Yep. They creep into so many areas of life and try to deny people basic things like education and freedoms. And this isn't just in places where religion and backward thinking are rife, this even happens in places like Oxford where the majority of the population is highly educated to begin with.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I meant individually, one apparently fairly decent bloke on the internet. Of course the institution needs to be challenged.
Institutions are made up of individuals. Do you think the Church would still have seats in the house of Lords if people woke up and realized it's bollocks?
Yes he's nice and he's a gooner which means he's also clever and cool, but he tells us he believes in a fairy story. He's willing to discuss it so that's what I'm doing.
If it is not out of humility that I give you the truth, risking the scorn of others including yourself, then humility loses all meaning. And elders weren't chosen based on age but on spiritual maturity in Christ.
You have to be honest with yourself, oates, instead of making excuses and rounding on me with personal accusations. If you were to read back through this thread, you'd see that I haven't personally insulted you in the way you have me. No doubt I have said offensive things but only is so much as the gospel of Jesus Christ is offensive. What you should ask yourself, and what I ask myself, is if we were to stand before Christ right now, where would the guilt lie? Would you still point the finger at me?
Church contributes some of the better Lords. Some of the better voices in politics... Democracy's overrated.
You don't think it's silly that they're in a position of power just because they happen to believe in that particular version of god?
Of course it is but I'm in favour of silly things that work well.
Oh shush you'll embarrass me. The only reason I came on here in the first place was to state the opinion that as a christian I was very cautious, in opposition to Herman's view, that christians had an exclusivity with God, that my hope would be that since the jewish faith, the muslims and the christians all worship the same God. Maybe this is contentious to some but we all count Abraham as God's follower in our texts, we share many beliefs. Where it becomes additionally contentious is that christians say that only through Jesus can you come to his father, God. So what gives me the right to question this exclusivity?
I know God is a merciful God, Paul says himself in Romans 11:13-15 and 29-32
"Let me tell you pagans this: I have been sent to the pagans as their apostle, and I am proud of being sent, but the purpose of it is to make my own people envious of you, and in this way save some of them. Since their rejection meant the reconciliation of the world, do you know what their admission will mean? Nothing less than a resurrection from the dead! God never takes back his gifts or revokes his choice.
Just as you changed from being disobedient to God, and now enjoy mercy because of their disobedience, so those who are disobedient now – and only because of the mercy shown to you – will also enjoy mercy eventually. God has imprisoned all men in their own disobedience only to show mercy to all mankind."
To me this perfectly counters Herman's slurring of not only other denominations but also in fact other faiths and what is more it says ALL mankind. As I said then and I believe until the end of time, God isn't finished yet, he may have stopped adding to the Bible so far but the story isn't over.
I wasn't aiming at you though Grinner, I was more talking about the two blokes earlier in the thread chastising oates from both sides. I just thought it was weird, is all, given the much more polar positions being taken up by other posters.
Herman, put a sock in it. Your arrogance has known no bounds. I've no interest in you any further, good afternoon.
I think we can do better than having people who believe in fairy tales run the country.
I don't share your optimism.
Weren't you unhappy about the religious folk's position during the gay marriage vote? Because it wasn't the Churches lords that voted it through. They're always going to be stuck in the past, it's what comes of believing in a book written thousands of years ago.
Yeah, I was.
Was particularly bad that one, as obviously the loyalty of bishops isn't just to their country. They have colleagues in Africa now being murdered because Anglicanism has become associated with homosexuality, due to that legislation.
Very silly. Very flawed in instances like that. Still think they make a better contribution than the majority of voices though and so I wouldn't want shot of them.
I'm honestly surprised that you're a follower of Jesus DOTA, not least because of how incredibly sexist the bible is.
Putting those words in bold suggests to me that you're arguing for a form of universalism, oates. The context of those verses is that they come at the end of a long discourse on Israel (Romans 9-11) and God's intention for the gospel to go out to the nations before God's favour would turn back to the Jewish people. This is what is meant by "show mercy to all mankind."
You left out verses 26-27 which say: "And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
For the purposes of cotext and a fuller understanding, you should read Zechariah 12-14. For those who don't know, Jacob refers to Israel. That aside, we can see the means by which God will restore Israel and, indeed, all of mankind (only in the sense of people from every nation and tongue not every single individual who has ever existed), which is through the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Deliverer mentioned here. There's no other way to rightly divide up the word.
I was surprised too but it wouldn't stop raining.
Herman, what part of put a sock in it do you have trouble with?
Please do not presume to tell me what I should believe or construe Paul to mean when he says "God has imprisoned all men in their own disobedience only to show mercy to all mankind." - Did Paul put an End Date, a Use Before Advisory on his statement? Did he say that God would stop showing mercy to his people, all his people, all mankind? Is the statement in any capacity going to change? No.
Please just take a look at yourself, you do not have the capacity to know that Paul or God for that matter intends to communicate anything but that which was said.
Now go and play elsewhere.
Hmmm. I'm beginning to wonder if Herman doesn't prefer the sound of his own voice to come back to him.Fixed.
So the fact you ignore the clear context of the scriptures you use to support your position doesn't concern you? The fact you leave out God's perfectly plainly stated means of deliverance?
You're the one who is trying to infer more than what was said from the scriptures. That is what is so brutally ironic about each of your criticisms of me; it's honestly as though you're holding a mirror up to the screen and typing out everything you see.
You might not see it this way, but while you continue to preach a false gospel and to twist scripture to fit your view, I have an obligation to correct you in the hope that you will repent and that others will not be led astray by you.
This is like a schism.
The only way to settle this is THUNDERDOME
THUNDERDOME!
It meant as I said in the very beginning which you know full well that I hope for it and that this was my evidence. How else do you want to be seen but as a WUM?
Now, as Dwayne so politely says, Go and pray. You're not getting the answers you'd like your ego to get here.
Then your hope is in vain, oates. There is only one hope and one deliverer, which is Christ Jesus.
You're using scriptures out of context to support a hope which isn't Christ. Wow. And this is all your own confession. How are you not aware of how outside of orthodoxy your views are, oates?
lol Oates isn't christian enough for god
I have no doubt that you can attempt to use scriptures to place any context you like however I have noticed that you like to use both the old and new testaments when it suits you.
Here is another one then that says to me that God's mercy is not exclusive or limited.
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.
Jesus says, there are many rooms, he goes to prepare a place for you, the disciples. Who do you think will occupy all of the other rooms?
It's oates Silva, try to be accurate eh?
sorry
No problem Silva.
Cinas mom
I use the old and new testaments because they form a narrative and you can't read Paul's letters without an understanding of the old testament scriptures
I've never tried to say that those in Christ wouldn't be a large number. You see, this isn't a quantitative issue; it's an issue concerning the gospel. If we say that the work of God is that you believe in the one whom he sent (Christ) as Jesus says in John 6, and we recognise that it is his single sacrifice on the cross that atones for the sin of those who believe, then how can anybody say that there could be some other way? Once again, I go back to Paul's comments in Galatians that one who adds a single thing, one single thing, to the gospel of Jesus Christ is anathema.
This is the central issue of the debate, oates, and why I keep saying that it has nothing to do with my ego or your manner towards me, but everything to do with the gospel. In what you are trying to establish from all these scriptures you're taking out of context to fit your position, you are in fact undermining the gospel.
Essentially oates is a plastic.
You said he was a gooner earlier.
At least we've found a replacement for Al.