T'was the night

[rmwilliamsll]

If that sentence is true, then it was done in spite of the Bible:

• [bible]Colossians 2:8[/bible]

go look at any of the "Should Christians celebrate Christmas?" threads and you will find people defending and objecting to the same elements of Christmas worship. how do i tell which one is right when they both point to the Bible and say "see it allows me to do this"?

why is your interpretation of what is or is not "in spite"[sic] of the Bible better than anyone else's opposite claim who likewise justifies it in terms of being in compliance with their interpretation of the Bible, often pointing at the same verses even?

why should i believe you and not them?
especially given that you are wrong about the "wise man and magi's" in Matthew. why should i trust your interpretation when i've seen your errors over the time here on CF? at least some others have better past track records of being right.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Ask the victims of the Aum Shinri Kyo subway attacks, or the next-of-kin of the 9-11 attacks.

That's a non-sequitur if I ever heard one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many other religions have scripture. Some of them, Hinduism in particular, (being the oldest religion on earth) believes Christianity is a periphrial religion which lacks much of their attributes.

Now you've added a couple of words to your assertion:

I know an awful lot about ancient religions, and everyone else I know of who does, and all outward indications- say that Hinduism is the oldest continuously practiced religion on earth.

Noah is now a largely fictional character...

No. Cain and Abel are entirely fictional, made up out of whole cloth...

It appears we're not going to get anywhere here, since your quotes are mainly in spite of Scripture, and mine are mainly in respect to Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

go look at any of the "Should Christians celebrate Christmas?" threads and you will find people defending and objecting to the same elements of Christmas worship. how do i tell which one is right when they both point to the Bible and say "see it allows me to do this"?

Would you give me an example, please?

And did you bother to take a demographic of the "people" you're talking about.

• Atheists, Christians, other?
• What's their attitude toward Christ in general?
• Do they back up what they believe with Scripture?
• Are they interpreting their Scripture correctly?

I believe Paul said it best:

• [bible]Romans 14:5[/bible]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

It appears we're not going to get anywhere here, since your quotes are mainly in spite of Scripture, and mine are mainly in respect to Scripture.

Show us evidence of Noah's existence, and we shall respect Scripture.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Would you give me an example, please?

And did you bother to take a demographic of the "people" you're talking about.

• Atheists, Christians, other?
• What's their attitude toward Christ in general?
• Do they back up what they believe with Scripture?
• Are they interpreting their Scripture correctly?

I believe Paul said it best:

• [bible]Romans 14:5[/bible]

here's one thread on CF
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30156422#post30156422

I was taught that Jeremiah 10 bans Xmas trees as pagan. Yet, any theologian will tell you that is reading our trees backwards into history, and that the context is clearly talking about decorating idols carved from trees. To me the Xmas tree now has more to do with symbolizing the tree of life than any later pagan symbol in history.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29966900&postcount=7

4"Do not worship the Lord your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods. 5 Rather, you must seek the Lord your God at the place he himself will choose from among all the tribes for his name to be honored.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30072352&postcount=16

this particular thread doesn't have the postings about the Aserath trees, nor the pagan origins of the Christmas tree but often someone will bring it up.

so, is having a Christmas tree wrong or right from the Bible? i've seen lots of people argue both sides.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

i don't expect that this is an argument for solipisism.
on something as particular and straightforward as having a Christmas tree or not, don't you think Christians could agree on a simple yes or no?
it is this division and the inability to decide who is right that i have in view.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ask the victims of the Aum Shinri Kyo subway attacks, or the next-of-kin of the 9-11 attacks.

First of all, I don't think these people worshiped idols (Muslims certainly don't...they're more strictly against idol worship than Christians, many of them refusing to have any sort of religious symbols whatsoever). Secondly, can you show a logical link that indicates that idol worship may have been an actual cause, and not just a correlated factor?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now you've added a couple of words to your assertion:







It appears we're not going to get anywhere here, since your quotes are mainly in spite of Scripture, and mine are mainly in respect to Scripture.

i'm not sure that merely quoting Scripture is a sufficient case see:

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.*

the tempter is quoting Scripture.

and in reply:
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

likewise the tempter again quotes Scripture:

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

it appears that the mere act of quoting Scripture is not a sufficient case to make an argument. but rather it is important how it relates to the overall principles involved. Why is Jesus' argument different than the tempters? both are referencing Scripture.

notes:
* the allusion is to:
Psa 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
Jesus is the rock, the bread of life, dominant metaphors in the OT, taken over in the NT. and directly applied to the Lord's Supper. in fact, jesus did exactly what the tempter proposed, turned the rock into bread, but not just for Jesus now in the wilderness but for Christians for all time. neat trick.

 

[AV1611VET]

don't you think Christians could agree on a simple yes or no?

it is this division and the inability to decide who is right that i have in view.

Thanks for the links.

I'm in complete agreement with you on these points. It's a crying shame that Christians cannot agree on aspects that are covered in Scripture. Especially since we are drawing our information from the same Source - the Word of God.

To be honest, I'm embarrassed.

Now, I'm not talking about Dad believing the Star of Bethlehem is the Ezekiel Mobile Throne or me believing it is a hologram, but what I'm talking about is tongues, second blessings, feet washing, being slain in the Spirit, and that sort of stuff.

This is where I say Satan uses divide-and-conquer tactics to defeat us.

So why should you believe me and not them?

Good question for which I have no answer. Just read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide you, RM --- that's the best advice I can offer.

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, I don't think these people worshiped idols (Muslims certainly don't...they're more strictly against idol worship than Christians, many of them refusing to have any sort of religious symbols whatsoever). Secondly, can you show a logical link that indicates that idol worship may have been an actual cause, and not just a correlated factor?

I have to go right now, but here's a quick answer:

Aum Shinri Kyo means "Supreme Truth". Shoko Asahara was a worshipper of Shiva, the god of destruction, and he wanted to get back to worshipping Shiva the way he was meant to be worshipped --- as a destroyer.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have to go right now, but here's a quick answer:

Aum Shinri Kyo means "Supreme Truth". Shoko Asahara was a worshipper of Shiva, the god of destruction, and he wanted to get back to worshipping Shiva the way he was meant to be worshipped --- as a destroyer.

But you said idol worship. Can you show that they worshiped effigies of Shiva?

 

[AV1611VET]

But you said idol worship. Can you show that they worshiped effigies of Shiva?

You lost me here --- I'm not sure what you want me to do.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To be honest, I'm embarrassed.

me too. after theodicy this is the biggest point people can make against Christianity. but what is the solution?

Good question for which I have no answer. Just read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide you, RM --- that's the best advice I can offer.

but i see this individualism a critical element of what has gotten us into the problem since the Reformation. not sola Scriptura but solo Scriptura, this forgetfulness of creeds and confessions, this ignoring of the community consensus and the fact that many are more often right then the few. this neglect of history for a position that now is the epitome of thinking. lots of issues, but precious little concrete pathways to solutions.

 

[Chalnoth]

You lost me here --- I'm not sure what you want me to do.

You claimed that idol worship was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the Aum Shinrikyo subway bombings. This is blatantly false for the first case, but to even have a hope of it being correct for the second, you have to show that the Aum Shinrikyo cult worshiped idols. Can you show that this cult worshiped effigies of Shiva or not?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You claimed that idol worship was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the Aum Shinrikyo subway bombings. This is blatantly false for the first case,

Evidently.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Many other religions have scripture. Some of them, Hinduism in particular, (being the oldest religion on earth) believes Christianity is a periphrial religion which lacks much of their attributes.

Now you've added a couple of words to your assertion:

Its not an assertion. But I had to clarify the point for you since you seemed to think that the oldest religion meant the earliest religion. The earliest religions either don't exist at all anymore, (as with the Mesopotamian pantheon) or they ceased to have any presence at all for many centuries and were reinvented in an altered form, (New Age paganism). I've heard witches claim that Wicca is the oldest religion, because polytheism predates monotheism in any form, and because "Wicca" is a modern composite of all polytheist religions. But it doesn't qualify because it wasn't continuously practiced in any recognizeably consistent form.

It appears we're not going to get anywhere here, since your quotes are mainly in spite of Scripture, and mine are mainly in respect to Scripture.

Yes, you are bound by dogma and I am free to explore reality.

 

[gluadys]

AV, why should non-Christians follow YOUR rules? The United States in NOT a democracy, it is a republic so the majority does NOT rule. Republics are meant to protect the MINORITIES such as atheists and Muslims.

Off topic, but I see this mindless statement so frequently, and it always gets my goat. Saying a country is a republic says very little about how it is governed.

The republic of Rome was an oligarchy. The People's Republic of China is a communist oligarchy. The Republic of Myanmar (Burma) is a military oligarchy. The Republic of North Korea is a communist dictatorship. Under Pinochet, the Republic of Chile was a fascist dictatorship.

By contrast, the Republic of France is a congressional style, liberal democracy. And the Republic of India is a parliamentary style liberal democracy.

Republics do not necessarily protect the rights of minorities, and countries which are not republics (e.g. Canada, Britain, the Netherlands) often do.

It is silly to say that a republic cannot also be a democracy, or that a republic is designed to protect minorities in a way that non-republics are not, since we have many examples of contrary cases in both directions.

Protection of minorities depends more on respect for law and human rights than on whether or not a country is a republic. Republics that are not democratic have a poor history of respecting the rights of minorities, as do oppressive monarchies. Democratic republics and constitutional monarchies both have better records of protecting minorities.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus is the rock, the bread of life, dominant metaphors in the OT, taken over in the NT. and directly applied to the Lord's Supper. in fact, jesus did exactly what the tempter proposed...

No, He didn't --- He is the Rock:

• [bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]

As well as the Bread:

• [bible]John 6:35[/bible]

...turned the rock into bread, but not just for Jesus now in the wilderness but for Christians for all time. neat trick.

Your reference to the Lord's Table is faulty--- we believe in memorialism, not [con]transubstantiation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claimed that idol worship was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the Aum Shinrikyo subway bombings. This is blatantly false for the first case, but to even have a hope of it being correct for the second, you have to show that the Aum Shinrikyo cult worshiped idols. Can you show that this cult worshiped effigies of Shiva or not?

I still don't see what you're getting at, but from the BBC News:

• Asahara claimed to be a reincarnation of the Hindu god Shiva, and promised to lead his followers to salvation when impending Armageddon arrived.

 

[AV1611VET]

not sola Scriptura but solo Scriptura...

Please enlighten me on the difference between the two again.

...this forgetfulness of creeds and confessions...

I don't go by creeds, I go by the Apostles' Doctrine:

• [bible]Acts 2:42[/bible]