John Yurich USA wrote: Well all religions that don't worship Jesus as God are satanic. That is why it is a false statement for anybody to make that the Catholic Church is satanic because the Catholic Church has always worshiped Jesus as God and therefore is not satanic.
Hold on, John. Youâ€™ve got a problem with your logic. Hereâ€™s what you are basically saying:
Religions that donâ€™t believe in Christâ€™s deity are Satanic. Catholicism believes in Christâ€™s deity. Therefore, Catholicism is not Satanic.
If we boil it down, you are saying:
[Referent] that does not [condition] is [result] [Narrowed referent] does [condition] [Narrowed referent] is not [result]
That would be like saying:
Spiders that do not have fangs are harmless. Goliath Birdeater Tarantulas have fangs. Therefore, G. B. Tarantulas are not harmless.
However, those spiders are in fact harmless.
As to the Catholicism issue, Iâ€™ll just say this:
Any Jesus that waits on my faithfulness in order to dole out grace is not the Jesus I worship. Any Jesus that, at time of baptism, only forgives the sins Iâ€™ve committed up to that point is not the Jesus I worship.
One of these Jesuses is a false god, and the other is the True and Living God of the Bible.
is it finally being published? I have been waiting for years now to get a look at this manuscript! I do hope it is genuinely first century.
This would be just great if it is true. I know there are a lot of KJV-onlyists on this site, but even for people who wouldn't dare give it consideration as to what the text says, the most ardent KJVO should be thrilled about this.
If this is true, then when atheists spout off that the gospels couldn't have been written by the traditional namesakes, and that well over a hundred years separated the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith", we can say "no, no, no. We have in our own possession a part of Mark's gospel written within 50-60 years of the original! This gospel was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses!"
"Of course Democrats lie because the Democratic Party is the party of Satan whereas the Republican Party is the party of Jesus."
Absolutely wrong. Not everyone in the Republican Party is saved. Jesus came to institute a Church, not a political party. Be VERY careful here, this is the line of thought that led to the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe you are you the one who claims Christ and is still in the RCC, no? Surely you will admit that the RCC, at the very least, has put its hand in the world's affairs where it simply doesn't belong.
Republicans are wicked, just like Democrats are wicked. God has simply restrained the Republicans a little more. That is a far cry from them being "the party of Jesus".
Being a Christian and a gamer are not incompatible. Being a Christian and a hardcore gamer are. Just because some games are wicked doesn't mean the medium is evil any more than erotic novels make books inherently evil. Nintendo especially makes family-friendly games (which is why I only own a Wii U).
As a gamer myself, I've looked into this Gamechurch thing. I walked away from it a little mixed. On the one hand, it is not so fluffy as to give Joel Osteen a run for his money. On the other hand though, it feels a little empty. It almost seems like it's saying "Jesus wants you, and He wants you to change, but more Achievements are good too." It reminds me of Relevant Magazine, personally. If you're familiar with that magazine, that's the general feel I get from Gamechurch.
The problem is that that is their word for God. El is the Hebrew word for God, Baal is the Canaanite word for God, Theos is the Greek word for God, and Allah is the Arabic word for God.
The problem is that there is no other alternative that makes sense natively to Arabic speakers. Christians now must either risk imprisonment, or use a term to describe God that most they are trying to reach are unfamiliar with (either a made-up name, or another language's word for God). It would be like the Jews or the Mormons trademarking "God" so that we couldn't use it. There are connotations (both positive and negative) that an unbeliever would automatically assume.
Neil wrote: You're Cherry Picking, as you failed to address verses like
Prov. 31:6: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."
To be fair, he did address that one. But the others are pertinent, so your case certainly stands.
For those who want to say that all drinking of alcohol is wrong, the miracle at the wedding must be tricky. After all, we cannot imagine Jesus giving anything else we would all agree is sinful to these people. If I may meld cultures, would Jesus go to a bachelor party and hand out Playboy?
In addition, if alcohol is indeed wrong, and Jesus (whom I am to imitate) gave it to others, should I then go around giving things I believe to be sin?
For clarification, I am a tee-totaler by choice. I have tasted alcohol, but the very taste disgusts me.
While it would make me sad that the missionary seems to have repented from his "crimes", I have to remember that this is coming from a North Korean attorney. They have no accountability here. No one can check up on their facts. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Christian and say he did no such thing.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised by the anger towards this. While I haven't read the whole article, it seems like it is a modern translation based on the Textus Receptus, rather than the eclectic Greek testaments from after 1611. I would have thought that the TR-onlyists would like this. Oh well. Can't please everyone I suppose.
It seems as though they're saying that this "ultimatum game" is the basic concept of survival boiled down into a few principles, and upon understanding those principles our ancestors created concepts of fairness and spite.
Ignoring other "doubts about Evolution" as they write, and even ignoring my own doubts about the basic premise, that this game is the basics of survival life, this understanding still falls flat on one point.
They expect me to believe that animals with brains significantly less developed than my own pulled together concepts of present and future, we're capable of weighing out the results of their actions, and chose to behave in ways they never behaved before (since we're talking about the origin of such actions). And all without a single shred of science (science being defined in the traditional way of something being confirmed through use of the scientific method).
Trust me, as a married man, I can tell you that the size of the wedding means only a tenth as much on this side of marriage. Everything looks fuzzy in your memories. Everything but your wife. If she's there, then that's all you need.
And speaking of traditions, a far longer tradition is for the bride's father to give a dowry of some sort. If you're cheap, just ask for the money that could go to a big wedding be given for a dowry, and then have a small wedding. That'll matter a whole lot more than some ceremony.