Tradesecret

You will be in heaven so no one can hear you boasting.

I'm not sure of what you mean. I am talking about here on earth - not in heaven.

Thanks for your response Debby.

I see faith as a gift of salvation. If it is a condition, then it is a form of works. Hence, why we're told that we are saved by grace through faith - and this is a gift, not works, so as not to be able to boast. Ephesians.

Why did you say I have blocked you? I haven't even figured out how to block people. I've only blocked about three people in my entire time on the internet, and not one on this site. Although there may be some of those people on this site. In fact, I think I've seen at least two of them here.

Debby, Australia is called down under because we are in the Southern Hemisphere.

Hi Debby,

That's true - but hear is another question - is the belief a condition for eternal life or a gift of eternal life? A small clue would be to check the Greek.

Logically, God must be good.

If God were evil, then there would exist no good or concept of what good was in our world.

How would we be able to explain the presence of good?

It's probably already been said - and since I haven't read the entire thread, that is probably the case. If so, then I apologise.

The Wokish world - if that is really a thing - seems to follow postmodernism in its natural and logical extensions. Unlike modernism, it doesn't believe in absolutes or black and white; only rainbows and grey, with lots of fuzziness. Hence, it can theoretically work with the idea of total inclusion - no absolutes, no right and wrong - and everything can be right - even contradictory religions. At least in their theory - anyways.

Of course, that is their theory and then there is their practice.

In practice they object - to anything that is not inclusive. They object to anything that says they are objectively correct. Basically, however, that is really cover for saying, so long as you agree with us - we accept you - and if you don't agree with us, then you are out. Canceled.

Their theory and their practice do not meet.

I think that any religion or worldview for that matter that teaches in theory a total inclusive tolerance of everything is nonsensical and a logical self contradiction. I accept that can only arise from a modernist point of view, though. One that still believes that 1 +1 = 2. From our position - the self-contradiction of the inclusive and tolerant position gives us a logical conclusion that total inclusiveness is illogical. So if a religion or worldview is going to be correct - if that is possible - or plausible - it must be one that teaches and practices exclusiveness. This doesn't mean it has to destroy all other views - but it is one that will not dilute its exclusive teachings as correct. We can live in a reasonably tolerant world with lots of different and even contradictory positions - so long as there is one dominant worldview or religion as the ultimate measure of right and wrong.

In Australia recently, the question of monoculture came up. Lots of people became upset. We are known as a multicultural country - and we are - but only because we have one dominant cultural position which still determines right and wrong. It once was the Christian exclusive view - but Christianity - at least so it seems moved towards a more generic inclusive point of view. But now that has been overtaken by the secular worldview. So we still have one dominant culture - worldview - and underneath this umbrella - a multi-culture can thrive so far as it bows the knee to the one dominant one. The dominant one - pretends it is not a worldview - nor that it is in charge. In fact it often suggests that it is very inclusive and pushes that view - but it's real woke. Its a wokenish that pushes it theory for everyone else but doesn't practice it in practice.

Yes, still here. It's just that I don't get here very often. I pop in from time to time to see what's going on.

It's pretty busy in my world - and free time to discuss these things being a luxury, I don't get a lot at the moment.

Still, good to know you remember me. Trust you are well.

Tell us why you picked your username

I liked it. It related to my profession at the time. Not much else to it.

HI and thanks for your response.

I'm not entirely sure why you opted for the material world. What is that exactly?

It seems like - and I might be incorrect- that you reject the notion that any kind of Middle Eastern hypothesis might be reasonable in our discussion. I'm not sure why you discount this as a possibility. It's rather arrogant as a suggestion.

Evolution - of course, is a potential explanation = but only for some. For others, it is far more fanciful than the Genesis version. God as a concept - has always existed. I don't know of any culture that hasn't considered God. The Secular position is more nuanced, but no one within it's pyche would reject the notion of God.

Your last paragraph - although purporting to be clever is actually not. It's not fair to propose that evolution is a mantle let alone correct. It simply hasn't done the work required. the thing you're missing is PURPOSE. Things don't happen without a purpose. You need to explore that a little bit more.

It's an interesting thing to consider: Exaggeration. What is it? Sometimes it's quite clear - but at other times, it goes over our heads. A little like sarcasm and hyperbole.

It's also a little like "common sense". Common sense is not common so much as it's very subjective. We like to assume that everyone knows what common sense is - the five senses give us some notion of it - but when it comes to matters of emotion - then things that seem reasonable to one person don't seem reasonable to another. Take the ideas of love or hate or jealousy. They're all part of our live - but there is no common consensus on what they mean.

Jesus rising from the dead might be an exaggeration in one person's mind, but for others it's absolutely true. The evidence that they consider valid and reasonable has convinced them, even if it doesn't convince others. Take evolution. Many people just believe it is true - even though most people have only read about it in books and have not personally done the experiments. The same applies to theology. And Economics and political theory. People believe what they want to believe.

My view is simple. God exists. I don't have to prove God exists. It's fundamentally true beyond question. The alternative is more difficult to believe. I would have to have blind faith to believe God doesn't exist. Every now and then I try to conceive of what the world would be like if God didn't exist. It just doesn't make sense. Hence, I see what some see as common as unreasonable and I acknowledge that what I see when I look at everything - that other's might see things differently.

I can't in good conscience begin anywhere except with the view that God is the creator and sustainer of this universe and everything in it. Yes, it does create lots of issues - difficulties that are really hard to address and sometimes contradictory, but there is no alternative view that is perfect and without difficulties or contradictions. For me, the Creator God of the universe is the best fit. And nothing else comes anywhere near it.

The thing about Romans is they were very good at killing people. When you say there is no evidence he was dead on the cross, do you discount every word that was said about him in the Gospels?

I think it means that just as Jonah was dead and came back to life, so too Jesus will die and come back to life.

That's an interesting suggestion. Do you mean like someone rising from the dead or not?

Not sure what the issue is here for you. 

Not surprised.

Yes, I guess that makes sense. After all, if you'd provided a reason, then I would have known what the issue is and since you didn't, I guess intentionally, it makes sense that I wouldn't know. Is it possible that you might provide the reason?

It may well have been to false teaching, or ignorance or a combination of the two - or something else completely.

Or it may be that prayers simply do not work. have you considered that? 

I think you're onto something. Some prayers don't work. I reckon every religious person in the world would agree with that position. Of course, many prayers are answered. I also think that perhaps - your position that prayers don't work is actually quite helpful. Prayers are just words of requests for someone else to do something. So, in a very real sense, they don't do anything but act as a conduit. I reckon it probably has something to do with the listener. For every prayer, there must be a communicator, there must be information or a request, and there must be a receiver.

Some religions would take the view that only those of a particular view are able to communicate this communication. Hence, others might not be received. Some might say - that the receiver needs to be a particular deity or gods; otherwise, the information is just noise. Yes, I think you are onto something. In your case, if you're not religious, that probably explains why your prayers don't work.

i'm not talking about translations but that is its own can of worms. 

Theres protestant, Catholic, and orthodox versions each with different books in them. Ive always been partial to catholic and orthodox bibles cause im more deferential to their authority structure. But ive never really been able to pick between those two churches as to which is a superior structure. I suppose Catholic but im not sure

I use the 66 books - that of Anthanasius determined were the preserved books - and which were commonly used by the church congregations back then. This included the 39 books of the Hebrew OT - 22 books actually - some were combined and followed the Hebrew Alphabet. And the 27 letters of the NT.

The Roman Catholics hold to these books plus some others. The Orthodox and the High Anglican subscribe to the same. The Ethiopian congregation holds to some other books.

Probably i hold to these because I was raised protestant and the arguments for these made the most sense. If the Jews rejected the apocrypha as canon, then I suspect that too be a valid argument to reject it. Similarly, the NT books - tend to have different flavours. Anyone who has read the dead sea scrolls - and checked out the different voices - soon come to a similar story. It's interesting that those who reject Jesus as God, tend to consider some of the other letters which had been rejected by the church - as more authoritative. I suspect that this tells us something in the first place.

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit gives us the grace to believe some books are correct and some are not. This is why Luther didn't reject some books even though he would have - if he had a choice. He hated James, but couldn't reject it - since it has been confirmed by the Spirit of God. The same with Hebrews and the book of Revelation. The fact that I think the Holy Spirit agrees with just the 66 books - is of course my prejudice.

Translations of the ancient languages have different purposes - yes all for understanding - but some prefer more wooden literalism and others prefer more contemporary understanding. Some have different underlying manuscripts. The KJV has a different Greek text than the ESV.

Still, notwithstanding the differences in texts, the unity is staggering really. At least for those who have studied such things. Most Christians still tend to fall within the Apostles Creed. These are fascinating really.

Not sure what the issue is here for you. It's not like you hold to the Bible literally anyway. Except when it suits you. I suppose it may be - and probably it is not - that you think religion is a palace for fools, and it is your job to prove them that they are fools.

The way many Christians understand prayers is that God always answers - but sometimes he says, yes, sometimes he says no, and sometimes he says, not yet. And no, I don't have a biblical verse to support any of that.

Praying to God simply means dependence upon God for something we can't ordinarily do.

There are many examples of people praying to God, asking him to heal their child, indeed, asking God to bring them back to life from the dead. Personally, I think we should ask big prayers. But I am not sure that I would expect every big prayer to be answered with a yes right now.

It's quite sad, in my view, to hear about the scenarios you presented in your OP. I'm not quite sure that these are big prayers as opposed to absurd prayers. And I think the two are not the same. I certainly don't think the negative answer was due to babbling, but then again, I didn't hear their prayers. It may well have been to false teaching, or ignorance or a combination of the two - or something else completely.

One might opine, as I do, that the command Jesus gave in Matthew 10:7-8 was a command to the 12 for a specific purpose. But if you think it is a general command, that's fine for you, I suppose. I wouldn't be using that text as a general command.

Sadly, in Christianity, as in other fields of life, ignorance exists, and so do the money-hungry and power freaks.

One of its purposes, agreed, John 20. But not the only one. 2 Timothy 3:14-18 suggests that the holy writ is for the formation of mature Christians. Teaching, Rebuking, Correcting, and training in righteousness.

Ahh, It's Vic. Okay, I remember you.

I trust you are well these days. It's been a while.

Ahh, It's Vic. Okay, I remember you.

I trust you are well these days. It's been a while.

And who might I know you better as?

Can you point out in the NT where the authors and writers thought that the end was near? And can you tell us what you mean by the end? End of the world? End of the nation of Israel's covenant with God? End of the footy season?