Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 299

I agree we should be bold and forthright when atheists try to argue that God doesn't exist etc. However, if an atheist neighbour asks to borrow your lawn-mower because his has broken down we shouldn't refuse them because they are atheist.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What happened to the poor?
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:45:45 PM »
Hi H.H.

Yes I use Biblehub a lot. It's the best online tool I've found and invaluable for this forum and general Bible study. Thanks for the info on Piketty. I think I might wait until it becomes cheaper as I have so many books in the pipeline.

We seem to focus much more on individual sins, esp sexual sins, but the Bible (esp OT but also NT) is much more concerned with corporate sins and social justice. What does this tell us about modern society? A legacy of humanism and the Enlightenment?

Hi pat1911,

I've listened to the link of Dr Scott Hahn and I have a few comments:

1. Not substantive but I found his US televangelist and hand waving style not to my liking. I've worked as a teacher and I was taught to keep unnecessary movements to a minimum (e.g. no pacing up and down) as it just distracts people. I'm not saying no hand movements but they should be used to mean something not just done constantly with no connection to what is being said. Even if he was in my denomination I wouldn't go out of my way to hear him.

2. His point about Jesus death on the cross being outside the city walls and so an execution and not a sacrifice as far as the Jews were concerned shows a serious misunderstanding of the New Testament and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. 15Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Heb 13:11-16 NIV

Romans and Hebrews are probably the hardest NT letters to understand but they are very important if not the most important. Hebrews tells us that Jesus is superior to the OT prophets, priests and kings as well as superior to angels. Also his sacrifice on the cross is superior as being of a different order to OT sacrifices. it's not a matter of being better but of the same kind: Jesus' sacrifice is superior because it is different in nature e.g. Heb 10:8-18. including: He sets aside the first (covenant) to establish the second and there is no longer any sacrifice for sin

Note that the passage in Heb 13 talks about the sacrifice of praise and good works - these things continue but not the sacrifice of Jesus that was "once for all"

Hahn's point that Jesus should not have been sacrificed "outside the camp" is contradicted directly by the Hebrews 13 passage. The whole point about the New Covenant is that it's different from the Old Covenant (as with the fresh or new wineskins). Christianity is not Judaism 2.0. Part of that difference involved their rejection by the Jews and the shame that accompanied this for the Christians. This is exemplified by Jesus dying outside the camp and that we have to go outside the camp to identify with him. I think the best way to appreciate this is to read through the book of Hebrews: preferably in one sitting.

3. His conflation of the written New Testament with the New Covenant is unworthy. The eucharist is not the new Covenant but Jesus' sacrifice institutes the New Covenant. Covenant = binding agreement. A written will or testament describes the final intentions of someone to be executed after their death but it is their intentions that is the will and testament not just the writing on the paper. A will needs to be signed and Jesus signed his at Calvary. It's God's promise that counts not just the words of the NT.

This is the problem with RCC theology. It doesn't come to the Bible in an open manner wanting to understand what the Bible says, but it seeks to use the Bible to establish RCC doctrines: cart before the horse or the tail wagging the dog.


Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Question about Papal succession and Peter
« on: August 24, 2014, 04:58:34 PM »

I don't think what one pastor says (whatever denomination) should be a basis for understanding the Bible.

The Eucharistic view of John chapter 6 has a few problems:

1. In v54 we read that eternal life depends on eating Christ's flesh and eating his blood. If this refers to the eucharist then it means that merely taking communion leads to eternal life. There's nothing in the passage to indicate that this symbolism means two different things: taking communion and faith in Christ.

2. The Greek words used for "body" here and in the institution of the Lord's Supper are different.

3. The parallel between v54 and v40 points to the meaning being that of believing in Christ.

4. Commenting on those who found this saying hard Jesus said: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

5. Those who heard Jesus at this stage of his ministry would have no reason to think this has anything to with the eucharist or communion which was not practiced until Pentecost.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Question about Papal succession and Peter
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:53:46 AM »

How do you justify interpreting John chapter 6 as being about the Eucharist rather than personal faith in Christ?

I agree with the OP. We can disagree but still respect each other. For instance in politics people of opposing parties can still buy each other drinks etc. after lambasting each other in debate. Compared to other forums the atheists on this forum engage seriously and in a civilised manner for the most part.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Is God responsible for giving cancer?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:24:13 AM »
Is it also absurd to thank God for your survival?

Only if it can be established that God does not exist or otherwise has no influence whatsoever on cancer recovery.

I would also like to reiterate that according to Christian thought, death and sin came as a consequence of Man's choice, and that disease and all manner of nastiness in the world today was never God's intention. (That's why He sent His Son to fix the "problem").

But after He sent His son, there still seems to be a whole lot of disease and nastiness in the world.

It's a two part fix. We're being given the chance now to repent and trust Jesus (abbreviated view of salvation for sake of time). When Jesus comes again the full solution will be put in motion.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What happened to the poor?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:11:43 AM »
Hi H.H.

How did you get that excellent list of scriptures in #14? Searching the scriptures or website or keying on "poor"? Thanks for providing them and I would think there are many more in both OT and NT.
Does a Bible expert like troyjs know why we have "blessed are the poor in spirit" in Matthew and "blessed are the poor"  in Luke?

I agree with the OP that we have very little discussion on this important topic. It's important to recognise that "shirkers v workers" covers only a minority and there are many rich people who are shirkers. It can be used by governments to "divide and rule". Government should be "for the people" or zum Deutschen Volk etc. (Nothing like that in the UK of course!)

There's an economics book by a Frenchman called Thomas Piketty which reviewers have been writing much about. Has anyone got it and started to read it? It's about inequality in capitalism and other matters.

Y U No Love Thy Neighbour

Time to find another church?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Why So Much Hate?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:50:53 AM »

To try to clear away the smokescreen of words you've put up about red herrings:

In #42 you wrote:
But this is humanitarianism. Can I ask you if God ever said he was going to save good humanitarians? Many of them are atheists. Does God ignore their godlessness and see only their good deeds? Can we earn salvation by any amount of good works? What do the scriptures tell us?

In #45 I wrote:
Saying some humanitarian workers are atheists is a red herring (one that's gone off too). Christians can do humanitarian work - they are not mutually exclusive:

In #46 you wrote:
Does being a good humanitarian mean that you are a saved Christian? Can we earn a spot in the kingdom by any amount of humanitarian works?

In response I wrote in #47:
Red herring Jem. That's not the issue. No one is preaching salvation by works here.

and in #48 Snoochies wrote;
Yup, Jem. I've never advocated works earn salvation. If I did I'd like to know where.

So like Snoochies I'd like to know where Snoochies suggested that humanitarian work earns salvation.
You haven't answered this question

The instruction here was to fellow Christians.
That is true  but it doesn't say that the "orphans and widows" are believers. You've added that to fit JW doctrine.

One individual chosen out a foreign nation is not what we are talking about.
You've missed the fact that no widows or lepers were helped or healed throughout Israel at the same time. So these two events are very significant. At least Jesus thought so even if you don't. You said "God's people were never instructed to carry out humanitarian efforts for worshippers of foreign gods." These two examples disprove your statement.

stop listening to your own hierarchy.
What hierarchy? I go to an independent church that has elders and deacons as in the NT.

David, as king had authority directly from God to fight as head of Israel's military.
Before I comment further what are you basing this statement on.

In the book of Esther it wasn't the land of Israel that was at stake but the lives of the Jews in exile. Where is the authority for Esther's and Mordecai's actions?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Immediately it is apparent that this is about everyday relationships between people who know each other i.e. neighbours, people you greet, those who love you or curse/persecute you . The background is that the Pharisees taught that one should love your neighbour (fellow Jews) and hate your enemy (non-Jews but broadened to people you don't like etc.). The parable of the Good Samaritan is the illustration of this par excellence with the added twist that is the enemy (Samaritan) who does the act of love. There is no specific scripture in the OT to "hate your enemy". This was oral teaching of the Pharisees. however, there are scriptures about the treatment of, for instance, the Ammonites and Moabites (Dt 23:3-6) but nothing that justifies hating people you know in the ordinary run of life.

Your problem is Jem that you have applied this in a way that means the lives of the innocent victims of ISIS are worth less than the lives of the ISIS terrorists. For you say that it is wrong to try to prevent ISIS from killing innocent civilians if that can only be done by attacking them. By doing nothing and allowing ISIS to kill innocent people you are guilty of their deaths - and this is true even if you just advocate doing nothing. What would you think if the military said "well the JWs tell us we should be pacifists so we'll let ISIS kill innocent people". You can't have a belief that relies on people ignoring what you believe and advocate. You can pray and try to protect innocent people.

You can't say it's ok to let ISIS kill people because, after all we all die sometime, and then say it's wrong to attack and kill (only if necessary) ISIS to prevent them killing people, because the ISIS lives are precious.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Why So Much Hate?
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:02:10 PM »
You create the red herrings yourself lapwing. You put words in my mouth and then shoot down your own words. Funny how you never seem to realise that you do this....or is it on purpose?
So which comment then Jem? How about answering the question for a change.

The "orphans and widows" mentioned in this verse were their own.
Except it doesn't say that. You've added something to the Bible to fit in with your own JW teachings. Better to stick to what is in the Bible rather change it to make it say what you want it to say.

God's people were never instructed to carry out humanitarian efforts for worshippers of foreign gods.
Jesus has a different view about this. I prefer his true teachings to your false teachings Jem
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

Sorry but you fail to discern the difference between those who are repentant and those who are not. David was judged by his God as worthy of forgiveness because he was ripped apart by his guilt at Nathan's words and sought to change
David killed more men than Uriah as did Solomon. You need to read the Bible not the Watchtower Jem

So the lives that were saved were somehow more important than the lives that were lost? The point is, that your point is pointless. The person who is killed one moment before help arrives is less important to God than the ones saved after the troops come to the that it?
No it isn't of course as you well know. You're engaging in Sophistry here to try to score points.

Jem: "Who stopped Hitler from attempting to commit genocide on six million Jews?"
lapwing: "If the Russians and allies hadn't defeated the Nazis they would have slaughtered millions more! Which is the point you are ignoring Jem."

It's not that the allies didn't care about the Jews and others who Nazis murdered. To defeat the Nazis took much time and effort and sacrifice including the ultimate sacrifice for many. But if the allies had taken your pacifist view the Nazis would have murdered millions more according to the plans they had already drawn up. And those millions of lives would be lost because of your pacifism Jem.

Your disregard for people like the Yazidi because of a mistaken understanding of the Bible is the opposite of agape love: putting your own doctrinal pride above the needs of people in need.

Quote from: Gordy
however it is only a validly consecrated Eucharist if an Apostolic successor consecrates it.
Scriptural evidence for this assertion - including the existence of "apostolic succession"?

Quote from: pat1911
Another thing of note, is that the Last Supper, the supper of the Lamb of Passover was celebrated a day early
Exactly, it symbolized what would happen on the actual Passover day - Jesus death on the cross.

Quote from: pat1911
the Sacrifice of Christ in the Last supper
There's no mention of a sacrifice there. The bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and blood since he was with them in his body at the time.

This is scriptural
You haven't shown this.

Quote from: pat1911
Don't get tangled up in titles
I haven't said anything about "father". But I have said that Jesus did away with the OT system of priests and laity since there is no need for any further sacrifice. So why does the RCC still have priests making sacrifices?
I will listen to and comment on your youtube link on this.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Why So Much Hate?
« on: August 23, 2014, 03:21:55 PM »
Quote from: Jem
I see no red herrings here except perhaps lapwing trying to create one with his comment.
Which comment?

When you see humanitarian efforts to save and support people who are caught in war zones, that has nothing to do with religion.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

You seem to be getting stuck on emotional issues, when God does not allow emotion to interfere with his exercise of justice.
Another red herring!

God makes the rules, not us
Wrong again. It's the JW hierarchy that make the rules for you to follow Jem. And for good measure they take your money so they can have servants and drive expensive cars. JW doctrine isn't based on the Bible but on the teachings of Russell.

Blood guilty humans have no communication with God. He ignores their prayers.
Including King David. Think again Jem.

Who stopped Hitler from attempting to commit genocide on six million Jews?
If the Russians and allies hadn't defeated the Nazis they would have slaughtered millions more! Which is the point you are ignoring Jem.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How to be Taken Seriously
« on: August 22, 2014, 03:24:47 PM »
I agree with the OP in principle but there is the practical issue of the time it takes to obtain and read a book specified by someone else on the forum - plus the book specified may not be a book you would choose to read on the subject. One can end up with each person telling the other or others to read particular books/journal articles.

I don't think Socrates would use such tactics, even now with more books available.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Dawkins Apologizes!
« on: August 22, 2014, 03:13:30 PM »
"the don is slipping"

Quote from: ericbwonder
You have no idea what you're talking about, so stop pretending.

I know into what categories the (later) Jews divided their scriptures--I guarantee you, I've read far more Old Testament/Hebrew Bible introductions and surveys than you have...I am well conversant in these matters.

Ah the familiar claim to superior knowledge (despite being incapable of being proved in a forum like this).
This should be ignored.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 299