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.
You need to learn what the word cosmology means. [Example] When the bible says He GodMichael Heiser understands that Genesis describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. He takes the Bible literally, but he also doesn't confuse it with modern science and biology.
yes the "sabbath rest" still remains. But the "day" you enter into has changed as per Hebrews 3&4. not 7th day but a day called "today".The Creation Sabbath of Gen 2 is being used as a symbol of New Canaan - heaven, heavenly Canaan -- just as in Gal 4 Jersualem above "is our mother".
Gal 4
24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
We still have mothers - even though this symbolism is used in Gal 4.
Heb 4 is using something that still remains - the Sabbath, and adding it as a symbol for saints waiting for heaven/eternal rest.
They specified it. Trump visited and endorsed Alligator Auschwitz himself.Oh, did the WH build that?....
So you reject the clear genealogy of Adam and his decedents,They aren't about biology. Adams sons are identified as the fathers of all those who play the flute and live in tents etc. it isn't about biology.
I don't think "they are all lying!" is going to be a very effective defense for you.Nope. Not interested in science fiction, thanks.
I like to pick your brain.Necropolitics was a term coined by the Cameroonian philosopher, Achille Mbembe ( awesome name, BTW). It's used to describe how powerful empires (both formal and informal/commercial) wield the power of death and degredation as a political tool. But necropolitics, IMO, also exists domestically now in the United States, and it's fairly blatant.
Lack of safeguards! I get your view now.
...It took me a minute because I don't see it that way. I don't think people are quite that sinister, at least, if they think like I do.
Its turtles all the way down lol.Unless you think she is the mother of Adam too
Better than as the usual cudgel.“Spiritual warfare” in the way she used it is nothing more than superstition.
Technically speaking, both connotative meaning and denotative meaning are people's opinions of common usage. But neither are purely opinion based, but have to do with how the word is used and in the kinds of contexts its commonly found in. Words, in and of themselves, don't have a meaning as if anywhere a word is found the same concept is in play. Thinking as much is an exegetical fallacy known as the word-concept fallacy. Instead, the meaning of words depends partly on their common usage but more directly on the context in which they are found. Meaning primarily rests much higher than the word level, somewhere between the sentence level and the paragraph level. So dictionaries are of extremely limited value because they say nothing of what kinds of contexts the words are typically found in to shed light on various connotations that exist for the word.Is not the connotative meaning just someone’s opinion on what they or a group thinks something means in the a particular context, but it’s still someone’s opinion and they have an agenda that they are trying to prove. A dictionary is just the agreement of what words mean at the time.
I have heard others warn that if the mind is "empty" the devil can come in. St John of the Cross says just the opposite, that if we empty ourselves the devil has nothing to work with. Of course the mind cannot be "empty" unless we are unconscious. But we can have a quiet, still attentiveness.As Christians, I know we are not supposed to feel "empty."
Where are these numbers coming from? This sounds so far off from what I see in my community that I'm quite suspicious of it, but I'm open to being contradicted. So where do these figures come from? Is this self-reports? What was the sampling method?There is no significant portion of people in the US who face that. The poor in this country have big screen tvs, 75% have one or two vehicles. People below rhe poverty levels get enough benefits to reach income levels or over $50,000 a year.
Say a single mother of 2 earns minimum wage. She will earn about 14000. Then with government benefits she earns 26000. Then with state benefits she typically will end up wearing about 47000 total in dollars and benefits. Enough to live on.
96% of poor report no one is going hungry in their family.
On average rhe poor children have the same nutritional assessments as middle income children.
- These homes typically had both air conditioning and a personal computer.
- For entertainment, they typically had cable or satellite TV, three color televisions, a DVD player, a VCR, and a video game system, such as an Xbox or Play Station.
- In the kitchen, they had a refrigerator, a stove and oven, a microwave, and an automatic coffee maker.
- Other amenities included a cell phone, a cordless phone, and a clothes washer.[17]
The home has at least one widescreen TV connected to cable, satellite, or a streaming service, a computer or tablet with internet connection, and a smartphone. (Some 82% of poor families have one or more smartphones.)
By their own report, the average poor family had enough food to eat throughout the prior year. No family member went hungry for even a single day due to a lack of money for food.
Thats not to say NO one ever has a problem. When the census was conducted 7% had missed a housing payment in rhe past two months. Only 2% had utilities problems.
We spend at least 220 Billion dollars to help the poor. Thats 2 1/2 times more than is needed to eliminate child poverty in rhe US. Yet we still have some. Why, its obviously not because we aren't paying enough.
So, one would have to ask rhe question why are some still having g problems despite all of this. And its not becauae we arw not helping. We are, by a very large amount. These poor are getting FAR more than the gleaning at the edge of the field. They have housing, clothes, food, cars, big screen tvs, xboxes and air conditioning.
Its easy. God made humanity progressively from 200 million years of evolution, and then about 12,000 years ago came the first spiritually awake humans adam and eve..How can you have a population before Eve, the mother of all living humans?
I just realized how extremely narrow these forums are. The Forum Rules define those who are "truly" Christians as those who fully accept the Nicene Creed. I just happened to be reading a book by Marcus Borg in which he distinguishes between "popular" Christianity and "academic" Christianity. Academic Christianity includes many NT scholars who identify as Christian, including Borg, but are almost unanimous in their judgment that popular Christianity simply isn't true, period. None of them would be able to post here as Christians. The academic perspective, like it or not, is simply that Jesus was not, and did not think he was, who and what the Nicene Creed and popular Christianity posit him to have been.
As mentioned elsewhere, I entered Christianity via a startling, "mystical" conversion experience some 55 years ago; attended a Baptist seminary; served with Campus Crusade for Christ; and have been neck-deep in theology and apologetics for decades. Do I fully accept the Nicene Creed, the "full eternal deity" of Jesus Christ, and Paul's status as a full Apostle, equivalent to or greater than the Apostles who actually walked with Jesus? Well, no I don't, at least not in the sense the Forum Rules and Statement of Faith are talking about. Probably like Marcus Borg, however, I think of myself as a "mature" Christian but certainly not "not a Christian." Here, alas, I am apparently not a true Christian.
I guess I shouldn't even be posting on the Controversial Christian Theology forum since I discovered to my surprise that it, too, is restricted to Christians as so defined and that discussions "may not contradict the Nicene Creed." Again, the majority of the very best NT scholars would be unable to post here.
To be clear, I have no "problem" with the Nicene Creed, the CF Forum Rules of the CF Statement of Faith. A forum can obviously operate however it wants. Those who can accept the Nicene Creed as their definition of Christianity are welcome to do so with my blessing. But it certainly isn't the only understanding of Christianity or what Jesus was all about. Since a forum is not a denomination or church, I'm not sure what is gained by such a restrictive definition of "true Christian" or by so narrowly restricting discussions. Is the idea to "protect" true Christians against challenging views, even those of the most renowned NT scholars? If so, doesn't that seem kind of odd and even cult-like?
Having been here long enough to have participated on a number of threads, it certainly appears to me that a fair number of folks are paying lip service to the Nicene Creed and other forum requirements of being a "true Christian" while the substance of their posts says otherwise. I'm not comfortable playing that game, nor with constantly wondering whether something I have said has crossed the line. So, I will accept being a non-Christian for purposes of these forums, strange as this may seem to me, and limit myself to discussing recipes for guacamole at The Kitchen Sink.
Is not the connotative meaning just someone’s opinion on what they or a group thinks something means in the a particular context, but it’s still someone’s opinion and they have an agenda that they are trying to prove. A dictionary is just the agreement of what words mean at the time.A dictionary is an impoverished lexicon, as there isn't really "a definition" for words but a range of semantic possibilities. More complete lexicons bring out not only the denotative meaning but also the connotative meaning, with the latter often being more important in regards to translations.
As for bringing up Sagan, it's beccause he's the one who popularized the idea that "cosmos" and "universe" were interchangeable ideas, and his reason for doing so was to promote a secular worldview by coining a term to use in place of what he deemed a theologically loaded one.
Edited note: The principal issue equating "universe" and "cosmos" isn't primarily an issue of its Greek meaning, but the understanding that such things would have held to a Greek mind. To the Greek, the world=the universe, so it's fair to say that cosmos means universe. But that obscures the fact that our modern concept of "universe" would be foreign to the original audience, as the concept has dramatically shifted as our scientific understanding has improved. So Greek dictionaries are likely to flatten the issue rather than provide illumination. Today, "universe" has come to include not only the world but also what would previously have been considered "the heavens" though our understanding of what such things are composed of is markedly different.
Scolding not intended. Google can tell you just about everything though.Thanks for the scolding. Though my comment wasn't intended to disparage him, just to express my skepticism towards his claim. Anyone can say anything on the internet, especially in regards to their personal experience. So there's not really a way to make a rebuttal to such a claim, unless you want me to hire a private eye to investigate his history. He very well could be telling the truth, but its a claim I have difficulty believing.
Assuming and putting words in my mouth, thats original.Wow, KJV only and all other Bible translations are wrong? That's real honest.
And there is a difference between adam, that is
humanity or mankind, and adamah, for ground.
Even your reference to strongs concordance plainly says it "or the species, mankind etc.".
Not hard to understand. Not sure why you're denying your own source.
You're contradicting yourself.
And yes, animals are called nephesh. The same word translated as "soul".
Im sure you can use a strong's concordance to verify that too.
I'm still not sure what your concern is about this fact of the Bible.
There is no significant portion of people in the US who face that. The poor in this country have big screen tvs, 75% have one or two vehicles. People below rhe poverty levels get enough benefits to reach income levels or over $50,000 a year.I suppose the people in my community who can't afford to eat regularly, who are subject to hard choices between which utilities they're going to pay this month and which ones they can kick the can on, who have to choose between their own hunger and their childrens...that's not suffering, right? To deny that there is a significant portion of the population who suffer from a lack of access to resources is either ill-informed or has a strange tolerance for human misery.
What you're saying it conflicting...
Denaturalization wouldn't apply to people born in the US with a US birth certificate.