: Antony Flew
In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God. Flew was a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades. Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He now believes that such evidence exists, and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believer. For the first time, this book presents a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke his previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God. Ever since Flew's announcement, there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this "conversion" means. There Is a God puts this debate to rest. This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer. Recommended by Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne and many others.
Here is a link to the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232044555&sr=8-1
I'm not saying to get rid of the old testament, but that God deals with man differently now then He did in the old testament. Jesus shattered the law of the old testament, so now we live under grace, our sins are merely covered like as in the old testament, but are completely blotted out and removed.
I think what Jesus did was awesome.
The problem with many churches is that they still live under the law of the old testament and not under grace.
two post back I meant to say our sins aren't merely covered, but are blotted out or removed.
Frank, we are talking about two different things here. Absolution or a remission of sins pronounced by a priest is not what I'm referring to.
First, I hope I don't offend anyone, but I don't believe any man can absolve me or anyone else of their sins. Jesus died to redeem us back to the Father, and in doing so brought forgiveness for all past present and future sin. All we have to do is believe and confess that He is the Son of the Living God, and follow Him, and our sins are completely removed.
What I'm saying is that Jesus didn't absolve us of our sins, He paid the price for our sin.
"and our sins are completely removed"
What does it mean to have a sin "removed"?
It means it's as if we never committed them.
So what if I do the same sin again the next day?
Frank, did you know that the Bible says in James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
So, we are all guilty of sin, every single one of us. I sin just like everyone else.
If you sin tomorrow then God would forgive you. If you sin the day after that He would forgive you, and so on.
All God wants is for us to love Him, and He loves us in return.
So if I can just get perpetually forgiven, where's the incentive not to sin the next day?
Whoa... Step away to get a cup of coffee... Wedding Photography business slow, guys? :P
It's the same as your relationship with your wife, you love her and she loves you in return.
Many have use repent to mean turning away from a life of sin, but the true meaning is turning toward God. The Bible says that if we draw near to God that He will draw near to us. Forgiveness is a free gift that don't and can't possibly earn.
Do you remember the story of the prodigal son?
The one son received his inheritance from his father and left his presence and went and squandered all he had on riotous living, he ended up in a pigpen. He finally decided to go back to the father to see if he could be a hired hand, but his father was waiting for him with his, and gave him the finest robe, and gave him a party to celebrate his return. Jesus told this story to show how God loves us. No matter how bad we have been, He still loves us and is ready and waiting for us when we come back to him.
Great, then I'll see about reevaluating him later. Meanwhile, it behooves me to get in all my sinning now, since its not going to matter later. :)
May I remind you that you may not have a later.
Well, we all have to take SOME things on faith. :)
fjblau, how many times did Christ call people hypocrits...he also said they were of their father the devil..that is a little more rough than what I said..Yes, Christ is love...but you cannot deny that the Son of God is also a God of judgement..even the Christians will have their judgement time with Christ, it is called The Judgement Seat of Christ..no matter who you are, there is a judgement coming.
Frank, I think you would have to agree that we deal with judgments all of the time, you are making judgments about me and other Christians. We see people do things in life and make judgments about them in our minds, so please don't get on your ivory tower and think that you aren't guilty of making judgments of others. You judge us as close-minded, anti-science, etc...
God is a God of truth, and we humans tend to want things our way. We constantly rebel against people in authority. But, God doesn't like disobedience. I happen to believe the Biblical account of Adam and the fall, you can laugh at me if you want and say I'm delusional, but I'm man enough to admit how I believe. Adam's sin was of disobedience, he did what God told him not to do, and then Adam tried to cover his sin by wearing fig leaves.
Now we are on a journey and still sorting things out, but there will be a day we will know the truth. The Bible says that how we see through a glass darkly, but then we will see face to face, and we will know as we are known. what this means is that now we know very little, but there be a time when we will know all things.
You don't have to believe that the God of the Bible exists, and I believe God gave every many the right to choose his own path in life. God created each man and woman with a mind of his/her own.
So, Frank you have every right to believe anyway you want.
Frank you have children right? Tell me how you feel when they are disobedient?
So, tell me why do you get angry? Does it mean that you are a bad father because you get angry? Do you make a judgment about the seriousness of the disobedience?
Lightinspire -
"fjblau, how many times did Christ call people hypocrits...he also said they were of their father the devil.."
Show me were Christ called someone who WASN'T a pious jew or pharisee, a hypocrite. Your context doesn't apply to Frank. It applies to you and me. Thanks for making my point for me :)
I wasn't referring to you not being man enough. You seem a little testy:)
Frank -
I think you're shot at Rick Warren is cheap and out of context. Startling and jingoistic when out of context, but out of context none-the-less. I think you know that.
You can do better ;)
I agree Frank is not a hypocrite as far as Christianity. Hypocrisy is lack of transparency. Frank has made it very clear that He isn't a Christian.
Frank wrote: "Its making judgments based an hypocritical interpretations of aramaic torture porn that I have a problem with."
???????
Where does Rick Warren say to dominate others?
Where does Jesus say to dominate others?
Every speech, okay give me one.
Remember you said dominate the world:)
Frank wrote: "And I believe that today we are making history. We're making history that's going to start a movement that will bring a new Reformation in the church of God and a new spiritual awakening in our world. And, our world needs it.
And today, as you say 'whatever it takes,' you're saying publicly, "I'm in, God. I'm in...
...I'm in.' ""
Rick Warren
Tell me Frank where does he say dominate the world? He's not even talking about the world, but rather a reformation in the Church.
Sorry, you have to try harder then that.
"And the third part is the goal of a radical devotion of every believer.
Now, I choose that word 'radical' intentionally, because only radicals change the world.
Everything great done in this world is done by passionate people.
Moderate people get moderately nothing done. And moderation will never slay the global giants. . .""
Rick Warren
Still not referring to dominating the world, but changing the world for good. God has never and will never force people to serve Him, and He doesn't want His people to either.
"For the past 18 months we have been on a stealth, secret mission - project - around the world. We've been sending members out, actually over 4500 members somewhere overseas, over the period of time, the last few years, going out to do what we're gonna call the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.
You've been hearing little snippets about it, today we're going to unveil it publicly. But the first thing before I even talk about it in a minute is you need to understand that at the heart of the P.E.A.C.E. Plan is this theme - The Kingdom of God.
Saddleback and our Purpose Driven Network has now trained over 400,000 pastors in over 162 countries."
[ Minute ~43:00 ]
"What is the vision for the next 25 years ? I'll tell you what it is.
It is the global expansion of the kingdom of God.
It is the total mobilization of his church."
Rick Warren
keep trying he still isn't talking about dominating the world, he is referring to making disciples.
I might add that the last post that you made Rick Warren is referring to missionary work in countries that have no religious freedoms. That is why he is referring to is as stealth.
Making disciples is dominating the world? So, telling people about the good news of Jesus Christ is dominating the world? Sharing the love of God to other people is dominating the world?
No, you are the one who said that he said to dominate others. Making disciples is not dominating others. How is it dominating others by telling them that Jesus came to die for them.
Why does Rick Warren have to give up his possessions. He gives 80% of his income to charity, do you do that. He receives no income from his church. All of this income comes from books that he writes, and he still gives 80% of that to charity. Tell me how many people you know that give 80% of the income to charity?
Frank, you're not judging are you? I thought that is what you hate about Christians.
How do you know who Rick Warren donates to?
Frank wrote: "Its making judgments based an hypocritical interpretations of aramaic torture porn that I have a problem with."
Did you read my post? I have no idea what you are referring to.
Frank wrote: "Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs: 1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s governmental and social institutions."
I think that pretty much clears up Dick Warren's intentions."
You evidently believe everything you read on the internet! True there are those who believe in Dominion Theology, but true scholars of the Word of God understand that the Kingdom of God referred to in the Bible was and is a Spiritual Kingdom (the building up the body of Christ), and not an actual physical kingdom. Even Jesus' disciples made the mistake of thinking that Jesus was going to build a physical Kingdom here on earth.
Atheists have used this garbage to make false attacks against Christianity, and many gullible people like you have accepted it hook line and sinker.
Now, let me say that I have no problem with Christians getting involved in politics, just as I have no problem with people of other faiths getting involved. We just like everyone else should have the right to voice our opinions. What I am starting to see though is a growing effort to quiet the voice of Christians.
I do believe that there will be a day that there will be an actual physical Kingdom of God set up here on earth, but that won't happen until after the great tribulation, and during the 1000 year millennial reign. But, nothing like that will happen before the Great Tribulation.
I don't know if Rick Warren believes in Dominion Theology, but I would not necessarily believe everything I read on the internet. Because, I also read that Barrack Obama believes in Dominion Theology, do I believe it, no, but I read on the internet.
I still have no idea what you are referring to by "hypocritical interpretations of aramaic torture porn"
Are you referring to the crucifiction of Christ?
I'm sorry I spelled crucifixion wrong in the previous post.
We will see who is gullible later on.
I'll be a fool for Christ. So, go ahead say what you want, because it really doesn't bother me in the least.
That's what you believe, but I happen to believe that we will know.
God is not ALL about judgement fjblau, judgment is a part of God..there is love, he loves everyone and wants everyone to accept his Son and what His Son did for us on the cross and He teaches us Love..BUT he will not put up with sin long. God is also a God of Judgement..He is a righteous God and will not put up with sin..
Frank, you have absolutely no clue as to what Jesus really did, and why He did it. You look at Christianity as if is is some sort of club that you join.
What Jesus did was to shatter death, hell and the grave. He was our propitiation in other words He turned God's anger towards man into mercy. He has thrown you a lifeline, but you obvious don't want it. You seem to feel that you don't need rescuing, you can save your own self, but that isn't possible. Man and everything in this world is cursed and will eventually die, but through the Grace of God, any that desire can have everlasting life through the FREE gift of salvation. Maybe you don't want or believe in everlasting life, and that your decision and right, but please don't make fun of, or attack us to do.
So Christianity is not a club that you join, but is rather a family that you become adopted into. God really does love you Frank and Gary, but time is running out. I would really think long and hard about what lies ahead, and keep searching for the answer. Everyone of us are on a spiritual journey, I just hope that I see you both on the other side so that we can continue debating other things:)
Let me add also Frank, that being a Christian is not necessarily being a part of an organized church. It is about having a relationship with the Living God, and all that is required that you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Son of God, and make Him the Lord of your life. I'll tell you it is amazing how liberating it is to be FREE of all guilt in your life. You and Gary grew up in extremely religious churches and because of that you have rebelled against the establishment of the church, but the true church of God is not brick and mortar. Religion is like a yoke around the neck, but Jesus came to FREE us from that bondage.
Jesus gave us two commandments which can be found in Luke 10:27:
1.'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'
2 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Tim.
There is everlasting life. Life is energy. The body transforms into other types of energy. It's an ego thing to think that man can continue having the same personality or consciousness of itself into everlasting life. Ego constructed religion or faith in the hope of surviving its body. And it will invent all kinds of things to reassure itself.
"God'a anger towards man into mercy". Where is unconditional love? Sending children to hell is a hell of a tough love example.
In which "mansion" does the lifeline lead to?
"Man and everything in this world is cursed..."so God did not create man in His image, then.
"Time is running out." Sounds like the "end is near". Admit that this has been repeated over and over again, even before the Bible. Did the "family" give you an exact fix on the date?
I don't really know that thinking long and hard about what lies ahead will actually change much. Predictions usually fall flat. Sometimes, out of the bunch of people who make predictions, we can find some poor sap who got his prediction right. But it's rarely the same person all the time. And, everyone is right by hindsight.
You want to see Frank and Gary "on the other side"? What's wrong with this side?...:) Enjoy while it lasts.
As far as it being amazing to be FREE of all guilt in your life, you know that psychopaths are also free of all guilt.
Most people are free of guilt until someone comes along telling them that they should feel guilty about something, and then offer them a solution to get out of their guilt...:) The Bible is a prime example of that. The Bible template has been used for all kinds of scams.
Richard wrote: "God'a anger towards man into mercy". Where is unconditional love? Sending children to hell is a hell of a tough love example."
Richard you and every person on earth has a choice of where they want to go.
Richard wrote: In which "mansion" does the lifeline lead to?
The King James uses the term mansion which actually means "dwelling place" you have to understand that all houses in during the time of the King James interpretation were called mansions.
Richard wrote: "Man and everything in this world is cursed..."so God did not create man in His image, then."
Yes, God did create man in His image, but He gave man a free will, and ultimately man chose to disobey God.
Richard wrote: "Time is running out." Sounds like the "end is near". Admit that this has been repeated over and over again, even before the Bible. Did the "family" give you an exact fix on the date?
Richard I'm not referring to the second coming, because I don't really know when that will happen, but our lives here on earth are very short, so the time is coming to an end for each and every one of us.
Richard wrote: "I don't really know that thinking long and hard about what lies ahead will actually change much. Predictions usually fall flat. Sometimes, out of the bunch of people who make predictions, we can find some poor sap who got his prediction right. But it's rarely the same person all the time. And, everyone is right by hindsight."
again I'm referring to what lies ahead for each one of us, what is your future.
Richard wrote: "You want to see Frank and Gary "on the other side"? What's wrong with this side?...:) Enjoy while it lasts."
I would love to see them on this side and do believe in enjoying the life that we have here, but we also have to plan for the future too. Are you certain that there isn't a hereafter?
Richard wrote: As far as it being amazing to be FREE of all guilt in your life, you know that psychopaths are also free of all guilt.
That may be true but they are also mentally ill. I don't want to be mentally ill in order to be FREE of guilt.
Richard wrote: "Most people are free of guilt until someone comes along telling them that they should feel guilty about something, and then offer them a solution to get out of their guilt...:) The Bible is a prime example of that. The Bible template has been used for all kinds of scams."
I beg to differ with you, people do many things that they feel guilty about afterward that have nothing to do with sin or even wrongdoing. I've known of people who have done wonderful acts of heroism and then felt guilty afterward, because of all the glory and honor that was given them.
Jesus said that even He didn't come to the world to condemn it. He came to bring life and bring it more abundantly. What's wrong with that?
Sure there are those who use the Bible to judge others, but doesn't the Bible say "judge not lest you be judged"? God isn't happy with those who would judge others in His name.
I the last post I didn't mean that the felt guilty for the act of heroism, but for getting all of the glory afterward.
Frank, you can believe how you want, but don't say that because I believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God that I'm delusional. You will find out in the not to distant future that Jesus really did exist, and that He truly is the Son of God.
There won't be any hypocrites in heaven, so I hope you enjoy being around them in your afterlife:):):)
Frank wrote: "Are you saying if those people were christians they wouldn't feel guilty for the adulation?"
Actually in the first post I was referring to being FREE from guilt of sin, we can come to daddy God and He will always forget us. In the second post I was referring to how guilt isn't always from doing anything wrong, I've know a few who have done heroic acts, and really didn't feel that they deserved the adulation, and actually felt uncomfortable about it.
I never meant that Christians don't experience guilt, but we don't have to live with guilt. Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining, but we can be FREE of guilt, in other words if we do make a mistake we ask forgiveness and God forgives us, and forgets as far as the east is from the west.
In the last post I meant He will always forgive us.
Depending on where you stand to look, not much could matter after all...:)
Frank wrote: "The beauty of uncensored democracy is that it gives you the same right to say I am going to suffer eternally and I have the right to say you are delusional."
I never said that you were going to suffer eternally now did I? You still have every opportunity to come to God, but you saying that I am delusional is a personal attack, you can't see the difference?
Frank wrote: "Since there is no conscious afterlife where we have cognition of our existence on earth, it doesn't much matter now does it?"
Your belief and not mine.
Frank wrote: "You are saying that those that don't cow to your beliefs are going to suffer eternally. Unless of course, you don't believe that. But something tells me you do. I take that kind of hatred as a personal attack. Not one with much teeth though, since as you have noticed, I consider the belief delusional."
I never say that you had to cow to my beliefs. You ultimately are the one to decide your destination in life, and not me. I never made a personal attack about your sanity, but when you say that I'm delusional, then you are inferring that I am mentally ill, which is a personal attack. Very different!!!
That is what I really find amazing about you. You can make personal attacks against Christians, yet are offended because we believe that Jesus is the one hope of salvation. You say we are close-minded yet you are close-minded to the possibility that Jesus really is the Son of God.
Frank, let me add that you have a right to believe how ever you choose, and I have the right to believe that way I choose. I believe the Word of God is true, you believe something else.
It's even okay for you to think I'm delusional, but when you publicly say that I'm delusional, then you have crossed the line, don't you even see how offensive it is.
Frank, I may add the uncensored democracy doesn't give one the right to make slanderous remarks about other people now does it. So, I really recommend that you tone down your personal attacks against others.
Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone's reputation.
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
It is true that I have voluntarily participated by posting to this blog, but that still does not give you or anyone else a right to personally attack me because of my beliefs.
Tim,
I think we're getting out of control here too.
I think its clear to everyone that we disagree about a lot of things.
But I don't dislike you as a person, and apologize for anything you have taken personal offense to here.
I will try and dial down the rhetoric too.
A new day is dawning in our country and in the spirit of that I am going to try (again) to watch my words more carefully.
Peace,
Frank
There... now there should be only nice posts from me here!
:)
Frank
Okay Frank, I accept your apology. I have attempted to be careful not to personally attack you or any one else, but if I have come across that way, then I apologize as well.
Civil discourse is a good thing. But, we have to be very careful not to personally attack each other.
It's true that we don't agree on very many things, and that's okay.
Here is another prediction (by Edgar Cayce) about Armageddon. The link where it comes from follows about de second coming of Christ. It's about 1/2 way down the article.
The year the battle of Armageddon will occur in the spirit realm (may be happening already)
Cayce predicted that the so-called "Battle of Armageddon" described symbolically in the Bible would begin in 1999. Cayce foresaw that this "battle" will not be a war fought on Earth. Rather, it will be a spiritual struggle between the "higher forces of light" and "lower forces of darkness" for 1000 years of Earth time. The reason for this struggle is to prevent souls from lower afterlife realms from reincarnating to Earth. By preventing souls from the lower afterlife realms from reincarnating to Earth, only enlightened souls will be permitted to reincarnate. The result will be 1000 years of building a world of peace and enlightenment. After 1000 years, souls from lower afterlife realms will be permitted once again to reincarnate to Earth. By this time, the so-called "kingdom of heaven" will have been established on Earth.
Just another point of view...:)
Here's the link for the "second coming" It may have already happened (1/2 down):
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce11.html
Richard, God's unconditional love is right now. Just the fact that He has not snapped his fingers and sent you into eternity right now is proof. The scripture says that God is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish. He will love you until you take your last breath. His offer of salvation is there until you die or the rapture takes place. He doesn't send you to hell, when we reject the offer of His Son, we send ourselves there..Hell was created for the devil and his angels, it was never created for us but we deserve it already. That is why Christ came, to give us a way out..and if we refuse the scripture says there is no excuse for not accepting. For all Christ did for us, our little pity excuses for not accepting Him as Lord and Savior will not matter...we are without excuse because in God's eyes they are not valid and makes no sense.
If Edgar Cayce is right, then, if you're born before 1999, you're not part of the first wave of enlightened spirits. You'll have to reincarnate again within that 1,000 year span.
If you don't reincarnate, then you'll know for sure you're not part of the "raptured ones". I believe that rapture is probably more of a spiritual manifestation than the physical one that most people believe. And it would make more sense.
The "cloud" entry seemed a bit far-fetched, especially about the dilemna to where be seen or land first? In America? Over the Vatican? In South America? If so, what city first? You don't want Jesus to appear when people are sleeping, because they won't see him coming, nor do you want to play favorites with "we saw Jesus first - thus we must be holier than thou" routine.
So, I think that the physical manifestation is out, and the spiritual entry is in, and it probably has already occured for the "chosen ones". I you ain't part of the group, what the hell - some people will prepare "heaven on earth" for the others, and the "un-chosen" will only have to step in, in a 1,000 years or so.
Not bad of a deal, considering the type of hell we're going through these days around the world and at home...:)
When Jesus comes to rapture His church no one even awake will see him anyway. The born again Christians will hear the trumpet sound and then we will be gone..I can't wait.
"and then we will be gone..I can't wait."
You're not alone.
Neither can I so we finally agree on something...at least I will be having a better time than you will be.
There is no Flatbush, Texas. Flatbush is in New York. and knowing New Yorkers, it would probably fly very well.
My 2 favorite quotes...
"God please protect me from your followers"
"Organized Christianity has done more to retard the ideals that were it's founders than any other group on earth"
Seems to fit well with a lot of the responses here.
Post a Comment