| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:38 pm Post subject: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
John Ings
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2003 09:36:49 GMT, Graham Thomas
<GrahamThomas@cyberlink.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility of
a difference of doctrinal/personal opinion.
Why not? Why can't this Holy Spirit be consistent? Is the pope
Christ's vicar on earth or not? Yeah or nay?
Nay!
Yet fully half of Christianity disagrees on this issue, and your Holy
Spirit can't settle the matter?
The matter has been settled for me many years ago.
|
But not for hundreds of millions of Catholics. Now howcome this
messenger of God, this very aspect of a tripartite deity, cannot get
through to these folks? They pray, deeply and sincerely, a lot of
them. They believe in the same God you do. Why can't the voice of an
omnipotent being get through?
| Quote: | Christ warned that
many would call Him Lord, but would not follow His teachings.
|
No, that's just evidence of bickering between rival Christian sects at
the time the Gospels were written. You have no warnings or any words
at all from Christ that you can be sure of, though some may genuinely
reflect what he said. All those words in red ink in the Gospels are
from the pens of unknown Gospel writers. And apparently the HS wasn't
getting through to them either!
| Quote: | Catholicism is rife with doctrinal errors because their faith is built
on Church tradition instead of the Word of God.
|
Or your faith is rife with error because it is built on your
uneducated biblical eisegeses.
| Quote: | It took the RCC over
a thousand years to quit performing the mass in a dead language
(Latin). They're getting massively sued and embarrassed with all the
instances of pedophilia and homosexual priests yet the Pope still
can't come to the basic solution that maybe insisting on a
(non-scriptural) celibate priesthood isn't such a great idea!
|
And the Holy Spirit can't get through to all these benighted folks?
It couldn't even get through to Paul who invented the idea of a
celibate priesthood? It can't get through even though they are
sincerely trying to understand God's will? Worse, they think the Holy
Spirit IS getting through to them and it's YOU who is wandering in
darkness?
| Quote: | Why 'inspire' contrarily?
A gifted English teacher might 'inspire' her entire class to become
writers. Does that mean that the inspirational teacher would have to
be in agreement with _everything_ her pupils wrote or that the
writings of the students themselves would _always_ be congruous?
Bad analogy. Would half her students consider "I ain't got none" to be
correct English usage, and the other half not? That's a more pertinent
analogy.
Not if the students were paying attention in class, doing their
homework and reading their textbooks (the Bible).
|
Ah, no, I'm not buying that. The textbook is the cause of the
contentiousness, not the cure. It is contrary and contradictory
because it is from the pens of men who were at each-other's throats
over their theology. You'll find no harmony and guidance in those
pages, only the fuel for more intolerance.
| Quote: | And when certain
Christian denominations are not diligent in their Bible study they,
likewise, are prone to all sorts of doctrinal error.
|
I observe that it's the most diligent ones who go further off the deep
end theologically.
| Quote: | The Christian church grew up in an atmosphere of acrimoneous
controversy. Now doesn't that tell you something?
Yes, THEY WERE HUMAN!
And their religion a human invention, like all the pagan religions
before it.
You're entitled to your own opinion, however, my experiences AND heart
tell me different.
|
Your heart (emotions) tell you what you want to hear.
| Quote: | So ALL who claim to be Christians are NOT
ALWAYS "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Or could it be that they are NEVER so inspired?
In certain cases, yes.
This Holy Spirit is not to be trusted then.
Even if genuine, it is too easily counterfeited.
The prevalence of counterfeit masterpieces of art do not diminish the
priceless worth of the originals.
|
The 'priceless worth' of such art is not intrinsic. Such paintings are
worth what they are only because of art connoisseur's opinions of
them. A work changes from being worth a fortune to being worthless and
back again according to the most recent opinion of some expert at the
British Museum. Yet not a molecule of paint on the canvas changes.
| Quote: | It just means that it is incumbent
that the prospective buyer become an expert at detecting forgeries.
|
No, it means that the forgery is just as good as an original and that
all the rich buyer is paying millions for is the prestige and
mistique. If a dozen experts can't decide if it's really a Van Dyke or
the work of a forger, then there's obviously nothing intrinsically
different about it.
| Quote: | To say that anything you write, believe or think on the basis of
divine inspiration can be trusted is self-delusional. I say that quite
baldly because it is obvious that you cannot identify the source of
any such inspiration. It could be God to be sure, but it could also be
some other spook, or your fevered imagination.
Discerning of spirits does seem to be an under-utilized gift in many
religious circles, yes.
|
And an over utilized gift in others!
| Quote: | Frankly, I share your bewilderment with the fractious state of
Christianity, but such division in the Body does not detract from my
personal relationship with God.
|
I would opine that it is too many personal relationships with God that
is the problem!
| Quote: | Hopefully, there will be many
miraculous instances which will "give (you) unbeliever's pause" in the
near future.
|
Miracles seem to have a way of evaporating like frost on a sunny
morning under the light of science. Many things that in the past were
considered to be miracles turned out to be perfectly natural events
apon investigation.
| Quote: | But far be it from me to deny the existence of such an entity.
I doubt that such an entity, an aspect of God, would be so ineffectual
if it really existed.
After experiencing a number of mind-blowing miraculous encounters with
such an entity that argument becomes rather moot.
|
Shine some light on those encounters and you may not find them so
mind-blowing. Some minds explode in awe far too easily.
| Quote: | Theology is NOT an exact science it is a relationship. You cannot
"measure and quantify" how you feel about, e.g., your mother. Two
siblings may not have the exact same feelings for their mother. There
is a strong subjective element involved.
|
Exactly. And such subjective relationships are not to be trusted. Your
emotions can lead you down the garden path far too easily. Yes, you'd
be a pretty cold fish if you allow intellect alone to decide, but
while emotion may be allowed to influence your thinking, it's foolish
to let it take the lead.
| Quote: | With the exception of very localized clashes in N. Ireland, Christians
have been at peace with each other since the end of the Inquisition,
many centuries now.
The antics of those Christians in the former Yugoslavia don't count
huh?
Those were clashes between Christians and Moslems. And IMO the
crusade of the Serbian Christians was probably justified. In case you
haven't noticed, the Moslems are stirring up trouble ALL OVER THE
GLOBE just like they did 1000 years ago. They'll reap what they've
sown.
|
And thus the murder of children is justified.
Religious faith in action...
| Quote: | To my knowledge, no one has "forcibly converted"
anyone.
Tell that to the thousands of abused children who attended those
infamous Indian Schools. Forcibly torn from their homes, transported
hundreds of miles away to institutions where they were punished for
speaking their native tongue, converted to Christianity with a stick,
poorly housed, poorly fed...
Ever read your buddy Mark Twain's piece on "The Noble Red Man"?
|
I've read his piece on slavery written at a time when the Christian
churches were defending the idea.
| Quote: | Good Christians with only the most altruistic motives did that for
the better part of a hundred years, right up until 1960. All for the
benighted savage's own good of course.
There were plenty of peaceful settlers that lost their scalps to those
same savages, as well.
|
Peaceful settlers who took indian land by force, slaghtered the
buffalo almost to extinction and demolished the environment. Ah yes!
And those pre-teen indian children paid for their grandfather's sins
just as the Bible says they should! Justice was done!
| Quote: | Jesus Himself, often argued with the religious leaders of His day.
How, pray tell, are Christians following His recorded example in this
regard to be considered _not_ "adhering to Jesus' teachings"?
There's a difference between an argument and a diatribe.
This is where you came into this discussion with your off-topic
hypersensitive critiques of how I was responding to another poster
|
Oh foo! That was just an opening gambit. A pawn to king's four.
| Quote: | As this thread has grown to an incredibly excessive length I'm going
to snip the remainder for sanity preservation reasons
|
Yeah, it's best to just enjoy the comforts of steadfast faith and not
examine the basis of it too deeply. Actually thinking about theology
tends to undermine your certitude and makes you wonder if your
faith is just so much eisegetical tap-dancing.
## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Knowledge
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:39 am Post subject: Re: HEAVEN: for plants too? |
|
|
For my church. So sexy it hurts...
| Quote: |
e
i'm too sexy for my church, too sexy...
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ken Johnsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: HEAVEN: for animals too? |
|
|
Screw your brains out but post to a news group that cares
"Knowledge" <knowledge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:UD9Ka.304159$Vi5.8076527@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
| Quote: | You can go down, you can go up, you can have sex in heaven, it's what the
Boss had intended. Pure Filatio.
e@zzengrrl83@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61KFa.8749$95.2393@www.newsranger.com...
In article <3EE24C76.9A4D0B6D@attbi.com>, Paul Duca says...
Reuben Hick wrote:
There are people who can't even IMAGINE Heaven without
their
housepets there...you mean people don't have dogs and cats for
amusment
and
companionship, or horses to ride for sport?
From the perspective of a PETA zealot, that would be like saying
"people
don't have dogs and cats to dominate and horses to enslave?"
Or the NRA member could ask: "you mean people don't have guns for
amusement
and sport?"
Face it, who wants to spend eternity cleaning up cat-litter,
hairballs
and
feces out of the living space?
If animals still excrete wastes in Heaven....I presume human
beings
do, as well?
You mention, "for sport". I am trying to imagine spending eternity
at
a
competetive disadvantage in my glofified body that wasn't as well
glorified
as someone else's.
I used "sport" because I couldn't classify horseback riding any
other
way...
Besides, isn't the true "fun" in sports the money side of it? Bill
Bennet
would love heaven then.
Nice to hear the gambling negates the rest of Bennett's
self-righteous virtue, in your eyes.
Paul
let's say i meet a really cute guy in heaven...can we have heavenly sex?
can we
still go down on each other, or is that kind of thing frowned upon by
THEBOSS?
e
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ron Burdette
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Slain in the Spirit? Where in Bible? |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:50:46 -0700, vince garcia
<vggarcia@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Klark Kent wrote:
Let's go back to Acts 2. I'm a Jew and I see people babbling in Tongues.
By your logic I should reject the incident because the Scripture does
not even hint that such a thing is of God.
Whoa...the miracle was that people from other lands could hear the gospel in
their home language, spoken by men who could not speak that language
previously.
Oh--you were there and saw this for yourself? :)
This is an in house debate as i menioned earlier. We don't know for sure
if the miracle was in the speaking or the hearing, and we really can't
make a dogmatic pronouncement on the issue since the Scripture does not
explicitly outline how the miracle occurred. I personally think the
miracle was in the speaking, but we can't know for sure
|
I agree. The fact all Charismania fails to accept that what was
spoken and what was heard was uttered or heard in known
dialect of those who heard the message. Not unintelligible
gibberish practiced today in 'pente-lostalism' as a sign
for verification of Salvation. There is not a single precept
in all Scripture which states that 'speaking in unlearned
languages' verifies or proves 'Salvation' and must be
practiced for such verification. False doctrine within
all 'pente-lostal' Charismania wrongly proclaims otherwise.
'Tongues' is not a pre-requisite or validation unto
Salvation. To imagine such is disbelief.
Are 'ALL' pente-lostals lost non-believers? Yes!
Because they doubt the Word of God; instead they all
seek after a 'sign', calling God to be the liar.
Tell all here exactly how 'oneness' Baptismal regeneration'
works. Provide Scripture to support your reply, Mark.
| Quote: | If people from France, Germany and Spain came to your church
and heard the sermon in their native language, then it is a faithful
replication of the miracle. This is way different than ONE guy rolling on
the floor spouting junk while another "interprets."
In fact it bears far more of
a normative practice in the case of the Delphic Oracle who would babble
in tongues while someone interpreted. So should the people there have
been like Hank Hanegraaff and asked "where is THAT in Scripture?" (and
Peter's quoting Joel out of context, which says NOTHING about the
practice of tongues, by yours/Hanegraaff's logic again should discount
the event and result in rejecting it if we're going to demand explicit
scriptural precedent for every sort of supposed manifestation of the
Spirit.
Let's admit that a great majority of the people who are slain in the
spirit are just faking it or doing it because they're hyped up, but to
discount it out of hand cannot be justified scripturally.
And why, exactly, are they faking it? Maybe because the church puts
pressure on people to prove they have the spirit?
thats one reason
Is it because other
church members discount or dismiss you as a "low-amp" Christian if you
don't? Is your very salvation in question if you don't "prove it" somehow?
I think you're going way overboard in these speculations. Most fake it
out either because it's, in a sense, "expected"; or else they do it as a
result of being worked up into an altered state of consciousness. In no
way, tho, does that automatically invalidate the practice.
In fact, let me tell you a story about this issure:
This occurred at the Toronto Vineyard years ago, when the men from the
church I attended at the time flew there to observe the “Toronto
Blessing.” At one point my pastor (who was a very low key Charismatic
not into wild phenomena) was being prayed for by John Arnott in
front of the stage. As I approached from behind--out of my pastor's
view--I remembered the words of Hanegraaff, who cricisizes that the
people of God seem to fall forward in Scripture, whereas the enemies of
God fall backward--like most people who claim to be slain in the Spirit.
As I walked toward the stage, I thought jokingly to myself: “Well, if my
pastor goes down and doesn’t fall forward, then I guess it must not be
of God.”
At that instant, my pastor nose-dived forward, barely missing cracking
his head open on the edge of the stage. Needless to say, I was struck at
the coincidence. I later asked him about it to find he was as surprised
at what happened as I was, since he said he had never fallen forward
in such a manner before.
So, while I've never been slain in the spirit myself, I sure won't
denounce anyone else who has been. God can do that, and to automatically
say He does not and never would cannot be verified scripturally.
If someone is going to say a practice in the church is wrong, or not of
God, "Prove" it to me by showing me where God says it is wrong. Don't
hold me and my Charismatic brethren to a standard of justifcation so
high that if I had applied it to the apostles, they, themselves,
wouldn't have met it...
Perhaps if you took your own medicine, things would be easier... Too many
charismatic churches have the same "worship just like me" attitude that they
dispise in others. If the charismatic churches showed love, acceptance, and
support for believers--whether or not they rolled on the floor, then perhaps
they would be seen as a safe haven, rather than a country club.
and what would you say about Baptists and non-charismatic
fundamentalists who preach that someone speaking in tongues is of the
devil since "that's not for today"?
Frankly i've seen very few pentecostal or charsimatic churches that
treat non-charismatics cruelly or badly, exlcuding some movements that
are flat-out cults. However, i've seen the opposite on the part of
various baptist believers throughout my whole life |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KK4TL
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Two Aspects of the End-Times : Divisions and Denial of t |
|
|
| Quote: | I tire of this effort to destroy the advancement of understanding that
God has brought in recent decades
|
You mean dispensationalism? Weren't Darby and Scofield and Chafer and their
colleagues all "false Christian scum trinitarians"? Why, then, would God bring
any understanding through them? Why didn't God advance this understanding
sooner? Is he so weak and so blind and so stupid that it took him almost 1900
years to produce this "advancement of understanding"?
Or maybe it's hogwash and speculation.
Jack van Imp and Hal Lindsey have made a pretty penny on it, though, haven't
they? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Graham Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:17 am Post subject: Re: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, John Ings wrote:
| Quote: | On 22 Jun 2003 09:36:49 GMT, Graham Thomas
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility of
a difference of doctrinal/personal opinion.
Why not? Why can't this Holy Spirit be consistent? Is the pope
Christ's vicar on earth or not? Yeah or nay?
Nay!
Yet fully half of Christianity disagrees on this issue, and your Holy
Spirit can't settle the matter?
The matter has been settled for me many years ago.
But not for hundreds of millions of Catholics. Now howcome this
messenger of God, this very aspect of a tripartite deity, cannot get
through to these folks? They pray, deeply and sincerely, a lot of
them. They believe in the same God you do. Why can't the voice of an
omnipotent being get through?
|
We all shall be held accountable for our actions and beliefs. It
appears that (unlike the Catholic Church) God is more interested in
quality and quantity.
| Quote: | Christ warned that
many would call Him Lord, but would not follow His teachings.
No, that's just evidence of bickering between rival Christian sects at
the time the Gospels were written. You have no warnings or any words
at all from Christ that you can be sure of, though some may genuinely
reflect what he said. All those words in red ink in the Gospels are
from the pens of unknown Gospel writers. And apparently the HS wasn't
getting through to them either!
|
So you _claim_. However, your opinion is, by far, shared by an
insignificant minority.
| Quote: | Catholicism is rife with doctrinal errors because their faith is built
on Church tradition instead of the Word of God.
Or your faith is rife with error because it is built on your
uneducated biblical eisegeses.
|
If my doctrine is at fault, I openly welcome constructive criticism
and will honestly weigh the opposition's opinion against that of the
Word of God. You on the other hand, have no apparent standard of
truth from which to gauge. For you are your own lord and master (and
what a petty fiefdom it is).
| Quote: | It took the RCC over
a thousand years to quit performing the mass in a dead language
(Latin). They're getting massively sued and embarrassed with all the
instances of pedophilia and homosexual priests yet the Pope still
can't come to the basic solution that maybe insisting on a
(non-scriptural) celibate priesthood isn't such a great idea!
And the Holy Spirit can't get through to all these benighted folks?
It couldn't even get through to Paul who invented the idea of a
celibate priesthood? It can't get through even though they are
sincerely trying to understand God's will? Worse, they think the Holy
Spirit IS getting through to them and it's YOU who is wandering in
darkness?
|
As Fox Mulder says, "The truth is out there." If "all these benighted
folks" wilfully chose to follow church tradition instead of the Word
of God, they will have to live with the consequences. As a former
Catholic, I know that the transition of one's faith is possible.
| Quote: | Why 'inspire' contrarily?
A gifted English teacher might 'inspire' her entire class to become
writers. Does that mean that the inspirational teacher would have to
be in agreement with _everything_ her pupils wrote or that the
writings of the students themselves would _always_ be congruous?
Bad analogy. Would half her students consider "I ain't got none" to be
correct English usage, and the other half not? That's a more pertinent
analogy.
Not if the students were paying attention in class, doing their
homework and reading their textbooks (the Bible).
Ah, no, I'm not buying that. The textbook is the cause of the
contentiousness, not the cure. It is contrary and contradictory
because it is from the pens of men who were at each-other's throats
over their theology. You'll find no harmony and guidance in those
pages, only the fuel for more intolerance.
|
Again, I ask you which atheistic societies can you cite and extol for
their tolerance? Christendom's history is certainly not without
blemish, but non-believers such as you, seem fixated on the cracks on
the marble floor rather than witnessing the splendid architecture of
the cathedral.
| Quote: | And when certain
Christian denominations are not diligent in their Bible study they,
likewise, are prone to all sorts of doctrinal error.
I observe that it's the most diligent ones who go further off the deep
end theologically.
|
Who appointed you as an authority of theological boundaries?
| Quote: | The Christian church grew up in an atmosphere of acrimoneous
controversy. Now doesn't that tell you something?
Yes, THEY WERE HUMAN!
And their religion a human invention, like all the pagan religions
before it.
You're entitled to your own opinion, however, my experiences AND heart
tell me different.
Your heart (emotions) tell you what you want to hear.
|
Often times, yes. But there are other times where the path leads me
to a direction that I naturally would be reticent to go.
| Quote: | So ALL who claim to be Christians are NOT
ALWAYS "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Or could it be that they are NEVER so inspired?
In certain cases, yes.
This Holy Spirit is not to be trusted then.
Even if genuine, it is too easily counterfeited.
The prevalence of counterfeit masterpieces of art do not diminish the
priceless worth of the originals.
The 'priceless worth' of such art is not intrinsic. Such paintings are
worth what they are only because of art connoisseur's opinions of
them. A work changes from being worth a fortune to being worthless and
back again according to the most recent opinion of some expert at the
British Museum. Yet not a molecule of paint on the canvas changes.
|
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not what some panel of experts
decree.
| Quote: | It just means that it is incumbent
that the prospective buyer become an expert at detecting forgeries.
No, it means that the forgery is just as good as an original and that
all the rich buyer is paying millions for is the prestige and
mistique. If a dozen experts can't decide if it's really a Van Dyke or
the work of a forger, then there's obviously nothing intrinsically
different about it.
|
They wouldn't be "experts" if they couldn't make that evaluation.
| Quote: | To say that anything you write, believe or think on the basis of
divine inspiration can be trusted is self-delusional. I say that quite
baldly because it is obvious that you cannot identify the source of
any such inspiration. It could be God to be sure, but it could also be
some other spook, or your fevered imagination.
Discerning of spirits does seem to be an under-utilized gift in many
religious circles, yes.
And an over utilized gift in others!
|
OK
| Quote: | Frankly, I share your bewilderment with the fractious state of
Christianity, but such division in the Body does not detract from my
personal relationship with God.
I would opine that it is too many personal relationships with God that
is the problem!
|
You are entitled to your subjective opinion. I disagree. I'm still
waiting for you to cite an atheistic utopian society. Whether you or
I like it or not, mankind seems wired to belief in a Higher Power.
| Quote: | Hopefully, there will be many
miraculous instances which will "give (you) unbeliever's pause" in the
near future.
Miracles seem to have a way of evaporating like frost on a sunny
morning under the light of science. Many things that in the past were
considered to be miracles turned out to be perfectly natural events
apon investigation.
|
And many things can't be simply explained as "perfectly natural
events" at all. For instance, I was tossed from a motorcycle rounding
curve at 40 mph, I screamed out "JESUS!" and was instantly stationary
back astride the motorcycle in the middle of the road. I've also
experienced and witnessed numerous instances of miraculous healings
some of which confounded doctors, instantaneous regenerative growth of
bones and a car accident where no damage whatsoever resulted to the
_broadsided_ car.
| Quote: | Shine some light on those encounters and you may not find them so
mind-blowing. Some minds explode in awe far too easily.
|
You are welcome to contradict what I say, but I've no reason to lie to
you.
| Quote: | Theology is NOT an exact science it is a relationship. You cannot
"measure and quantify" how you feel about, e.g., your mother. Two
siblings may not have the exact same feelings for their mother. There
is a strong subjective element involved.
Exactly. And such subjective relationships are not to be trusted. Your
emotions can lead you down the garden path far too easily. Yes, you'd
be a pretty cold fish if you allow intellect alone to decide, but
while emotion may be allowed to influence your thinking, it's foolish
to let it take the lead.
|
One need not have an intellectual basis for their love of their mother
(or God). It is instinctual and no less real than what your intellect
can confirm.
| Quote: | With the exception of very localized clashes in N. Ireland, Christians
have been at peace with each other since the end of the Inquisition,
many centuries now.
The antics of those Christians in the former Yugoslavia don't count
huh?
Those were clashes between Christians and Moslems. And IMO the
crusade of the Serbian Christians was probably justified. In case you
haven't noticed, the Moslems are stirring up trouble ALL OVER THE
GLOBE just like they did 1000 years ago. They'll reap what they've
sown.
And thus the murder of children is justified.
Religious faith in action...
|
The irreligious are historically worse at resolving social disorder.
So what do you have to posit in place of faith and scriptural mores?
| Quote: | To my knowledge, no one has "forcibly converted"
anyone.
Tell that to the thousands of abused children who attended those
infamous Indian Schools. Forcibly torn from their homes, transported
hundreds of miles away to institutions where they were punished for
speaking their native tongue, converted to Christianity with a stick,
poorly housed, poorly fed...
Ever read your buddy Mark Twain's piece on "The Noble Red Man"?
|
The Noble Red Man
by Mark Twain
"In books he is tall and tawny, muscular, straight and of kingly
presence; he has a beaked nose and an eagle eye.
His hair is glossy, and as black as the raven's wing; out of its
massed richness springs a sheaf of brilliant feathers; in his ears and
nose are silver ornaments; on his arms and wrists and ankles are broad
silver bands and bracelets; his buckskin hunting suit is gallantly
fringed, and the belt and the moccasins wonderfully flowered with
colored beads; and when, rainbowed with his war-paint, he stands at
full height, with his crimson blanket wrapped about him, his quiver at
his back, his bow and tomahawk projecting upward from his folded arms,
and his eagle eye gazing at specks against the far horizon which even
the paleface's field-glass could scarcely reach, he is a being to fall
down and worship.
His language is intensely figurative. He never speaks of the moon, but
always of "the eye of the night;" nor of the wind as the wind, but
as "the whisper of the Great Spirit;" and so forth and so on. His
power of condensation is marvelous. In some publications he seldom
says anything but "Waugh!" and this, with a page of explanation by the
author, reveals a whole world of thought and wisdom that before lay
concealed in that one little word.
He is noble. He is true and loyal; not even imminent death can shake
his peerless faithfulness. His heart is a well-spring of truth, and of
generous impulses, and of knightly magnanimity. With him, gratitude is
religion; do him a kindness, and at the end of a lifetime he has not
forgotten it. Eat of his bread, or offer him yours, and the bond of
hospitality is sealed--a bond which is forever inviolable with him.
He loves the dark-eyed daughter of the forest, the dusky maiden of
faultless form and rich attire, the pride of the tribe, the all-
beautiful. He talks to her in a low voice, at twilight of his deeds on
the war-path and in the chase, and of the grand achievements of his
ancestors; and she listens with downcast eyes, "while a richer hue
mantles her dusky cheek."
Such is the Noble Red Man in print. But out on the plains and in the
mountains, not being on dress parade, not being gotten up to see
company, he is under no obligation to be other than his natural self,
and therefore:
He is little, and scrawny, and black, and dirty; and, judged by even
the most charitable of our canons of human excellence, is thoroughly
pitiful and contemptible. There is nothing in his eye or his nose that
is attractive, and if there is anything in his hair that--however,
that is a feature which will not bear too close examination . . . He
wears no bracelets on his arms or ankles; his hunting suit is
gallantly fringed, but not intentionally; when he does not wear his
disgusting rabbit-skin robe, his hunting suit consists wholly of the
half of a horse blanket brought over in the Pinta or the Mayflower,
and frayed out and fringed by inveterate use. He is not rich enough to
possess a belt; he never owned a moccasin or wore a shoe in his life;
and truly he is nothing but a poor, filthy, naked scurvy vagabond,
whom to exterminate were a charity to the Creator's worthier insects
and reptiles which he oppresses. Still, when contact with the white
man has given to the Noble Son of the Forest certain cloudy
impressions of civilization, and aspirations after a nobler life, he
presently appears in public with one boot on and one shoe--shirtless,
and wearing ripped and patched and buttonless pants which he holds up
with his left hand-- his execrable rabbit-skin robe flowing from his
shoulder--an old hoop-skirt on, outside of it--a necklace of battered
sardine-boxes and oyster-cans reposing on his bare breast--a venerable
flint-lock musket in his right hand--a weather-beaten stove-pipe hat
on, canted "gallusly" to starboard, and the lid off and hanging by a
thread or two; and when he thus appears, and waits patiently around a
saloon till he gets a chance to strike a "swell" attitude before a
looking-glass, he is a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination
if ever there was one.
There is nothing figurative, or moonshiny, or sentimental about his
language. It is very simple and unostentatious, and consists of plain,
straightforward lies. His "wisdom" conferred upon an idiot would leave
that idiot helpless indeed.
He is ignoble--base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not
even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling
trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our
Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a
cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish
instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one
does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest
the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is
to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though
you bankrupt yourself trying. To give him a dinner when he is
starving, is to precipitate the whole hungry tribe upon your
hospitality, for he will go straight and fetch them, men, women,
children, and dogs, and these they will huddle patiently around your
door, or flatten their noses against your window, day after day,
gazing beseechingly upon every mouthful you take, and unconsciously
swallowing when you swallow! The scum of the earth!
And the Noble Son of the Plains becomes a mighty hunter in the due and
proper season. That season is the summer, and the prey that a number
of the tribes hunt is crickets and grasshoppers! The warriors, old
men, women, and children, spread themselves abroad in the plain and
drive the hopping creatures before them into a ring of fire. I could
describe the feast that then follows, without missing a detail, if I
thought the reader would stand it.
All history and honest observation will show that the Red Man is a
skulking coward and a windy braggart, who strikes without warning--
usually from an ambush or under cover of night, and nearly always
bringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills
helpless women and little children, and massacres the men in their
beds; and then brags about it as long as he lives, and his son and his
grandson and great-grandson after him glorify it among the "heroic
deeds of their ancestors." A regiment of Fenians will fill the whole
world with the noise of it when they are getting ready invade Canada;
but when the Red Man declares war, the first intimation his friend the
white man whom he supped with at twilight has of it, is when the war-
whoop rings in his ears and tomahawk sinks into his brain. . . .
The Noble Red Man seldom goes prating loving foolishness to a
splendidly caparisoned blushing maid at twilight. No; he trades a
crippled horse, or a damaged musket, or a dog, or a gallon of
grasshoppers, and an inefficient old mother for her, and makes her
work like an abject slave all the rest of her life to compensate him
for the outlay. He never works himself. She builds the habitation,
when they use one (it consists in hanging half a dozen rags over the
weather side of a sage-brush bush to roost under); gathers and brings
home the fuel; takes care of the raw-boned pony when they possess such
grandeur; she walks and carries her nursing cubs while he rides. She
wears no clothing save the fragrant rabbit-skin robe which her
great-grandmother before her wore, and all the "blushing" she does can
be removed with soap and a towel, provided it is only four or five
weeks old and not caked.
Such is the genuine Noble Aborigine. I did not get him from books, but
from personal observation."
| Quote: | I've read his piece on slavery written at a time when the Christian
churches were defending the idea.
|
If it weren't FOR slavery every African-American [sic.] would be just
like their utterly destitute African brethren.
| Quote: | Jesus Himself, often argued with the religious leaders of His day.
How, pray tell, are Christians following His recorded example in this
regard to be considered _not_ "adhering to Jesus' teachings"?
There's a difference between an argument and a diatribe.
This is where you came into this discussion with your off-topic
hypersensitive critiques of how I was responding to another poster
Oh foo! That was just an opening gambit. A pawn to king's four.
|
I admire your honesty, John. You ask some very astute introspective
questions. Some of my favorite Bible teachers are converted
intellectual skeptics.
| Quote: | As this thread has grown to an incredibly excessive length I'm going
to snip the remainder for sanity preservation reasons
Yeah, it's best to just enjoy the comforts of steadfast faith and not
examine the basis of it too deeply. Actually thinking about theology
tends to undermine your certitude and makes you wonder if your
faith is just so much eisegetical tap-dancing.
|
I've got no problem, whatsoever, confronting your contentions and
defending my Christian faith, however, there is a practical limit to
the amount of time I have to contribute to such discussions. Once the
thread gets over 500 lines (and I observe primarily only a rehash of
*the same old stuff*) I will of necessity resort to a judicious use of
snippage.
Peace be unto all those that love the truth,
Graham Thomas
| Quote: |
## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
|
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Ings
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:37 am Post subject: Re: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2003 00:17:14 GMT, Graham Thomas
<GrahamThomas@cyberlink.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Is the pope
Christ's vicar on earth or not?
Now howcome this
messenger of God, this very aspect of a tripartite deity, cannot get
through to these folks? They pray, deeply and sincerely, a lot of
them. They believe in the same God you do. Why can't the voice of an
omnipotent being get through?
We all shall be held accountable for our actions and beliefs. It
appears that (unlike the Catholic Church) God is more interested in
quality and quantity.
|
You didn't answer the question. Why is the HS unable to get through?
Doesn't God care enough to make himself clear?
| Quote: | You have no warnings or any words
at all from Christ that you can be sure of, though some may genuinely
reflect what he said. All those words in red ink in the Gospels are
from the pens of unknown Gospel writers. And apparently the HS wasn't
getting through to them either!
So you _claim_. However, your opinion is, by far, shared by an
insignificant minority.
|
A minority yes, but not an insignificant one. Those who declare this
are theologians. historians and professional Bible scholars.
| Quote: | Catholicism is rife with doctrinal errors because their faith is built
on Church tradition instead of the Word of God.
Or your faith is rife with error because it is built on your
uneducated biblical eisegeses.
If my doctrine is at fault, I openly welcome constructive criticism
and will honestly weigh the opposition's opinion against that of the
Word of God.
|
No no. You'll weigh it against your personal interpretation of the
supposed Word of God. And that's the problem. The Bible is a very poor
arbiter. The devout never have any difficulty rationalizing what it
says into what they want to hear.
| Quote: | You on the other hand, have no apparent standard of
truth from which to gauge.
|
Of course I have! Whatever makes you think i haven't?
I've just been attacking your Holy Spirit on the basis of a truth;
the truth that its inspiration is inconsistent and therefor suspect.
| Quote: | For you are your own lord and master (and
what a petty fiefdom it is).
|
Cheap shot.
You know perfectly well that these are not just my private opinions.
[the RCC]
| Quote: | And the Holy Spirit can't get through to all these benighted folks?
It couldn't even get through to Paul who invented the idea of a
celibate priesthood? It can't get through even though they are
sincerely trying to understand God's will? Worse, they think the Holy
Spirit IS getting through to them and it's YOU who is wandering in
darkness?
As Fox Mulder says, "The truth is out there."
|
And the truth is just likely to be that you're all deluding
yourselves.
| Quote: | If "all these benighted
folks" wilfully chose to follow church tradition instead of the Word
of God,
|
Woah! Willfully? Couldn't possibly be with honest sincerity?
| Quote: | they will have to live with the consequences.
|
Or not.
| Quote: | As a former
Catholic, I know that the transition of one's faith is possible.
|
So do Farrell Till and Charles Templeton,
| Quote: | Ah, no, I'm not buying that. The textbook is the cause of the
contentiousness, not the cure. It is contrary and contradictory
because it is from the pens of men who were at each-other's throats
over their theology. You'll find no harmony and guidance in those
pages, only the fuel for more intolerance.
Again, I ask you which atheistic societies can you cite and extol for
their tolerance?
|
And I answered you, but apparently you just snipped it without
reading.
| Quote: | Christendom's history is certainly not without
blemish, but non-believers such as you, seem fixated on the cracks on
the marble floor rather than witnessing the splendid architecture of
the cathedral.
|
Those aren't cracks. they're crevasses. If the time and effort and
money that was spent on those grand Gothic cathedrals had been spent
on secular learning instead, Europe wouldn't have suffered through a
thousand year period called the Dark Ages.
| Quote: | And when certain
Christian denominations are not diligent in their Bible study they,
likewise, are prone to all sorts of doctrinal error.
I observe that it's the most diligent ones who go further off the deep
end theologically.
Who appointed you as an authority of theological boundaries?
|
Wouldn't you call this a deep end?
"The God that holds you over the pit of Hell, much as one holds a
spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is
dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire . . . he is
of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten
thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful
venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more
than a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his
hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment"
Jonathan Edwards
"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon 1741
| Quote: | This Holy Spirit is not to be trusted then.
Even if genuine, it is too easily counterfeited.
The prevalence of counterfeit masterpieces of art do not diminish the
priceless worth of the originals.
The 'priceless worth' of such art is not intrinsic. Such paintings are
worth what they are only because of art connoisseur's opinions of
them. A work changes from being worth a fortune to being worthless and
back again according to the most recent opinion of some expert at the
British Museum. Yet not a molecule of paint on the canvas changes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not what some panel of experts
decree.
|
But the price (or pricelessness) follows the experts.
| Quote: | It just means that it is incumbent
that the prospective buyer become an expert at detecting forgeries.
No, it means that the forgery is just as good as an original and that
all the rich buyer is paying millions for is the prestige and
mistique. If a dozen experts can't decide if it's really a Van Dyke or
the work of a forger, then there's obviously nothing intrinsically
different about it.
They wouldn't be "experts" if they couldn't make that evaluation.
|
Often they can't, That's the point.
| Quote: | Frankly, I share your bewilderment with the fractious state of
Christianity, but such division in the Body does not detract from my
personal relationship with God.
I would opine that it is too many personal relationships with God that
is the problem!
You are entitled to your subjective opinion. I disagree. I'm still
waiting for you to cite an atheistic utopian society.
|
I'm still waiting for you to read where i did. If not utopian,
certainly with far less blood on its hands than Christianity.
| Quote: | Whether you or
I like it or not, mankind seems wired to belief in a Higher Power.
|
It's a crutch.
| Quote: | Miracles seem to have a way of evaporating like frost on a sunny
morning under the light of science. Many things that in the past were
considered to be miracles turned out to be perfectly natural events
apon investigation.
And many things can't be simply explained as "perfectly natural
events" at all. For instance, I was tossed from a motorcycle rounding
curve at 40 mph, I screamed out "JESUS!" and was instantly stationary
back astride the motorcycle in the middle of the road.
|
And I'd like to see a video of what actually happened.
| Quote: | I've also
experienced and witnessed numerous instances of miraculous healings
some of which confounded doctors, instantaneous regenerative growth of
bones
|
'Instantaneous'? Growth? You have before-and-after X-rays?
| Quote: | and a car accident where no damage whatsoever resulted to the
_broadsided_ car.
|
Again a video would be edifying. Also of course, your basis for
attributing these wonders to a particular deity.
| Quote: | Shine some light on those encounters and you may not find them so
mind-blowing. Some minds explode in awe far too easily.
You are welcome to contradict what I say, but I've no reason to lie to
you.
|
It isn't your honesty that's in question, it's your credibility.
| Quote: | Yes, you'd
be a pretty cold fish if you allow intellect alone to decide, but
while emotion may be allowed to influence your thinking, it's foolish
to let it take the lead.
One need not have an intellectual basis for their love of their mother
|
But it's wise to allow the intellect to be the refereee.
Ma Barker's kids sure loved her, but that didn't make it a good idea.
| Quote: | (or God). It is instinctual and no less real than what your intellect
can confirm.
|
But far less trustworthy.
| Quote: | And IMO the
crusade of the Serbian Christians was probably justified. In case you
haven't noticed, the Moslems are stirring up trouble ALL OVER THE
GLOBE just like they did 1000 years ago. They'll reap what they've
sown.
And thus the murder of children is justified.
Religious faith in action...
The irreligious are historically worse at resolving social disorder.
|
Oh? What history have you been reading?
| Quote: | So what do you have to posit in place of faith and scriptural mores?
|
How about this?
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
| Quote: | Ever read your buddy Mark Twain's piece on "The Noble Red Man"?
The Noble Red Man
by Mark Twain
|
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/railton/projects/rissetto/twain3.html
| Quote: | I've read his piece on slavery written at a time when the Christian
churches were defending the idea.
If it weren't FOR slavery every African-American [sic.] would be just
like their utterly destitute African brethren.
|
Which would be better conditions than they were living under in the
pre-bellum American south.
| Quote: | This is where you came into this discussion with your off-topic
hypersensitive critiques of how I was responding to another poster
Oh foo! That was just an opening gambit. A pawn to king's four.
I admire your honesty, John. You ask some very astute introspective
questions. Some of my favorite Bible teachers are converted
intellectual skeptics.
|
And some of my sources are converted preachers.
| Quote: | I've got no problem, whatsoever, confronting your contentions and
defending my Christian faith, however, there is a practical limit to
the amount of time I have to contribute to such discussions. Once the
thread gets over 500 lines (and I observe primarily only a rehash of
*the same old stuff*) I will of necessity resort to a judicious use of
snippage.
|
And then demand answers to questions already responded to. :-)
## Faith proceeds from fear, by way of conceit, to hatred |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
firersa.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
|
|
"Graham Thomas" <GrahamThomas@cyberlink.com> wrote in message
news:gstafvo67qf4r4cbetk1e19li25cfbhvkl@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility of
a difference of doctrinal/personal opinion.
Why not? Why can't this Holy Spirit be consistent? Is the pope
Christ's vicar on earth or not? Yeah or nay?
|
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit demands a unification of thought and
interpretation regarding doctrine. Hence the constant admonitions in
scripture to be of one mind, to develop the mind of the Christ and also
Jesus statement that by seing him we see God.
Clearly everybody who is inspired by Holy Spirit must reflect the mind of
God, the mind of Jesus, the mind of the Apostles, and today their doctrinal
teachhings MUST harmonize with scripture.
The influence of the Holy Spirit will thus even today be discernable, as
will those who submit to it's influence, becuase of their consistent
application and interpretation.
Likewise those under the Spirit influence of Satan will also be discernable
by their acting contrary to the leading and interpretation of the Spirit.
| Quote: |
Nay!
Yet fully half of Christianity disagrees on this issue, and your Holy
Spirit can't settle the matter?
|
What criteria do you use to identify christianity!. Self confessed adherance
by man, or identification by evidence of submission to Holy Spirit?
| Quote: |
The matter has been settled for me many years ago. Christ warned that
many would call Him Lord, but would not follow His teachings.
Catholicism is rife with doctrinal errors because their faith is built
on Church tradition instead of the Word of God. It took the RCC over
a thousand years to quit performing the mass in a dead language
(Latin). They're getting massively sued and embarrassed with all the
instances of pedophilia and homosexual priests yet the Pope still
can't come to the basic solution that maybe insisting on a
(non-scriptural) celibate priesthood isn't such a great idea!
Why 'inspire' contrarily?
A gifted English teacher might 'inspire' her entire class to become
writers. Does that mean that the inspirational teacher would have to
be in agreement with _everything_ her pupils wrote or that the
writings of the students themselves would _always_ be congruous?
Bad analogy. Would half her students consider "I ain't got none" to be
correct English usage, and the other half not? That's a more pertinent
analogy.
Not if the students were paying attention in class, doing their
homework and reading their textbooks (the Bible). And when certain
Christian denominations are not diligent in their Bible study they,
likewise, are prone to all sorts of doctrinal error.
The Apostle Paul
disagreed with Barnabas. He also called the Apostle Peter a hypocrite
to his face. James' doctrine on righteous works disagrees with Paul's
notion of grace. The NT also records a number of incidents in which
so-called believing Christians were rebuked, upbraided, reproved and
chastised by the apostles.
|
Clearly some aspects of truth are not clearly understood by man, not even
today. Hence many aspects have not yet been clarified and so it is quite
likely that some adherants may disagree on certain aspects. Eg. Peter's
vision regarding the gentiles being acceptabel to God, revelaled to Peter,
hotly debated amongst even the Apostles untill the questions was sealed when
holy spirit came upon the gentile cornelius and his family. All those in
submission to the Spirit will have embraced thsi direction from the Holy
Spirit and henceforth the direction of the Spirit would be accepted. Others
having thus far professed submission to the Spirit , would rebel against
it's leading becuase their ingrained prejudices against gentiles prove too
strong to be corrected by God. Rebelling against the direction of the spirit
does not invalidate the true doctrine but merely gives birth to doctrines
contrary and in opossition to the truth. People turn away from the working
of the Spirit in favour of their own eveil and fleshly desires. Eg Eve
turned away from God's direction out of her own desire (encouraged by Satan)
to be like God, bt she could not negate the truthfulness of Gods word "you
shall die"!
On the matter of clarification, Daniel was instructed to make certain
scrolls secret untill the last days, so we can still expect futher
clarification and direction from the Spirit regarding certain doctrines to
be clarified in the current and future!
| Quote: |
Indeed! The Christian church grew up in an atmosphere of acrimoneous
controversy. Now doesn't that tell you something?
Yes, THEY WERE HUMAN!
|
and of course not all ACCEPTED the leading of the spirit, so controversy was
bound to occurr, but could never invalidate true doctrine.
| Quote: |
And their religion a human invention, like all the pagan religions
before it.
You're entitled to your own opinion, however, my experiences AND heart
tell me different.
So ALL who claim to be Christians are NOT
ALWAYS "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Or could it be that they are NEVER so inspired?
|
A valid point! Those who are inspired by the Spirit will prodce the
fruitage of the Spirit, viz love, peace, etc, those who do nt produce this
fruitage are inspired by Satan. Regardless of whom one may claim to be
inspired by, it is the fruitage that one produces that is the actual
testimony.
A "christian" who produces the fruitage of pride, prejudice, smokes
ciggarettes, has homosexual relations, molests children and numerous other
vile deeds is clearly not inspired by Christ and thus lies when calling
himself a Christian. We don't usually judge institutions on the deeds of
known impostors.
| Quote: |
In certain cases, yes.
This Holy Spirit is not to be trusted then.
Even if genuine, it is too easily counterfeited.
The prevalence of counterfeit masterpieces of art do not diminish the
priceless worth of the originals. It just means that it is incumbent
that the prospective buyer become an expert at detecting forgeries.
That the Holy Spirit is nothing but self-delusion?
To say that EVERYTHING one writes, believes, thinks or says is
presently guided by the Holy Spirit would be probably self-delusional,
yes.
To say that anything you write, believe or think on the basis of
divine inspiration can be trusted is self-delusional. I say that quite
baldly because it is obvious that you cannot identify the source of
any such inspiration. It could be God to be sure, but it could also be
some other spook, or your fevered imagination.
|
There is definite guidance and mesaures to be applied in determining the
source of any inspired utterance. They are not complex, quite simple
atually, and hence any ne under direction of the Spirit will quite
effortlessy identify false inspiration from Satan.
| Quote: |
Discerning of spirits does seem to be an under-utilized gift in many
religious circles, yes.
Now if the devout all agreed on what this inspiration teaches, if some
native from the jungles of Borneo who never met a white man knew all
about Jesus, it would sure give us unbeliever's pause. But the fact
that you all dispute what this HS teaches hints that NONE of it is
genuine.
|
There is no dispute about what the Holy Spirit teaches amongst those
inspired by Spirit. There are contrary teachings by those who oppose the
Spirit but pretend to be inspired by Spirit. The only ones deceived are the
unbelievers and this exactly is the purpose of demonic inspired utterances,
the misleading and the blinding of the minds of the unbelievers.
| Quote: |
Frankly, I share your bewilderment with the fractious state of
Christianity, but such division in the Body does not detract from my
personal relationship with God. Hopefully, there will be many
miraculous instances which will "give (you) unbeliever's pause" in the
near future.
But far be it from me to deny the existence of such an entity.
I doubt that such an entity, an aspect of God, would be so ineffectual
if it really existed.
|
No aspect of God has ever forced obedience and submission, hence the Spirit
is highly effective in those who willigly submit. To claim it is ineffectual
based on a perceived lack of effect on unbelievers, ignores the fact that
there never has been intent to exert effect on unbelievers.
| Quote: |
After experiencing a number of mind-blowing miraculous encounters with
such an entity that argument becomes rather moot.
If you can't tell whether you are truly inspired by this divine spook,
what use is it?
|
Of course one can tell whether you are inspired by Holy Spirit. Just examine
your works, if they do not harmonize with God's word you can categorically
state that you are not inspired by God. vice versa of course.
| Quote: |
One can not "see" the wind either, but this does not mean that we can
not readily perceive its influence.
And measure and quantify it. My anemometer will read the same as yours
if we're in the same place. But you who consult this Holy Spirit all
come away from the experience with your theological compasses pointing
every which-way. My conclusion is that you DON'T perceive, you just
think you do. Obviously the majority of you are wrong, and I think you
all are.
|
You choose the word majority quite aptly. It is not for nothing that
scripture states many(the majority) will find themselves on the broad road
that leads to destruction and few(minority) will find themselves on the
narrow road to life. Hoever there are quite clearly a minority that are
rightly inspired by holy spirit.
| Quote: |
Theology is NOT an exact science it is a relationship. You cannot
"measure and quantify" how you feel about, e.g., your mother. Two
siblings may not have the exact same feelings for their mother. There
is a strong subjective element involved.
Name such a period-- when no religious wars were taking place, nobody
was engaged in a crusade or inquisition, or forcibly converting
'ignorant heathen'.
With the exception of very localized clashes in N. Ireland, Christians
have been at peace with each other since the end of the Inquisition,
many centuries now.
The antics of those Christians in the former Yugoslavia don't count
huh?
Those were clashes between Christians and Moslems. And IMO the
crusade of the Serbian Christians was probably justified. In case you
haven't noticed, the Moslems are stirring up trouble ALL OVER THE
GLOBE just like they did 1000 years ago. They'll reap what they've
sown.
|
Above is an example of being inspired by Holy Spirit. The Spirit clealry
states that nations will no longer learn war, Jesus instructed the Apostle
to put away the sword even though there was apparently the most righteous
reason to resort to volence (defence of the Messiah) but today so called
Christians justify violent acts and warmongering. Clealry this does not
harmonize with the Spirit of God, which condemns violence and war,
regardless of the perceived justifications.
Secondly I see a very subjective definition of "peace", early in this post
doctrinal disagreement was viewed as contentious and strife, certainly the
opposite of peace, and here we now have an attempt to define "peace" as "the
lack of war" only. Lets try to remain consistent and avoid emotional and
unreasoned debate.
| Quote: |
To my knowledge, no one has "forcibly converted"
anyone.
|
In fact convesion of the human consciousness by force is highly improbable.
It is more likely to conquer the physical being into carrying out physica
actions designed to win the favour and preservation of soul from supressors,
whilst they fully retain their own conscious beliefs and ideals. Although
the point is taken that some who failed to submit to spiritual direction
have enforced such atrocities under the banner of "Christianity". by simply
asking whether Christ taught us to wage war on others and violently convert
them , we can esily see that these acts where not inspired by the Spirit and
so could not be justifed as Christian acts, as the perpetrators could no
more likely be called Christian.
| Quote: |
Tell that to the thousands of abused children who attended those
infamous Indian Schools. Forcibly torn from their homes, transported
hundreds of miles away to institutions where they were punished for
speaking their native tongue, converted to Christianity with a stick,
poorly housed, poorly fed...
Ever read your buddy Mark Twain's piece on "The Noble Red Man"?
Good Christians with only the most altruistic motives did that for
the better part of a hundred years, right up until 1960. All for the
benighted savage's own good of course.
There were plenty of peaceful settlers that lost their scalps to those
same savages, as well.
|
Regardless or History, perceived justification or motives. Violence hatred
and murder of a person of any color skin, belief or creed cannot be
reconciled with the direction of the Spirit , hence with christ and hence it
is not possible for anybody inspired by Holy Spirit to committ such
atrocities. hence these may have believed themselves to be Christian but
their very deeds denounce them as offspring of the Viper. In as much a
person white, by birth might claim to be black, despite his claims he cannot
escape the reality. he remains white.
| Quote: |
Alright, I will do my best to temper my criticism of Glenn's doctrine
in the future. Did you ever meet someone who just "gets your goat"?
I won't criticise your diatribes on the basis that I don't engage in
such behaviour. I can get quite passionate when exchanging posts with
Creationists for instance. But then I don't claim to adhere to Jesus
teachings.
Jesus Himself, often argued with the religious leaders of His day.
How, pray tell, are Christians following His recorded example in this
regard to be considered _not_ "adhering to Jesus' teachings"?
There's a difference between an argument and a diatribe.
This is where you came into this discussion with your off-topic
hypersensitive critiques of how I was responding to another poster
(who BTW never objected himself and who holds no hard feelings as we
have since parted ways). Can't you find anything better to do with
your time than play NG nanny?
As this thread has grown to an incredibly excessive length I'm going
to snip the remainder for sanity preservation reasons
Graham Thomas
* Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? *
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Uniacke.Jr
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Was the Law Nailed? - No! |
|
|
"firersa.com" <hazmat@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:bdmjqh$9fm$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
| Quote: |
"Graham Thomas" <GrahamThomas@cyberlink.com> wrote in message
news:gstafvo67qf4r4cbetk1e19li25cfbhvkl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility
of
a difference of doctrinal/personal opinion.
Why not? Why can't this Holy Spirit be consistent? Is the pope
Christ's vicar on earth or not? Yeah or nay?
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit demands a unification of thought and
interpretation regarding doctrine. Hence the constant admonitions in |
| |
