Does God have feelings? And if so can we hurt Gods feelings? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Does God have feelings? And if so can we hurt Gods feelings?

matt adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 23 (view)

Does God have feelings? And if so can we hurt Gods feelings? Posted: 6/4/2007 6:59:30 PM
The suffering savior... At the end times, billions of people were scattered on a great plain before Gods throne. Most shrank before the brilliant light before them. But some of the groups at the front talked heatedly-Not with cringing shame, but with beligerance. 'Can God judge us?' 'How can he know about suffering?' Snapped a young brunette. She ripped open her sleeve to reveal a tattooed number from a Nazi concentration camp. 'We endured terror... Beating... Torture... Death!' In another group, a black man lowered his collar. 'What about this?' He demanded, showing an ugly rope burn. 'Lynched for no crime but being black!' In another crowd, a pregnant schoolgirl with sullen eyes, 'Why should I suffer?' She murmered. 'It wasn't my fault.' Far across the plain was hundreds of such groups. Each had a complaint against God for the evil and suffering he had permited in his world. How lucky God was to live in a heaven where all was sweetness and light, where there was no weeping or fear, no hunger or hatred! What did God know of what men had been forced to endure in this world? 'For God leads a pretty sheltered life.' they said. So each of these groups sent forth their leader, chosen because they had suffered the most. A jew, a black, a person from Hiroshima, a horribly disabled arthritic, a thalodimide child. In the center of the plain they consulted with each other. At the last, they were ready to present their case. It was rather clever. Before God could be qualified to be their judge, he must endure what they endured. Their verdict was that God should be sentenced to live on earth- As a man! Let him be born a Jew! Let the legitimacy of his birth be doubted. Give him a work that would be so difficult that even his family will think him out of his mind when he tries to do it. Let him be betrayed by his closest friends. Let him face false charges, be tried by a prejudiced jury and be convicted by a cowardly judge. Let him be tortured. At last, let him see what it means to be terribly alone. Then let him die in agony. Let him die so that there can be no doubt that he is dead. Let there be a whole host of witnesses to verify it. As each leader announced the portion of their sentence, a loud murmur of approval went up from the throng of people assembled. When the last had finished pronouncing sentence there was a long silence. No one uttered another word. No one moved. For suddenly, all knew that God had already served his sentence... I kind of thought that this might be appropriate for this forum. An earlier poster mentioned how Jesus has the ssame feelings as we do... This is not original to me, but I thought it is a good read.

matt adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 8 (view)

Evidence of things not seen... Posted: 6/4/2007 2:33:34 PM
Mak, I can see how that quote you gave can be used by both sides of the debate! I can see that I am going to enjoy this, because I can tell by your posts on here that you are intellectually honest, and I am a fan of every person here like that... Mak68, "Actually, if we were to take your word for it, all this tells us is that the writings were consistent with previous copies, and still does not prove the existence of god." Matt Adore, We both agree that for the most part the bible writings were consistent with the previous copies, and we both agree that this is not proof that God exists... But this point is something that I've seen denied on the religious forums often in order to detract from a believers case for the existence of God. Unless it would be called a 'foul' for using circular reasoning when I say that if an atheist uses the statement that the bible is not trustworthy because it is a copy of a copy of a copy; then there must be some kind of merit in a believers argument when he uses the bibles' consistency with the earliest copies for his case. What is your oppinion of this thought? Why does the atheist argue against the validity of the bible if it is not a strong tactic in their oppinion? P.S. Mak, no matter what authourity we produce for one another, there are always going to be folks on here that won't have much good to say about them, will they, Lol?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 35 (view)

Speaking In Tounges Posted: 6/3/2007 5:49:27 PM
"Tongues have Ceased" Cassandra: You need to read the whole chapter not just a blurb of it and interpret as such. You need to also read chapter 14 in which Paul addresses the concerns with speaking in tongues and establishes an order with it. He does not tell the church to completely cease using it. The God I serve is the same yesterday, today and forever. I believe you and I serve the same God but I do not believe he stopped in spititual manifestations in 70 Ad. What if someone (most likely Cassandra, Lol!) were to say that because you believe God ordains present day speaking in tongues and Cassandras' doesn't, that you worship different gods? Would you believe that pleading to a believer to speak in tongues be part of the gospel message? Instead of proselytizing christians, would you believe that they needed to be saved? Speaking of Cassandra, where'd she go??? Maybe there is a conspiracy at POF against her, Lol!

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 1 (view)

Evidence of things not seen... Posted: 6/3/2007 4:48:21 PM
This is a discussion that mak68 and myself had on a different forum. We wanted to move this discusion before it detracted from the other forum... Matt Adore, ""Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies."" Mak68, "All this proves is that there are very old versions of the bible. The epic of gilgamesh, which were found on clay tablets date back even more. As well as the code of hammurabi. Does this make them more true than the bible? No. What we have is your claim that is what they are. Your claim does not equal evidence. Provide some evidence to support your claim. Actually, if we were to take your word for it, all this tells us is that the writings were consistent with previous copies, and still does not prove the existence of god." Matt Adore, ""Thanks Mak, that was my goal^^^... Of course we realize that this will be a long and drawn out proccess and it will take quite a bit of time to build on this. I have the patience to do so... But for the longevity of this forum, maybe we ought to move this discussion to a more appropriate forum before this forum suffers from being off topic? The Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars... Septuagint.net Between 1949 and 1956, in what became a race between the Bedouin and the archaeologists, ten additional caves were found in the hills around Qumran, caves that yielded several more scrolls, as well as thousands of fragments of scrolls: the remnants of approximately 800 manuscripts dating from approximately 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/discovery.shtml"" Mak68, "Thanks Matt, much appreciated. But again how does this prove the existence of god? What is the correlation between proving that these texts are consistent, and the proof of a god? The greek myths were also handed down from century to century, in pretty much the same form, does that make the myths an actual fact? Did zeus and apollo really live. Was hercules an actual person? Matt, if your game, so am I. Actually I look forward to a debate like this. I think we may both learn a thing or two. So if you'd like, create the thread. Unfortunately I have to attend a family function right now, so my participation will most likely begin tomorrow." Matt Adore, Of course this forum is open to all. I expect it to change and grow with time. I will most likely keep my part of this forum limited to Mak68. I don't know if this forum will last, but I hope that it will.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 40 (view)

Cain and Able Posted: 6/3/2007 3:47:59 PM
@ Can it be ""I want to point out that Adam and Eve obviously had other children besides Cain and Abel"". "....This is typical false doctrine commonly propagated by many Fundamentalists.....the only other child they had was Seth!......there is nothing in Genesis or else where that suggests that they had anybody else!" ""By the time these two sons were grown men, there were many other sisters and brothers alive on the earth."" "unless you can demonstrate this scripturally....this is nothing but gibberish at best...and a sinful lie at worst!" ""The Bible just does not mention every descendent of Adam and Eve."" "......why not!..in Genesis it goes as far to mention all the sons/daughters of Seth and Cain, so why wouldn't there be any mention of other children that A & E may have had besides Seth?........i'm not saying that they name each one but why wouldn't it say that A & E went on to have many other offspring before their death!.....when cain killed Abel and went to the land of Nod...it says that "he laid with his wife" to have a child....so where did this woman of child-bearing age come from???.........are you saying that this was his sister that he brought with him?....why was the place that he went called the Land of Nod, if he was the only one there? ....and in Nod, where did Cain get all the pple to help build up a city?" Sum1reel, just because a geneology does not contain every person in descending order does not mean that it is a sinful lie or false doctrine... The geneology of Christ in the New Testament accounts also are incomplete. You can verify the validity of this statement by waiting for an atheist/agnostic to tell you that I'm right, or by examining the names of Christs' ancestors listed in Mathew and Luke and comparing them to their ancestory in the Old testament. You will find out that some names are left out... You wouldn't conclude that the New Testament is invalid because of this, would you? P.S. From Nergal... 1. The Bible does point out that Adam was the first man. And Eve was made from his rib .. allegedly cos Adam spent s0o much time bothering God with inane questions he wanted His revenge... Now that's funny, Lol! P.S.S. Sum1reel, when you say, "unless you can demonstrate this scripturally....this is nothing but gibberish at best...and a sinful lie at worst!"... Most people here appreciate a christian that can 'think outside the box', so to speak. When scripture is silent on some topics, it's ok to have a private interpretation(in this case, public) on topics like this. To impose a naturalistic oppinion as to where the other people came from is just the same as imposing an incestual oppinion.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 33 (view)

Just an opinion on God Posted: 6/3/2007 3:03:49 PM
"Actually, if we were to take your word for it, all this tells us is that the writings were consistent with previous copies, and still does not prove the existence of god." Thanks Mak, that was my goal... Of course we realize that this will be a long and drawn out proccess and it will take quite a bit of time to build on this. I have the patience to do so... But for the longevity of this forum, maybe we ought to move this discussion to a more appropriate forum before this forum suffers from being off topic? The Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars... Septuagint.net Between 1949 and 1956, in what became a race between the Bedouin and the archaeologists, ten additional caves were found in the hills around Qumran, caves that yielded several more scrolls, as well as thousands of fragments of scrolls: the remnants of approximately 800 manuscripts dating from approximately 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/discovery.shtml

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 29 (view)

Just an opinion on God Posted: 6/3/2007 1:37:17 PM
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 26 (view)

Just an opinion on God Posted: 6/3/2007 12:49:08 PM
"While we are on the subject of circular reasoning, how about this old chestnut... This classic case of circular reasoning has been used as an example for so long that we find only a few theists still using this fallacy: Is there a God? Yes. How do you know? Because the Bible says so. How do you know the Bible is correct? Because the truth is self evident..." Sky, I have adjusted your comment to fit my reasoning... I hear all the time from the atheist/agnostics here that it's foolish to believe in the Bible because it's not reliable. But there is enough evidence for me to disagree with ya'll about that. If you'd like to discuss this here we can; either that or we can do so on a different forum.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 23 (view)

Just an opinion on God Posted: 6/3/2007 7:14:29 AM
"In the Christian bible, it is said that man was made in the image of God, correct? Then it has been said that nobody is perfect...also correct? then it stands to reason that if man isn't perfect, then the being that we are supposedly modeled after isn't perfect either"... In the spirit of alyosha, I respectfully submit the following... OP, that is a circular conclussion. Circular reasoning can produce many truths, but is fallable. You are comparing man and god like you are comparing a penny to itself... A penny is round on one side because is is round on the other side. Circular reasoning that produces a true answer. A penny is copper colored on one side because it is copper colored on the other side, yet another truth from circular reasoning... A penny has a 'heads' side, so the other side is a 'heads' side also. This is an example of circular reasoning failing to produce a true answer... The orthodox christian would say that the bible teaches that God is perfect, as once was man. Then man sinned and left an inheritance of sin to his progeny. The sinful state of the human does not cause the righteous state of God to alter...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 138 (view)

Are Christians the only ones going to Heaven??? Posted: 6/2/2007 2:07:06 PM
My oppinion is that the answer is yes, kind of... But not everybody that will go to heaven will have ever heard of the word christian. In the old testament you have examples of faithful people that never heard of Christ... Enoch walked with God and is said to have pleased God; Noah found the grace of God; Abraham was called Gods' friend... The Bible teaches that the faithful that lived before the time of Christ believed Gods' promises of a future savior (Hebrews 11:13 'All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.')... I understand that many posters don't believe in the Bible like christians believe in it, but I would say that I have found enough evidence to put my hopes in its message. If any would like to discuss my findings, I would be glad to do so, just direct me to an appropriate forum.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 26 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 6/2/2007 11:08:40 AM
Wow, raveninns, I think I actually understand that! Do the creation myths go on to tell us about THE Creator? Is he a higher being than his creation?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 24 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 6/2/2007 10:31:21 AM
"We are the top of the food chain so no matter what the Gods intended we are above nature. However, there are consequences to everything." I love what you have said! I just want to make sure that I understand you well... Does the native american spirituality have any teachings about why we are at the top of the food chain, or does this belief come from modern evolutionary thinking? I was wondering, because in message #19 you said twice that the Gods did set us above nature. I would think that the native american spirituality might have had an explanation that is older than evolution, as to why humanity was was set up by the Gods as natures caretakers? And are you saying that native american spirituality doesn't have any traditions, myths or teachings that say humankind are accountable for failing, nor that there are no mentions of offending the Gods? "no matter what the Gods intended" I beg for your patience...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 83 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 6/2/2007 7:08:05 AM
"Hey, let me prove something really quick. Ice is cold. Ooooo wow, I guess its just impossible to prove that ice is cold." Yes and no... We have the word cold to explain cooler temperatures, but actually science describes temperature as only the presence of heat. Hot would be the presence of more heat, and cold would be the presence of less heat. I'm only bringing this up as an example of how everyone can think they know something, but can be wrong.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 21 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 6/2/2007 6:46:53 AM
Thanks a lot ya'll! I think I am getting a decent grasp of this part of the native american spirituality... "The emergence myth while not really documented, is often related as us coming from the earth, being a part of the earth with no real explanation as to why we are more intelligent than the animals of the earth, just that the gods created us that way. I'm not sure of the relevance, but my Grandmother once said we were there to protect the earth and its creatures, while they were there to sustain us." That would infer that we are set above nature in some sort of way... I wonder with the privelage and duty of having the responsibility of protecting the Earth and its creatures, is there anything from native american spirituality concerning our lack of desire to be custodians, or failure to do so? Are there teachings about consequences? I'm not saying that I don't have this desire, but I'm sure that I fall short.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 17 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 6/1/2007 4:27:07 PM
"Matt, If your looking for a evolutionary ladder, I'm not sure I can give it to you. I can't say we'd consider ourselves as being "higher beings" , maybe just sentient or intelligent beings. We try to live in harmony and we take responsibility for nature and animals. They were put on this earth to sustain us, but only if we are worthy and give back to the earth in respect." I'm not neccesarily looking for an evolutionary ladder, but more or less trying to reconcile my beliefs to the native americans spirituality. Does this spirituality answer as to why humankind is sentient or intelligent as compared to other things in nature? Why us instead of them? "As for subjugation, I come from a race of Warriors. My grandmother was Choctaw. History shows at various times races have tried to enslave us, but we tended to fight to the death rather than be subjugated. Freedom is important to us be it man or animal. In Many Native American tribes captives were often kept as slaves, not because we saw them as equal in nature to beast, but because they were our enemies." Is the desire for freedom more realized in the human being? Could an animals need to live it's own life according to its will be best described as instinctual instead of a concept of freedom?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 80 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 6/1/2007 3:29:12 PM
I sure do appreciate an OP that referees' his own forum! Alyosha, I take it back, I do think that you are a fair moderator, Lol! Since we came to some common ground earlier about humanity's inclination to be flawed, and that we should just try to love one another; it brings one of my favorite Bible verses to mind... "Without love you are sounding gongs and clanging cymbals", meaning that we can be no more than aggravating noise makers, Lol! No matter which side of the debate we stand on, we should all try to operate within the attributes of love.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 59 (view)

The Bible Codes Posted: 5/31/2007 6:59:59 PM
Adam Man Seth Appointed Enosh Mortal Kenan Sorrow Mahalalel The Blessed God Jared Shall come down Enoch Teaching Methuselah His death shall bring Lamech The despairing Noah Rest, or comfort Help me to understand please... The above is not a run on sentence with multiple statements and without explanations and loaded with understatement? Adam Man... Maximum understatement (Is there such a thing, Lol?) Seth appointed... To what? Enosh Mortal... Understatement Kenan Sorrow... Oh yeah? Tell me about it? Mahalalel The Blessed God... Hunh??? Jared shall come down... From where? Enoch Teaching... Teaching what? Methuselah His death shall bring... A new world record for longest life? Lamech The despairing... About what? Noah Rest, or comfort... Maybe both? This is the exact same thing that christians bring up to use against Nostradomus... Vague, indirect, ambiguous, moot, etc...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 173 (view)

Mental illness and demon possession Posted: 5/31/2007 6:35:10 PM
Whitegirl420, the Bible advocates that we take care of ourselves, even with medical treatment... You need to honor your mother and help her to be whole. I will not mock you by saying that her problems can't be caused by demon possesion, but I will say that you need to consider other probable causes also, in order to be an honorable daughter... Do you believe the human condition deteriorated with the passing of time? For instance, the Bible accounts of generations passed that were much longer lived in age? Medical illness as a cause is a possibilty...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 57 (view)

The Bible Codes Posted: 5/31/2007 6:20:48 PM
It's an incredulous way to get the Bible to say what you want it to say... It is a SAD, SAD example of christians making themselves look foolish. What is to be said about these people, when on one hand they argue that Nostradomus' prophecies are a mumbled jumble of gibberish that is illegitatmate, and then they try to use the same kind of mumbled jumble of gibberish to prove their point?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 71 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/31/2007 5:22:08 PM
Sorry sky, the forum started hopping and I forgot to respond to you, Lol! Your post even popped in between fiddlers double post as evidence of this... I liked your response a whole lot! I will not deny the terrible atrocities that have been commited in the name of religion and god. I am all for loving and learning from one another... It's good to be alive! Respectfully yours, Matt Adore

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 69 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/31/2007 5:08:48 PM
"You would have to operate in the light of rationality, reason, personal responsibility and the very real fact that you had to provide for the people you shared the space with..." What would happen if people didn't operate in the humanistic light? "I'm sure there are still plenty of spots for flaws in such a world...after all we are only human..." I think that just about every poster from just about every creed and philosophy would agree with this statement. In any proposed society, our human nature causes an "effect" in everything.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 63 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/31/2007 4:31:57 PM
Sky, that was a little vague. I think that fiddler or the OP would give a more thorough response than that... Why do you think it would be better?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 61 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/31/2007 4:06:06 PM
"No I am with the OP on this one... a previous poster was just trying to exonerate theists and tar and feather atheists as being godless cold-blooded killing machines that were somehow statistically far worse by making, IMHO, what is a very spurious and illogical argument since no war in history has ever been fought for a specific atheist driven agenda. The numbers don't matter because in the case cited, the cult of the state/cult of personality subsumed and replaced a religious cult. The very concept of an atheist war is nonsensical by its nature...to suggest it shows a lack of understanding of the values of atheists and humanism..." Fiddler, since you are not in agreement with the OP or the earlier poster, in your oppinion, what would a society based on humanism and atheism be like?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 59 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/31/2007 3:09:52 PM
"Just a quick search for ya, pretty accurate from all all I've read, the 100 million plus killed by commies sounds right, not to mention all the folks in history who we're killed for land, treasure and women, many more than those killed in the name of religion. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/com.art.HTM" I find it interesting that numbers matter in regards to atrocities commited in the name of religion, but numbers don't matter in regards to atrocities commited in the name of politics? Fiddler, are you suggesting that the earlier example is flawed and faulty because every governmental attrocity was influenced by religion? The OP has already acknowledged that he thinks that mankind would still harm one another even if their was no religion... Message #34 ""I think that if there was no religion we'd find something else to blame instead of accepting the responsibility ourselves."" "Alas, I heartily agree with you there." ""“[I]f man is wicked enough to have invented religion for himself he is surely wicked enough to have found alternative ways of making mischief.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007"" "Maybe the real argument is not between those who believe and those who do not, but between those who need to convince the others that they are wrong, and those (like Mak68) who hold their own beliefs but don’t need to proselytize on behalf of them, between what I have called the “noisy” believers (pro and con), and the “quiet” ones. On the evidence of this thoughtful, beautifully articulated, you are obviously one of the quiet ones."

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 11 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 5/31/2007 2:56:15 PM
Thanks for the answers Scheherrazade! I like to learn about other religions than my own, but sometimes have a tough time seeing them through what I have been taught... When you said, "Matt Adore, before the influence of western civilization, our Native American ancestors saw more of an equality with such things as our food, water, air etc. We felt the animals had as much right to be here as we did, yet knew they were also our means of survival. A hunter would would always hunt fairly and thank the animal for its sacrifice."... I still am interested as to an oppinion from an adherant to the native religions about if you believe or not that the human being is a higher being in nature than other beings. What if someone were to say because of your statement above, that it is alright to subjugate one ethnicity of man underneath another ethnicity because they are equal in nature to beasts of burden or food sources?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 107 (view)

Since Man Was Created First, Why Did God Give Man Nipples? Posted: 5/30/2007 6:21:07 PM
Thanks Ender!

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 105 (view)

Since Man Was Created First, Why Did God Give Man Nipples? Posted: 5/30/2007 6:13:57 PM
For the same reason he gave man an appendix, Lol! Earlier posters said that we are all female in the womb before gender is determined... I don't understand that, but I am a firm believer that Science and Theology mix far better than oil and water do, Lol! The poster said that the males in other mammal species also have nipples, and the animals were created before man was (in religion or evolution), so it goes without saying that men have nipples according to plan, Lol!

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 39 (view)

Could this be the precursor to the mark of the beast? Posted: 5/30/2007 4:19:39 PM
Around halloween where I used to live, a church put on this awesome End times "Tribulation Trail", as an option other than a haunted house... I took my neices and when we came to the part of the trail where the goverment told you that You have to take the mark or else; I took the mark, Lol! I don't think that they ever ran across that before, because they reluctantly "ink stamped" my hand... I walked around the rest of the trail boasting in front of the sufferers that didn't take the mark, all the while patting my belly saying, "I have a physique to maintain!". I thought it was humorous that the lady that guided us through the trail was fervently telling my neices to never do what I was doing, Lol! My belief as a christian is that a computer chip in my hand or forehead is not the mark of the beast. I believe that those prophecies about the mark of the beast were fulfilled in 70 AD... If I am wrong about this, I also believe that taking this computer chip will not cause me to lose my salvation... If I am wrong about this, god is not omnipotent and can not honor his promises to me that 'whosoever believes shall have everlasting life' and would not be the God that I thought he was. I think this thought begs the next question... does taking 'the mark' cause loss of salvation?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 7 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 5/30/2007 3:45:48 PM
"I am a living being who is a part of the Earth, NOT above it in any way." I am trying to compare my religion to that of yours, so this may sound unusual, but in the end, I'm just trying to understand... Because of what you said above, do you think that mankind is a commodity equal to such things as food, water, air, etc.? Or do you believe that we are set above all other parts of this world?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 55 (view)

Are Free Will and Predestination the reason for God's Grace? Posted: 5/30/2007 3:00:10 PM
"Actually, as I understand the term, "Reformed" means they were Protestants, although they might also have been Calvinists, as well. I do find it interesting to note that the Calvinist/Arminian argument subsequent to the Reformation effected an interesting split. Where the Arminians understood that man has to have the free will on which to base his choice, Calvin and his followers denied this and, essentially betrayed the Lutheran Reformation's motto "sola scriptura" by adding their own "traditions" of confessional, bizarre doctrine, etc." Feral, I pasted the chapter about "Free Will" from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith below. In my oppinion it is not meant to be considered to be equal with scriptue, but a teaching aide for reformed doctrine. I also offer it as an example that people do think for themselves. The baptists borrowed largely from the Westminister Confession of Faith, but added their oppinion to their confession when they had a differing oppinion than the Westminister... A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 CHAPTER 9 - FREE WILL IN the natural order God has endued man's will with liberty and the power to act upon choice, so that it is neither forced from without, nor by any necessity arising from within itself, compelled to do good or evil. Deut. 30:19; Mat. 17:12; Jas. 1:14. In his state of innocency man had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and acceptable to God.Yet, being unstable, it was possible for him to fall from his uprightness. Gen. 3:6; Eccles. 7:29. As the consequence of his fall into a state of sin, man has lost all ability to will the performance of any of those works, spiritually good, that accompany salvation. As a natural (unspiritual) man he is dead in sin and altogether opposed to that which is good. Hence he is not able, by any strength of his own, to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to turn to God. John 6:44; Rom. 5:6; 8:7; Eph. 2:1,5; Titus 3:3-5. When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. Nevertheless certain corruptions remain in the sinner, so that his will is never completely and perfectly held in captivity to that which is good, but it also entertains evil. John 8:36; Rom. 7:15,18,19,21,23; Phil. 2:13; Col.1:13. It is not until man enters the state of glory that he is made perfectly and immutably free to will that which is good, and that alone. Eph. 4:13.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 5 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 5/29/2007 3:32:17 PM
Thanks again seededearth... What is the motive for communion with God in the native american spirituality?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 3 (view)

Why Religion? Posted: 5/29/2007 3:04:10 PM
"The reason I ask is that I am of Native American descent, and although I do not follow any "Western" religious denomination I am spiritual, and do believe in a Higher Power whichever you choose to call it. I have morals, and principles which aid me in the governance of my life. I for the most part am a good person, although I do have my human faults as we all do. I've never killed, or harmed anyone. I've only ever tried to treat my fellow human beings with respect, and it's those principles that were installed in me through my Native American customs and culture." seededearth, can you please give me an outline of your native american sprituality, especially in regards to how you commune with God, if applicable? Thanks ahead of time...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 69 (view)

God or evolve from a primordial ooze Posted: 5/29/2007 2:48:50 PM
""I think that what the person that you are reasoning with is trying to say is that if we can teach an ape to communicate with sign language , and if Helen Keller can learn to communicate even though deaf, blind and mute; people of 'yesteryear' (put appropriate date and time) have had the capacity to be as smart as we are, just not the teaching..."" "If that's what he is saying, and it seems the indication is there, then it is logically fallacious. This is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, if A then B. If chimps can sign, then caveman has the capacity for space travel. It is an error in propositional logic due to lack of correlation between the the comparisons. Because we can teach a chimp to sign, in now way indicates that people of past ages can attain the level of thought we have today. There is no correlation." Sorry Mak, you are right about that... I was operating from my presuppositions when I mentioned the above. Operating more along the Helen Keller analogy, do you think that ancients like Socrates and the likes would be able to make passing grades in the best schools and thrive in our society if they were raised in our day and times? Do you think that the average person from our era could thrive in the future around 2000 years from now if they were raised in those times? P.S. I've always said that I can be intellectualy honest and admit when I'm wrong or admit that I agree with your good reasoning. Many of ya'll have done so with me in the past. I appreciate intellectual honesty...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 61 (view)

God or evolve from a primordial ooze Posted: 5/28/2007 4:08:44 PM
"""What do you think it was that brought us from staring at the moon to landing on it?""" ""I know that technology is the bridge between viewing and touching the moon. My question is, how does this count as evidence that those utilizing the technology are thinking any more highly than those without said technology?"" "It is not just technology that bridges us from the moon. This technology just did not fall in our lap. We had to develop it. How is it that we developed this technology? By being able to figure, calculate and reason on a higher level than previous. I've put the question to previous posters in this thread. If we haven't advanced our thinking from previous ages, then how come we either never landed on the moon in previous ages, or then explain how we were able to now? It's very convenient to state, well... technology is just a bridge from seeing to touching the moon. It's actually a rather vague statement, and explains very little, if nothing. We did not have the know-how or technology previously, now we do, we developed this over time, surely building on previous ideas." I think that what the person that you are reasoning with is trying to say is that if we can teach an ape to communicate with sign language , and if Helen Keller can learn to communicate even though deaf, blind and mute; people of 'yesteryear' (put appropriate date and time) have had the capacity to be as smart as we are, just not the teaching...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 156 (view)

Fear of God Posted: 5/28/2007 2:08:38 PM
"Many say they would rather be spiritual over religious. It is challenging to listen to the still small voice, and to hear and trust god, but if you do, you look religious, having a devotional holiday. Religion being, effort on one's own strength to please a god, then what can he do for you and your questions? Or listen seek his spirit, others who know him and listen... spiritual. Ask to drink living water like the woman at the well, the bible is full of god being with and talking with and empowering men and women, religion isn't all wrong, but it is sometimes about inventing god and laws and answers. Trying to please a god, sometimes involving bathing in ice water, flaggelation, long prayers... I agree with pilgrimage and fasting and prayer and bible read and drinking living water, seeking god's face, listening to those who have... Drinking god's spirit for refreshment after five husband's means the reverence due is possible, Jesus accepted her. Imagine sitting on grandad's knee in the garage with a hammer nearby, at five, it is a little awesome, gotta respect him, terror is altogether different. We learn respect, awe, reverence, Is 11:2. It is power given too." Hunh???

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 216 (view)

Biblical Polygyny Posted: 5/28/2007 1:45:57 PM
You're welcome Kara, but why can't you have another husband?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 153 (view)

Fear of God Posted: 5/28/2007 9:18:16 AM
I do not fear one who would create then forbid questions. I do not fear one who would create then leave the creation in a state of misery I do not fear one who would say "I am mystery" and expect no inquiries. Why gift a creation with intellect, curiosity then forbid their use? I do not fear God, but I do fear religion. Aaaand if I am wrong and religion is right, I then face eternity with the one attribute that will make it all worthwhile.................dignity Regularguy, I agree with you 100%! I wouldn't worship a god that was like that either, and I would go into eternity feeling justified even if it were in eternal hell... Fear him? Most likely I would. That god sounds like a bad apple...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 38 (view)

Regarding Hatred. Posted: 5/28/2007 6:21:05 AM
A quote from "Zen Moon"... I teach my 3 sons not to use the word “hate.” The word itself is just that, a word. However, the meaning and power it carries by simply using it can be devastating. When one says, “I hate…this or that,” hate is not placed in that in which you hate, but rather in the haters heart, your heart. It is more damaging to the one that hates then to that in which is being hated. When you have hate in your heart, it can spread like a virus, and it becomes easier to hate, thus polluting your heart in this endless hatred, finally turning your heart black. Just by using the word “hate,” whether you mean it or not, it can spread, battle, and conflict with the love that is also in your heart. There is no good that comes directly from hate. By hating something, you allow that thing to further bother you even more then it already has. If you really “dislike” this thing so much, then let it go, if you don’t then you are allowing it to control you, thus increasing your hatred towards it. By just simply using the word this chain reaction can happen. The word “hate” should not be used lightly, preferably not at all. The fact that I stated “hate” is a “bad” word implies a discrimination, an expectation, a prejudice is in effect. If I was in this state of neutrality myself, “hate” would neither be bad nor good. The two would be one. However, I used this headline to make a point. To bring forth awareness, like a slap to your head that wakes you up, just when you thought you were already awake.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 213 (view)

Biblical Polygyny Posted: 5/28/2007 5:46:07 AM
Hey, this gives me a thought!!! Since there are so many instances in the Bible of feast after feast, the Rich Mans Table, Etc... This obviously means that I should be the glutton that I've always wanted to be!!! Wow, I am so glad that the OP shared their style of reasoning with me; now I can live my life like I've always wanted! I hear folks say that gluttony is a sin, but for some reason I just can't see it, Lol! Anyway, doesn't the Bible say, "Eat, drink and be merry!"??? WAIT A MINUTE!!! MAYBE I SHOULD START DRINKING TOO!!! This just gets better and better! Hey Kara, the lady at the well had how many husbands? I think you're hot!!! How about looking at me as a possible brother husband?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 157 (view)

The Reality of Choice Posted: 5/27/2007 1:26:53 PM
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: Every religion has some core, fundamental Truth... that's how adherents remain loyal. Some are rather obscure, some appeal to the most basic of human emotional needs, but all of them, somewhere, have a grain of Truth. That doesn't mean I believe everything about everything, it means that I can appreciate the diversity, while also seeing the things that bring them together. Except for scientologists. :-P Hey trippy hare, This quote gave me a thought... Would you give one or two of N8's analogies a tune-up, so to speak; with the core, fundamental truths that you referenced?

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 33 (view)

Are Free Will and Predestination the reason for God's Grace? Posted: 5/27/2007 12:05:45 PM
This is from James Pedigru Boises' "Abstract of Systematic Theology"... The Scriptures recognize both the sovereignty of God, and the free agency, and accountability of man. Consciousness assures us of the latter. The nature of God, as has just been shown, proves the former. The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the two. Paul even declines to discuss the subject, saying, "Nay but, oh man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. 9:20. The two facts are plainly revealed. They cannot be contradictory, they must be reconcilable. That we cannot point out the harmony between them is a proof, only of our ignorance, and limited capacity, and not that both are not true. It is certain, however, that, whatever may be the influences which God exercises, or permits, to secure the fulfilment of his purposes, he always acts in accordance with the nature, and especially with the laws of mind he has bestowed upon man. It is equally true, that his action is in full accord with that justice, and benevolence, which are such essential attributes of God himself.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 28 (view)

Are Free Will and Predestination the reason for God's Grace? Posted: 5/27/2007 5:13:36 AM
I did a little study on the Grace of God in the Bible... I found that Grace is freely given; Ps 84:11, Ac 11:23, 13:43... I found that Grace empowers people for service; 1 Co 3:10, 15:10... I found that Grace is not given for selfish use; 1 Pe 4:10 I found that Grace is promised to the humble: 1 Pe 5:5 Jesus' Grace was exhibited in childhood; Lk 2:40 Jesus' Grace was manifested in self-sacrifice; 2 Co 12:9 Jesus' Grace is sufficient for human needs: 2 Co 12:9 Jesus' Grace is a source of power; 2 Ti 2:1 I found that salvation is by Grace; Ac 15:11, Ro 5:15, Ro 11:6, Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7 I found out about the richness of Grace; Eph 2:7, Eph 2:7, 1 Ti 1:14

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 206 (view)

Biblical Polygyny Posted: 5/26/2007 10:06:34 AM
My friend at work gets fussed at all the time by the ladies here at work, and he says, "It's like having five wives!"

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 2 (view)

Fate! Posted: 5/26/2007 9:09:12 AM
Fate doesn't exist in America, so I suggest that you move here and go out with me!

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 21 (view)

Are Free Will and Predestination the reason for God's Grace? Posted: 5/26/2007 7:49:45 AM
Abraham was called a friend of God. I don't think that God needed us in order to be content, but I do think that he wants to be in a friendly relationship with us.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 35 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/26/2007 7:02:48 AM
"The thing that scares me about religion is the promotion of non-responsibility, the idea that you should accept and not question the teachings. One of my friends is a Muslim and the things her mother has suffered at the hands of her father and her father's family are horrible, and religion is used to make this suffering and cruelty something that is deemed acceptable." I think your post was very good Rune3. In all religions you can have them used and abused by mankind. In Islam, you have many worshipers that are non violent and are a credit to their religion, just like you have the radical extremists. The same can be said of christianity. What we have here is akin to the gun debate. Do guns kill or is it the trigger man? Does religion suject it's followers or does its disciples? ... Guns have the capacity to be abused just like religion, but they also have the capacity for good just like religion. I think that this is a real concern in the world, but I also think that humankinds nature would still be violent and abusive to one another in a 100% secular world. If there were no guns, how long would it be before he picked up a rock to beat you with? If there was no religion how long would it be before he subjected you with his politics? This should be evident to all, and if not, I can post some great examples.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 9 (view)

Are Free Will and Predestination the reason for God's Grace? Posted: 5/25/2007 6:46:01 PM
I for one would agree with Sassy on this somewhat... This is from James Pedigru Boises' "Abstract of Systematic Theology"... The Scriptures recognize both the sovereignty of God, and the free agency, and accountability of man. Consciousness assures us of the latter. The nature of God, as has just been shown, proves the former. The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the two. Paul even declines to discuss the subject, saying, "Nay but, oh man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. 9:20. The two facts are plainly revealed. They cannot be contradictory, they must be reconcilable. That we cannot point out the harmony between them is a proof, only of our ignorance, and limited capacity, and not that both are not true. It is certain, however, that, whatever may be the influences which God exercises, or permits, to secure the fulfilment of his purposes, he always acts in accordance with the nature, and especially with the laws of mind he has bestowed upon man. It is equally true, that his action is in full accord with that justice, and benevolence, which are such essential attributes of God himself.

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 27 (view)

Are we better off with or without Posted: 5/25/2007 6:19:57 PM
"I may not have expressed this as clearly as I could. I agree that we have these, so I don't see what the advantage to us is if indeed this world is under the oversight of a supreme being. " I think that we are under the oversight of a supreme being, but I also think that we are under the oversight of the human being as well...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 119 (view)

Fear of God Posted: 5/25/2007 4:25:30 PM
My name is Charlie. I combined the names Matt Adore as a play on words, Adore meaning love and also sounding like a matador, Lol! This was one of my pro wrestling names, but my favorite was Bruiser Miller... I try to follow the spirit of our friend alyosha. He likes to keep things civil around here, and I don't blame him, Lol! I do find it interesting that you don't recognize the monarchy. That's an interesting way to not answer my question...

Matt Adore

Joined: 10/1/2006

Msg: 112 (view)

Fear of God Posted: 5/25/2007 2:57:23 PM
"Definition of murder: The unlawful intentional killing of a human being. The aforethought, e.g. premeditated. In common law even an accomplice, or accomplices, are guilty of the same crimes. " Thanks for the definition Sky... Is there a reason why you did not highlight all the words from the definition? What about the word 'unlawful'? Did you not highlight it because of the difficulty in deliniating what would be defined as 'lawful' and what would not be? What may be 'lawful' can vary from state to state, or from country to country and also from person to person... I have a question for you Tony, since you are Brittish, maybe you can help me with it... When the Queen was in America recently, one of the things that I heard about the Royal Family is that her husband can legally kill anyone that threatens her well being. I kind of took this almost as a 007 kind of thing; a liscence to kill? Would this be a special right for someone of high privelage in life? Please be civil with me, I really want to understand...

Show ALL Forums