|
|
Post by Lee on May 25, 2019 19:50:47 GMT -5
It isn't Jesus they're afraid of but fear itself. They're afraid their salvation will be contested if they challenge the workers head on. They're worshiping a political thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 25, 2019 23:27:24 GMT -5
Consider the natural order of the world and how everything works in synchronization. Remove plants & trees, animals, birds, insects, or anything else in creation, and it would be disruptive and detrimental to how everything works together in complete harmony. But remove mankind and it changes nothing, in fact things would likely improve. God gave man dominion, but creation doesn't need or require us, so logic would dictate that it was designed for us.
What!!?? How in the world did you ever come to that conclusion based on that hypothesis? Things would improve if humans weren't around and the earth neither needs or requires us to therefore it was made for us? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion I truly don't. Remove people from the earth and how would that effect the earth? Think about it, everything would go just fine without mankind on earth. In fact, we cut down rain forest and ruin the landscape, we pollute the land, water, seas, and air, we've hunted species into extinction, etc.. But if insects were removed, the world would not survive, because they serve a purpose and work in conjunction with plants and animals to sustain the natural order of things. Man has a use for everything on earth, yet the earth has no use for us, so it stands to reason that everything was created and designed to sustain man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 23:33:11 GMT -5
It isn't Jesus they're afraid of but fear itself. They're afraid their salvation will be contested if they challenge the workers head on. They're worshiping a political thing. I don’t often understand your posts Lee (And that’s ok.) But, I’m inclined to agree with you on this one. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 26, 2019 0:04:16 GMT -5
Lee . From knowing many professing people, fear was not the predominant reaction to their belief in Jesus. Rather a trust that if they put their faith in him, things would work out whether for better or worse, it was up to the Lord. That attitude and mindset is one which undermines individuals from conforming to secular recommendations, in this case those handed down by the Australian Royal Commission into CSA. Over the many years interacting with 2x2 members, i repeatedly heard them express a deep faith in Jesus presence and protection. I heard people speak against counselling use the verse in Isaiah as proof that we do not need human counsellors when we have Jesus. These attitudes are also shared by Christians who represent alternative churches. As for the ' political thing' they are worshipping: religion is often referred to as being a political instrument. So no surprises there but you'd have to wonder how effective the 2x2's are with influencing politics and power given their preference to stay under the radar.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 26, 2019 4:49:05 GMT -5
I just get annoyed that religions built on myths facilitate all sorts of harm, of which CSA is one. If there were no churches I don't believe there would be any fewer abusers. Since the beginning of time abusers have hidden themselves in groups: sports, families,community, clubs etc...
If there were no churches they would just find another group to attach themselves to.
I get so frustrated when people blame a particular group for CSA. No group can be held responsible for a particular persons actions, it is only how the abuse and the abusers are delt with that is important.I agree with most of what you wrote here, janj. It is the abusers who are responsible, and abusers are - sadly - everywhere. It is important how the abuse and abusers are dealt with. Yes. But it is just as important (from lessons learnt the hard way), that groups facilitate good prevention practices. It is also just as important how the victims are dealt with. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 26, 2019 4:56:41 GMT -5
^this question has still not been answered. elizabethcoleman & or Ross.Bowden Could you please explain to the 2x2 readers of this thread why they cannot rely on Jesus to be the great healer in regards to the sexual abuse of children within the 2x2 church and why instead the ethical action is for the workers to conform to secular advice and processes. The 2x2 members need to understand why they cannot rely on Jesus to 'redress' the effects of CSA. Thank you. That would be inferring that the 2x2s are morally inferior and just plain stupid. They are not. I've already laid out suggested action in the OP. It now needs brave and sensible people within the group to move this forward. |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 26, 2019 6:42:26 GMT -5
^this question has still not been answered. elizabethcoleman & or Ross.Bowden Could you please explain to the 2x2 readers of this thread why they cannot rely on Jesus to be the great healer in regards to the sexual abuse of children within the 2x2 church and why instead the ethical action is for the workers to conform to secular advice and processes. The 2x2 members need to understand why they cannot rely on Jesus to 'redress' the effects of CSA. Thank you. That would be inferring that the 2x2s are morally inferior and just plain stupid. They are not. I've already laid out suggested action in the OP. It now needs brave and sensible people within the group to move this forward. Elizabeth, the question asked is not what the Redress Scheme would be doing, but why does Jesus, the 'great healer' do nothing to heal? If Jesus is the 'great healer' why do we need a redress scheme? If you don't know the answer as to why Jesus is inactive, then just say so, rather than dodge the question. |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 26, 2019 6:46:09 GMT -5
What!!?? How in the world did you ever come to that conclusion based on that hypothesis? Things would improve if humans weren't around and the earth neither needs or requires us to therefore it was made for us? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion I truly don't. Remove people from the earth and how would that effect the earth? Think about it, everything would go just fine without mankind on earth. In fact, we cut down rain forest and ruin the landscape, we pollute the land, water, seas, and air, we've hunted species into extinction, etc.. But if insects were removed, the world would not survive, because they serve a purpose and work in conjunction with plants and animals to sustain the natural order of things. Man has a use for everything on earth, yet the earth has no use for us, so it stands to reason that everything was created and designed to sustain man. This is a flawed argument from irreducible complexity and a false dichotomy. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and hypothetically grant you that, because everything looks created by a god, it actually is. How does this then get you to Jesus dying for your sins and being the great healer to wash away the problems of CSA? |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 26, 2019 7:02:15 GMT -5
Ross, if there was no doubt, there would be proof. The person who discovered this proof would have been awarded a Nobel prize, for rendering much of what we know as good science to be worthless. I am quite confident that you have no doubt as to Jesus' existence, but to state your belief as fact is erroneous. Unfortunately it does not matter that "people who believe in Jesus accept the written record of eye witness accounts of Christ after His resurrection". This is confirmation bias and the argument from popularity, in which an belief's popularity has no bearing on its truthfulness. At one time, the bulk of the population thought that the earth was flat. Obviously it doesn't matter how many people believe the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. There are standards of evidence, Ross. The 'evidence' provided for the existence of a god (there are thousands to choose from, remember) usually comes back to feelings and personal experience, which are notoriously unreliable. If a Christian 'proves' Yahweh through feelings and personal experience, a Muslim 'proves' Allah through the same and a Hindu 'proves' Vishnu, explain to me how personal experience is a reliable way to determine truth. As for "no doubt about the historicity of Christ", you are deluding yourself if you think that is the case. Once again, I have full confidence that you have no doubt about the historicity of Christ, but to state as fact that there is no doubt is again erroneous. More and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that Christ is a mythical character. I presume you are an atheist when it comes to every god but your own and I'm sure you have no trouble admitting that humans have invented gods in the past. Many of these gods/godmen were based on pre-existing myths. Lets do a quick exercise and invent our own godman right now. We'll give him the following characteristics: Born of a virgin on December 25th. Child teacher at age 12. Begins his ministry at age 30. Heals the sick, raises the dead, walks on water, turns water into wine. Has 12 close followers. Is crucified, killed, dead for three days, before resurrecting and ascending into heaven. Who do you think we've based our godman on? Jesus? Nope... We have not used Jesus as a source for any one of the characteristics we've given our godman. They have all been copied from gods/godmen who predate the time of the NT, just the way I suspect the Jesus character was assembled. Why go to lengths debunking the myth of Christ on TMB? Simple - because as you're more aware than most, real people have been hurt by CSA and the "great healer" is nowhere to be seen. Relying on a fictional character to give any sort of solace here is doing nothing to help. Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for life. Teach a man to pray for fish and he'll die of starvation. I apologise for my tone - it's not meant to be personal; I just get annoyed that religions built on myths facilitate all sorts of harm, of which CSA is one. The theory that Christ is a myth is widely regarded by scholars/historians as a fringe theory. Its relatively limited number of proponents often hedge the theory by added “but if he existed he has nothing to do with Christianity” - I guess an each-way bet. Scholars/historians have long concluded that Christ lived and also died on a Roman cross based on the available evidence, both secular and Biblical. More and more scholars are simply not coming to the conclusion that Christ is a mythical character. You might hope there are or you might embrace the writings of one who does but that is simply confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is starting out with the assumption that the fables in the Bible are true, then looking for any evidence to confirm that. Scholars historically have mainly been Christians, with their inherent confirmation bias, so it's no wonder they have come to the conclusion that Jesus existed. However, what we must keep in mind is the the Bible is not evidence; it is the claim. So what is this secular evidence, Ross? We know there are forgeries and we know there are cases where people's beliefs about Jesus are mentioned. In another 100 years someone could stumble across a mention of Nathan's wacky beliefs, but that would just be evidence that Nathan believed in hollow planets; it does not mean hollow planets actually exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 26, 2019 7:45:28 GMT -5
Lee . From knowing many professing people, fear was not the predominant reaction to their belief in Jesus. Rather a trust that if they put their faith in him, things would work out whether for better or worse, it was up to the Lord. That attitude and mindset is one which undermines individuals from conforming to secular recommendations, in this case those handed down by the Australian Royal Commission into CSA. Over the many years interacting with 2x2 members, i repeatedly heard them express a deep faith in Jesus presence and protection. I heard people speak against counselling use the verse in Isaiah as proof that we do not need human counsellors when we have Jesus. These attitudes are also shared by Christians who represent alternative churches. As for the ' political thing' they are worshipping: religion is often referred to as being a political instrument. So no surprises there but you'd have to wonder how effective the 2x2's are with influencing politics and power given their preference to stay under the radar. It's important to worship Jesus according to who he is. I like Paul's idea: He was not afraid to be public. He was not afraid to appeal for justice and expect it from secular authority. He was not afraid to call out gross immoral behavior in his churches and demand action. ....In the body politic, if the 2x2's were actually respecting Jesus and not in fear of something less they'd conduct their churches with the manful benevolence of Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 26, 2019 8:13:03 GMT -5
That would be inferring that the 2x2s are morally inferior and just plain stupid. They are not. I've already laid out suggested action in the OP. It now needs brave and sensible people within the group to move this forward. Elizabeth, the question asked is not what the Redress Scheme would be doing, but why does Jesus, the 'great healer' do nothing to heal? If Jesus is the 'great healer' why do we need a redress scheme? If you don't know the answer as to why Jesus is inactive, then just say so, rather than dodge the question. God always works with man, and requires our action - he treats us as responsive, intelligent, moral beings. He commands that we act with compassion and justice - as I've already said, but you prefer to ignore that answer. Sorry to see you're questioning the purpose of a redress scheme rather than encouraging it. Sorry to see you're more interested in furthering your own atheistic debate than being of constructive use here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 8:48:51 GMT -5
Lee . From knowing many professing people, fear was not the predominant reaction to their belief in Jesus. Rather a trust that if they put their faith in him, things would work out whether for better or worse, it was up to the Lord. That attitude and mindset is one which undermines individuals from conforming to secular recommendations, in this case those handed down by the Australian Royal Commission into CSA. Over the many years interacting with 2x2 members, i repeatedly heard them express a deep faith in Jesus presence and protection. I heard people speak against counselling use the verse in Isaiah as proof that we do not need human counsellors when we have Jesus. These attitudes are also shared by Christians who represent alternative churches. As for the ' political thing' they are worshipping: religion is often referred to as being a political instrument. So no surprises there but you'd have to wonder how effective the 2x2's are with influencing politics and power given their preference to stay under the radar. It's important to worship Jesus according to who he is. I like Paul's idea: He was not afraid to be public. He was not afraid to appeal for justice and expect it from secular authority. He was not afraid to call out gross immoral behavior in his churches and demand action. He was not afraid to disappear after promising he’d be back soon and then never be seen or heard of again for the next two thousand years. Matt10 |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 26, 2019 8:56:34 GMT -5
Did he disappear and never return? He's presently on TMB and other places requisitioning a CSA Redress Scheme for the 2x2's.
What kind of fairy tale life do you atheists want?
You're fakes!
|
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 26, 2019 9:04:03 GMT -5
Elizabeth, the question asked is not what the Redress Scheme would be doing, but why does Jesus, the 'great healer' do nothing to heal? If Jesus is the 'great healer' why do we need a redress scheme? If you don't know the answer as to why Jesus is inactive, then just say so, rather than dodge the question. God always works with man, and requires our action - he treats us as responsive, intelligent, moral beings. He commands that we act with compassion and justice - as I've already said, but you prefer to ignore that answer. Sorry to see you're questioning the purpose of a redress scheme rather than encouraging it. Sorry to see you're more interested in furthering your own atheistic debate than being of constructive use here. Why is it Yahweh/Jesus can only carry out actions through man? I mean, if you believe the Bible, he was all about action back then. It sounds to me like this particular god is not so omnipotent after-all. Why is it "He commands that we act with compassion and justice", but does not conduct his own affairs in similar fashion? I didn't ignore your answer, it's just that you did not address the specific question asked. Your second paragraph is another strawman argument, Elizabeth. The only way forward here is man-powered approach such as a redress scheme. It is futile to put trust in the intervention of an imaginary saviour. The intention of my discussion is to bring attention to the fact that only humans can alleviate the CSA mess, and to put any trust in an unproven 'great healer' is a waste of time and energy that could be put to use in ways that actually help the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 26, 2019 19:07:50 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman you wrote and that is consistent with your claim "That 'ol esoteric feeling? Used to have it, was cured. Jesus is the great healer. Praise God!" Yet on this thread you have written and rightly prompted those who believe in Jesus to heed secular advice. "Our action" in this instance is to heed the Recommendations and Redress Scheme emanating from the Australian Royal Commission into CSA. If Jesus does not require individuals to go through a 3rd party and if Jesus was able to heal you of a feeling then you have failed to provide a rational explanation to the 2x2 church so they can understand their need to conform to the Royal Commission Recommendations including the redress scheme. The reason you cannot explain this is because Jesus did not heal you of that feeling. Instead it was your own thought processes prompted by your experiences in a new church. It was a natural process of cause and effect. It would be helpful if you could admit this. The claim that Jesus is the great healer is untrue. Anyone reading this thread needs to confront the facts: Jesus did nothing to protect the children of people of faith when they were/are being sexually abused. There is no evidence that Jesus heals people nor that he protects them. Secular ethics is the sole recourse to prevent CSA and to redress its impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 26, 2019 23:46:29 GMT -5
Has it occurred to you that secularism can be just another form of sectarianism, depending on who's determining it's values, vision, priorities, and direction? That it naturally represents a benevolent consensus is a position only arrived at by faith, imputation, or credulity.
When was universalism born? One might say it was inevitable, it was becoming to our species.
History gave us great gatherers as well:
Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman empire, the British empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 27, 2019 11:49:29 GMT -5
What!!?? How in the world did you ever come to that conclusion based on that hypothesis? Things would improve if humans weren't around and the earth neither needs or requires us to therefore it was made for us? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion I truly don't. Remove people from the earth and how would that effect the earth? Think about it, everything would go just fine without mankind on earth. In fact, we cut down rain forest and ruin the landscape, we pollute the land, water, seas, and air, we've hunted species into extinction, etc.. But if insects were removed, the world would not survive, because they serve a purpose and work in conjunction with plants and animals to sustain the natural order of things. Man has a use for everything on earth, yet the earth has no use for us, so it stands to reason that everything was created and designed to sustain man. Really!? Sure this earth would likely be better off without our species, but how you come to the conclusion that because we are a menace to this health of this earth then therefore it was created for us and designed to sustain main, I'll never know. Evolution is the about survival of those who get to reproduce. There is nothing good or bad about this. It just is. We likely will exterminate ourselves at some point and a lot of other species at the same time. But the earth will continue without us. That doesn't mean it was designed to sustain us. In fact it's the opposite. We are what this universe can sustain as life. Any different we would either be different or not here at all. |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 27, 2019 17:27:37 GMT -5
Remove people from the earth and how would that effect the earth? Think about it, everything would go just fine without mankind on earth. In fact, we cut down rain forest and ruin the landscape, we pollute the land, water, seas, and air, we've hunted species into extinction, etc.. But if insects were removed, the world would not survive, because they serve a purpose and work in conjunction with plants and animals to sustain the natural order of things. Man has a use for everything on earth, yet the earth has no use for us, so it stands to reason that everything was created and designed to sustain man. ...We are what this universe can sustain as life. Any different we would either be different or not here at all. This is a very important point. If we were different, we would likely think that universe was 'designed for us'. If we weren't here at all, then we'd not be conscious of the universe not being designed for us. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 27, 2019 21:44:54 GMT -5
Remove people from the earth and how would that effect the earth? Think about it, everything would go just fine without mankind on earth. In fact, we cut down rain forest and ruin the landscape, we pollute the land, water, seas, and air, we've hunted species into extinction, etc.. But if insects were removed, the world would not survive, because they serve a purpose and work in conjunction with plants and animals to sustain the natural order of things. Man has a use for everything on earth, yet the earth has no use for us, so it stands to reason that everything was created and designed to sustain man. Really!? Sure this earth would likely be better off without our species, but how you come to the conclusion that because we are a menace to this health of this earth then therefore it was created for us and designed to sustain main, I'll never know. Evolution is the about survival of those who get to reproduce. There is nothing good or bad about this. It just is. We likely will exterminate ourselves at some point and a lot of other species at the same time. But the earth will continue without us. That doesn't mean it was designed to sustain us. In fact it's the opposite. We are what this universe can sustain as life. Any different we would either be different or not here at all. My point was as you stated; "The earth will continue without us".. Everything else is necessary for our survival, so to me, it was all designed to sustain us. God told us to subdue it and have dominion over it, He gave us everything He had created (Genesis 1:28-30). We were created last because we needed everything that proceeded. And we are different, we have an intellect, self-awareness, and free moral agency to make choices. Everything else doesn't deviate from its creative purpose, it all does exactly what it was created to be, and none of it has evolved into something different. |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 28, 2019 3:19:29 GMT -5
Really!? Sure this earth would likely be better off without our species, but how you come to the conclusion that because we are a menace to this health of this earth then therefore it was created for us and designed to sustain main, I'll never know. Evolution is the about survival of those who get to reproduce. There is nothing good or bad about this. It just is. We likely will exterminate ourselves at some point and a lot of other species at the same time. But the earth will continue without us. That doesn't mean it was designed to sustain us. In fact it's the opposite. We are what this universe can sustain as life. Any different we would either be different or not here at all. ... none of it has evolved into something different. Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 10:08:07 GMT -5
... none of it has evolved into something different. Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? studying evolution under the tutelage of a pastor would be about as useful as studying the gospel under the loving instruction of Richard Dawkins. They claim that nothing has evolved into something different is inaccurate, though I understand why it would be intuitive to think in this way. I've talked to the president of a large biotech company in California whose company relies on random mutation and selection (evolution) in yeast cultures to produce novel enzymes for use in DNA technology. I think what people who disbelieve evolution imagine Evolution to be is very different than what it actually is. Small incremental changes over time, in a non- directed but environmentally selected manner, with no clear goal in mind is not necessarily an intuitive conclusion when it appears that nature is designed. Just learning about ecological niches, and the specific adaptations organisms have for the specific environments that they occupy can easily lead to a conclusion that the life was designed for the environment. But the fact that evolution is sometimes counterintuitive, or that we simply find it easier to believe in a miracle or two, doesn't provide evidence against it. The evidence from molecular genetics up suggest an evolutionary mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 28, 2019 10:43:18 GMT -5
Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? studying evolution under the tutelage of a pastor would be about as useful as studying the gospel under the loving instruction of Richard Dawkins. They claim that nothing has evolved into something different is inaccurate, though I understand why it would be intuitive to think in this way. I've talked to the president of a large biotech company in California whose company relies on random mutation and selection (evolution) in yeast cultures to produce novel enzymes for use in DNA technology. I think what people who disbelieve evolution imagine Evolution to be is very different than what it actually is. Small incremental changes over time, in a non- directed but environmentally selected manner, with no clear goal in mind is not necessarily an intuitive conclusion when it appears that nature is designed. Just learning about ecological niches, and the specific adaptations organisms have for the specific environments that they occupy can easily lead to a conclusion that the life was designed for the environment. But the fact that evolution is sometimes counterintuitive, or that we simply find it easier to believe in a miracle or two, doesn't provide evidence against it. The evidence from molecular genetics up suggest an evolutionary mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth. Before two by twos started allowing young to go to advanced learning, they thought evolution was where man started as a tadpole in the water! Some still perceive evolution to that drastic changes in mankind’s physical form. But most have gained insight that evolution really is survival techniques/changes of different species of life. If man can’t evolve to the changes in climate, losses etc, true he could die out, become extinct. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2019 17:29:42 GMT -5
Really!? Sure this earth would likely be better off without our species, but how you come to the conclusion that because we are a menace to this health of this earth then therefore it was created for us and designed to sustain main, I'll never know. Evolution is the about survival of those who get to reproduce. There is nothing good or bad about this. It just is. We likely will exterminate ourselves at some point and a lot of other species at the same time. But the earth will continue without us. That doesn't mean it was designed to sustain us. In fact it's the opposite. We are what this universe can sustain as life. Any different we would either be different or not here at all. My point was as you stated; "The earth will continue without us".. Everything else is necessary for our survival, so to me, it was all designed to sustain us. God told us to subdue it and have dominion over it, He gave us everything He had created (Genesis 1:28-30). We were created last because we needed everything that proceeded. And we are different, we have an intellect, self-awareness, and free moral agency to make choices. Everything else doesn't deviate from its creative purpose, it all does exactly what it was created to be, and none of it has evolved into something different. I can think of a lot of things that I would rather not have had 'designed' for me. Mosquitoes being one. I would never come to a conclusion that this world is designed for us knowing all the things that inhabit this world that will kill us. Personally I think that belief that humans should have 'dominion' over and 'subdue' is a very bad one. It leads to treating other species cruelly at worst and as a servant at best. That is something that religions have done to our world that I really hate. NO respect for other species, other than to make them serve us and if they don't serve us, kill them or make sure they don't inconvenience us. If humans are the best gods can do, I'm not really all that impressed. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2019 17:30:52 GMT -5
Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? studying evolution under the tutelage of a pastor would be about as useful as studying the gospel under the loving instruction of Richard Dawkins. LOL Yes, pretty much!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 28, 2019 19:33:19 GMT -5
Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? No, I studied with a Pastor, but nothing about evolution.. Only bible studies, which doesn't mention evolution.
I can think of a lot of things that I would rather not have had 'designed' for me. Mosquitoes being one. I would never come to a conclusion that this world is designed for us knowing all the things that inhabit this world that will kill us. Personally I think that belief that humans should have 'dominion' over and 'subdue' is a very bad one. It leads to treating other species cruelly at worst and as a servant at best. That is something that religions have done to our world that I really hate. NO respect for other species, other than to make them serve us and if they don't serve us, kill them or make sure they don't inconvenience us. If humans are the best gods can do, I'm not really all that impressed. The world originally designed had nothing that would kill us, but due to sin it became a fallen world. God separated himself from the world and the Tree of Life was removed. That's when hardships and death entered the world. I do agree, humans shouldn't have dominion over anything, because we are cruel and sinful. But God made that promise before the fall, and He doesn't break his promises. I doubt God is impressed either, and thankfully, He will resume control sooner than later. |
|
|
|
Post by benar on May 28, 2019 20:00:27 GMT -5
Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? No, I studied with a Pastor, but nothing about evolution.. Only bible studies, which doesn't mention evolution.
I can think of a lot of things that I would rather not have had 'designed' for me. Mosquitoes being one. I would never come to a conclusion that this world is designed for us knowing all the things that inhabit this world that will kill us. Personally I think that belief that humans should have 'dominion' over and 'subdue' is a very bad one. It leads to treating other species cruelly at worst and as a servant at best. That is something that religions have done to our world that I really hate. NO respect for other species, other than to make them serve us and if they don't serve us, kill them or make sure they don't inconvenience us. If humans are the best gods can do, I'm not really all that impressed. The world originally designed had nothing that would kill us, but due to sin it became a fallen world. God separated himself from the world and the Tree of Life was removed. That's when hardships and death entered the world. I do agree, humans shouldn't have dominion over anything, because we are cruel and sinful. But God made that promise before the fall, and He doesn't break his promises. I doubt God is impressed either, and thankfully, He will resume control sooner than later. Sorry, I thought I'd read you studied apologetics with a pastor, and maybe I confused that with evolution specifically. I can't find the post I thought I have read now. Now, when it comes to "He doesn't break his promises", are you willing to put that to the test? Mark 16:18 KJV They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2019 20:21:24 GMT -5
Dan, was it you who said they'd studied evolution etc under the tutelage of a minister/pastor etc? No, I studied with a Pastor, but nothing about evolution.. Only bible studies, which doesn't mention evolution.
I can think of a lot of things that I would rather not have had 'designed' for me. Mosquitoes being one. I would never come to a conclusion that this world is designed for us knowing all the things that inhabit this world that will kill us. Personally I think that belief that humans should have 'dominion' over and 'subdue' is a very bad one. It leads to treating other species cruelly at worst and as a servant at best. That is something that religions have done to our world that I really hate. NO respect for other species, other than to make them serve us and if they don't serve us, kill them or make sure they don't inconvenience us. If humans are the best gods can do, I'm not really all that impressed. The world originally designed had nothing that would kill us, but due to sin it became a fallen world. God separated himself from the world and the Tree of Life was removed. That's when hardships and death entered the world. I do agree, humans shouldn't have dominion over anything, because we are cruel and sinful. But God made that promise before the fall, and He doesn't break his promises. I doubt God is impressed either, and thankfully, He will resume control sooner than later. So God didn't know that his creation was going to 'fall'? As soon as people start talking about a world that has fallen etc. and that's why there are harmful things in it, you lose me. When I hear things like that all I can think of is how sad it is that things have to be twisted so out of proportion to make it jive with preconceived beliefs. I am so glad that I'm not required to make the bible make sense so that I can still believe it's right. There are so many things in the bible that in order to continue to have the faith to believe you need to disqualify so many things in the natural world. Ignoring scientific discoveries because they contradict what the bible says is absolutely not for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on May 28, 2019 22:45:49 GMT -5
Now, when it comes to "He doesn't break his promises", are you willing to put that to the test? Mark 16:18 KJV They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Jesus was talking to his apostles and this commission was directed to them; "And these signs shall follow them that believe" (Mark 16:17). "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost" (Hebrews 2:4). The promises were kept, the apostles healed many sick. Paul was bit by a serpent, "And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm" (Acts 28:5, Luke 10:19)). And drinking a deadly thing is symbolic of sin, "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Drinking deadly sin and not being harmed is best explained in 1 John 5:15-19, sin/poison does not hurt a believer who consumes it, because there's forgiveness when we pray for it. <abbr title="May 28, 2019 20:21:24 GMT -5" data-timestamp="1559092884000" class="o-timestamp time">May 28, 2019 20:21:24 GMT -5</abbr> snow said:So God didn't know that his creation was going to 'fall'? As soon as people start talking about a world that has fallen etc. and that's why there are harmful things in it, you lose me. When I hear things like that all I can think of is how sad it is that things have to be twisted so out of proportion to make it jive with preconceived beliefs. I am so glad that I'm not required to make the bible make sense so that I can still believe it's right. There are so many things in the bible that in order to continue to have the faith to believe you need to disqualify so many things in the natural world. Ignoring scientific discoveries because they contradict what the bible says is absolutely not for me.
I believe God was omniscient in this, so yes He knew man would sin and the repercussions were preordained. Nothing preconceived or twisted. You don't need to make the bible makes sense, it does that all on its own. We are just required to diligently study and gain understanding from it, then you'll know its right. You don't need to ignore scientific facts, but send the theories and speculative junk out with the garbage. Harmful things occur from disobedience to God, sin = evil. Everything God created was good, but He did not create sin, that's one thing that emanates from within us.
I think we've taken this thread way off topic!!
|
|
