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 ... 388
Literally "Spirit the God [is]" with "is" being implicit.

There's no "a" as there is no indefinite article in NT Greek. English Bible translators insert them according to grammar and context since indefinite articles are an essential part of English.

I'm not sure you can read an emphasis on singularity of spirit from this verse. I take this verse as qualitative rather than quantitative.

Quote from: JohnBee
I'd simply ask to show in the Bible where the Father, Son and Holy spirit are taught to share in co-equality, so as to determine what is most likely true.
On what basis does "co-equality" preclude the Trinity? What does "equality" actually mean here. If it means identically equal in the mathematical sense then you have assumed the Trinity is invalid trivially.

In John chapter 13 Jesus demonstrated that serving someone doesn't necessitate inferiority.

Quote from: Emuse
And in order to do that they would simply need to argue that a metaphysically contingent being (eg, a human) cannot simultaneously be a necessary being (eg, God) in the same way that a married person cannot simultaneously be a person who has never been married.

Karl Barth preferred to avoid the word "person" because it makes us think that God is like human beings. Man is made in the image of God but God is not made in the image of man, although many may do that in their own minds. Barth preferred the phrase "modes of being" or Seinsweise.

Quote from: AaronMassey
Made by?
Quoting Heb 2:9,10 Aaron has picked up on made in:

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.10In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered Heb 2:9,10

It's important to realise that "make lower" and "make perfect" are single words in the Greek and have no particular connection to the idea of creation. #justsaying

For instance if someone is demoted at work ("made lower") or if someone is given a perfect mark, this does not involve creating that person.

Was Jesus talking about himself?
Why does Jesus referring to God as the "Lord your God" preclude the Trinity? This statement about testing God would be true whether Jesus was referring to YHWH (i.e. the Trinity), the Father, the Holy Spirit or Himself.

How do you know that you have not constructed your own model of what you think the Trinity should be knowing that the Bible does not support your own model in your own opinion.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground Gen 1:26 NIV

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Gen 2:15 NIV

Churchill said and did a lot of good things, but not everything he said and did was good:


I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and nazism, I would choose communism.
Speaking in the House of Commons, autumn 1937
I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores.
In a letter to his mother, 1896

I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin.
Quoted in the Boston Review, April/May 2001

"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable.
Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
Churchill to Asquith, 1910

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

You are callous people who want to wreck Europe - you do not care about the future of Europe, you have only your own miserable interests in mind.
Addressing the London Polish government at a British Embassy meeting, October 1944

So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?
Addressing Stalin in Moscow, October 1944

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

Well thanks for the compliment, H.H. Gratefully received.

Now maybe it's because I'm British and most people here are American, so I have different views on subjects like climate change, capitalism and Islam. Having said that I've worked in America for some short periods and there are plenty of Americans who hold very different views on such subjects. And there are plenty of British people who hold views that are different from mine on such subjects.

What I have noticed more generally (and this doesn't apply solely to theists or atheists, or other subgroups) is that there are some forum posters who put forward a view. This is challenged with persuasive evidence that may or may not be correct. The original poster does not respond to the evidence in that thread, then in a later thread the original poster puts forward the same views unchanged - as if they were never challenged earlier. Round and round the mulberry bush. That is quite puzzling. Especially as they must have got their views from somewhere. Is this because they just like to argue for its own sake?

However, I'm still not sure what you mean by "the gospel message must echo in your ear a bit differently than it does for most Christians."

Hi H.H.

I'm not absolutely convinced I do disagree with Q11 - that was his word not mine. Q11 often likes to explore a subject from all angles (no bad thing!), so I'm not going to say I disagree with him.

What's "the version of the Gospel being preached by most Christians" and how do you actualy determine what that is. There are a lot of Christians. Remember things like Youtube or Christian TV channels may not be representative.

And what do you think is "what I take to be the true message of Christ". I'd be interested to know what that is.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all


Hope y'all know the actor and the film - but remember it was make believe, not real!

Dang I left out "leftists"!

Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version).

Remember, it turned out he wasn't insane after all.

Corrrect Aequitas! Actually the 1978 Donald Sutherland version is good but this version (despite creaky effects) is better imo - a much tighter script and directing which leads to quite a shocking ending.

Some good ones - thanks RF community.


Hope y'all know the actor and the film - but remember it was make believe, not real!

Dang I left out "leftists"!

That's much clearer, lapwing, thanks.

I guess at the moment we disgaree - sometimes I think the gospel and christianity is presented so poorly that it would have been better off if the evangelist had remained silent.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” from Rom 10

I'm not sure that answers the question lapwing.

Are you saying that the manner of delivery of the gospel, or whether it is delivered at all, has absolutely no effect?  That preaching or not, or preaching inaudibly or not, or preaching offensively or not, or preaching incoherently or not, or preaching in a poor manner or not, makes no difference whatsoever?

I don't think I can add to or improve on SPF's answer to this. I do think that not preaching the gospel is a bigger danger than preaching the gospel poorly. Remember that not everyone will agree on what is poor or good preaching anyway. I do mean "preaching the gospel" rather than preaching something else e.g. works based salvation, or salvation based on giving money to the preacher.

However, I'm not saying "that the manner of delivery of the gospel, or whether it is delivered at all, has absolutely no effect?  That preaching or not, or preaching inaudibly or not, or preaching offensively or not, or preaching incoherently or not, or preaching in a poor manner or not, makes no difference whatsoever?"

If it's incoherent or inaudible then it's not preaching the gospel is it? People have got to be able to understand the message. "Offensive" is subjective. I'm probably more sensitive about what is offensive (e.g swear words) than most people on this forum. However, I'm only one person and the gospel should be explained in the language of the hearers rather than the language of the church.

People are lost because of their own love of self and not because of the delivery method of the good news.

So the way in which the gospel is delivered (or possibly even whether it's delivered at all) doesn't matter at all?

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God
from 1 Cor 1

Note that Paul does not claim to be eloquent - but he was still effective.

The Greek word for foolishness here is used only in the early part of 1 Corinthians: 1:18,21,23; 2:14; 3:19

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” ; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

Note that this works both ways: the gospel is foolish to the world AND the wisdom of the world is foolish to God. Note also the danger of boasting about human leaders - could that include the Pope I wonder?

The Greek word for foolishness is μωρία which if you know your Greek letters spells Moria in Roman letters! (My admiration for Catholic Tolkien just went up another notch)

You raised the IMF, not me
Yes, but you quoted me raising the IMF and instead started talking about the UN, which I didn't raise, in response to the quote of my raising the IMF. That's still a non sequitur.

You didn't answer:
Which organisations aren't socialist or communist i.e. aren't part of a worldwide plot against you Gordy?

There are many other Cardinals that see global warming as I do however.
Isn't this decided by papal encyclicals rather than a headcount of your opinion of how cardinals view global warming?

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 388