Christian values - cancelling a funeral because deceased was gay (moral, reject)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would a person's view be better if he/she insisted that their religious believes should be imposed on others in a society? What if you don't believe in that person's religion?
How does that turn around the question about the 1st amendment? Please explain.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Again, your reading and understanding of the Scripture is wanting.
For the sake of brevity, the event of Jesus cursing the fig tree as described in both Matthew and Mark was a purposeful act that had a greater meaning. The fig tree was symbolic of a person who bears no fruit that becomes whithered and is only good for being cast into the fire. This symbolism is used throughout the Scripture and is not found only in these passages.
It was the love of Jesus that drove Him to teach His disciples, knowing that they would teach the world after He was gone. Once again showing the love of God for the world as described in John 3:16.
I see.
So are you telling me that one should not read the bible literally, but metaphorically or allegorically?
So are you telling me that one should not read the bible literally, but metaphorically or allegorically?
I am saying that the Bible should be read normally. The fig tree was actually fruitless and actually existed in the real world. The events actually occured, and it is through reading the Scripture that one cleary, and I mean clearly, understands the 'why'. Every action that Jesus performed had a divine purpose that ripples through eternity, changing lives through the preservation of His Word.
Again, your reading and understanding of the Scripture is wanting.
For the sake of brevity, the event of Jesus cursing the fig tree as described in both Matthew and Mark was a purposeful act that had a greater meaning. The fig tree was symbolic of a person who bears no fruit that becomes whithered and is only good for being cast into the fire. This symbolism is used throughout the Scripture and is not found only in these passages.
It was the love of Jesus that drove Him to teach His disciples, knowing that they would teach the world after He was gone. Once again showing the love of God for the world as described in John 3:16.
Then he told this parable:
“A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it
but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For
three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found
any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “ ‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it.
9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
As one of our theologians once wrote that this just followed after Jesus said: "unless you repent, you too will all perish".
“A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it
but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “ ‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it.
9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
As one of our theologians once wrote that this just followed after Jesus said: "unless you repent, you too will all perish".
Indeed. ALso, Jesus teaches the disciples using the fig tree that He had cursed. Read Mark 11:20-25:
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
So to make the claim that Jesus was just a crazy man who went around randomly cursing plants is simply false. It was a deliberate action to teach an object lesson, something most good teachers do constantly.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-16-2014 at 07:39 AM..
Reason: Changed red to blue.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I am saying that the Bible should be read normally. The fig tree was actually fruitless and actually existed in the real world. The events actually occured, and it is through reading the Scripture that one cleary, and I mean clearly, understands the 'why'. Every action that Jesus performed had a divine purpose that ripples through eternity, changing lives through the preservation of His Word.
You mean when he advises how and why to beat slaves?
Please tell us what possible good can be obtained by that? It's in Luke 12, BTW. And yes, I read it in context.
So your saying, parts of the bible are to be read as written, and part is to be interpreted?
So your saying, parts of the bible are to be read as written, and part is to be interpreted?
Of course. If I pick up the newspaper and open to the sports section and read a headline that says, 'Patriots Crush Cowboys', do I think that the Dallas Cowboys were literally crushed? Of course not. This is simply a matter of reading comprehension we perform every single day without question. When Jesus says that He is 'the door', it doesn't mean He is literally made out wood. Jesus cursed a fig tree in order to use it as an object lesson, which he clearly teaches to His disciples. It's quite simple.
As far as your slavery argument, I have no intention of getting into a apologetics debate with you regarding out-of-context or misunderstood Scripture you cherry-picked from whatever your favorite anti-Christian site is. I've heard them all and they are old and have been refuted many, many times over by men smarter than I. Google is your friend.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Of course. If I pick up the newspaper and open to the sports section and read a headline that says, 'Patriots Crush Cowboys', do I think that the Dallas Cowboys were literally crushed? Of course not. This is simply a matter of reading comprehension we perform every single day without question. When Jesus says that He is 'the door', it doesn't mean He is literally made out wood. Jesus cursed a fig tree in order to use it as an object lesson, which he clearly teaches to His disciples. It's quite simple.
As far as your slavery argument, I have no intention of getting into a apologetics debate with you regarding out-of-context or misunderstood Scripture you cherry-picked from whatever your favorite anti-Christian site is. I've heard them all and they are old and have been refuted many, many times over by men smarter than I. Google is your friend.
Yes, many have point have been made, but very few ever answered.
Why? Because either there is no answer, or the apologist is too uncomfortable confronting an answer which in any way goes contrary to his faith. It is not necessarily an honest way of acting.
Don't you find it interesting that incidents of revelation by angels, Gabriel in the case of Mary and Mohammed, and Moroni, in the case of Joesph Smith, always appeared only to those named, and that there were never any witnesses to these stupendous events. We have to take their words for it, don't we.
If Gabriel told Mary of her up coming pregnancy, how is that different than Gabriel revealing the Suras to Mohammed? If we believe in the conversation that Gabriel had with Mary, why would there be any question of the discussions Smith had with Moroni?
Not sure who said it first, but it is a truism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Yes, many have point have been made, but very few ever answered.
Why? Because either there is no answer, or the apologist is too uncomfortable confronting an answer which in any way goes contrary to his faith. It is not necessarily an honest way of acting.
I'm not sure what you mean. I can only assume that the answers aren't what you personally will accept, and therefore you reject them. The answers are not uncomfortable in any way. I have no moral problems with slavery as it existed in the first century. As I said, there are many, many scholars who can lay this out for you if you would just open your mind and look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Don't you find it interesting that incidents of revelation by angels, Gabriel in the case of Mary and Mohammed, and Moroni, in the case of Joesph Smith, always appeared only to those named, and that there were never any witnesses to these stupendous events. We have to take their words for it, don't we.
If Gabriel told Mary of her up coming pregnancy, how is that different than Gabriel revealing the Suras to Mohammed? If we believe in the conversation that Gabriel had with Mary, why would there be any question of the discussions Smith had with Moroni?
Not sure who said it first, but it is a truism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Actually, this isn't true as William Lane Craig points out quite eloquently:
Quote:
This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false. Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be sceptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly, improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
