The world hates us because it hates God. I hope everyone could read the sarcasm in my last post. It just shows how unrealistic the worlds perception of Christianity is. Becoming a Christian doesn't make the right thing easy and natural. We still struggle with the flesh. I guess some feel they would do a much better job of being a Chrsitian, Whatever that means.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?
A new body every five years.
Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!
Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to judge anyone or anything like that, I just don't find it suprising because I have reacted the same way and had to edit and skip some things I wanted to say. I certianly wouldn't want anyone to assume that I feel that I am "Holier than Thou", or that any Christian is Holier than any person ever was. David was a Murderer, Lot had sex with his daughters, etc, etc, etc. Even Jesus Christ himself said "Why do you call me Holy, There is only one that is Holy and that is God."Jbuza wrote:Yes only the great and mighty and perfect can become Christians. Don't be surprised about people; we all know how they can behave.Deborah wrote:Blob made it clear why he came to this forum.
In a sense he came to find out what Christians are really like, well done the pair of you, because you have showed him exactly the reason the world hates Christians, and it is not Jesus Christ, it is our actions in the way we live and the way we act toward our fellow man. unfortunately the actions of a few colour the whole christian family the same!
I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
The world doesn't have any more or less of a chance than we had. I don't think that because some get upset that means they do not love. It is this kind of passion that perhaps caused our Holy Savior Jesus to drive people out of the Temple.Deborah wrote:Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!
Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?
It sounds slightly like you might be casting stones
-
AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
Calling someone a twit is not not loving.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
As You say If they knew God and accepted him, but then they wouldn't be the world any longer.Deborah wrote:I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I
They do hate God, but if they knew him the wouldn't, so you are right to a point.
John 15:18-21
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."
Last edited by Jbuza on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
not so, I know I am not innocent or worthy.Jbuza wrote:The world doesn't have any more or less of a chance than we had. I don't think that because some get upset that means they do not love. It is this kind of passion that perhaps caused our Holy Savior Jesus to drive people out of the Temple.Deborah wrote:Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!
Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?
It sounds slightly like you might be casting stones
do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
it's not logical to hate what you don't knowJbuza wrote:John 15:18. 'If the world hates you, keep in mind it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own As it is you do not belong to the world. That is why the world hates you.Deborah wrote:I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
Yes, Sister, I do. Wont it be wonderful to be rid of these sinful bodies. I didn't mean to Judge you, I just thought you may have been a little harsh. Sometimes it is hard to communicate in this way bec ause you don't see the warm smile and kind tone that could be accompanying the words.Deborah wrote:Do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.
I do not mean to come across as harsh. it is unfortunate that I do not have the way with words that some of my Christian brothers and sisters do on this message board.Jbuza wrote:Yes, Sister, I do. Wont it be wonderful to be rid of these sinful bodies. I didn't mean to Judge you, I just thought you may have been a little harsh. Sometimes it is hard to communicate in this way bec ause you don't see the warm smile and kind tone that could be accompanying the words.Deborah wrote:Do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”
I provded examples of what I consider to be objective statements of future happenings. In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry such as nihilism.)Fortigurn wrote:I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. You've created a backdoor for yourself with the statement 'that cannot possibly be subjectively interpreted'. Anything and everything can be subjectively interpreted. Furthermore, why the insistence on a date?
It needs a date because it is a statement about a future event. "One day the human race will be no more" is not a prohpecy, just a statement of the obvious. "The last human will die in the year 2050" is a prophecy (literally it isn't because I am no prophet, but you know what I mean).
My definition and examples are nothing if not rigourous.How about a more rigorous definition, which isn't so blatant about creating an escape clause for your argument?
A statement of future happennings must be unambiguous and dated. If ambiguous then any old happenings will be cited as fulfillment; but if no happenings can reasonably be pointed to yet it is not dated then people will say "ah, but it is not fulfilled yet". Horoscope writers know this and are deliberately vague to avoid being rumbled.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).Blob wrote:I provded examples of what I consider to be objective statements of future happenings. In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry such as nihilism.)Fortigurn wrote:I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. You've created a backdoor for yourself with the statement 'that cannot possibly be subjectively interpreted'. Anything and everything can be subjectively interpreted. Furthermore, why the insistence on a date?
You are arguing that accurate predictions of events must be accompanied by dates. Surely you realise the paucity of this reasoning? A forecast of the eruption of a volcano may not be accompanied by a fixed date (more likely by a date range), but does this mean that if the volcano erupts within the specified date range, the prediction of the eruption was not an accurate prediction of the event?It needs a date because it is a statement about a future event. "One day the human race will be no more" is not a prohpecy, just a statement of the obvious. "The last human will die in the year 2050" is a prophecy (literally it isn't because I am no prophet, but you know what I mean).
Examples could be multiplied, as I'm sure you realise.
I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.My definition and examples are nothing if not rigourous.How about a more rigorous definition, which isn't so blatant about creating an escape clause for your argument?
A statement of future happennings must be unambiguous and dated. If ambiguous then any old happenings will be cited as fulfillment; but if no happenings can reasonably be pointed to yet it is not dated then people will say "ah, but it is not fulfilled yet". Horoscope writers know this and are deliberately vague to avoid being rumbled.
As I've said, the issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).
Take my examples then. In what sense are they subjective or open to subjective intepretation.Fortigurn wrote:The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).
Fair point. A range of possible dates then. I would point out that in my example above I consider "2050" (365 dates) to be precise enough.You are arguing that accurate predictions of events must be accompanied by dates. Surely you realise the paucity of this reasoning? A forecast of the eruption of a volcano may not be accompanied by a fixed date (more likely by a date range), but does this mean that if the volcano erupts within the specified date range, the prediction of the eruption was not an accurate prediction of the event?
Escape clauses? Objectivity and a statement of when are basic requirements for a tenable statement of future happenings.I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.
But please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation. I'm sorry, I really don't see it.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
Any statement is open to subjective interpretation. This does not validate the interpretation, but you cannot claim a statement is not capable of being interpreted subjectively.Blob wrote:Take my examples then. In what sense are they subjective or open to subjective intepretation.Fortigurn wrote:The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).
Thank you for being reasonable. I can work with this. I will consider a proposal and make another thread.Fair point. A range of possible dates then. I would point out that in my example above I consider "2050" (365 dates) to be precise enough.
I can agree with that, but I considered these clauses to be unnecessarily proscriptive.Escape clauses? Objectivity and a statement of when are basic requirements for a tenable statement of future happenings.I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.
Any statement is open to subjective interpretation. Even a statement such as 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' is open to subjective interpretation.But please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation. I'm sorry, I really don't see it.
I suggest you spend a little time in a law court. Our legal system thrives on the premise that every statement - or even event - is open to subjective interpretation.