Where is the ''ideology''?
The overall statement is that ''Jesus is the truth''.
jan.
That statement is an ideology. Ideology is everywhere.
'oat.
Where is the ''ideology''?
The overall statement is that ''Jesus is the truth''.
jan.
There's nothing ridiculous about the assertion that you're a Christian apologist. Your words make my case for me.
So then discussing the logic of events or motivations of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire can be for no other purpose than to ridicule? And why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I could discuss the subject while also ridiculing it.
Okay, you clearly aren't going to be honest about this, and would rather nitpick me to death than address the actual point, which was that people who reject Jesus are not condemning themselves, as they are also not accepting that eternal damnation is the necessary result of their unbelief. Instead of addressing that, you're going off on a tangent about what constitutes rape and sexual assault.
Yes, you did imply that. The words are right there.
Is it that you didn't read any of the posts you're quoting? I'm at a loss for how you could even ask this question. If you get into an argument regarding the ultimate fate of the kid at the end of Blood Meridian, must you also believe that the Judge is a real person? Or can you argue your case in the context of the book?
I mean, seriously.
That doesn't work on any level. First and foremost, the reason high-voltage areas exist is because there are technological limitations (and probably universal laws) preventing him from making such things as electricity completely safe. God has no such limitations. The gambit is of his own invention, so it cannot be said that there was no intent involved.
You don't need conversion, because you're clearly already a Christian. As for the ad homs, you've largely avoided them this round, which is uncommon for you. You haven't pointed out a single logical fallacy of mine, and in fact committed about a dozen yourself. And I have a feeling you know it. You tend to obfuscate when the argument is getting away from you.
From yours or my perspective, yes, but we can't determine what is or isn't truth with them.
So a rejection of the truth is self-condemnation, whether we know what truth is, or not.
You can pretend to be a moderate, or even a non-Christian, but your belief are clear. You are a gibberish-spouting Christian apologist.
Why?
1. Jaylews question was a response to ''Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condemn others for not believing?''.
Explain how this is a ''condemnation for not believing?
This verse clearly shows that the person has already condemned their own self by not believing.
..
As already noted, this is the logic of a bully. As such, it is crude, and there isn't much to explain or to make it palatable.
And as I already noted, there is an explanation more in line with natural theology, for a verse like John 3:18 -
John 3:18
1. New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
2. IOW, in order to feel condemned, one already has to believe in Jesus. But if one already believes in Jesus, then one is not condemned.
Which is a peculiar double bind! It seems this double bind arises from falsely limiting the scope of the meaning of "believe" and focusing only on the strictly cognitive part of its meaning, while leaving out the components 'to be loyal, to be faithful, to appreciate'.
3. I think that originally, the passage may mean something like, to interpret it in line with the idea that sin is its own punishment:
"Whoever acts according to God's commandments will not be miserable, but whoever does not act according to God's commandments, is miserable already because not acting according to God's commandments results in misery for oneself."
4. This is a truism, of course, as far as definitions go ("Acting in line with God's commandments will make you happy, not acting in line with God's commandments will make you miserable").
2) metaph.
a) God is light because light has the extremely delicate, subtle, pure, brilliant quality
b) of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it
c) that which is exposed to the view of all, openly, publicly
d) reason, mind
1) the power of understanding esp. moral and spiritual truth
However, I yet have to see a Christian appeal to it; according to mainstream (or not so mainstream) Christianity, only (their particular version of) belief in Jesus can save a person from God's wrath, whereas all other forms of theism (such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) are the work of the devil and will land their adherents in eternal damnation.
Hmm... where to start!.
Clearly, both you and Balerion are looking at this from your own personal perspectives, a clear case of not respecting the scripture, or more to the point, the context which these verses are placed.
That is the equivalent of coming out of a Superman movie saying what a load of crap, no human can fly by himself, in the earth or out in space, thereby missing the whole point of the movie. IOW, your personal belief or opinion is of no real importance with regard to what is said.
You, of course, have perfect understanding of everything, and you are to be worshipped as God.
A big fat to you.
Keep your patronizing bullshit to yourself.
Jesus did not say that. He did not speak that language.jan said:Jesus (Immanuel) made a claim. He said: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Now we know he didn't mean light as in ''sunlight'' or something to improve ones eyesight. So according to Strongs Concordance dictionary
Jesus did not say that. He did not speak that language.
That is an English translation of a Greek wording of a secondhand version of an alleged quote from an alleged prophet who may or may not have been named Jesus. The original language, if all the allegations are somehow (and unlikely) accurate, probably would have been Aramaic. Reading such a distant and dubious phrase closely for its original subtle metaphorical content is an exercise of faith difficult to defend by reason.
The modern Christian invents the Jesus they need. There's nothing wrong with that, but likewise no reason for self-deception.
It doesn't matter as long as no self-deception is involved - as long as you take responsibility for who you decide your prophet should have been, and what he or she should have said.jan said:It doesn't really matter, as we are using the Bible to decipher the meaning of a biblical phrase.
It doesn't really matter, as we are using the Bible to decipher the meaning of a biblical phrase.
But outside of that, the quote is line with other scriptural injunctions regarding similar types of characters.
The supposedly God-inspired scriptures that is "Alive"...or able to deliver clairvoyance from via the spirit through the words. He lost me after that.
I seek to understand their belief and find the truth.
Not to worry. The indwelling Holy Spirit is necessary to truly grasp the written Word of God--and It's central theme: God's plan for the ages accomplished thru The Word of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. The written Word is as living as the Incarnate Word. Possession of the Incarnate Word by faith brings with Him the Holy Spirit, by which you will be able to understand The written Word.
The Truth is found totally and completely in the Person of Jesus Christ. If it is HIM you truly seek after, to know and learn from Him, your desire will be granted.
Photizo I always worry about gods plan
Did this gods plan include us, in the sense that we Humanity had a voice in writing up this plan?
Worrying belies lack of trust without which no relationship is possible.
In the sense that humanity's representative is the God-Man Jesus Christ, yes.
But Jesus is the son of God
He is NOT a representation of Humanity, no one person could be