This thread is like a car crash. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself.
Put your hand up if you are tearing your hair out.
Put your hand up if you are tearing your hair out.
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.
Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies
- Thread starter deathduck
- Start date
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
You haven't even read the thing. The articles not sourced primarily by the Bible, only when defending against internal 'disputes'. Like 'contradictions' or misinterpretations. Which aren't very common...
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
Yes, I have.
This doesn't make any sense. You argue content in the bible. You provide articles and/or content that argues for content in the bible. It's circular. There's no way of getting around it because it's a fact. Show me one article that adresses bibilical content that isn't based on the bible...or biblical content. Geese Louise.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
You've read the entire Apologetics Study Bible? If that's the case, then why are you telling me the articles are circular when a good number of them work at supporting the reliability of the thing?
I'm arguing the reliability of the Bible. Let me give you a name of a title: "How Has Archaeology Corroborated the Bible?", Walter C. Kaiser Jr. I'm not arguing content in the Bible. I'm arguing what my faith, the Christian faith, is based on. Go get yourself the Bible, look at the resources, and in the meantime quit trying to accuse me of being circular.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
Again, I'm not accusing. I'm stating that you are in fact engaging in cicurlar sourcing because that's all bibilical referancing can do. I'm sorry if that dismays you on some level. And, even if there is archaeolgy corroborated with the bible, it doesn't mean that the source isn't the bible. It is. Deal with it.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Do you understand what a study Bible is? It does not just contain the Bible. The specific study Bible I am talking about uses over 100 different books and articles as a reference. You're not stating anything, because I'm not arguing that the Bible is reliable because it calls itself reliable. I'm arguing that it's reliable upon the basis of logic that many other people have already put together, and I am giving you the source where you can find those works. That is not circular reasoning or sourcing. In order to be able to show how the Bible is reliable, you have to be able to quote it and analyze how it came about, and what backs its claims.
Anyhow, if archaeology is corroborating the Bible, you have to cite the Bible to figure out what find corroborated what part of the Bible, and that is not circular. That's called corroborating. You'd try to do the same thing with any other historical work out there.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
Sorry, it is indeed circular reasoning. It doesn't really matter any way even though a few of you try to grasp at terms like "logic" etc. Or others that prefer the contradiction "christian science". If it makes you feel good on some level, than why not.
Where is the corroborating evidence of hell doctrine seen in the bible? That would be interesting to review.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Ad hominem, your first point, and your second point is off topic and a complex question.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
Perhaps, but the fact remains that you charge people for lacking logic in their posts when your positions simply resides outside logic. I am interested in why so many attempt to align their religious beliefs with science, reason, etc. I'm sure there's a thread addressing it somewhere on this forum.
It's a complex question because no such evidence exists.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
It amazes me how you accuse me of lacking logic yet still have not been able to back those accusations.
No, it is a complex question because it is framed to ignore any other kind of evidence.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
I'm not sure which accusations you're referring to. That your positions lack logic? This entire thread is evidence of that. That some christians desire to align their faith with science? The crevo forum covers that one.
I am fully capable of reviewing any evidence when I see it and I'm capable of discerning bologna when I see it. What's more likely is that you aren't able to provide evidence of hell doctrine outside the bible. If you have it, please post it.
Upvote
0
B
Braunwyn
Guest
Just like reason and evidence isn't necessary. The only requirment is faith.
Upvote
0
Meshavrischika
for Thy greater honor and glory
Philip saw the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53, he was instructed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:29) to "Go up and join this chariot." Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading. The eunuch replied, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides Me?" (v. 31). Acts 8:32-40 goes on to relate that Philip explained how this Eunuch could become a Christian. He responded and was baptized.
The point is that there can be no salvation without an understanding of the gospel message. Paul throughout the book of Acts participates in reasoning, debating, contending with people so they can understand the message of salvation. And so children must be old enough to understand the gospel, which involves a comprehension of their own personal sin and guilt.
This brings the next question: At what age would that be?
The Talmud from ancient times designated age thirteen for boys ("Bar Mitzvah,"--cf. Judaism, Arthur Hertzberg, p. 100) and twelve for girls ("Bat Mizvah"). This was the time when Jewish boys and girls became responsible for themselves and were to observe all the rituals, feasts, etc., incumbent upon them as members of the Jewish community.
The confirmation services for the young which are practiced in all Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and some Protestant churches are based on the earlier Jewish traditions above. All of them, including the Jewish community, have traditionally set the "age of accountability at about age twelve.
Luke records the incident at the temple where a twelve-year-old Jesus lagged behind his family and was found (three days later!) in the temple "sitting amidst the teachers both listening to them and asking them questions. . .And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers."(Luke 2:46,47).
Another passage which marks out this demarcation is found in Nehemiah 8:1-3. "And the people gathered as one man, . . .and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women, and all who could listen with understanding. And he read from it before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, thosewhocould understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law. . .And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading (v.8). By implication, the younger children--those without understanding--were not present.
In Matthew 19:13-15, our Lord says as the children we being hindered from coming near to Him, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, and after laying His hands on them, He departed. . ." He associates children with the Kingdom of Heaven is because it is the place of the innocent, the blameless. It would appear that Jesus sees children in this light. The whole trend of Scripture seems to teach that the children who are too young to sin and too young to accept Christ intelligently (with understanding!), are safe in the arms of a just and holy God.
I am not saying children younger than this "accountability age" commit no acts that could be considered sinful, because of their fallen nature, they do these things spontaneously. What I am saying is that up to the point when they reach clear understanding, they do not come under the judgment of the Law.
(from a lesson by J.Williams)
The point is that there can be no salvation without an understanding of the gospel message. Paul throughout the book of Acts participates in reasoning, debating, contending with people so they can understand the message of salvation. And so children must be old enough to understand the gospel, which involves a comprehension of their own personal sin and guilt.
This brings the next question: At what age would that be?
The Talmud from ancient times designated age thirteen for boys ("Bar Mitzvah,"--cf. Judaism, Arthur Hertzberg, p. 100) and twelve for girls ("Bat Mizvah"). This was the time when Jewish boys and girls became responsible for themselves and were to observe all the rituals, feasts, etc., incumbent upon them as members of the Jewish community.
The confirmation services for the young which are practiced in all Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and some Protestant churches are based on the earlier Jewish traditions above. All of them, including the Jewish community, have traditionally set the "age of accountability at about age twelve.
Luke records the incident at the temple where a twelve-year-old Jesus lagged behind his family and was found (three days later!) in the temple "sitting amidst the teachers both listening to them and asking them questions. . .And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers."(Luke 2:46,47).
Another passage which marks out this demarcation is found in Nehemiah 8:1-3. "And the people gathered as one man, . . .and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women, and all who could listen with understanding. And he read from it before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, thosewhocould understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law. . .And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading (v.8). By implication, the younger children--those without understanding--were not present.
In Matthew 19:13-15, our Lord says as the children we being hindered from coming near to Him, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, and after laying His hands on them, He departed. . ." He associates children with the Kingdom of Heaven is because it is the place of the innocent, the blameless. It would appear that Jesus sees children in this light. The whole trend of Scripture seems to teach that the children who are too young to sin and too young to accept Christ intelligently (with understanding!), are safe in the arms of a just and holy God.
I am not saying children younger than this "accountability age" commit no acts that could be considered sinful, because of their fallen nature, they do these things spontaneously. What I am saying is that up to the point when they reach clear understanding, they do not come under the judgment of the Law.
(from a lesson by J.Williams)
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
In order to HAVE faith, you have to have the evidence and proof to BACK said faith.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Why? Why do they have to understand it to be held accountable, and where is that in the Bible? Also, how would anything you cite reconcile with Romans 1?
Key words in there- tradition.
And? That implies that He had understanding before the age of 12. He did not suddenly get zapped by a lightening bolt and receive great understanding, that would be contrary to what we know about human development.
That is incorrect. By implication, those who could not listen with understanding were not present. That does not necessarily mean young children are not there. If there were women present and men present, who would be watching the kids? This is why it says 'all the people'.
Show me, conclusively, that this was Jesus' meaning and intended message in Matthew 19. You see, if you cannot, this is reading into Scripture. Subjecting God and Scripture to our own ideas rather than taking steps to properly interpreting it.
Wonderful, you know how to copy paste an article. However, this is not backed by the Scripture it cites. Indeed, it fails to cite Scripture to back its most important points, which ironically are the points you underlined.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
