Home - List All Discussions

The Human Condition

This is the way it is

by: GodsLaw4Us2Live

People have violent tendencies. Death is at the end of man's path. Extinction is the natural result after events have run their course.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27380721/
Don't be surprised that preborn babies end up dead either.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

It's true the Catholics have guilt in helping the Nazi criminals after they engaged in genocide against the Jews. The Catholics also have guilt in working with man's government to persecute and execute the forerunners of the Protestant reformation. The Catholic Church was suppose to keep herself a virgin to be married to the head of the Government of God, not whore around with man's government. Andrea Yates was mad. Jim Jones homicidal. David Koresh was a pedophile and man with a foggy head. The Klan engaged in intimidation and even murder. Hitler, like Martin Luther, was out to get the Jews. Hitler's dream of a Third Reich was at the expense of other foreign peoples who he tried to subjugate against their will. Mostly, the behavior of those who call themselves Christian has been no different than Hindus, Muslims, athiests, agnostics. Of course, calling oneself Christian does not actually make one Christian. Jesus spent a lot of time speaking about actors. Those who pretend to be something they are not. They play a part, but that is not who they really are.

reply from: Witness

Originally posted by: GodsLaw4Us2Live
People have violent tendencies.
Not ALL people, GodsLaw.

reply from: CharlesD

Yes, man is by nature depraved. If not, there would be no need for a savior.

reply from: lukesmom

Man is to blame. Man was created perfect and had the choice to remain perfect or to listen to and chose evil.
I also don't believe anyone is born corrupt or evil but is often lead or mislead toward evil. I also believe the overwhelming majority of the human race is basically good.

reply from: sk1bianca

the ability to choose implies freedom, not imperfection. God created the man perfect and free and gave him the instructions he needed to remain perfect.
obviously, man was tricked into believing he isn't perfect and he will not achieve perfection unless he is "like God". the creation wanting to be equal to the Creator. a case of pride, i would say... not evil, since man did not know what evil is.

reply from: lukesmom

To "choose evil" would seem to imply a character flaw, hence I conclude that this is an obvious contradiction. One can not be "perfect" yet be flawed in any way....A "perfect" man would never disobey "God," which you certainly must agree was a mistake, yes? Can a perfect man make mistakes? Perhaps you define "perfect" differently than I?
Anything and any life can theoretically begin as perfect but through accident or choice become flawed in time. Take a vase, presume it is perfect in all ways initially, then it is dropped and chipped. No longer perfect through no fault of it's own. I believe man is created perfect also but because of his/her own will or choices becomes imperfect. I can see what you are saying though. Is man actually perfect if he is given free will? We could argue this till the cows come home!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The garden "fall" was man decided to make his own decisions and form his own governments rather than relying on the counsel and rule of God.
All men come under the same condemnation because we are living under Adam's government rather than Christ's Government.
The Bible says man cannot direct his own footsteps. The path that seems right to man leads to death. The Christ can show us the straight and narrow Way that leads to life. Life is possible because Christ lights the Way, we walk in the footsteps of our example, and we enter in at the narrow gate. Man's government provides a broad and easy way; but death is at it's end. We make poor decisions that lead to conflict, war and death.

reply from: carolemarie

People are not basically good. Just reading the paper ought to dispell that myth.
Our nature is to be selfish and interested in only our own pleasure and self-interest.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Thank you GL!
Thank-you Lukes Mom! I'm a little shocked. I'm saying the Way is a path we walk and our Christ shows us the Way, we walk in his footsteps.
Most people believe the "way" to heaven is to "accept" Jesus in a 30 second prayer. Then they are guaranteed once saved always saved. They believe they will be raptured when the time arrives. They can kick back in their lazy boy and act in whatever manner they desire.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Have we forgotten the Crusades and the Inquisition already? Religion can be WRONG for its own convenience.

reply from: lukesmom

Why are you shocked? I know you don't think much of the Catholic religion but we believe a person is saved through grace and good works which translates into faith in God and His son eventhough we may not understand and in trying to do God and Jesus' "work" by, yes, walking in His footsteps. We don't believe just accepting God or Jesus is enough although that is part of being saved.

reply from: lukesmom

Don't forget the Ku Klux Klan here and their hate and persecution of Catholics as well as African Americans. Don't forget the late 1800 and early 1900's discrimination against Catholics. Why not mention the oh so pc bashing of Catholics that still prevails today.

reply from: CharlesD

Religious people can do wrong things when in disobedience to the religion they claim to adhere to. Those two instances are not proof of the inadequacies of Christianity, but proof of the inadequacies of the people who follow it. We are, sadly, not perfect creatures. If God would simply perfect us instantly after salvation it would be nice, but He doesn't do that. It can be a real struggle at times.
As to the whole grace and works thing: We are saved by faith and not by works, but if we are saved we will do works. If you claim to be saved but do no good works, are you really saved? It is grace that saves you, not anything you can do to earn the salvation, but a truly saved individual will do good works out of gratitude to God for the salvation that has already been received.

reply from: lukesmom

Religious people can do wrong things when in disobedience to the religion they claim to adhere to. Those two instances are not proof of the inadequacies of Christianity, but proof of the inadequacies of the people who follow it. We are, sadly, not perfect creatures. If God would simply perfect us instantly after salvation it would be nice, but He doesn't do that. It can be a real struggle at times.
As to the whole grace and works thing: We are saved by faith and not by works, but if we are saved we will do works. If you claim to be saved but do no good works, are you really saved? It is grace that saves you, not anything you can do to earn the salvation, but a truly saved individual will do good works out of gratitude to God for the salvation that has already been received.
So what about all the wonderful people who do good works but have never prayed that little prayer born again christians believe must be prayed? I am Catholic and therefore christian. I have been born, baptised and confirmed once and see no need to do it all again. My faith in God is strong and unwavering and I do good works not necessarily because to be saved (although that is a good result) or to look good but because I like helping people AND that is the way I am due to my upbringing I guess. According to many born again christians, I, first off, am not a christian becuase I am Catholic and secondly am destined for the fires of hell because I didn't pray some prayer they think I should.
What about the people who do wonderful things for others but don't believe in the christian God?
How come humans can tell God who is saved and who isn't?

reply from: BossMomma

Man is not depraved, he is simply quick to adapt and opportunistic. If his enviroment is harsh and violent, he adapts to that enviroment. If he sees an opportunity to benefit himself, it is natural to take it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Really interesting discussion here! :3

reply from: CharlesD

Well for starters, I didn't say anything about "praying a little prayer" but about a person making a conscious choice to follow Christ. Catholics can do this just as easily as anyone else and the chances are that if you follow Christ now you made a decision at some point in your life to do so. Whether you prayed a so called "sinner's prayer" or not is secondary. You might have been born into a Catholic family, but there was most likely a point where you decided that it was for you, that you actually wanted to continue being Catholic. At that point you subscribed to the teachings of your church and made them your own. You made a conscious decision at that point to follow Christ and to do so from within the bounds of the Catholic Church. In essence, you decided to take God up on His offer of eternal life. If some Protestants think that Catholics are hell bound, then that is their problem. Salvation comes by accepting the gift offered by Christ, and it is not a gift that is reserved for Protestants or Catholics exclusively. "Whosoever will" is not followed by an "as long as you're not Catholic" disclaimer. If some Christians believe that, then that is their problem and they're the ones believing false doctrine. Since salvation is a gift you receive from God, then it stands to reason that the good things you do are done out of gratitude for that gift. Others can do good things, but it is not those good things in and of themselves that are sufficient for salvation. It is not, however, up to me to decide who has and who hasn't accepted that gift. That is between them and God.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Don't forget the Ku Klux Klan here and their hate and persecution of Catholics as well as African Americans. Don't forget the late 1800 and early 1900's discrimination against Catholics. Why not mention the oh so pc bashing of Catholics that still prevails today.
Yes, I could have listed quite a few groups that are guilty of using religion to bash those who do not conform to THEIR chosen beliefs. Thanks for adding the ones you listed. I can also cite the Aryan Nation (and all White Supremacists) who believe that they are God's chosen people. You are quite correct that many Protestant Christian churches preach against Catholicism (as if they worship different Gods?) and even against other non-Catholic Christians (Pentecostals, for example.)
Religion has been the cause of some of the worst horrors in history.

reply from: CharlesD

I would argue that those horrors have been caused by people behaving in direct contrast to the teachings of whatever religious system they proposed to follow. Is it Islam's fault that some wackos twisted it into something that justified flying planes into buildings? Is it Christianity's fault that there have been some who have twisted the scripture to try to justify killing people they don't agree with, while ignoring other passages that say to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? Usually when an atrocity is committed in the name of a religion, it is committed by someone who has a warped and inaccurate idea of what that religion is about. If a priest molests a child, that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church approves of pedophilia. It just means that it happened and the guilty party happened to be a member of that group.

reply from: cracrat

I would argue that those horrors have been caused by people behaving in direct contrast to the teachings of whatever religious system they proposed to follow. Is it Islam's fault that some wackos twisted it into something that justified flying planes into buildings? Is it Christianity's fault that there have been some who have twisted the scripture to try to justify killing people they don't agree with, while ignoring other passages that say to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? Usually when an atrocity is committed in the name of a religion, it is committed by someone who has a warped and inaccurate idea of what that religion is about. If a priest molests a child, that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church approves of pedophilia. It just means that it happened and the guilty party happened to be a member of that group.
Well that won't fly here, it's far too rational a way of looking at these things.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

It is very sad, but a lot of Christians (and their churches) teach that THEIR WAY is the ONLY WAY and that everyone else is headed for Hell, especially Catholics, Jews and those who refuse to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Their antidote to this "problem" is to indoctrinate young people and send them out to "save" children as young as 5 or 6, who obviously cannot make such a major decision on their own.
Unfortunately, I grew up in one of those churches, and am now "guilty" of not practicing ALL of what I learned - mostly because particular beliefs, such as that listed above, are NOT acceptable to me.
Call me a heathen or a heretic, I don't care. (Actually, call me Moonbat, if you wish, as I consider it complimentary because the term originated in a Robert Heinlein sci-fi story - "Heinlein used the term in a 1947 short story, "Space Jockey", as the name of the third stage of a rocket bound for the moon." I would rather be a Moonbat than a Wingnut.)
I believe in loving everyone regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. And I seriously doubt that God has a particular religion picked out as his "favorite."

reply from: lukesmom

Well for starters, I didn't say anything about "praying a little prayer" but about a person making a conscious choice to follow Christ. Catholics can do this just as easily as anyone else and the chances are that if you follow Christ now you made a decision at some point in your life to do so. Whether you prayed a so called "sinner's prayer" or not is secondary. You might have been born into a Catholic family, but there was most likely a point where you decided that it was for you, that you actually wanted to continue being Catholic. At that point you subscribed to the teachings of your church and made them your own. You made a conscious decision at that point to follow Christ and to do so from within the bounds of the Catholic Church. In essence, you decided to take God up on His offer of eternal life. If some Protestants think that Catholics are hell bound, then that is their problem. Salvation comes by accepting the gift offered by Christ, and it is not a gift that is reserved for Protestants or Catholics exclusively. "Whosoever will" is not followed by an "as long as you're not Catholic" disclaimer. If some Christians believe that, then that is their problem and they're the ones believing false doctrine. Since salvation is a gift you receive from God, then it stands to reason that the good things you do are done out of gratitude for that gift. Others can do good things, but it is not those good things in and of themselves that are sufficient for salvation. It is not, however, up to me to decide who has and who hasn't accepted that gift. That is between them and God.
Thanks for clarifying. I should have explained myself better about the little prayer, I guess named the "sinner's prayer"? I have read different christian books that mention this prayer and make it the beginning of becoming a new person, ie: "born again". I have been told repeatedly if I have not been "born again" I have no chance of salvation. LOL, that really doesn't cause me concern as I know the strength of my own faith in God. After our son died my dh had an epiphany, fell to his knee and "got religion" big time. I just have always had a deeper, quiet, solid faith which was very hard for him to understand when he "was standing on the mountian". I find different religious beliefs interesting and feel all steeples point to heaven. (or any other religious building). I try to respect other's religious beliefs and I am usually suprised when others don't do the same for mine. I have often wondered the above questions and thank you for answering them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

GodsLaw4 anyone? lol. In fact, many of the "Christians" on here are incredibly intolerant.

reply from: lukesmom

I agree and if the rest of the world could agree with this, it would solve alot of the worlds problems.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well for starters, I didn't say anything about "praying a little prayer" but about a person making a conscious choice to follow Christ. Catholics can do this just as easily as anyone else and the chances are that if you follow Christ now you made a decision at some point in your life to do so. Whether you prayed a so called "sinner's prayer" or not is secondary. You might have been born into a Catholic family, but there was most likely a point where you decided that it was for you, that you actually wanted to continue being Catholic. At that point you subscribed to the teachings of your church and made them your own. You made a conscious decision at that point to follow Christ and to do so from within the bounds of the Catholic Church. In essence, you decided to take God up on His offer of eternal life. If some Protestants think that Catholics are hell bound, then that is their problem. Salvation comes by accepting the gift offered by Christ, and it is not a gift that is reserved for Protestants or Catholics exclusively. "Whosoever will" is not followed by an "as long as you're not Catholic" disclaimer. If some Christians believe that, then that is their problem and they're the ones believing false doctrine. Since salvation is a gift you receive from God, then it stands to reason that the good things you do are done out of gratitude for that gift. Others can do good things, but it is not those good things in and of themselves that are sufficient for salvation. It is not, however, up to me to decide who has and who hasn't accepted that gift. That is between them and God.
Thanks for clarifying. I should have explained myself better about the little prayer, I guess named the "sinner's prayer"? I have read different christian books that mention this prayer and make it the beginning of becoming a new person, ie: "born again". I have been told repeatedly if I have not been "born again" I have no chance of salvation. LOL, that really doesn't cause me concern as I know the strength of my own faith in God. After our son died my dh had an epiphany, fell to his knee and "got religion" big time. I just have always had a deeper, quiet, solid faith which was very hard for him to understand when he "was standing on the mountian". I find different religious beliefs interesting and feel all steeples point to heaven. (or any other religious building). I try to respect other's religious beliefs and I am usually suprised when others don't do the same for mine. I have often wondered the above questions and thank you for answering them.
I have an interesting story to tell from buddhism that I feel really relates to this. The two religions are VERY similar by the way!
This man was working to become a buddhist, living in Japan. He'd been meditating for a few years. Once you get deep into zazen it can have a habit of bringing to light your own personal demons, aka your flaws. It can be a rather depressing state to go through as you learn to release the things that you cannot have and live with what you DO have. To take joy in what is here and now, and not dwell in the past or the future. So this lad was just getting over this phase and one night he had a very vivid dream - something zazen and focusing the mind can also do to you. In this dream, he felt as if he were experiencing an epiphany. He suddenly realise how he really truly was part of the whole universe, how everthing was connected.
He woke up and was on a "buzz" for nearly a day, and he felt like he'd experienced a bit of "Nirvana". He went and told his Sensei all flustered with joy... and his Sensei knocked him down. He said that this overwhelming experience found in the dream was just an effect of meditation and zazen, and that true Nirvana was much simpler than that. Well the man went back home very depressed and somewhat convinced that his Sensei must be wrong.
A few days later he was walking along and eating an orange. Suddenly he realised that this moment, this simple orange, walking, the trees... this was peace. This wasn't the best orange he'd ever had, it was just an orange that he was having. He was experiencing the moment AS A MOMENT, as truly existing in the "now". Maybe it was too sour, maybe it had seeds. But that didn't matter because this moment was all it could ever be; this moment was the perfect moment for this moment, if that makes sense. It was what it was supposed to be. He went back to his Sensei and told him of this experience, and his Sensei smiled; for THAT was Nirvana.

reply from: scopia19822

"You are quite correct that many Protestant Christian churches preach against Catholicism (as if they worship different Gods?) and even against other non-Catholic Christians (Pentecostals, for example.) "
This is especially true in the area of Bible Belt that I live in and within my own family as well. When I moved back here to live with my mom I was at the age to get my Confirmation, but my mom who is a devout Calvinstic Presbyterian would have none of it. She told me to forget my idol mary worshipping ways and forbade me to go to Mass. I was away from the Church until 3 years ago. I even had my son baptized in the Presbyterian Church at her insistance. The baptist dominate the religious life in my town, I have even been to some of these independent baptist churches, where I have heard anti catholic sermon after anti catholic sermon and have had more Chick tracts shoved into my face that I care to count. I doubt some of these preachers could read the Bible, much less know what was actually in it. I believe in live and let live, but one thing I cannot stand is someone who calls themselves a "christian" condemning me to hell because I do not ascribe to their narrow minded legalistic interrepatation of Christianty.

reply from: CharlesD

I'm sure you just don't get it. It's bad enough that you're Catholic, but I'll bet that at one point in your life you might have played cards or danced as well. Shame on you. You know that in a Baptist church you have to be really careful if the music is catchy. If you tap both feet at the same time, that's considered dancing, and we can't have such blatant sin going on in the church can we?

reply from: carolemarie

I think evil exist Vexing...how about people who sell 8 year old girls into sex slavery? Or those who buy them? That is evil and depraved.
How about people who kill people for kicks?
How about those who murder transsexuals because they hate them?
The genocide in Rowanda? The killing fields of Columbia? The disappeared in Juarez?
It is a choice to behave this way. There is a bent in humans to go from better to worse....

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm sure you just don't get it. It's bad enough that you're Catholic, but I'll bet that at one point in your life you might have played cards or danced as well. Shame on you. You know that in a Baptist church you have to be really careful if the music is catchy. If you tap both feet at the same time, that's considered dancing, and we can't have such blatant sin going on in the church can we? "
Yep we have to be careful about dancing or smiling as well. I also do not wear prarie dresses either, another strike agains me. Us Catholics are also a bunch of cannibals, as we believe by taking communion that we take the real prescence of the body and blood of Christ.

reply from: CharlesD

Well, I grew up Methodist, went to a Catholic high school, have Baptist relatives, and attend a Church of God. (not the pentecostal variety) I must be thoroughly confused. I could go to hell at least three different ways.

reply from: scopia19822

Well, I grew up Methodist, went to a Catholic high school, have Baptist relatives, and attend a Church of God. (not the pentecostal variety) I must be thoroughly confused. I could go to hell at least three different ways.
I grew up on the coast of SC and it gets real hot there in the summer real fast. I love the heat, going to hell will be like going back home.

reply from: carolemarie

Then you have nothing to complain about if people wish to kill you because of your gender or percieved difference. After all, they are not evil, they are just animals who can't help themselves....
You know as well as I do that is a ridiclous statement. People can and do choose to do what they do. They have the ability to resist their impulses.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Even if you're not religious, humans are still capable of "evil" even if it's just a human construct. We invented the car, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist just because it's a "human creation". Because humans are self-aware and capable of empathy, we know when our actions hurt others. To purposely hurt someone else anyway is the simplest form of evil.

reply from: BossMomma

I pretty much agree with this.
Humans are just a very intelligent animal.
There really isn't such a thing as 'depravity' in the animal kingdom, that's a human construct.
Exactly, much the same as organized religion. I studied animal science and behavior both in and out of school and found very similar behavior in one of our closest relatives. Chimpanzees are the only other primate known to start wars with other chimp colonies.
One chimpanzee colony will actively seek out other colonies, leave their home turf and invade that of the intended victims. The invaders, usually the males of the invading colony will then pick off their intended victims and viciously beat, maul and, mutilate their victim to death. Chimps have even been known to attack human villages and attack mothers carrying infants for the purpose of using the infant for food. There is plenty of natural resources in their native habitats, they don't do these things out of a desire to protect themselves or their families, they do it for personal gain. Humans, much like chimps are opportunistic, highly intelligent and, have a tendancy towards violence to achieve their goals.

reply from: abc123

The teaching that Jesus is the only way comes directly from Jesus Christ. In John 14:6 Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through Me.
That sounds like a very intolerent narrow minded statement to me. Well it is, the question is what are you going to do with this statement? Are you going to say Jesus made this up and their are other paths to God and is a liar? Or will you trust His word in faith and believe?
You could believe with all your heart that the law of gravity is false. If you jump off of a 100 story building you could continue to no believe in the law of gravity all the way down. At some point in the jump you are going to come to the conclusion that you were wrong and soon their after will suffer the consequence of your unbelief which will be hitting the ground. The same can be made with Jesus' statement that He is the only mediator between man and God. You can believe with all your heart that their are other paths but in the end you will find that just as you may have been mistaken about the law of gravity that Jesus was the only Way.
Your definition of love is probably different than mine. Telling someone that you support them in decision that are wrong is not love. For instance if you support a friend having an abortion by driving them to the clinic. This is not love, this is your actions proving your acceptance of your friends actions. True love would be to tell your friend you will have nothing to do with the killing of her child.
So the question is do you believe what Jesus said? Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or He is who He says He is? As for me, I am going to go with option 3.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I am talking about the way various Christian denominations interpret the Bible and preach that "THEY" are the ONLY way to salvation and heaven.
I have also studied enough about other religions (other than Christianity) to accept that it is possible that we all worship the same God, but that differences in time and place made the Creation and Saviour stories vary from one faith to another.
The Bible is open to interpretation, and every Christian denomination (including Catholicism) has its own interpretation. Can't ALL of them be correct in many ways? Is ONE Christian denomination more correct than all the others? Do ALL faiths have to be completely different (and not overlapping in any way) in your mind?
I am a Christian but realize that most religions have a number of beliefs in common, and I think we all worship the same Creator God.

reply from: CharlesD

So if something doesn't have physical properties, it doesn't exist?
Apparently all sorts of things can't be put into an envelope and mailed to you, so we have no way of knowing if they exist, things like: love, hate, pride, greed, patience, peace of mind, etc.
Do emotions exist? Do thoughts exist? Put a thought in an envelope and mail it to me, just a thought, not the representation of that thought written down on paper either. If you can't show it to me physically, it must not exist.
Actually, for there to be evil, or good, there must be an objective standard by which those things are measured. I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't accept the existence of the Creator of that standard to believe in the standard either. Your answer is if anything consistent with your world view.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

So if something doesn't have physical properties, it doesn't exist?
Apparently all sorts of things can't be put into an envelope and mailed to you, so we have no way of knowing if they exist, things like: love, hate, pride, greed, patience, peace of mind, etc.
Do emotions exist? Do thoughts exist? Put a thought in an envelope and mail it to me, just a thought, not the representation of that thought written down on paper either. If you can't show it to me physically, it must not exist.
Actually, for there to be evil, or good, there must be an objective standard by which those things are measured. I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't accept the existence of the Creator of that standard to believe in the standard either. Your answer is if anything consistent with your world view.
The Bible gives an example of good fruit and evil fruit. The prophet Jeremiah 24:2-3 is told to look into two baskets of fruit. The prophet says the first basket has very good just ripe fresh fruit in it. The prophet looks in the second basket and says the fruit is evil. He says the fruit is so bad, so rotten, that it can not be eaten. The second basket is said to have fruit that is naughty.
Evil is compared to being bad, naughty, unwholesome, not good, not the way it should be, etc. A freshly built craft may be good, but an old sea craft that is rotten with broken boards and leaks would be called evil.
Some things are good, other things are not up to the standard they should be. A mind containing bad thoughts that brings forth strife may be called evil.

reply from: abc123

What denominations are you referring to in regards to preaching THEY are the only way of salvation? If it is through Christ then they are preaching the truth. No religion is going to save any of us on the day of judgement, only Jesus Christ.
As a Christian you say that you believe we all worship the same Creator; so are you saying that the Islam god, the Hindu god, the mormon god, the jehovah witness god, etc..... are the same God as the God who became flesh Jesus Christ? Most religions don't believe Jesus is God, they believe he was a good man or teacher, a prophet or Michael the archangel and some relgions even believe that Jesus is the brother of the devil. How can you even fathom to say that the God that saved you from eternal damnation by dying on a cross for your sins is the same God that every other religion worships?
In regards to your questions I believe their are places in the bible that are harder to interprete than others. No way do I believe they all could be correct, if they contradict the bible then they are false. I don't get caught up in different denominations, I believe the bible is the truth throughout and will always go to that for the answer. I don't understand your question about overlapping faiths, I believe the bible is the truth from Genesis to Revelation. Any constradictions to the word of God are false. For example the Jehovah witnesses believe in God but do not believe that Jesus Christ is God in flesh. They have it wrong from the very beginning. It like if you were to go on a drive and your map says that your first turn is a right but you take a left you aren't going to get to your final destination until you realize that you choose the wrong path and turn around and choose the right path.
RiverMoon....I can't recall but are you on this blog as a pro-lifer or pro-choicer? I remember a MoonLady that was a pro-choicer but I think you are 2 different people, can you clarify.
Thanks for your comments.
God Bless

reply from: CharlesD

Some offshoots of the Baptists preach that other denominations are apostate and therefore are hell bound, but usually they are talking about Catholics. Some Catholics, and I emphasize the word some, teach that non-Catholics are not true Christians and are going to hell. Those thoughts are out there in different groups, but I don't think those ideas are in the mainstream. Anyone who acknowledges Christ as Lord is my brother or sister.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I can show you a car. It's a real, physical thing.
Now go find an evil and show it to me - put it in an envelope and mail it to me.
Hitler. PEOPLE are physical examples of evil. That's easy as pie to show. A photograph of the starved Jews in concentration camps shows you what evil looks like. Evil is easy to show.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's what I believe too! I think God came to all of us but that each culture interpreted His word differently.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if something doesn't have physical properties, it doesn't exist?
Apparently all sorts of things can't be put into an envelope and mailed to you, so we have no way of knowing if they exist, things like: love, hate, pride, greed, patience, peace of mind, etc.
Do emotions exist? Do thoughts exist? Put a thought in an envelope and mail it to me, just a thought, not the representation of that thought written down on paper either. If you can't show it to me physically, it must not exist.
Actually, for there to be evil, or good, there must be an objective standard by which those things are measured. I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't accept the existence of the Creator of that standard to believe in the standard either. Your answer is if anything consistent with your world view.
Hell, "air" can't exactly be seen under normal circumstances.

reply from: CharlesD

Not, it can't, but it can be felt and the evidence of it is obvious enough for anyone inclined to look.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"What denominations are you referring to in regards to preaching THEY are the only way of salvation? If it is through Christ then they are preaching the truth. No religion is going to save any of us on the day of judgement, only Jesus Christ."
Honestly, can you tell me why there are literally hundreds of different Christian denominations if everyone supposedly believes the same thing? We Anabaptists do NOT believe in infant baptism, but Catholics and some other Protestant groups DO. That, to me, is a major theological difference.
Nor would my church put a sculpture of Christ on the cross in or on any of our church buildings, nor would we light candles as we say prayers, have a statue of the Virgin Mary anywhere or confess to a priest.
Yet, we are all Christians. If we can be so different amongst ourselves, who is to say (except for God) that He has NOT manifested himself in many times and ways offerering salvation through the belief in one of his representatives?
Just some food for thought.

reply from: CharlesD

If I ever ask you to give me a piece of your mind, that's not what I mean by it. Just to clear that up right now.
I was talking about the thoughts themselves. Thoughts by themselves don't have any physical properties. They don't have mass, nor do they take up any space. They might reside in the brain, but are they the brain itself?
Evil exists in that it is the opposite of good, but how do we define what is good and bad? Even aside from religious teaching, there are basic standards that define things that are essentially right or wrong. We would all agree that if I were to come over and kill you without provocation that I would have done something that is inherently wrong. Could it also be said that in that instance I would have performed an evil act? If there is no such standard then we have no basis whatever for our system of laws. There would be no authority by which those laws are passed or even enforced. Murder is not wrong because there is a law against it. There is a law against it because it is wrong.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"I was talking about the thoughts themselves. Thoughts by themselves don't have any physical properties. They don't have mass, nor do they take up any space. They might reside in the brain, but are they the brain itself?"
Thoughts are electrical impulses that move through the brain. This brain activity can actually be seen on MRI tests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472355.stm

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Hitler wasn't evil; he simply went against the current status quo.
Hitler and team sat around a conference table and discussed the final solution for the Jewish population.
Hitler had warned in a speech before WW II that, "If the Jews start another war in Europe it will result in the elimination of the Jews." Hitler, like other people, blamed the Jews on societal problems.
Hitler was evil not only for casually discussing how to kill people in death camps, but for unlawfully invading other countries with guns blazing.
I think you are evil for not realizing the problems with Hitler. Hitler and Mussolini died as they should have.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Hitler wasn't evil; he simply went against the current status quo.
Hitler and team sat around a conference table and discussed the final solution for the Jewish population.
Hitler had warned in a speech before WW II that, "If the Jews start another war in Europe it will result in the elimination of the Jews." Hitler, like other people, blamed the Jews on societal problems.
Hitler was evil not only for casually discussing how to kill people in death camps, but for unlawfully invading other countries with guns blazing.
I think you are evil for not realizing the problems with Hitler. Hitler and Mussolini died as they should have.
I repeat, Vexing, you are evil.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Sure, thoughts are electrical impulses.
The concept of evil is just that, a concept.
You can prove that thoughts exist.
You can't prove that evil actually exists.
Are there? Let's read on...
Well...
No. I might think it is wrong, but you might think it is fine. 'Good' and 'Bad' are matters of perception. I think same sex marriage is 'Good'. Others on here think it is 'Bad'.
It's all a matter of perception.
Sure. People on here might also say you have done 'Good' by ensuring that I never post on these forums again.
It's a horrible realisation, but I'm glad you have made it.
The laws which are so precious to you now, may well be dust in 1000 years and people will laugh at how naive people like you were back then - just as we scoff at the laws of from the year 1008 AD.
The only authority is the status quo.
Which is subject to change at any time.
Slavery was right until a law was made against it.
Abortion was wrong until the law allowed it.
It seems that the law often supersedes your vaunted concepts of things that are inherently 'right' and 'wrong'.
Humans are animals.
The only universal 'right' is ensuring the survival of the species.
The only possible 'wrong' would be doing something to cause the extinction of our species.
Anything else is window dressing.
Vexing, you are the product of evolutionary thinking...and it ain't a pretty sight.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Vexing, I am horrified you can justify Hitler's actions. YOU of all people should find him one of the most abhorrent people in history! He didn't simply go against the "status quo". He slaughtered millions of people just because their beliefs were different, because they were a different race, or gay, etc.

reply from: CharlesD

Your answers are if anything at least consistent with your world view, which does not recognize any form of authority higher than ourselves. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
I would say that slavery was always wrong. The laws were unjust. The law was eventually going to come around to recognizing what was right. Right and wrong are an inherent standard that laws have to simply recognize. Sometimes the laws take time to get to that point where they are in line with right and wrong.
But we could go around and around on this until we wear out our keyboards and at the end we will both remain unconvinced of the other's position.
As to the laws in 1008, not all of them were laughable. There were quite a few that have changed very little since then. The main difference between then and now is that now your vote counts, then your Count voted.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I would, Vexing. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

reply from: CharlesD

There is a law on the books in a town where I used to live that it is illegal to drive a "horseless carriage" on a particular road. That road is now a pretty major road with houses and businesses, all with garages, driveways, and parking lots.
There is another town that apparently has a law that you aren't allowed to take a pee in the middle of the street, but there is no law against doing number 2 in the middle of the street. Maybe sometimes it would be too much of a hassle to take them back off, so they just don't get enforced.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I severely doubt it.
If I put the knife in your hand and told you to cut that 5 year old girl's neck, you wouldn't have the nerve to do it.
No, because you can't prove that killing said child would actually save all the other children. If you COULD prove it, then I would do it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol there's a law in Nevada or somewhere that says you cannot keep a donkey in a bathtub... WHY that law had to be written, I don't think I want to know!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Vexing, how on earth would you know? You know nothing about me. I could say the same of you, that you're too much of a weak-willed person to actually do it; but I would be no more accurate in said accusation than you are. So put a sock in it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You know what? Screw it. I'm not going to fight with you. You're back on ignore.

reply from: lukesmom

So if something doesn't have physical properties, it doesn't exist?
Apparently all sorts of things can't be put into an envelope and mailed to you, so we have no way of knowing if they exist, things like: love, hate, pride, greed, patience, peace of mind, etc.
Do emotions exist? Do thoughts exist? Put a thought in an envelope and mail it to me, just a thought, not the representation of that thought written down on paper either. If you can't show it to me physically, it must not exist.
Actually, for there to be evil, or good, there must be an objective standard by which those things are measured. I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't accept the existence of the Creator of that standard to believe in the standard either. Your answer is if anything consistent with your world view.
Can you see air? Can you touch air? Can you hear air? Can you smell air (with no mixtures like dh adds!)? Can anyone show me air, put it in an envelope and mail it to me? If you can't show it to me physically, it must not exist.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Can't put a car in an envelope either, for that matter.

reply from: lukesmom

That would take alot of stamps! And certain hernias for several mailmen!

reply from: BossMomma

That would take alot of stamps! And certain hernias for several mailmen!
Might try UPS or FedEx.

reply from: BossMomma

I can show you a car. It's a real, physical thing.
Now go find an evil and show it to me - put it in an envelope and mail it to me.
Hitler. PEOPLE are physical examples of evil. That's easy as pie to show. A photograph of the starved Jews in concentration camps shows you what evil looks like. Evil is easy to show.
Ever watch the discovery channel and saw a male lion take over a pride? The first thing he does is kill the cubs of the previous male. We could dramatize it, listen to the cubs squealing in agony as their little bodies are mauled by the stranger, the lionesses roaring and charging in their defense but to no avail. Or, we could look at it as the lion looks at it. He doesn't want to waste energy defending another males cubs and the quickest way to bring the females into heat so he can produce his own cubs is to kill the existing cubs.
Hitler was one who sought a superior race, and the best way to ensure the survival of that superior race was to eliminate that which he considered inferior. However, he did not succeed. He didn't see himself as doing something evil, he thought he was doing something good for the prosperity of his chosen people.

reply from: CharlesD

That's why I didn't bring up air in my analogy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I can show you a car. It's a real, physical thing.
Now go find an evil and show it to me - put it in an envelope and mail it to me.
Hitler. PEOPLE are physical examples of evil. That's easy as pie to show. A photograph of the starved Jews in concentration camps shows you what evil looks like. Evil is easy to show.
Ever watch the discovery channel and saw a male lion take over a pride? The first thing he does is kill the cubs of the previous male. We could dramatize it, listen to the cubs squealing in agony as their little bodies are mauled by the stranger, the lionesses roaring and charging in their defense but to no avail. Or, we could look at it as the lion looks at it. He doesn't want to waste energy defending another males cubs and the quickest way to bring the females into heat so he can produce his own cubs is to kill the existing cubs.
Hitler was one who sought a superior race, and the best way to ensure the survival of that superior race was to eliminate that which he considered inferior. However, he did not succeed. He didn't see himself as doing something evil, he thought he was doing something good for the prosperity of his chosen people.
I mentioned in another example before Hitler that HUMANS are capable of evil because we have empathy. A lion doesn't know that killing the cubs will A. hurt them and B. hurt the feelings of the mothers. He just does it so they will mate with him; and how much of that is his actual plan vs how much is just bsae instinct is unknown. But if you KNOW your action will hurt another, and do it anyway - that is evil.

reply from: BossMomma

I can show you a car. It's a real, physical thing.
Now go find an evil and show it to me - put it in an envelope and mail it to me.
Hitler. PEOPLE are physical examples of evil. That's easy as pie to show. A photograph of the starved Jews in concentration camps shows you what evil looks like. Evil is easy to show.
Ever watch the discovery channel and saw a male lion take over a pride? The first thing he does is kill the cubs of the previous male. We could dramatize it, listen to the cubs squealing in agony as their little bodies are mauled by the stranger, the lionesses roaring and charging in their defense but to no avail. Or, we could look at it as the lion looks at it. He doesn't want to waste energy defending another males cubs and the quickest way to bring the females into heat so he can produce his own cubs is to kill the existing cubs.
Hitler was one who sought a superior race, and the best way to ensure the survival of that superior race was to eliminate that which he considered inferior. However, he did not succeed. He didn't see himself as doing something evil, he thought he was doing something good for the prosperity of his chosen people.
I mentioned in another example before Hitler that HUMANS are capable of evil because we have empathy. A lion doesn't know that killing the cubs will A. hurt them and B. hurt the feelings of the mothers. He just does it so they will mate with him; and how much of that is his actual plan vs how much is just bsae instinct is unknown. But if you KNOW your action will hurt another, and do it anyway - that is evil.
Animals have a concept of pain, that is why an abused dog cringes when a hand is raised above it's head. Animals have a concept of empathy as well, I owned a lab/chow mix for 13 years who would routinely mother newborn kittens among her litter of puppies. Logically she should have rejected the kittens as they are not her offspring or even her species, however she was also routinely a cat killer and I regularly found the bodies of full grown cats in my back yard.
If she would actively hunt and kill grown cats why would she nurture their babies? It seemed logical that she pitied the blind helpless kittens I occasionally placed with her puppies in my rescue days. Humans are animals, very intelligent animals and the concept of good and evil are all a matter of ones perspective.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think that animals have a true sense of self-awareness, which makes them incapable of true empathy.
Either way, no matter how you dice it or slice it, ethics are applicable to only mankind and not nature.

reply from: BossMomma

Man's ethics are only applicable to mankind. It is my firm belief that animals have their own ethic. They are self aware, sentient and, intelligent. It is human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are special among earths inhabitants.
Most do not understand the animal mind, but as someone who had no human friends growing up I spent all my time among animals. Dogs, cats, horses, even the wildlife I rescued which included the rearing of 3 coyote cubs at the age of 14.
Animals make more sense to me than the majority of my fellow humans, animals do not suddenly snap and kill their entire family from mate to offspring, animals do not forget their offspring in hot cars, or leave them locked in rooms for long hours to go partying with friends. In my opinion the animal mind is superior to that of man.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You think they are self-aware? None of our testing has shown self awareness for the majority of animals. Some do pass; elehpants for one. I don't honestly think a lion is capable of considering the feelings of others.

reply from: cracrat

What "testing?"
Some scientists, in India I think, with way too much grant money sloshing about the account painted a big cross on an elephant's forehead then put a big mirror in its compound. After a little while, which must have been quite amusing to watch, the elephant figured out that the cross was drawn on its own head and it was seeing itself in the mirror. Apparently this proves elephants (or at least this one) are self aware, though I'd be jiggered if I had to explain how that conclusion was drawn to a child.

reply from: BossMomma

Some people don't consider the feelings of others, does this make them nonself aware? Or incapable of doing so? A lion considers that which is important, the feelings of a rival or a prey animal are not important. However male lions are tender to their mates and their cubs and establish a family tie that strengthens it's pride.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Refusing to consider and being incapable of considering are two different things. I don't think a male lion's brain is physically capable of thinking "gee, if I kill those cubs the mothers may get angry with me".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Also, I wasn't talking about just the mirror test. I watch a lot of Discovery channel and read National Geographic. The moment they discover that lions are A. self aware and B. capable of feeling true empathy and C. able to be responsible for their own decisions, I'll let you know.

reply from: CharlesD

For one, animals tend to stick with their loyalties. Rarely will a dog, once it trusts you, turn on you unless you do something to abuse that trust. An interesting question would be the emotional capabilities of animals. How much can the affection shown between people and pets be attributed to some form of higher emotion on the part of the animal? Is the animal capable of love? When a dog shows you affection, is it out of any love toward you, or is it just an instinct based on some kindness you showed to it? As an animal lover, I would like to think they are capable of feeling love, but who knows. With all that said, even if they are capable of actual love, how does that in any way diminish the value of a human being? I would say that it doesn't.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Exactly Charles. How much of an animal's behavior is just instinct, and how much of is is conscious decision making?

reply from: BossMomma

How many times have we seen true stories of an animal risking it's own life to protect a human? That is not instinct, instinct is to preserve it's own life. Elephants have been shown to mourn their dead and to work together to save the life of a herd member, if animals are not even self aware why would they care if their own infant dies?
Animals experience emotional trauma and suffer many of the same mental illnesses we do. Seperation anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia, various forms of psychosis etc. Their brains are more developed than you think.

reply from: CharlesD

There have been many stories. There was one a few years ago where a dog sheltered a child during a snowstorm. The child was found alive the next day under the dead body of the dog.
Dolphins have some sort of connection with humans. There are countless stories of dolphins saving the lives of humans. I saw two stories on tv recently. One was in Ireland where a child had been in a fishing boat that sank. The dolphin swam up under the child and carried him to shore. The thing almost beached itself to get that child close enough to shore. Then there was the other story in Australia where some people were swimming in a bay when out of the blue a group of dolphins surrounded them and started swimming circles around them. The dolphins were quite forceful and wouldn't let any of the people out of the circle. One of the people finally managed to dive down and escape the circle of dolphins and when he got out of the circle, he spotted a great white shark close by. When the shark left the premises, the dolphins left one by one. They were protecting those people from the shark, which is also their mortal enemy.

reply from: BossMomma

There have been many stories. There was one a few years ago where a dog sheltered a child during a snowstorm. The child was found alive the next day under the dead body of the dog.
Dolphins have some sort of connection with humans. There are countless stories of dolphins saving the lives of humans. I saw two stories on tv recently. One was in Ireland where a child had been in a fishing boat that sank. The dolphin swam up under the child and carried him to shore. The thing almost beached itself to get that child close enough to shore. Then there was the other story in Australia where some people were swimming in a bay when out of the blue a group of dolphins surrounded them and started swimming circles around them. The dolphins were quite forceful and wouldn't let any of the people out of the circle. One of the people finally managed to dive down and escape the circle of dolphins and when he got out of the circle, he spotted a great white shark close by. When the shark left the premises, the dolphins left one by one. They were protecting those people from the shark, which is also their mortal enemy.
Exactly, it shows not only self awareness but selflessness. Animals are beautiful beings and have too long been viewed as inferior by humans.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

CM, I respectfully disagree. I think most people are intrinsically good (but you don't hear much about them) and a small minority are the "bad" people you read or hear about in the news.
(When it comes to driving on the highway, that's a different story! For every driver who is courteous and careful, it seems like there is another who drives recklessly, agressively and without regard to traffic laws.)
I have known so many kind, courteous and honest people in my life to say that basic human nature is to be selfish and self-absorbed. It seems that in many people, their basic nature is to be helpful, honest and caring - and I've met so many more of them than "bad" people. We just HEAR more about the bad guys.

reply from: CharlesD

Good people behaving don't make the news.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Where I live, they do. There isn't enough bad news to fill the paper some days, for one thing, and the local news reports try to balance the bad with the good.
The paper even gives a bouquet of roses frequently to someone who has done the right thing. We have volunteer fire companies and ambulance units as well as a long history of helping friends, neighbors and total strangers. Just yesterday a woman was honored for her good deed - she found a little boy along the road, terrified and lost. She called the police, held the boy and calmed him and got him to talk about his home and parents. The father had already called 911 to report his missing son, so they were reunited quickly.
She said she did it because she is a mother and no mother could walk away from a child in trouble like that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How many times have we seen true stories of an animal risking it's own life to protect a human? That is not instinct, instinct is to preserve it's own life. Elephants have been shown to mourn their dead and to work together to save the life of a herd member, if animals are not even self aware why would they care if their own infant dies?
Animals experience emotional trauma and suffer many of the same mental illnesses we do. Seperation anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia, various forms of psychosis etc. Their brains are more developed than you think.
Certainly "more developed" yes, but if you want to go down this path, then you'd best start arresting lions for infanticide...

reply from: lukesmom

Where I live, they do. There isn't enough bad news to fill the paper some days, for one thing, and the local news reports try to balance the bad with the good.
The paper even gives a bouquet of roses frequently to someone who has done the right thing. We have volunteer fire companies and ambulance units as well as a long history of helping friends, neighbors and total strangers. Just yesterday a woman was honored for her good deed - she found a little boy along the road, terrified and lost. She called the police, held the boy and calmed him and got him to talk about his home and parents. The father had already called 911 to report his missing son, so they were reunited quickly.
She said she did it because she is a mother and no mother could walk away from a child in trouble like that.
When a tornado destroyed half our neighborhood and killed a neighbor, people from miles away and different states even came to help. They brought food and water and machinary. They gave clothing and trees and plants and shoulders to cry on and jokes to laugh at. A horrendous disaster was made bearable because of good people, many of them strangers...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nothing can be true until we "discover" that it is? The fact is that we really have no reliable means of determining which creatures are or are not "self aware." We can measure intelligence to some degree, but if the lion refuses to cooperate, does that prove it is neither intelligent nor self aware? We are very limited when making such determinations, since we can only reasonably expect to gauge other creatures by human standards, so nearly any test we might devise will naturally be specially biased...and thus logically unreliable.
It's not that it isn't true, it's just that there is reasonable doubt at this time. That's how I feel based on even the most hopeful speculation by reputable scientists. I LOVE reading stuff about animal intelligences, but I still feel that you can't apply ethics to nature. My root understanding of why you CAN apply it to adult humans is because an adult human is fully capable of understanding his society's concepts of right and wrong. So conversely the only logic I can come up with for why ethics cannot be applied to animals is because they can't understand the concept of right and wrong.

reply from: CharlesD

It could be argued that at times the animals show us a pretty good example of what love should be. Once an animal decides to love you, it doesn't betray you as readily as some people will. On what level that love really exists is hard to get a handle on because we really can't get that far into their little brains, which is why we tend to personify their behavior.
I would like to think that there is some real emotional attachment behind the displays of affection animals give us, but I'm an animal lover, so I find myself hoping that there is more there than just instinct.

reply from: CharlesD

You live in Mayberry.

reply from: lukesmom

You live in Mayberry.
Yup, just a "usual" day in small town America. The heart and soul of the USA.
This is why I will NEVER move near or into a city.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

You live in Mayberry.
No, I live in Peyton Place, lol.
I'd rather live in this little redneck village than in any city in the world.

reply from: BossMomma

How many times have we seen true stories of an animal risking it's own life to protect a human? That is not instinct, instinct is to preserve it's own life. Elephants have been shown to mourn their dead and to work together to save the life of a herd member, if animals are not even self aware why would they care if their own infant dies?
Animals experience emotional trauma and suffer many of the same mental illnesses we do. Seperation anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia, various forms of psychosis etc. Their brains are more developed than you think.
Certainly "more developed" yes, but if you want to go down this path, then you'd best start arresting lions for infanticide...
So because a lion is not held by our laws it must be inferior and unself aware? Animals have their own laws, punishments and, rewards. Those laws differ animal to animal, Wolves have a different law than Bears. Eagles are different from sparrows, humans are different than howler monkeys. These differences however, do not make one unself aware or incapable of compassion. Really if not for our adaptive brain humans would truly be inferior.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Do you think lions should be held to our laws? I feel anyone/thing that is incapable of truly understanding right and wrong cannot be arrested; this includes young children and yes, lions. They are outside of the law; they are outside ethics. That's how I feel about any being that is not as sentient as a fully developed human adult. If you cannot reason, you cannot be held accountable.

reply from: BossMomma

Lions are not human, why should they be held to our laws? If a lion attacks a human it strays into our law and is punished, not by fair and impartial trial but by being hunted down and shot, regardless of the fact that the human may have been in the wrong. Answer me this, do you support dog fighting? After all if the two pit bulls are unself aware and nonsenient, whats wrong with fighting them for sport? Why do we have animal protection laws in the first place, if they are so inferior to us?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Because if lions know right from wrong then they should be held accountable for their crimes.
Of course I don't support dog fighting, and being non-sentient doesn't make it right. Just because a chicken isn't completely self-aware doesn't make it right to boil it alive. I don't see why sentience is necessary for animal rights. It's not necessary for human rights in the womb now is it?

reply from: BossMomma

When a healthy 20 week unborn baby can be ripped limb from limb you tell me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

reply from: JRH

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
Peter Singer is a nutjob.
Yesterday morning as I was changing the baby I listened to all the different sounds he was making, attempting vocalizations. I thought, "That's the way it is. Man was designed and made to talk." A little later I saw a spider going up and down spinning his web. I thought, "That is what spiders do. He's doing the spider thing, because he was made and designed that way. He is doing what he was pre-programmed to do."
Man was made to be God. Animals were designed and made by God to do certain things. Bees will always only perform functions that bees were designed and made to do.
Peter Singer is a fool if he believes in evolution. Peter Singer is perverse to compare human beings to animals.
Peter Singer is the ultimate example of a fool who built his thinking on evolution. His thinking is defective to an infinite degree.

reply from: CharlesD

That was the first time I had heard of him was when I came across his animal rights writing. Then I came across some of his other writings in college. Of course, I can't say I agree with much of anything he says, but you can't doubt that he has been quite influential. I've seen him quoted on this site more than anywhere else I've been on the internet.
I'm a supporter of PETA myself.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
There's room for all God's creatures...on the plate right next to my potatoes.

reply from: CharlesD

Did you mean to say that man was made to be like God?
I believe that man was made in the image of God, but not to actually be God.
I do believe that Singer is rather misguided though.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not a vegetarian btw. I do despise how animals are treated in factory farming though. PETA is pretty nuts.

reply from: CharlesD

Not to mention that the conditions in some of those places are not that sanitary and there could be problems with the meat as a result. We buy most of our meat from local sources. There is a farmer close to my house who slaughters his own chickens and we will buy them from usually the same day or the after they are killed. We've always got a few chickens in the freezer. That's some darn good tasting chicken, a lot better than what you get from the grocery.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yum! That sounds awesome Charles! One of the best fish meals I ever had I caught and cleaned myself.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Did you mean to say that man was made to be like God?
I believe that man was made in the image of God, but not to actually be God.
Gods, not merely like God.
We are God's offspring. We are brothers and sisters of Christ.
The Bible tells us there is only one God, and after Him there shall not be another God. This does not negate the reality of His family. There is only one God family.
Like Jesus, we shall also be God. We shall not merely be like God. God calls us his children, and Jesus calls us brothers.
If you read the genealogies, Adam is God's son. It is written twice, "You are gods."
With the Bible so bluntly saying, "You are gods, you are God's offspring, you are God's children, you are God's son, you are a brother to Jesus", I take this literally, not figuratively. I say we are gods, not merely like God.
We are not the pet poodle or kitten.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But I thought Jesus IS God and is equal to God. Then again I disagree almost totally with your interpretation of christianity.

reply from: JRH

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
Peter Singer is a nutjob.
Yesterday morning as I was changing the baby I listened to all the different sounds he was making, attempting vocalizations. I thought, "That's the way it is. Man was designed and made to talk." A little later I saw a spider going up and down spinning his web. I thought, "That is what spiders do. He's doing the spider thing, because he was made and designed that way. He is doing what he was pre-programmed to do."
Man was made to be God. Animals were designed and made by God to do certain things. Bees will always only perform functions that bees were designed and made to do.
Peter Singer is a fool if he believes in evolution. Peter Singer is perverse to compare human beings to animals.
Peter Singer is the ultimate example of a fool who built his thinking on evolution. His thinking is defective to an infinite degree.
Have you ever seen him speak? He is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Peter Singer vs Dinesh D'sousa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA&feature=related

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
Peter Singer is a nutjob.
Yesterday morning as I was changing the baby I listened to all the different sounds he was making, attempting vocalizations. I thought, "That's the way it is. Man was designed and made to talk." A little later I saw a spider going up and down spinning his web. I thought, "That is what spiders do. He's doing the spider thing, because he was made and designed that way. He is doing what he was pre-programmed to do."
Man was made to be God. Animals were designed and made by God to do certain things. Bees will always only perform functions that bees were designed and made to do.
Peter Singer is a fool if he believes in evolution. Peter Singer is perverse to compare human beings to animals.
Peter Singer is the ultimate example of a fool who built his thinking on evolution. His thinking is defective to an infinite degree.
Have you ever seen him speak? He is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Peter Singer vs Dinesh D'sousa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA&feature=related
The ability of a person to exhibit great self-confidence, to have a silver tongue, to speak fluidly and be one to think quickly on his feet does not make that person correct or right for the job. The quick, powerful and animated speaker may be dead wrong if he/she has built their positions on false premises.

reply from: BossMomma

Not to mention that the conditions in some of those places are not that sanitary and there could be problems with the meat as a result. We buy most of our meat from local sources. There is a farmer close to my house who slaughters his own chickens and we will buy them from usually the same day or the after they are killed. We've always got a few chickens in the freezer. That's some darn good tasting chicken, a lot better than what you get from the grocery.
I live in a farming and hunting community, I buy free range untreated meat from the farmer who gives me a far better deal than any supermarket. I also buy eggs, dairy and, fruits and veggies from local growers or pick them from my own garden. I only go to the store for cereal, peanut butter or, select items unavailable by the local population. It makes for a cruelty free, hormone free diet.

reply from: BossMomma

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
Peter Singer is a nutjob.
Yesterday morning as I was changing the baby I listened to all the different sounds he was making, attempting vocalizations. I thought, "That's the way it is. Man was designed and made to talk." A little later I saw a spider going up and down spinning his web. I thought, "That is what spiders do. He's doing the spider thing, because he was made and designed that way. He is doing what he was pre-programmed to do."
Man was made to be God. Animals were designed and made by God to do certain things. Bees will always only perform functions that bees were designed and made to do.
Peter Singer is a fool if he believes in evolution. Peter Singer is perverse to compare human beings to animals.
Peter Singer is the ultimate example of a fool who built his thinking on evolution. His thinking is defective to an infinite degree.
If man was made to be god over animals why are so many people killed by animals each year? The average stray cat is more adept at survival in harsh conditions than the average human. Ever hear the saying "You are a God in your own imagination"?

reply from: BossMomma

Did you mean to say that man was made to be like God?
I believe that man was made in the image of God, but not to actually be God.
Gods, not merely like God.
We are God's offspring. We are brothers and sisters of Christ.
The Bible tells us there is only one God, and after Him there shall not be another God. This does not negate the reality of His family. There is only one God family.
Like Jesus, we shall also be God. We shall not merely be like God. God calls us his children, and Jesus calls us brothers.
If you read the genealogies, Adam is God's son. It is written twice, "You are gods."
With the Bible so bluntly saying, "You are gods, you are God's offspring, you are God's children, you are God's son, you are a brother to Jesus", I take this literally, not figuratively. I say we are gods, not merely like God.
We are not the pet poodle or kitten.
Yet according to scripture we were meant to do nothing more than glorify god, much as our pets glorify us with wagging tails and wet kisses. You have a rather sickening arrogance when it comes to animals. You couldn't kill your god, but the average german shepherd could kill you rather easily if he felt the need.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I have stated several times that I believe traditional Christianity is wrong, in fact, that ministers are often Satan's ministers doing the devil's work.
Jesus clearly confesses, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus did everything His Father commanded Him. Jesus is number 2 in authority in God's family.
Jesus and the Father are different. Yet it is written that they are One, just as Jesus prayed we would be One with God, the Father and Son. (John 17:20-26) We are One in having a common nature and goals. We walk together on the same path (the Way).
There has been controversy raging among various Sabbath keeping groups as to whether Jesus was a created entity or has always existed with the Father.
It is my understanding that Jesus and the Father were co-existent when they declared, "Let Us make man after Our image, in Our likeness."
My understanding as to how things get done is that the Father gives the order, the Christ then commands the angels, the angels perform the work. Angels communicate to Holy men who pass God's Will unto mankind.
For now, man is a little lower than the angels. But later, man shall be put in charge over the angels.
Man's potential is referred to as "unlimited" in the Bible; man can and will be able to do anything. That's God level.

reply from: BossMomma

I have stated several times that I believe traditional Christianity is wrong, in fact, that ministers are often Satan's ministers doing the devil's work.
Jesus clearly confesses, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus did everything His Father commanded Him. Jesus is number 2 in authority in God's family.
Jesus and the Father are different. Yet it is written that they are One, just as Jesus prayed we would be One with God, the Father and Son. (John 17:20-26) We are One in having a common nature and goals. We walk together on the same path (the Way).
There has been controversy raging among various Sabbath keeping groups as to whether Jesus was a created entity or has always existed with the Father.
It is my understanding that Jesus and the Father were co-existent when they declared, "Let Us make man after Our image, in Our likeness."
My understanding as to how things get done is that the Father gives the order, the Christ then commands the angels, the angels perform the work. Angels communicate to Holy men who pass God's Will unto mankind.
For now, man is a little lower than the angels. But later, man shall be put in charge over the angels.
Man's potential is referred to as "unlimited" in the Bible; man can and will be able to do anything. That's God level.
If man is unlimited why do the blind need a dog to see for them? Why do the deaf need a dog to hear for them? Why do we need a dog to search for bombs, drugs, dead people, hell we have customs dogs to search for illegally imported produce.
If man is so unlimited why can't we do those things ourselves? Because we are limited, extremely so. All we have going for us is the ability to harness animal abilities to fit our needs. If the animal wont cooperate, we're SOL.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I have stated several times that I believe traditional Christianity is wrong, in fact, that ministers are often Satan's ministers doing the devil's work.
Jesus clearly confesses, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus did everything His Father commanded Him. Jesus is number 2 in authority in God's family.
Jesus and the Father are different. Yet it is written that they are One, just as Jesus prayed we would be One with God, the Father and Son. (John 17:20-26) We are One in having a common nature and goals. We walk together on the same path (the Way).
There has been controversy raging among various Sabbath keeping groups as to whether Jesus was a created entity or has always existed with the Father.
It is my understanding that Jesus and the Father were co-existent when they declared, "Let Us make man after Our image, in Our likeness."
My understanding as to how things get done is that the Father gives the order, the Christ then commands the angels, the angels perform the work. Angels communicate to Holy men who pass God's Will unto mankind.
For now, man is a little lower than the angels. But later, man shall be put in charge over the angels.
Man's potential is referred to as "unlimited" in the Bible; man can and will be able to do anything. That's God level.
If man is unlimited why do the blind need a dog to see for them? Why do the deaf need a dog to hear for them? Why do we need a dog to search for bombs, drugs, dead people, hell we have customs dogs to search for illegally imported produce.
If man is so unlimited why can't we do those things ourselves? Because we are limited, extremely so. All we have going for us is the ability to harness animal abilities to fit our needs. If the animal wont cooperate, we're SOL.
Man has not been handed the true riches yet. God says if we are faithful over the little we are entrusted with now, he will put us in authority over great things. We must overcome, even as Jesus did. For now, we have a physical body, limited capabilities, and limited authority. If we are faithful, Christ promises to share his throne with us, even as God has shared his throne with Christ. We will be given incorruptible spirit composed bodies, greater capabilities, more responibility and abilities. The existence of the disobedient will simply end; they will not inherit. The Father has yet to bestow the full true riches upon us.

reply from: BossMomma

Did you mean to say that man was made to be like God?
I believe that man was made in the image of God, but not to actually be God.
Gods, not merely like God.
We are God's offspring. We are brothers and sisters of Christ.
The Bible tells us there is only one God, and after Him there shall not be another God. This does not negate the reality of His family. There is only one God family.
Like Jesus, we shall also be God. We shall not merely be like God. God calls us his children, and Jesus calls us brothers.
If you read the genealogies, Adam is God's son. It is written twice, "You are gods."
With the Bible so bluntly saying, "You are gods, you are God's offspring, you are God's children, you are God's son, you are a brother to Jesus", I take this literally, not figuratively. I say we are gods, not merely like God.
We are not the pet poodle or kitten.
It never states that in the bible, it states that God created man out of dust and breathed life into him and gave him dominion over all the beasts of the earth, birds of the air and, fish of the sea. So the man gave all animals names. We are as shepherds, meant to care for the earth and thus far we've been doing a pretty sucky job of it.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Did you mean to say that man was made to be like God?
I believe that man was made in the image of God, but not to actually be God.
Gods, not merely like God.
We are God's offspring. We are brothers and sisters of Christ.
The Bible tells us there is only one God, and after Him there shall not be another God. This does not negate the reality of His family. There is only one God family.
Like Jesus, we shall also be God. We shall not merely be like God. God calls us his children, and Jesus calls us brothers.
If you read the genealogies, Adam is God's son. It is written twice, "You are gods."
With the Bible so bluntly saying, "You are gods, you are God's offspring, you are God's children, you are God's son, you are a brother to Jesus", I take this literally, not figuratively. I say we are gods, not merely like God.
We are not the pet poodle or kitten.
It never states that in the bible, it states that God created man out of dust and breathed life into him and gave him dominion over all the beasts of the earth, birds of the air and, fish of the sea. So the man gave all animals names. We are as shepherds, meant to care for the earth and thus far we've been doing a pretty sucky job of it.
Man has not been handed the true riches yet. God says if we are faithful over the little we are entrusted with now, he will put us in authority over great things. We must overcome, even as Jesus did. For now, we have a physical body, limited capabilities, and limited authority. If we are faithful, Christ promises to share his throne with us, even as God has shared his throne with Christ. We will be given incorruptible spirit composed bodies, greater capabilities, more responibility and abilities. The existence of the disobedient will simply end; they will not inherit. The Father has yet to bestow the full true riches upon us.

reply from: BossMomma

I have stated several times that I believe traditional Christianity is wrong, in fact, that ministers are often Satan's ministers doing the devil's work.
Jesus clearly confesses, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus did everything His Father commanded Him. Jesus is number 2 in authority in God's family.
Jesus and the Father are different. Yet it is written that they are One, just as Jesus prayed we would be One with God, the Father and Son. (John 17:20-26) We are One in having a common nature and goals. We walk together on the same path (the Way).
There has been controversy raging among various Sabbath keeping groups as to whether Jesus was a created entity or has always existed with the Father.
It is my understanding that Jesus and the Father were co-existent when they declared, "Let Us make man after Our image, in Our likeness."
My understanding as to how things get done is that the Father gives the order, the Christ then commands the angels, the angels perform the work. Angels communicate to Holy men who pass God's Will unto mankind.
For now, man is a little lower than the angels. But later, man shall be put in charge over the angels.
Man's potential is referred to as "unlimited" in the Bible; man can and will be able to do anything. That's God level.
If man is unlimited why do the blind need a dog to see for them? Why do the deaf need a dog to hear for them? Why do we need a dog to search for bombs, drugs, dead people, hell we have customs dogs to search for illegally imported produce.
If man is so unlimited why can't we do those things ourselves? Because we are limited, extremely so. All we have going for us is the ability to harness animal abilities to fit our needs. If the animal wont cooperate, we're SOL.
Man has not been handed the true riches yet. God says if we are faithful over the little we are entrusted with now, he will put us in authority over great things. We must overcome, even as Jesus did. For now, we have a physical body, limited capabilities, and limited authority. If we are faithful, Christ promises to share his throne with us, even as God has shared his throne with Christ. We will be given incorruptible spirit composed bodies, greater capabilities, more responibility and abilities. The existence of the disobedient will simply end; they will not inherit. The Father has yet to bestow the full true riches upon us.
If we are gods, we would be unlimited in our abilities already, we are not, we are mortal creations who need air and water and food just as any animal.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

BossMomma said:
If we are gods, we would be unlimited in our abilities already, we are not, we are mortal creations who need air and water and food just as any animal.
GL:
The Bible spends a lot of time saying we have not inherited yet. It says we are corruptible and subject to death. I believe it would be irresponsible to hand over full power and authority to an undemonstrated and unknow individual.
Before we vote for President it's good to "prove" the candidate. He should have a history of actions on which we base our decision on whether to put him in office.
No one is put into office in the Government of God without a proven history. A serial axe murderer will not inherit a position.

reply from: BossMomma

But you just posted that whole self glorifying shpeal about how humans are gods, now you're changing it to " we will be gods one day?" Make up your mind.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

But you just posted that whole self glorifying shpeal about how humans are gods, now you're changing it to " we will be gods one day?" Make up your mind.
God says he already calls us sons and daughters once we have received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Feast of Firstfruits). He calls us babies still drinking milk. However, God says He will complete the work that he has begun in us. He considers it a done deal. When we are mature adults, then we will inherit the Kingdom and He will put us in charge. You don't put a baby in charge as CEO of a major corporation, do you? However, that baby can still be considered to be in training and an heir for the position.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have stated several times that I believe traditional Christianity is wrong, in fact, that ministers are often Satan's ministers doing the devil's work.
Jesus clearly confesses, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus did everything His Father commanded Him. Jesus is number 2 in authority in God's family.
So you disagree with the Nicene Creed?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ah, I've always wondered about that. Many Bibles edit that so God isn't referring to himself in the plural sense. Others make the argument that it is a sign that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are a triumverate.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Ah, I've always wondered about that. Many Bibles edit that so God isn't referring to himself in the plural sense. Others make the argument that it is a sign that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are a triumverate.
Elohim is the most common Hebrew word for God and is plural, indicating more than one.
It is my understanding that Jesus is the God ancient Israel worked with directly. The Bible sometimes says it was the angel of the Lord that was dealing directly with Israel. It is my belief the Father never had direct contact with the patriarchs. I base this on the New Testament statement, "No one has seen or heard the Father at any time, the Son has declared Him." In the Old Testament it seems to say God (not His angel) spoke and was seen directly by Moses and the elders. Because it is written that the Rock, Christ, went with Israel in the wilderness; I conclude it was Jesus in the Old Testament declaring God to those who were called. King David also testified, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit by my right side ...." David's Lord was the Christ, the Holy one of Israel.
The Exodus is a physical picture of our Spiritual exodus out of bondage to sin. We bury the old man in the watery grave (Red Sea) and come out moving toward the Promised Land, not moving back to slavery to sin in Eygpt. Christ goes with us both in NT and OT versions.

reply from: JRH

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/04/singer
Uh, yeah 40,000 is more than 100. It is a weighing of utility. He would also pick 100 chimps over 20 new born human infants. I don't think you understand Utilitarianism

reply from: JRH

Peter Singer has made similar arguments. He has compared animals to mentally impaired human. He gets a bad rap around here for his views on infants but his animal rights work has made him the most influential philosopher of our age.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/04/singer
Uh, yeah 40,000 is more than 100. It is a weighing of utility. He would also pick 100 chimps over 20 new born human infants. I don't think you understand Utilitarianism
I don't think you understood the point....Singer asserts that the life of an animal has as much value as the life of a human being, does he not? Do you assert that it is acceptable to experiment on human beings against their will if more will be "helped" than were experimented on? Do you fail to see the implications of Singer's statement?
No, I fully understand them. I would shoot a 1000 crying children to save the world. I would condone such experiments if they were *guaranteed* to save more lives than they take.

reply from: JRH

Yes, but the situation as phrased made it a sure thing so he had no problems condoning it. You would have to ask him if in another state of the world, where it was not certain if he would approve. I doubt he would.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Concerned, that IS a very interesting article about God's name. GodsLaw is sounding to me like a polytheist.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to timeless existence and an unchangeable character: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.

reply from: BossMomma

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to timeless existence: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
We went over this in bible study this evening. God is spirit, God is neither male nor female but is refered to as he because in biblical times it was men who held authority. God made man and woman, he made every beast of the field and bird of the air and fish of the sea. God made every herb of the earth, he is that he is and according to the bible there is no God besides him, man and woman are made in his image but we are not equal to our creater. Man will inherit the kingdom of God but will still remain inferior and under the rule of the creater. We were never meant to be gods.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to unchangeable character and timeless existence: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
We went over this in bible study this evening. God is spirit, God is neither male nor female but is refered to as he because in biblical times it was men who held authority. God made man and woman, he made every beast of the field and bird of the air and fish of the sea. God made every herb of the earth, he is that he is and according to the bible there is no God besides him, man and woman are made in his image but we are not equal to our creater. Man will inherit the kingdom of God but will still remain inferior and under the rule of the creater. We were never meant to be gods.
Revelation 3:21 "To him who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne."
Rev 3:22 "To him who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says...."
Some people don't have ears that hear so well.
Rev 3:21 says Christ is going to share his throne, authority, position with the saints. We will be delegated (granted) some rulership authority. The Father, Jesus and saints will all be ruling together.
The Government will have a hierarchy. Christ's Lord is the Father. Our Lord is Christ. The Bible says some of us are like gold, others silver, others wood. Some will be given authority over ten cities, others five, others over one city. The degree of authority will vary from person to person.
None of us will be given the authority or power of the Father or Christ, however, God is not ashamed to call us sons and daughters and Christ calls us brothers and sisters.
We have a very close personal intimate family relationship with the Father and Son.
The saints will dwell with Christ when he returns to rule from Jerusalem. The "dogs" will not be allowed into the city, only the rightous have right to enter. After all rebellion is put down after the millennial reign is complete, even the Father Himself will come to dwell with man.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to timeless existence and an unchangeable character: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
LMAO KING JAMES VERISON!!!! Hahaha XD That's the most corrupted Bible out there. Go get a scholarly version. If you're going to literally interpret the Bible, at least get the actual real version of it, not the version that King James felt was "ok" for the common man to read.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to timeless existence and an unchangeable character: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
LMAO KING JAMES VERISON!!!! Hahaha XD That's the most corrupted Bible out there. Go get a scholarly version. If you're going to literally interpret the Bible, at least get the actual real version of it, not the version that King James felt was "ok" for the common man to read.
The "Received Text" (King James Version) is close to the "Majority Text" (Majority of Greek Manuscripts) and I believe is superior to the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus which are used for the translations of the last 150 years. The NIV, ESV, NASB, etc are based on the Siniaticus and Vaticanus because they are the oldest extant Greek Scriptures. However, I believe these two older documents actually exhibit more errors and omissions than the "Received Text". I do read and study the English Standard Version (ESV) and NASB (New American Standard Bible) because of the easier to understand modern English; plus they are both literal word for word translations as is the KJV. However, I believe I have seen the ESV and NASB are corrupted and fall short of the KJV.
The NIV (New International Version) may be the most popular version today because the translators were looser with the translation; it is a thought for thought translation rather than word for word. The NIV is the easiest to read and understand. However, the translators have let some of their own interpretations enter the text, plus I believe the original text from the Codexes were corrupt.

reply from: BossMomma

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to unchangeable character and timeless existence: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
We went over this in bible study this evening. God is spirit, God is neither male nor female but is refered to as he because in biblical times it was men who held authority. God made man and woman, he made every beast of the field and bird of the air and fish of the sea. God made every herb of the earth, he is that he is and according to the bible there is no God besides him, man and woman are made in his image but we are not equal to our creater. Man will inherit the kingdom of God but will still remain inferior and under the rule of the creater. We were never meant to be gods.
Revelation 3:21 "To him who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne."
Rev 3:22 "To him who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says...."
Some people don't have ears that hear so well.
Rev 3:21 says Christ is going to share his throne, authority, position with the saints. We will be delegated (granted) some rulership authority. The Father, Jesus and saints will all be ruling together.
The Government will have a hierarchy. Christ's Lord is the Father. Our Lord is Christ. The Bible says some of us are like gold, others silver, others wood. Some will be given authority over ten cities, others five, others over one city. The degree of authority will vary from person to person.
None of us will be given the authority or power of the Father or Christ, however, God is not ashamed to call us sons and daughters and Christ calls us brothers and sisters.
We have a very close personal intimate family relationship with the Father and Son.
The saints will dwell with Christ when he returns to rule from Jerusalem. The "dogs" will not be allowed into the city, only the rightous have right to enter. After all rebellion is put down after the millennial reign is complete, even the Father Himself will come to dwell with man.
Last I checked dogs all crossed the rainbow bridge, I imagine they have the big dog park in the sky. Who knows.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God identified himself to Moses as "I am that I am" according to the King James Version. Some have suggested this more properly be translated 'I am he who is" or "I am he who exists". Some suggest John gives us a fuller understanding of this term in Revelation 1:4 "...him which is, and which was, and which is to come...." Christ is referred to as "...the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrew 13:8 Also, Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM."
I AM seems to refer to unchangeable character and timeless existence: always present; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
We went over this in bible study this evening. God is spirit, God is neither male nor female but is refered to as he because in biblical times it was men who held authority. God made man and woman, he made every beast of the field and bird of the air and fish of the sea. God made every herb of the earth, he is that he is and according to the bible there is no God besides him, man and woman are made in his image but we are not equal to our creater. Man will inherit the kingdom of God but will still remain inferior and under the rule of the creater. We were never meant to be gods.
Revelation 3:21 "To him who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne."
Rev 3:22 "To him who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says...."
Some people don't have ears that hear so well.
Rev 3:21 says Christ is going to share his throne, authority, position with the saints. We will be delegated (granted) some rulership authority. The Father, Jesus and saints will all be ruling together.
The Government will have a hierarchy. Christ's Lord is the Father. Our Lord is Christ. The Bible says some of us are like gold, others silver, others wood. Some will be given authority over ten cities, others five, others over one city. The degree of authority will vary from person to person.
None of us will be given the authority or power of the Father or Christ, however, God is not ashamed to call us sons and daughters and Christ calls us brothers and sisters.
We have a very close personal intimate family relationship with the Father and Son.
The saints will dwell with Christ when he returns to rule from Jerusalem. The "dogs" will not be allowed into the city, only the rightous have right to enter. After all rebellion is put down after the millennial reign is complete, even the Father Himself will come to dwell with man.
Last I checked dogs all crossed the rainbow bridge, I imagine they have the big dog park in the sky. Who knows.
Dogs was a term used for sodomites; but it can be applied to a variety of morally degenerate people. The morally degenerate appear ready to seize more power in the US. Ultimately, this country may go the way of the Roman Empire and other nations that became sexually and morally degenerate; a footnote in history.

reply from: BossMomma

Dogs was a term used for sodomites; but it can be applied to a variety of morally degenerate people. The morally degenerate appear ready to seize more power in the US. Ultimately, this country may go the way of the Roman Empire and other nations that became sexually and morally degenerate; a footnote in history.
Well, these days I have a bit more respect for a dog than I do for the majority of my fellow humans so I don't call degenerates dogs.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics