Larniavc said:

A criticism easily levelled at Christians. Good is clearly subjective.

Click to expand...

There is general good, or is what is considered or deemed good most of the time. When most societies/tribes are functioning pretty normally or usually and all of that, etc. There is a general good that is considered good most of the time. It's when the world/societies/tribes are not functioning well or mostly normally that those lines can sometimes get blurred some of the time. It's a mostly temporary situation when that happens though most of the time.

Hans Blaster said:

If you want to know about the curvature of spacetime caused by that energy, sure.

No. Seriously, no. How many times will take `til you know that that just isn't true?

Good thing living organisms are made out of molecules instead.

Absolutely not.

Them's small cells.

Click to expand...

I believe God further educates his subjects into the creative power. Maybe one day you will meet up with the angel who created the house fly, whose reaction time is between 8 to 20 milliseconds. This is up to 12-25 times faster than a human, who takes about 200 to 250 milliseconds to respond to a visual stimulus. And maybe that angel will brag, *hard time catching that one!"

Bradskii said:

That there is no Sunday school version of the Pearly Gates? And no 72 virgins? That there is no reincarnation? And a lot of people following umpteen religions are afraid of death and they look to their religion as offering a continuation after death as some sort of prize for being good?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you told him that in those terms?

I'd also like to know how old he was maybe also? If you'd like to provide that information that is? And if not, it's really none of my business, and you don't have to tell me, etc.

Bradskii said:

Yeah, those are things that I expect any reasonable person to accept as a given.

Click to expand...

No offense @Bradskii, but those sound like absolutes to me, etc.

On a side note though, I do think it's pretty unreasonable to accept all of those things at face value, or how a lot of others usually present them, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's absolutely no truth to them at all, or that there is absolutely no kind of God, or God-like being, or an afterlife, or any other things like that, etc.

Bradskii said:

The kid is smart. If he hasn't thought much about those matters then when he does he'll come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

And again, no offense, but that also sounds like an absolute to me. I don't see how you think you can be so certain, etc. As atypically presented maybe, but maybe not absolutely, etc.

Bradskii said:

It's like telling him that the world isn't flat or that it's not 6,000 years old. It's a given.

Click to expand...

While I would agree with you about those things, I still think we should be careful about pressing all of our own beliefs (or non-beliefs) upon, especially very young children, 100% absolutely, but distinguish, etc. Distinguish between what we believe and think, and why, but letting them come to their own conclusions, etc.

Bradskii said:

Now when he's a little more mature and if he considers that there actually might be something beyond death, then that'll make for an interesting conversation over a couple of beers (I think he'll need another 5 years before his mother would allow that).

Click to expand...

I think you'd still need to be careful to distinguish your own beliefs or what you think from what is 100% true/not true 100% absolutely.

Bradskii said:

But I didn't tell him that there isn't anything like that and that's what he must believe.

Click to expand...

Didn't you though? Or am I maybe wrong about that?

Bradskii said:

And I'll state this again: The comments were not 'I don't believe in any of this, therefore...you don't get a second chance.' It's rather obviously 'I don't believe in any of this, but in any case...you don't get a second chance.'

Click to expand...

And that's an important matter to distinguish, and I would agree with you there, and I think I already stated as much, and/or said that already.

Bradskii said:

Whether he'll believe the first part will be up to him.

Click to expand...

But did you truly leave it up to him?

Because it might be something to think about or consider?

And maybe correct if you want to, or if you think it's needed, etc.

Or if not, don't, etc.

Bradskii said:

He's got no options on the second. It's as much of a fact as the world being round.

Click to expand...

That this life happens/can happen only once, and that it's very, very important? Because I 100% agree with you there, and I think I've said as much already, etc.

Take Care @Bradskii

PS- I hope you don't take any of this the wrong way, but I think it's something to consider, etc. But also like I said, also none of my business as to how you teach your children/grandchildren, etc.

Take Care.

d taylor said:

God's free gift of Eternal Life

Click to expand...

Oh come on; it’s not free. If he does not do what God wants he goes to Hell. It’s a conditional offer at best.

Teofrastus said:

People fall into that trap whenever they assume they already know what "the good" is and then fuse their self‑image with that supposed knowledge.

Click to expand...

A criticism easily levelled at Christians. Good is clearly subjective.

Unqualified said:

prick his conscience maybe.

Click to expand...

Are you going to joint the queue? If pricking his conscience is an option then there'll be representatives of a few religions requesting a word with him.

tall73 said:

If a word carries one known meaning, functioning as a technical term, then it does strengthen a case. But if it has multiple known meanings, then it is absolutely necessary to look at the meanings in context or you won't be able to know what is being discussed.

So we referenced that sabbatismos is derived from the verbal form, as the dissertation you quoted from points out, and for that reason the SDA Bible commentary looked at the verbal form.

We noted an instance of both the verbal and the noun form regarding uses for the Day of Atonement, for example. If you don't look at the context, and just read in weekly Sabbath, then it won't make sense of the text. The text talks about a Sabbath once per year on a certain date. It is clearly not the weekly Sabbath. So the context didn't make it less clear, but more clear, and just putting in the most common usage wouldn't make sense of the text here.

Or to put it another way, they note the ke meaning is "rest". The weekly Sabbath is part of that key meaning, but a particular application of it.

But anytime a word has multiple potential meanings, then it is necessary to look at context. And any time you come across new usage, you have to have an open mind as to what the author is saying.

Many verses have no variants, and if you wish to discuss individual variants we can.

Exactly. That is the top point for a reason.

Only one verse contains the word, and it is in a two chapter section that is all talking about one thing--the rest entered by faith "today" that he is inviting them to enter.

You did consult them. And there are multiple ones, so it is back to context. A dictionalry tells you the possibilities.

Click to expand...

As there are just two definition of "Sabbatismos" in Hebrews 4:9, may we dig deeper of what really is the context.

As the word "remain" which bears Strong#G620, in Greek "ἀπολείπω apoleipō" defined by Bible Lexicons as - to forsake or desert, to leave behind, be left etc.

To those who interpret that "Sabbatismos" as "eternal Sabbath rest," may we know even one Bible text that state the "eternal Sabbath rest" was forsaken or to forsake, left behind or to leave behind, be left and etc?

So that we could arrive to the true context of the verse.

This is now to illustrate the importance of context in this verse after consulting Bible Lexicons.

Heb 4:9 SoG686 there remainsG620 a SabbathG4520 restG4520 for the peopleG2992 of GodG2316.

G620 (Thayer Greek-English Lexicon)
ἀπολείπω apoleipō
1) to leave, to leave behind
2) to desert or forsake

G620 (Strong's Expanded Grekk-Hebrew Dictionary)
ἀπολείπω apoleipō
to leave behind (passively, remain); by implication, to forsake:
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

G621 (EDNT)
ἀπολείπω apoleipō
Jude 6: "left their proper dwelling"; 2 Tim 4:13,20; Titus 1:5; pass. in Heb 4:6,9; 10:26: be left.
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

Neogaia777 said:

Well, I thank you for sharing that, but in the post that everyone seems to have gotten in such an uproar about, it was kind of presented that you were speaking to your grandson (and age wasn't mentioned?) But and/or anyway, that you were presenting your beliefs to your grandson as absolutes...

Click to expand...

That there is no Sunday school version of the Pearly Gates? And no 72 virgins? That there is no reincarnation? And a lot of people following umpteen religions are afraid of death and they look to their religion as offering a continuation after death as some sort of prize for being good? Yeah, those are things that I expect any reasonable person to accept as a given. The kid is smart. If he hasn't thought much about those matters then when he does he'll come to the same conclusion. It's like telling him that the world isn't flat or that it's not 6,000 years old. It's a given.

Now when he's a little more mature and if he considers that there actually might be something beyond death, then that'll make for an interesting conversation over a couple of beers (I think he'll need another 5 years before his mother would allow that). But I didn't tell him that there isn't anything like that and that's what he must believe. And I'll state this again: The comments were not 'I don't believe in any of this, therefore...you don't get a second chance.' It's rather obviously 'I don't believe in any of this, but in any case...you don't get a second chance.'

Whether he'll believe the first part will be up to him. He's got no options on the second. It's as much of a fact as the world being round. And I might note that if there was any confusion about what I said, then in my very next post I clarified exactly what I meant:

'The advice stands whether there is an afterlife or not'.

Repeat those scriptures he gave when in doubt.

instruction

Bradskii said:

No, no and no again. You can't decide to believe in something. You can decide to investigate it. And decide to discuss it. And decide to ask people that you trust to tell you about it. And then, if you think that the evidence is sufficiently compelling then you will automatically believe.

You can't take the evidence, have an internal debate and conclude that it is absolutely compelling and decide not to believe it. And you can't reject the evidence yet decide that you will believe it.

And something tells me that in the first instance, if the guy has been around for 8 decades then he'll have heard all the arguments for and against and he will have made his conclusion. And in the second instance, just saying that he'll believe to get the grand prize of Eternal Life! ain't going to convince the guy offering said prize that it's genuine (hint: because He's omniscient).

Click to expand...

prick his conscience maybe. But without the conflict it would create what have you got. Just pray, no witness is going to work. But let Gods blessings speak for themselves.

d taylor said:

-​

Well if this person is still alive and has never believed in Jesus for Eternal Life. Then he still can believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life and in turn enter into death with Eternal Life living in him and like Jesus states.

Click to expand...

No, no and no again. You can't decide to believe in something. You can decide to investigate it. And decide to discuss it. And decide to ask people that you trust to tell you about it. And then, if you think that the evidence is sufficiently compelling then you will automatically believe.

You can't take the evidence, have an internal debate and conclude that it is absolutely compelling and decide not to believe it. And you can't reject the evidence yet decide that you will believe it.

And something tells me that in the first instance, if the guy has been around for 8 decades then he'll have heard all the arguments for and against and he will have made his conclusion. And in the second instance, just saying that he'll believe to get the grand prize of Eternal Life! ain't going to convince the guy offering said prize that it's genuine (hint: because He's omniscient).

Bradskii said:

Thanks Neo. I might take this opportunity, prompted by your comment above, to point out that intentionally indoctrinating anyone, let alone children, is anathema to me. And by indoctrinating I mean specifically telling someone what to think uncritically. And I'd use a couple of examples to back up what I mean.

My grandson's mother and her sibling (my kids in other words) didn't know I was an atheist until at least my daughter's late teens. It came up in conversation over dinner one evening and there was some surprise expressed by both. We obviously weren't church goers but both of them had been sent to Catholic schools. The reason for that was simply because my wife and I considered the boy's school and the girl's school to the best in the area. As a family we discussed most things over the dining table, but religion wasn't one of them. And they had thought that it was a given that we had some association with the Catholic Church. The question was then asked by my daughter: 'What if it happened that we'd decided to become Catholics?' And the answer, which seems blazingly obvious to me, was 'That's a decision that's entirely up to you. We can't decide that for you'.

Also blazingly obvious was the fact that if either of them had wanted to discuss religion then I'd have been open and honest about my own beliefs and we'd have another subject to talk about over dinner.

In addition to that, I was, up until recently, taking classes on Ethics at my Grandson's primary school (he's moved on to senior school now). That entailed taking a couple of dozen 9 year olds once a week for an hour. I'd read them a short story - maybe one of Aesop's fables or a short story about children their age working in India. Then asking them questions about it. Questions intended to prompt debate amongst themselves.

I remember the first couple of weeks when there was a reluctance on the part of the children to speak up about what they thought was right or wrong. Primarily because they were used to adults telling them what was right or wrong. I had to keep reminding them that that wasn't why I was there. I was there to ask the questions but they had to give the answers. And it was explained to them that there were no right or wrong answers.

Obviously, the whole exercise was to get children used to making ethical decisions themselves. And having a reason for making them. And not to decide that something was wrong simply because someone had told them that it was wrong. That being the very opposite of indoctrination.

I remember talking about the classes with one of the parents at some school function. And he telling me that he'd recently told his daughter that she couldn't do something. And when pushed 'But why??' used the usual 'Because I said so' that all of us parents have used at some time. And she said 'No, Daddy. Our ethics teacher says that you must have a reason'. I can't tell you how delighted I was.

Click to expand...

Well, I thank you for sharing that, but in the post that everyone seems to have gotten in such an uproar about, it was kind of presented that you were speaking to your grandson (and age wasn't mentioned?) But and/or anyway, that you were presenting your beliefs to your grandson as absolutes, etc. So maybe if you could provide a little bit more information about that story maybe, maybe these other people won't attack you anymore so much, or get in such an uproar about it maybe?

This story that you just now mentioned is interesting to me though, so I thank you for sharing it. I always like learning more about the lives of the people I know, or have been debating with/talking to on here, etc.

Take Care @Bradskii

Neogaia777 said:

But regardless of what I think, it doesn't shock me at all that people are indoctrinating their children/grandchildren in whatever they believe (or don't believe) pretty much everywhere...

Click to expand...

Thanks Neo. I might take this opportunity, prompted by your comment above, to point out that intentionally indoctrinating anyone, let alone children, is anathema to me. And by indoctrinating I mean specifically telling someone what to think uncritically. And I'd use a couple of examples to back up what I mean.

My grandson's mother and her sibling (my kids in other words) didn't know I was an atheist until at least my daughter's late teens. It came up in conversation over dinner one evening and there was some surprise expressed by both. We obviously weren't church goers but both of them had been sent to Catholic schools. The reason for that was simply because my wife and I considered the boy's school and the girl's school to the best in the area. As a family we discussed most things over the dining table, but religion wasn't one of them. And they had thought that it was a given that we had some association with the Catholic Church. The question was then asked by my daughter: 'What if it happened that we'd decided to become Catholics?' And the answer, which seems blazingly obvious to me, was 'That's a decision that's entirely up to you. We can't decide that for you'.

Also blazingly obvious was the fact that if either of them had wanted to discuss religion then I'd have been open and honest about my own beliefs and we'd have another subject to talk about over dinner.

In addition to that, I was, up until recently, taking classes on Ethics at my Grandson's primary school (he's moved on to senior school now). That entailed taking a couple of dozen 9 year olds once a week for an hour. I'd read them a short story - maybe one of Aesop's fables or a short story about children their age working in India. Then asking them questions about it. Questions intended to prompt debate amongst themselves.

I remember the first couple of weeks when there was a reluctance on the part of the children to speak up about what they thought was right or wrong. Primarily because they were used to adults telling them what was right or wrong. I had to keep reminding them that that wasn't why I was there. I was there to ask the questions but they had to give the answers. And it was explained to them that there were no right or wrong answers.

Obviously, the whole exercise was to get children used to making ethical decisions themselves. And having a reason for making them. And not to decide that something was wrong simply because someone had told them that it was wrong. That being the very opposite of indoctrination.

I remember talking about the classes with one of the parents at some school function. And he telling me that he'd recently told his daughter that she couldn't do something. And when pushed 'But why??' used the usual 'Because I said so' that all of us parents have used at some time. And she said 'No, Daddy. Our ethics teacher says that you must have a reason'. I can't tell you how delighted I was.

Jan001 said:

If a person desires to inherit eternal life, he must obey God's commandments.

This obedience to God requires him to refrain from doing evil works and to lovingly do the righteous works that the Father prepared beforehand for him to do.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Matthew 7:21

We must obey. This obedience is a righteous work! Matthew 7:13-14, Luke 13:23-27

1 Peter 4:17
For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Click to expand...

I think the point they are trying to make is that obedience is never a work of ours, but it is something that you will automatically do if God has already chosen that for you (from before the foundations of this world) completely apart from your own will or input and it won't be able to happen any other way, etc.

Thinking obedience is a work of ours leads to the sin of pride/thinking you're better than other people, which God hates. We also should not ever try to judge who's being obedient and who's not in each individual case, since that will also lead to sin which God hates as well, etc, and because obedience to God's will, is going to look a whole lot different for each individual case, and might not always outwardly look like obedience to the OT commandments.

Timing is another thing we don't know about when it comes to other people also, but that's all in God's already foreknowing about/full authority, etc. Ours is only to present the life saving/soul saving good news about the gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and not try to force anything else after that/beyond that, or from there, etc.

Ours is to be the best living example that we can after that, and allow other people to come to us if and when they want to after that, etc. And if they do come back to us after that, be very, very careful/gentle with them after that, speaking only as much as necessary, and keeping our mouths closed when and where we should accordingly, and allowing them to talk and/or speak, as much as we possibly can before we talk/speak some more again, etc.

This entire process, if they do come back to us, always needs to be handled with the most delicate and utmost care, etc. If you're not doing this this way, then I don't really know if you're truly one of his, or know who he really is, etc.

God Bless.

tall73 said:

I was referring to SabbathBlessing's AI comment above.

But also, I did cite the SDA Bible Commentary. And of course, they quoted Ellen White.

There is a different standard for publishing a dissertation, which aims at new research, and publishing a commentary which is intended to give, in the view of the editorial team, etc. a view of the denomination.

But apart from that the whole point of majority/minority is that there is both. So yes, obviously some do take the other view.

You might want to look at one of Ellen White's references to this:

And thus the mountain from which the words of benediction were spoken came to be known as the mount of blessing. But it was not upon Gerizim that the words were spoken which have come as a benediction to a sinning and sorrowing world. Israel fell short of the high ideal which had been set before her. Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith. No longer is Gerizim known as the mount of the Beatitudes, but that unnamed mountain beside the Lake of Gennesaret, where Jesus spoke the words of blessing to His disciples and the multitude.​

Ellen White--Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing Chapter 1​

What does she mean by the underlined sentence? And why would they quote it in the SDA Bible commentary for that section of Hebrews?

I won't add to that so that I am not accused of misrepresenting. But you can read on it.

Click to expand...

Actually misrepresentation had been done as nothing in the whole paragraph below that Hebrews 4:9 was quoted.
Through context, the whole paragraph speaks about "blessing" if they obey the commandments of God, and "curse" to those who will disobey.
On another hand Joshua must guide God's people to the true rest of faith, I believe obedience to God's commandments, and nothing about Hebrews 4:9 as places mentioned Gerizim and Gennesaret were literal places.

More than fourteen centuries before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the children of Israel gathered in the fair vale of Shechem, and from the mountains on either side the voices of the priests were heard proclaiming the blessings and the curses--"a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God: . . . and a curse, if ye will not obey." Deuteronomy 11:27, 28. And thus the mountain from which the words of benediction were spoken came to be known as the mount of blessing. But it was not upon Gerizim that the words were spoken which have come as a benediction to a sinning and sorrowing world. Israel fell short of the high ideal which had been set before her. Another than Joshua must guide His people to the true rest of faith. No longer is Gerizim known as the mount of the Beatitudes, but that unnamed mountain beside the Lake of Gennesaret, where Jesus spoke the words of blessing to His disciples and the multitude.

tall73 said:

Exactly, which is why they looked at the verbal form in the SDA Bible commentary primarily. You have the verb to baptize, and then the noun, a baptism. But because of its nature of being a substantive describing an action it is indefinite.

And the same is true here. It is a sabbath-like rest. That may be the weekly Sabbath, or a different Sabbath, or as used in Origin a more abstract meaning of sabbath rest. But that is what the majority of scholars think is being done in Hebrews 4 as well, a more abstract reference to spiritual rest that we enter "today" as we rest from our works.

Click to expand...

I don't think Joshua's "rest" as spiritual, again through your quotation of EGW, Gerizim and Gennesaret were literal places and the second definition of "Sabbatismos" as - rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come, the perpetual sabbath "rest" to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son.
Through definition, I believe it doesn't add up.

tall73 said:

Right, always....except...the times it doesn't. And of course Chrysostom applies Hebrews 4 as referring to other than the weekly Sabbath, as does the SDA Bible commentary.

Click to expand...

I may agree with EGW's Bible commentary, but I wholly agree that made clear in the 18th SDA Fundamental belief that "the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested," as knowledge is progressive.

tall73 said:

Also, you ought to look up those "pejorative" statements. Some could even apply to more than just the weekly.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was described as sometimes.

tall73 said:

Certainly no one doubts that the context of Hebrews 4 makes reference to God's cessation from His creative work. The point being that the rest being spoken of, entered by faith, a resting from works, that we enter "today" is an additional rest to that referred to in the Sabbath command, to rest once per week on the seventh day, in the context.

Click to expand...

From this conclusion, we seems in agreement.

tall73 said:

They are not the same though. Because the sabbatismos in the context of Hebrews 4 is ongoing, entered "today", rather than intermittent on the 7th day.

Click to expand...

I believe TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) was being authored by more than 100 international scholars and defined "σαββατισμός sabbatismos" and on the other the Sabbath rest which is to be observed as a cessation from all work on the seventh day etc.

tall73 said:

Both refer back to God's rest at creation, however. And certainly they are related concepts of resting (but so were the Day of Atonement, Trumpets, etc.)

Click to expand...

I believe "Day of Atonement" wasn't listed as one definition of "Sabbatismos."

tall73 said:

Right, which is ongoing, and not once a week.

Click to expand...

To confirm, is your response above refer to the definition of "Sabbatismos" below?

G4520 (EDNT)
σαββατισμός sabbatismos
1. it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the
of God (cf. 4:9 with v. 6 a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works,
2. so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God's "place of rest"
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

tall73 said:

Right, in contrast. Not in contrast as regards to resting. But as it is used in Hebrews it is perpetual, ongoing, not once a week.

Click to expand...

Again to confirm, I believe response was given without reading Exodus 16:30 the reference of Hebrews 4:9.
For ready reference I'll quote the text below.

Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

G4520 (Vine's Expository Dictionary)
1. Sabbath-keeping," is used in Heb 4:9, RV, "a sabbath rest," KJV marg., "a keeping of a sabbath" (akin to sabbatizo, "to keep the Sabbath," used, e. g., in Ex 16:30)
2. the perpetual sabbath "rest" to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son, in contrast to the weekly Sabbath under the Law. Because this sabbath "rest" is the "rest" of God Himself, 4:10,

tall73 said:

Right, notice the indefinite--a sabbath rest.

Click to expand...

The word "remain" in Hebrews 4:9, bears Strong#G620, in Greek "ἀπολείπω apoleipō" defined by Bible Lexicon as - to forsake or desert, to leave, to leave behind.

To those who believe that the Sabbatismos as "the perpetual sabbath "rest" to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son, or indefinite sabbath rest," was once forsaken or being left behind?
It sound eisegesis.

G620
ἀπολείπω apoleipō
Thayer Definition:
1) to leave, to leave behind
2) to desert or forsake

It’s not impossible to understand, if the person would just read a commentary or go to church and study it.

Jesus Christ is "The Word of God" (Rev 19:13) meaning that His Father gave Him all things which includes the very words of God! And with that the instructions came from His Father, through the cloud (The Holy Spirit), to "LISTEN TO HIM"!

And every Christian church I go lifts up the Bible as The Word of God, instead of our Lord God Jesus Christ. And I have trouble with it, because do listen to Him and what He says is incredible. Yet it is mostly incredible because it is so personal, unlike the Bible which was written to everyone in order that we might seek Jesus Christ and His voice so that we might get a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And the special part of that personal relationship is found in the little things, like Him sometimes guiding my steps, telling me when to turn to the right or left quite literally, telling me what to eat, what clothes to wear, and those words that start with me name, "Karl, I love you." This is strange to me to this day, because I try to be logical and not emotional, but those words still affect me. Who am I that He should tell me He Love me?

And indeed, when I go to church it seems impossible to actually find someone to talk to that really seems to understand this. Yet it someone seems the author of the OP understands. Yet there are a few things in the OP that are not quite right.

For example - Though I have trouble finding someone who understands my walking and talking with the Lord Jesus Christ personal, He still seems to keep sending me back to church. Not like He has to have me at church every Sunday, and sometimes gives me breaks from church for a season, but He still calls the people in general, "His people". So it is at church, His people, that He wants to help. He wants to speak to them and His heart is on hoping they will start listening to Him, as His Father instructed.

Ps 81:13 “Oh that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!

He once told me that above verse was His heart. It is not just what His Father wants, but it is what He wants, so very much.

Therefore He take me to church in hopes to use me to get this message across.. It is our message to others, even other Christian.

Heb 3:13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

So it is not the churches that we are to come out from among, but the churches which are filled with people that should listen to Him, that I am sent to; like Ezekiel

Ezekiel 3:4 Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them.

That is the kind of assignment that He gives me.

Well if this person is still alive and has never believed in Jesus for Eternal Life. Then he still can believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life and in turn enter into death with Eternal Life living in him and like Jesus states.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Unless he has judged himself unworthy of everlasting life, which very well may be the case and will die in unbelief and await his judgment at the great white throne.

Look, @Bradskii has a right to teach his children/grandchildren whatever he wants, regardless of what we might think about it, etc.

The reason I didn't react the same way you guys did, is because I'm not at all surprised by it, like the rest of you were, etc. It's almost like you don't know what's going on in the world, and I do, etc. It's an atheistic family (probably) and this is probably going on in almost all atheistic/non-believing families everywhere, etc, and none of us should be surprised by it, etc.

His grandchild could change his mind later on also, etc, decide Grandpa was somewhat jaded, or had a somewhat jaded perspective/point of view, and wasn't evaluating this subject honestly, or something like that, and then begin to explore the possibility for themselves later on maybe, etc.

I get it though, and I don't think it's right to teach any child absolutes either, etc, as part of being a child should be allowing them to be open to any or all possibilities, and fully explore/evaluate them for themselves, etc.

But regardless of what I think, it doesn't shock me at all that people are indoctrinating their children/grandchildren in whatever they believe (or don't believe) pretty much everywhere, etc. And my only hope is that those children will be allowed to think for themselves at some point, which is what these children are right now being robbed of, etc, but I would also like to note, that I this also applies to some christian families as well, etc.

But regardless of what I might think or feel about that, or any of it, etc, it doesn't at all surprise or shock me at all, because I both know, and expect, for it to be going on and/or happening everywhere in the world, etc, so I don't understand why you guys are so shocked by it, etc. I might think it's not exactly right, but it's to be expected, etc.

And if you guys don't already know this, then you need to wake up/take another look around, because it shouldn't at all surprise you even one bit, that this is going on and happening everywhere, etc. And it's his family, and not ours, and so we don't have any kind of authority over them, but people like @Bradskii does right now currently, etc. You also have authority within your own individual families, and should teach them what you think, or how you would like them to think, etc.

Anyway, God Bless.

Aryeh Jay said:

I, for one, am looking forward to my government supported and paid for gender reaffirming shots and care. This woke garbage has got to be defeated by testosterone fueled supermen.

Click to expand...

I disagree. People dare to claim that Hegseth isn't woke? What more evidence is needed than this? Such a progressive person. Affirming genders like this.

Landon Caeli said:

Stop bullying me.

Click to expand...

I'm not. Just commenting on a post that seemed indignant that someone would base their judgement on peoples actions instead of their religion, background or appearance. Doesn't sound like that high of a bar that you'd need to start acting like they were claiming to be a saint.

Hans Blaster said:

I do however agree with the full statement in #108. If you thought we felt any differently about the gods we don't think exist you've been living in your own head.

Click to expand...

'What's a 108?'

'It's a statement which is rejected by a Christian purely because it's been made by an atheist'.

7thKeeper said:

Sounds like someone hit a sore spot.

Click to expand...

Stop bullying me.

AV1611VET said:

No no!

As I pointed out earlier ... you guys must think MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Click to expand...

I've not seen anyone suggest such a thing. Yet you are saying that what you should fight for is God's glory. As it makes you a better human.

I can't be bothered even giving examples of how galactically wrong you are.