Release International prayers for Iran and the Philippines.
- By LoricaLady
- Persecuted Christians
- 2 Replies
Thank you for your service.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And when a change in the priesthood happens there are changes in the law.
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the l
Is that something new? That is what I was taught and as far as I know most of Christianity believes that, so where is the lie you say we are living under?
The "old Priesthood Law" you are referringiswas the Sinai Covenant.
No, it was the Law that was the schoolmaster not some priesthood as you have implied. Be careful what you are trying to teach.
What does all you have written have to do with where we stand today?
Today we are under the New and Better Covenant Jesus ordained at Calvary, What the priesthood did or didn't do has nothing to do how we can come directly before Jesus and get remission for breaking His Law of Love, the command He gave all mankind to live by.
When I read the Bible, what I see is that none of the wars God waged had anything to do with the soldiers. ‘Not by valiant troops, nor by might, but in my spirit, says the Lord of hosts. Zechariah 4:6
In fact, God didn't even want them to think it was due to their mightiness that they won, because God was the one fighting for them. Then the LORD said to Gideon, “You have too many men for Me to deliver Midian into their hands, lest Israel glorify themselves over Me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’ Judges 7:2
These righteous wars were either God's judgment on wicked people, or his delivering his people from their enemies... his enemies.
So, what wars are you fighting?
That is a question I would ask myself if I were playing FPS games.
In fact, when I was playing a turn based strategy game, shooting and killing aliens, and my brother was playing a FPS, hearing the gunfire, the slashing of flesh, the screams and groan, caused me to ask myself, 'What's the difference between what he is playing, and what I am playing"'
The only difference was third person, as opposed to firs person.
I stopped playing. Why?
I asked myself two questions:
That did it for me. I did not try to rationalize playing the games.
- How does God feel about these games, and would I feel comfortable if Jesus came to my house and saw me playing these games?
I did not have to guess at the answer. It was right there in Psalm 11:5 The LORD examines both the righteous and the wicked. He hates those who love violence.
- Paul wrote at Romans 2:21-24 21 you, therefore, who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who [a]preach that one is not to steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one is not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who loathe idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast [b]in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
So, how can I be witnessing to people about what the Bible tells us about God, and at the same time not doing what it says? That's hypocritical.
I know it's hard letting go pf the things in Satan's world. After all, he is a skillful bird catcher, and knows what the bird will enjoy nibbling on.
However, as I was saying in the other thread, it's really commendable that persons really make the effort to gibe up things they cherish, just to please God.
You sure you don't want to make a game instead?
Adventure games are fun.
Please stop trying to make me add words that I never said. I never said AI was the authority or even appealed to its authority, I said AI came up with what I have been studying from the Bible for years. I can post my own Bible study that I have personally studied on Col 2:14-17 before I even heard of AI that I posted on this site a long time ago. Never once did I say AI is the authority or spoke of its authority over the word of God. I have said the opposite on several occasions, which you seemed to conveniently not quote. So best not to add words to someone who never said them.You must be confusing me with someone else, I never said Chatgpt was the authority, God's Word is and always will be.
I never said you did. You have however posted the output of an AI as an appeal to authority, in this thread:
AI understands the Sabbath and Col 2:16
Great question — Colossians 2:16 is often cited in discussions about whether Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath commandment (the Fourth Commandment). Let's look at the verse carefully, in its full context, and then assess whether it refers to the weekly Sabbath from the Ten...www.christianforums.com
Indeed, you specifically made this argument, when I pointed out the problems of using AI in this manner:
Asking AI to enumerate denominations by sized based on subjective categories, including the category of “denomination” which is itself subjective, is exactly the kind of question I was trying to warn you about. And in this case, it generated an answer you disagree with, by classifying your denomination as non-Sola Scriptura when you clearly believe that it is Sola Scriptura. This is my point. AI is not an oracle that can be used.
If you want to make a point, cite books, articles and research papers, not the output of an AI. The AI can help you find those materials, but what it says is sufficiently random and hallucination-prone to make it the literal epitome of an unqualified authority in the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Indeed I would argue asking AI a question and then relying on the answer without verification is only about 50% more reliable than attempting to use systems of divination, for example, the I Ching. Indeed AI could be used for purposes of divination, which is of course forbidden in Scripture.
And I say this as someone who professionally develops AI-based applications. AI is reliable for pattern matching - that’s it, and even then its output should be human-verified as a sanity check due to the risk of malfunctions such as hallucination, sycophancy, biased training data and non-deterministic replies.
This thread started with your claim that our "standard" view of human history was flawed because it missed the earlier development of "civilization" (fixed settlements, basically). One branch of evidence brought up fairly early was ancient stone working technology particularly as demonstrated by pre-dynastic Egyptian hard stone vase. These topics are entirely supported or not based on physical evidence behind. Even the related claims of "lost advanced technology" (whether it be stone softening or CNC-like machining) are based on *physical* methods that we either didn't know the ancients had or even we don't have. Again, these are physical technologies, whether we are talking about lathes or anti-gravity lift machines. They are not related to mystical experiences or the like. As such ancient spirituality is *not* relevant to these discussions. There are people who study ancient religion, spirituality, etc., but that is a different topic than what technologies the ancients had. That is why it is not on topic here. Every thread can't be about every thing.We don't know. But certainly its possible. Even todays science acknowledges this.
No, 'mind over matter' is motivational speaker pablum and not scientific.Mind over matter is a real science. But more importantly it is theorised as a real possibility.
Well your wrong on this occassion.
All I know is he selected one example and ignored the rest. Thats not dealing with the evidence. Qoute mining over one bit of my evidence is not dealing with the evidence.
I know how desperately you want to overthrow "scientific materialism" and the operational paradigm of science (methodological naturalism), but this just isn't the place. Discussions of the fundamental nature of reality are not on topic for a thread on ancient human civilization. Even if we accepted that claim what would it get you? That we have souls? I don't see how that changes early civilization or stone working technology.Yes and ideas like consciousness beyond brain and other phenomena can be studied scientifically. I gave you scientific articles on how Information. Knowledge, the Mind or Consciousness are claimed to be fundemental.
I would posit that I have at least as much direct experience with nature (and far more knowledge of reality) than even the common folk of Egypt. We must remember the fundamental reality of ancient Egypt (pre-dynastic, 4th dynasty, etc.): It was an urban civilization with extensive agriculture. The whole of the civilization was a bunch of cities and farms squeezed along the Nile River by the vast extents of inhospitable desert. The rulers, priests, stone artisans, and pyramid architects were city dwellers. That is no different that what I grew up in -- surrounded by farms with the occasional bit of woods and nearby cities. If anything I have *more* and more varied access to nature than the typical Egyptian. As for experience with reality, I've seen the rings of Saturn and the organelles of paramecia with my own eyes and no Egyptian (or any ancient person) knew they even existed.I am saying that the ancients knowledge comes from this aspect of reality through direct experiences with nature and reality.
What even is "alternative knowledge". Most of the times I see that phrase it is from people who just don't want to deal with reality. I'm going to give you grace and assume that you are talking about these more speculative theories that your favorite YT channels propose (about ancient megalith builders, advanced machining of vases, etc.) are ONLY going to be demonstrated with actual physical evidence, not any of these mind/behavior things.I would check again. We are trying to determine alternative knowledge. Is this not related to science at all. Do behavioural sciences count.
You're not going to get away with rejecting methodological naturalism in the *physical science* section. If that's what you mean by "alternative knowledge" then you are on the wrong sub-forum.The point is if this was a non science topic then how could we ever established alternative knowledge compared to methodlogical naturalism. First we can use some specific examples with the science. The science of observation shows us that the signatures don't match the orthodoxy.
It certainly is, but the things you just wrote are a literal rejection of science.The same science tells us the forensics of those marks. This then gives evidence that some other knowledge and tech was used. The science even tells us the possible method or what it took to make the mark. The science shows us that melting or softening stone takes a particular knowledge. It verified that the stone was melted and softened.
Science is all over this topic.
Good because simulation theory is dumb and not part of science. It is the kind of nonsense whipped up by rich tech bros while high.I don;t want a thread on simulation theory. I used the example to show that there are even ideas within science that propose alternative realities and knowledge.
“I now sing from a new place of hope.” ~ Lauren Moore
“He wants our hearts more than he wants to use us.” ~ David Moore
Aren't they supposed to be the same size?
Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.
I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.
Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".
I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.
As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is
Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.
On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.
If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused.
You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.
You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.