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.
It was the church which had the upper hand, why would it want that? With the separation it lost control and power. You will need unearthed proof to back your statement because history says otherwise.
Well, we are not only talking about the US making the separation. We can't base our proof in only one nation when there are thousands that underwent the separation.America was like 95% Christian, but okay. I don't know what makes people today think that atheism was a thing in the 1700's. It's in all the literature and currency for crying out loud. Even the Founding Fathers, who people try to revise today as being atheists or deists when they simply just had anti-clerical ideologies.
Oh, how selfish of them for making their church look nice
Churches have their own right to cater to themselves as well. Sitting there and acting like they are wrong for not worshiping in a dilapidated stone chapel is ridiculous.
I can pretty much just put the same argument to the rest of what you've stated, I'm not going to sit here and have to convey the same message ten different ways. Such things are frivolous in the long run. You should get off your high horse.
Of course the church was affected. It was affected by the separation.Been there, done that. Government had no business in supporting or denying or fractionalizing or denominationalizing the Faith of each Christian. It had no business in meddling in church affairs. Sadly, that has been turned on its head by the president, congress, and the courts.
So you think it is acceptable to deceive if it furthers your case?If by virtue of the furthering of the doctrine of the trinity, some greater good is achieved that would not have been possible otherwise, and this furthering itself is brought about by virtue of some particular means of deception, then by virtue of the greater good that is achieved, the specific act of deception is acceptable.
Indeed this principle I think obtains not only to theological commitments, but to any commitment.
Whatever I do, my aim is that it be that which works the greater good.
I would not say He is like that. I would say He is right to expect sometimes we will not just satisfy our pleasure as the first priority. Wisdom always demands that sort of self control.
Is that what you tell yourself?Because my theological commitments will always lead me to act in such a way as to work towards the greater good.
Me being willing to kill at the command of God does not nullify this.
That's what apologists always say. He doesn't do his own dirty work. He gets someone else to do it.No. David. God gives egregious sinners 'over' to the Power of Lies... In each of these instances, He's not the one doing the lying.
I would think that certainly He would be jealous of something they put ahead of Him, yes. An obedient Christian will be healthy and not gluttonous. Gluttony is a cardinal sin, meaning that it does kill one's spiritual life. This does not mean to say that He would necessarily abandon them completely. He is long suffering and patient, allowing us to return to Him willingly (read the prodigal son story to see that).So an obese Christian who stuffs cream cakes down their throat is not one of Gods people? So that would be an example of them being attracted away would it? by seeking pleasure and a lack of self control.
Well, that's a disappointing answer. But He, like the rest of us, was born to die, being mortal.Thank you Daisy Day for joining in the discussion with us. Now to your question.
Before the actualization of this world, and in the eternal purposes of God and in accordance with His sovereign will from eternity past, Christ's death by crucifixion had been predestined to take place. By virtue of this, the question you ask contains within it a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent, in that in this actual world, it is not possible that Christ could have not been crucified.
I guess I don't understand your answer since the suffering and devastation was other people's and not His, so I don't see how more people suffering makes His sacrifice any different to Him one way or the other.I'd like to offer some more perspective on this. John 12:35 suggests that when He sacrificed His perfect ability to physically speak the truth on earth, and in His place He left faulty men described by Matthew 20:28, that the real sacrifice was to wait going on 2,000 years before the world would be redeemed - knowing that in the meantime the truth would be suppressed and the rule of God's kingdom contended, as He described in Luke 19:14. On the other hand, we can consider that if He had brought forward Armageddon to the day of reckoning (Matthew 26:53), He could have avoided a ton of suffering and devastation. So the real extent of His sacrifice is much greater than we naturally tend imagine at first.
You get to make up your own facts now? Cool.Since there are two questions here, I will address the first in an attempt to stay true to what I said I would do in my OP.
The first question contains a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent. The antecedent is comprised of the proposition:
"..if your allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing deity observes a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, would you hold it responsible for standing by, allowing it to happen, and saying nothing to anyone about it?"
It is an impossible antecedent by virtue of the fact
Could you try again, without the double negative, Mr. C. Philosopher?that God could not observe the aforementioned and not say nothing to anyone about it.
[apologist]Can Christian moral/ethics guide a decision in the trolley problem to a correct choice?
Why did you become a christian?When I use the term Christian, I use it to signify "one who follows Christ".
So why do I follow Him?
That is easy. I find Him so wonderful, so smart, so wise, so strong, so loving, so courageous, so powerful, so humble, so meek, so mighty, so adorable, so altogether lovely and so attractive that I dare not do anything else with my time but follow Him and live for Him all the days of my life.
I am in love with Him.
And this [hypothetical] God punishes people out of vengeance, for something beyond their control. But, if it's God, that must be good. Or something like that.Lazy god. Terrible leader. Cannot even convince people to change. Falls back on punishment. Why would anybody chose to adore someone like that?
Genesis 6:5-6 might help you with that. I quite like the NLT translation:the suffering and devastation was other people's and not His, so I don't see how more people suffering makes His sacrifice any different to Him one way or the other.
It will probably last while homo sapiens are recognizable as a species, right down to that core group that will be saying that same old line...I think Christianity will last forever, if by Christianity, you intend to signify "that worldview wherein Jesus of Nazareth is worshiped as God incarnate and messiah."
That's what apologists always say. He doesn't do his own dirty work. He gets someone else to do it.
There is the problem of there being no objective evidence for this character outside of a book, and if Jesus even existed, there is another problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?