Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Frumple]

No... no, considering YWHW made the plants to begin with, I don't think it's hate, exactly. It just loves to hurt them. Creating a kingdom of biological life strictly to indulge in sadism upon sounds right up YWHW's alley.

The hell would even be the word for that fetish? Divine chlorosadistic arousal fixation? It would explain the burning of myrrh and such. e: I don't think I'll ever look at decaf the same.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I have one day of stress and testing and you guys find a way to bing the thread to: GOD HATES PLANTS

I'm amused and impressed



As for the fact that it's wednsday and I have wednsday church I'll throw out our little lesson of the week


2 Peter 1:20-21
((I'm not going to give the actual verses cause cell phones suck))

Private interpretation isn't all that healthy for your personal beleif
It's ok to go to church and get your scripture spoon fed to you but you should be questioning it and trying to find where it is in the bible and be studying the bible yourself and makeing your interpretations by scripture
The second verse basicaly says that scripture was writen by man but the Holy Spirit took over those men at the exact moments that god wanted them to write so that the books of the bible came out as god intended
Think about it, would the author of holy scripture put in that they denied their god three times?
Or the many other things that they did wrong
I don't think so, I think if man wrote the bible on his own agenda it would be all sunshine and rainbows and non of the prophets did anything wrong.
But it's not written that way, it's written with all their mistakes and lessons they learned and the such

[Gnorm]

I doubt that God has anything against plants in general, though they do make good examples when necessary.

As for 2 Peter 1:20-21, it refers to the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Ghost. There isn't really anything there that relates to church teachings versus personal interpretation, though I'm essentially in agreement with Cryxis here.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

How the teachers were saying was that verse 20 is saying that having a preist be your only insight into the bible ain't 100% a ok
Or at least I think that's what he said

[Gnorm]

I'm not sure where that interpretation of verse 20 comes from:

2 Peter 1:20(KJV):
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The "prophecy of the scripture" is the Word, and the "private interpretation" is the idea that it is entirely a work of Man. Thus, it is not a work of private interpretation, but something from God Himself.

I don't disagree with you in that one should read the Word of God himself, not just trust the preacher's word; I disagree with your interpretation of this specific verse. Interestingly, it seems as if your preacher has illustrated your very point with his interpretation of this verse; perhaps it was done on purpose.

[Frumple]

... shouldn't that be self-evident? Other than probably having more time to study the text, a priest has absolutely zero to recommend their opinion of the text over anyone else. Hell, given that many of them have denominational affiliation, it's entirely possible their interpretation should be trusted less than normal, since they're likely to have a predetermined doctrinal bias in regards to it.

E: Also wow, 2 Peter 1:20 has freaking incredible divergence in regards to translation. Seriously, check that stuff out. The zog do you even pick one when you've got that many different wordings to choose from?

[Spehss _]

Reading a summary of the Reformation movement for a college class on medieval british literature. Martin Luther says that only faith, not good works or rituals etc will lead to salvation. This made me think of a philosophical question.

Philosophical question, which is "more" faithful? Being a "good" Christian and not sinning and "doing what Jesus would do" and having faith, or not being a good Christian, knowingly sin, and have the faith that God will forgive you for all that in the end?

If having faith determines salvation, wouldn't the unrepentant sinners who put faith in the prospect that they'll be forgiven receive salvation? It seems like you couldn't put any more faith in God than that.

[Frumple]

I'unno, isn't there considerably more to faith than faith in salvation? I'd probably question if an incomplete, half-hearted adherence to a single aspect of faith would actually count as particularly faithful at all, even if the individual's faith in salvation in particular is particularly strong.

[Spehss _]

I'unno, isn't there considerably more to faith than faith in salvation? I'd probably question if an incomplete, half-hearted adherence to a single aspect of faith would actually count as particularly faithful at all, even if the individual's faith in salvation in particular is particularly strong.

Mm, yeah. It was mostly a question built around the aspect of faith in regards to salvation as Luther described it. The question falls apart when you compare it to other aspects of faith in a religion.

It'd be like asking "Is there really a spoon?" when all you have is forks.

It's probably too late for me to be acting like I can spout philosophy anyway.

[BlindKitty]

Reading a summary of the Reformation movement for a college class on medieval british literature. Martin Luther says that only faith, not good works or rituals etc will lead to salvation. This made me think of a philosophical question.

Philosophical question, which is "more" faithful? Being a "good" Christian and not sinning and "doing what Jesus would do" and having faith, or not being a good Christian, knowingly sin, and have the faith that God will forgive you for all that in the end?

If having faith determines salvation, wouldn't the unrepentant sinners who put faith in the prospect that they'll be forgiven receive salvation? It seems like you couldn't put any more faith in God than that.

In Roman Catholicism, it is actually one of the enumerated sins: 'to sin, having full faith in God's mercy'. If you try to go around the system, by sinning with predetermination and assuming that God will forgive you anyway, you are committing another sin at the same time, and a really, really serious one. It might not end well for you.

[Orange Wizard]

In my denomination, we believe that "trying not to sin" is not part of salvation. In other words, faith in Christ will have all your sins completely forgiven, no matter how bad they are or how many you've committed.
However, we also believe that a true saving faith will result in the desire to not sin, and to do good.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

In my denomination, we believe that "trying not to sin" is not part of salvation. In other words, faith in Christ will have all your sins completely forgiven, no matter how bad they are or how many you've committed.
However, we also believe that a true saving faith will result in the desire to not sin, and to do good.

Can't argue with that one

[RedKing]

You sin twice, but since god forgives sins...

So you're sinning thrice. But because you know that, you sinned again...

Jesus, if you knowingly commit a sin and expect god to have mercy on you, you commit an infinite number of sins. What is this? The Sin Principle or something?

Sinception. 

[lemon10]

You sin twice, but since god forgives sins...

So you're sinning thrice. But because you know that, you sinned again...

Jesus, if you knowingly commit a sin and expect god to have mercy on you, you commit an infinite number of sins. What is this? The Sin Principle or something?

I've always thought that in order to receive forgiveness you have to truly repent (definition: feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.). And if you go to commit a sin thinking "Oh, god will totally forgive me for this", then you probably aren't really repenting for your actions, just trying to get forgiveness because you know god thinks what you did was wrong.
Eg. If you steal a cookie from the cookie jar, and your mom catches you, you may apologize. But that doesn't really count, because its not really a sincere apology because it only comes from being caught.
Now, if you steal a cookie, and your mom has no clue, and you think about it later and go "Taking a cookie was stealing and it was a bad thing do to" and then apologize to her, then that would be proper repentance (and the type of thing god would totally forgive).

That's just how I always believed it worked (as a former Catholic myself).

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

So
(Asking the Christians of the thread)
Who would be open to starting a reading and discussion of the bible verse by verse in this thread
Ya'know start at genesis and work our way through