In other words, you now regret having gotten into the discussion, and are furiously back-peddling in a foolish attempt to escape the implications of the remarks you have already made.
Not at all Setanta. I was speaking in general about how I view things. I stand firmly on my beliefs and always will.
While I disagree with Arella Mae's position on the virtue of the God of the Old Testament, it should be obvious to all Christians the difference between the Old and New Testament God (it really is quite pronounce - the Old is a God to be Feared, the New is a Loving God), and ask how that is possible.
It's certainly not possible to argue that 'fear God' doesn't mean exactly that, because of the Acts he did, ordered done, or facilitated.
The question is - why the difference?
Did God change (in the book of Malachi it says "I am the lord your God. I change not.")? Well, by the book he doesn't, so what other possible reason is there for the difference?
Obvious reasons (if you aren't religiously inclined) include Using religion to justify ones actions (or provoke a peoples reactions), and misinterpretation of God/Gods will (if you are religiously inclined) - though this is problematic in the bible seeing as the bible claims to be devinely inspired (not dictated though).
Arella Mae wrote:Not at all Setanta. I was speaking in general about how I view things. I stand firmly on my beliefs and always will.
Saying "you always will" is a dangerous statement. It forces you to ignore current and potential future information which could further culture your beliefs. It's okay to believe what you do based on what you've been given, but to try and control what your given as a means to control what you believe is dangerous.
T
K
O
Arella Mae wrote:Not at all Setanta. I was speaking in general about how I view things. I stand firmly on my beliefs and always will.
And i was speaking specifically to just how stupid and blind your view is. As Diest points out, your viewpoint is ossified--you intend to believe it no matter what evidence there may be or which may arise that you are mistaken.
My understanding of the things of God I sincerely pray will always become deeper and clearer. But the basics of Jesus dying on the cross for my sins and God is all knowing, etc., won't change.
neologist wrote:Perhaps the qualities of the true God may be ascertained by observing his followers. (John 13:35)
precisely what made me reconsider Christianity
Arella Mae wrote:My understanding of the things of God I sincerely pray will always become deeper and clearer. But the basics of Jesus dying on the cross for my sins and God is all knowing, etc., won't change.
Precisely what Diest and i pointed out . . . you intend to believe something, without reference to any evidence, and despite any contradiction which may arise--your view is ossified.
You obviously have put your faith in the human beings who wrote the tripe you take as gospel.
As for your response to Beth, i take it you don't accept Matthew 7:16.
faith without works is dead
Arella Mae wrote:Quote:for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
I'm not assessing Christians based on their wardrobes.
Arella Mae wrote:The bible is God-inspired and God-breathed. Matthew 7:16 is speaking specifically of false prophets.
Perhaps this is what you mean?
Quote:John 13: 34: I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."*
Jesus wept, what a maroon.
No, i meant Matthew 7:16:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? -- in the King James Version. That is directly germane to your reponse to Beth, when you wrote:
Quote:But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
It's pretty damned pathetic when an atheist has to quote scripture for you because you just don't get it.
Arella Mae wrote:ehBeth wrote:I'm not assessing Christians based on their wardrobes.
I don't take that to mean their wardrobe ehBeth. I take that to mean their actions.
So, if they mean well (their heart is pure, they believe in God, and all that), but they behave badly, you're o.k. with it.
Excellent. It explains a lot about the state of the world today. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you believe in the one true God.
Setanta, read Matthew 7:15 it goes with 16. That is talking about false prophets. Perhaps you are talking about the fruit of the spirit?
ehBeth, where do you get that I'm ok with bad behaviour? I never said that, never implied that, etc.
I empathized with you because people's actions made you reconsider Christianity. I think that it is sad that you were faced with that. It does matter greatly what one does because our actions can have an effect on others. But when it comes down to the wire in believing in God or not believing I don't believe that decision should have anything to do with a human being.
Arella Mae wrote:Setanta, read Matthew 7:15 it goes with 16. That is talking about false prophets. Perhaps you are talking about the fruit of the spirit?
I've not only read it, i've read it several times, and i suspect i read it for the first time before you were born.
As for false prophets, i'd say that describes about 99% of the mealy mouthed christians in the world who are so fond of quoting scripture as though they have a unique understanding of "god's word" and its ultimate meaning . . . such as . . . oh, i don't know . . . maybe . . . like YOU?
Quote:So, if they mean well (their heart is pure, they believe in God, and all that), but they behave badly, you're o.k. with it.
Hi ehBeth, I know you were addressing Arella Mae in this one, but I'm curious if you could give an example action for your above quote - one that is consistent with Christian beliefs of course.
