BCP1928 said:

I gave you one example, surely you have some of your own. To your mind, what makes a really "masculine" male? A really "feminine" female?

Click to expand...

Just answer the questions. You gave an example, but you avoided the question. If someone has those traits are they trans? And what traits and emotions are you referring to? I'm going to ask you another question. What traits and emotions would female have to have in order to be trans?

I'm really wondering if you can even answer those questions. I'll be happy to answer yours if you answer mine first.

Lost4words said:

Wrong.

God is the creator of everything. He has given humankind something more than any other creature on earth.

He has given us the ability to learn, to explore and to understand the beauty of His creation.

Click to expand...

Did you try reading my post?
The remark that science is a gift from God has been used to denigrate the accomplishments of scientists yet if science gets it wrong than God gets a free pass.
I don't have to name the particular individual concerned who has a long history of blaming science for things that don't even involve science and then idiotically asserts that science is a gift from God.
This individual seems to be blissfully unaware he is denigrating God in the process.

I am a firm believer in free will and the credit and the failures of science fall with the scientists not God.

Facebook removed this photo of mine. Makes no sense. Said was misleading to get likes

RileyG said:

Interesting. Thanks for your insight and wisdom!

Click to expand...

Thank you. Its always great to read information that are from well versed people, and those that articulate it well as yourself and others. You see when someone says Presbyterian" that can mean an array of things, just like those that say they are Methodist or Baptist. So are you a mainline Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist or an offshoot or splinter group. Presbyterians can differ as night and day. The parish I was part of was very High Church and perhaps similar to a Low Episcopal or Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. WE did not promote or really push or believe in predestination to the degree as Orthodox Presbyterians or other groups. My church was not very austere at all, in fact it had more stained glass windows with Jesus and the Disciples, Gethsemane , The Crucifixion etc. There were more that 160 stained glass. It was highly ornate, much more than a standard Anglican or Episcopal Church or Lutheran. Probably more on the lines of a Roman Catholic Church without statues. Funny how we assume things about denominations and churches that can be totally wrong. I have seen a mainline Baptist service that was very similar to a Presbyterian or Methodist service, very different than a Southern Baptist or General Baptist. It just all depends, right?

Hammster said:

I’ve already addressed your argument in this thread. Just because I didn’t quote your exact post doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring your argument. If you really need me to quote you and respond, I guess I can do that.

Click to expand...

OK, OK, I guess, I guess. It is time to take your own OP seriously and stop the incessant stonewalling.

You never provided an intelligent response to my argument that Calvin views us all as puppets - prove me wrong on this with an exact quote. The fact that Calvin never explicitly says that we are in fact puppets is immaterial. From Post 5 we see that Calvin stated that God governs our counsel, will, and movements. We cannot function independently when someone else governs those three things - thus Calvin positions us all as God's puppets - that is an incredibly simple argument! I am not straw-manning Calvin as I am arguing verbatim from his own words.

SarahsKnight said:

I remember some guy who was here for a brief while a year or two ago always complaining about how girls will never want a kissless virgin. He acted like it was utterly hopeless for him just on account of that.

I wanted to say, so what? Apart from one day when I was 11 and was cheered on to kiss a girl named Amy on the cheek by everyone around us, I'm a kissless virgin too, and I will be 40 next month.

Far as I am concerned, nothing any more wrong with that than someone's long having not been a virgin by that age. It's the heart of a person in either case that matters. Even Scripture hints greatly at this.

For all I know? A lady might find my being a "kissless virgin" at my age endearing or even cute, someday.

I really don't think being inexperienced in love is as much of a shallow turn-off as a few angry incels might insist.

Click to expand...

I can't claim to speak with a great deal of authority as I don't have a lot of dating experience, but I've always found it to be the case that discussions about things like being a "kissless virgin" don't come up in the early stages of dating. It's the sort of thing you only start talking about once you've got to know each properly, by which time you've had an opportunity to assess each other and determine whether or not you think a relationship is worth pursuing and history (or lack of) won't be too important at that point.

I've no way of knowing this, but I'm convinced that those guys who claim they get rejected for being virgins are bringing it up way too early, and that's the thing that turns women off.

John Mullally said:

Okay to what explicitly? Is this another nothing-burger.

Click to expand...

I’ve already addressed your argument in this thread. Just because I didn’t quote your exact post doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring your argument. If you really need me to quote you and respond, I guess I can do that.

essentialsaltes said:

They have that in common with Jews. Maybe there's the avenue for peace & unity.

Click to expand...

Well you would think so as they all believe in the same old Testament God. Its just the fullfillment of that God that is in conflict. The first thing to note is that the same God is acknowledged by all these religions.

It seems to me that Christ is the sticking point and as I mentioned this seems to be very much the case with the Muslims. It seems the creation of their religion was primarily to dispute Christ. They wanted to be the religion that fullfilled Gods promise so they created a prophet that trumped Christ.

The Jews do the same except they believe the Messiah has not come yet which is sort of different to disputing a claimed Messiah and then replacing Him where they have to actively dispute Christ and Christians as infidels.

I think the Muslims knew the importance of the Temple Mount for both Jews and Christians. So despite their differences there is a lot in common between the Jews and Christians. That is why its often referred to as Judeo Christian belief.

So the Temple Mount represents a key strategic cite for the Muslims which puts thenm in conflict with both the Jews and Christians. More so the Jews for obvious reasons.

Perhaps an insight into the different ideology behind the Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Muslims own the Temple Mount more or less and they don't allow Jews in their own Holy city right above the Western Wall to pray at their own Temple Mt. Yet it was the Jews who gave the Temple Mount to the Muslims as part of a peace deal.

So they were willing to sacrifice ownership of their own most holy cite for peace in the hope they could share and be able to practice their faith. This is the difference in why extreme Islamist is a threat not just to Isreal but the free world. They don't allow the right for people to be free to practice their faith, politics, equality.

Whereas at least Isreal agrees with democracy and freedoms like the rest of the free world despite not always being perfect just as all western nations have done. But we strive for those truths and we allow people, the votors to determine who govern them rather than some dictator trying to impose some ideology over everyone.

I'm still baffled how the deluge could flood the ball earth

King James Bible
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

NotUrAvgGuy said:

That was all well and good until the Catholic church started selling indulgences among other things. Priests started realizing their church had strayed from the truth.

Click to expand...

You are only talking about the Church in Rome while ignoring the rest of the Church

NotUrAvgGuy said:

We are not called to hold fast to traditions. Only to the Word of God.

Click to expand...

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

I haven't tried any filters on the dating apps I use because you have to pay for that, but I'm assuming they work as intended i.e. you don't get to see anyone who doesn't meet the selected criteria.

The only potential shortcoming I can see is that they might also exclude anyone who hasn't filled in that bit of information e.g. if you only want to see non-smokers, you wouldn't see anyone who hadn't indicated either way. But that depends on whether the filers are inclusive or exclusive, and that's something I don't know.

HopeSings said:

A simple man who is content with simplicity will be prosperous. Other men will work hard and waste their life in pursuit of wealth. Those who find wealth will be poor in God if you ask me. They had their mind and heart set on money but not Jesus. They didn't build spiritual wealth

Click to expand...

More people these days are finding wealth but climate change is getting worse. I think it's connected because it's those who has money who consumes the most energy they buy a lot, drive and fly a lot, and planes are one of the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Reminds me of Revelation 11:18

Aaron112 said:

For clarity and perspective , can you or anyone name 3 things , or 12 things, in the churches today, and/or in politics or science today, that is Scriptural ?

Click to expand...

For clarity and perspective; what are you asking?

Do you want me to list 3 things in churches which are Scriptural, or 12?
Do you want 3/12 things in churches, and another 3/12 in politics which are Scriptural?
Do you want 3 things in total - one from churches, one from politics and one from science - which are Scriptural?

For starters;
Meeting with other Christians, is Scriptural.
Worshipping God is Scriptural
Reading his word - what he has actually said/inspired to be written - is Scriptural
Singing and praying are Scriptural. In some churches, folk prophesy/speak in tongues, that is Scriptural too.
Being filled with the Spirit is Scriptural.
Finding out what gifts God has given you and using them to serve him, is Scriptural.
Seeking God and his Kingdom, are Scriptural.
Putting God first and not worshipping money/idols is Scriptural.

In politics; being concerned for, and trying to help, the poor, hungry and marginalized, is Scriptural.
Standing for justice, and against dishonesty and violence, is Scriptural.

In science? The Bible is not a science text book.

All of this has nothing to do with the fact that the OP asks why Christians don't believe certain events in Genesis, and then sets out a teaching which isn't in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible.

Dan1988 said:

The Bible describes two kingdoms, co existing in the world. We have the Kingdom of Darkness, run by the Devil and His army of Demons. And we have the Kingdom of God. These are at war, with each other. The war is for the soul of man, and the weapons used are deception and truth. The Devil always has a counterfeit version of everything that the Bible teaches.

Every persons eternal destiny is decided by what they believe, we all make choices about everything based on what we believe to be true. The Devil is very wise and crafty and patient, everything He does is aimed at deceiving people into believing He doesn't exist. He hides in the shadows and plans His schemes to destroy us.

The default human condition, is to gravitate towards living life in rebellion towards God's commandments. We naturally resist God's ways, because our default condition desires the freedom to do our own thing and live to fulfill our desires. The Kingdom of Darkness takes advantage of our state of rebellion and hardens us in it.

The Bible says that the Devil is the Prince of this world, Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. He also said that the world hates Him, and it will hate those who follow Him. He went on to say that anyone who seeks his life will lose it and everyone who loses their life for my Names sake will find everlasting life. This teaching goes against our nature, and it's foolish to those who don't believe in God.

The only world view that makes sense to me is the Biblical world view, as it provides the only logical reason why the world is so messed up. The Bible said that the world would sink into deeper and deeper depravity, until we become like Sodom and Gamora again.

The humanist teach that, mankind is evolving into a higher conciseness and that science and technology would solve the social and moral problems by teaching ethics. But we're witnessing the opposite, it seems that the more advanced technology becomes, the more depraved man becomes. It seems to just enable him to kill more efficiently and commit other crimes more easily.

Click to expand...

You make some good points biblically. In some ways I think generally there has been a gradual evolving away from the time of Christ and in the early years of Christianity until today for the west. That much is true.

The fathers of the American Declaration thought there was a creator God who gave order to this world. Now secular society doesn't think so. Humans have become the creator of order. We are no longer made in Gods image but now humankind makes God in their image.

That is probably the main difference I think. As time has gone by to varying degrees we still looked to God but now as a society we look to ourselves. Like you say technology and science because they give humans great power. But as we know that power is not the true answer to life.

In a time when we have more things to make us happy, healthy and fullfilled more and more people are experiencing unhappiness and dispair. Maybe it is that this has to run its course before things will change. Reality has a way of coming back to remind us that we cannot mess with it.

mourningdove~ said:

I don't usually go much for modern comedies ... many just seem kind of dumb ... but the Madea films I've seen were very well put together. Quite impressive, really, all the thought that appears to go into them. (And I love the happy endings, where everything works out!) Tyler Perry is very talented.

I haven't 'seen' Madea in awhile, but you've reminded me of just how funny she is.
Must be time for me to soon visit Amazon Prime and look for one of her movies to watch!

Click to expand...

The plays are also very good and Tyler Perry actually delivers practical teachings in Christian values both as Madea and Tyler Perry without appearing too religious.

Tyler Perry would have made a very good preacher. I think he has the gift for it but I suppose it wasn't God's calling for him.

Strong in Him said:

Again, that is your experience, not mine.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Where I live, "failure testimonies" where someone did not have a miracle healing and their loved one died but still delivered a testimony to thank God, "it could've been a lot worse but God still took care of us in other areas of our lives..." It's a rare thing.

Fervent said:

What is meant by "law" is definitely a contextual issue, as it can have many meanings. In some places, it means the first 5 books of the Bible, in others it means the one called Deuteronomy, in others it means the legal code found within that book, in others it means basic Godly living, in others it means the entire code of traditions that were what bound them to God as His exclusive possession. The heart of the issue is not what legal codes we are to follow, but how we understand our identity. To the Jews, their identity was wrapped up in the distinctive things the law required of them. That is, circumcision, diet, and Sabbath observance. While these things can be good, they are not what makes someone belong to God in the new covenant. So where Paul opposed the law, it was a matter of fidelity to the Messiah and His work as the defining feature of Christianity and not the obedience to the distinctives of the Jewish nation.

Click to expand...

The Law and its subsets introduced by Moses is mankind's requirement and obligation to the covenant (enabling some to be called and chosen as inhabitants of the kingdom), God's obligation to the covenant is to provide the salvation, the Law, the Kingdom and the King.

The greatest failure of Israel was the did not enter into the covenant, they did the actions without the relationship.