Well, then...Frankly- that is Coprolite.
"the WTs `works only"- blows your speel out of credulity.
HOWEVER Christ DID COMMAND the preaching WORK.
So if you are referring to Christ's command, THEN what you said makes sense, in a faithless sorta way! heh
Hey now! Animal excrement in stone, that's a bit harsh dude, don't ya think?
Thank you my brothers and for you Brian for starting this thread. Oh my goodness, I can't tell you how many times I have had thoughts about the decisions that our heavenly Father has made when it relates to people that first appear to me to be innocent.
I then have to review His attributes. Especially His wisdom and justice which far out weights our own on every level. I think too that some of the details have been omitted from the scriptures to test our thinking ability and loyalty. Are we relying on our heavenly Father's holy breathe through His son to be our guide or are we leaning too much on our own understanding? Or are we relying on a group of men, organization, forum or church group to decipher what the scriptures mean?
We stand alone before our judge Jesus Christ and if it were not for his affection for us and our heavenly Father's immense love and grace, none of us would pass scrutiny.
Shalom
Thanks BeginAgain . Im glad you got something out of the thread. I started in order to up-build people. Seems to be doing that by and large.
Kind of relating to what you said I tend to grade scripture these days. I kind of very roughly view the old testament as bronze standard, and the new testament collectively as silver standard, and the gospels and gold standard. Kind of helps me put it into perspective.
I understand what you're saying.
Richard Dawkins makes me laugh, in his quote about God being the most unpleasant, genocidal character in all fiction.
He berates God for his unpleasant activities, such as "wiping out" the Canaanites.
But I wonder how Richard Dawkins would feel if a bunch of them moved in next door, and started sacrificing their children to Molech in the back lawn?
Besides, as a people, they had a full 40 year warning ... because the people of Jericho had heard about Jehovah's activities in Egypt and at the Red Sea ... and in those days, people were very nomadic, and so rather than "wiping out" the Canaanites, the smart ones would have gotten out of there well before the Israelites turned up at their doorstep.
That's possibly why the actual population counts of those cities were recorded as relatively small ... the smart ones had simply moved :D
You know I actually quite like Richard Dawkins as a human being as it were, but of course don`t agree with most of his comments about Christianity. One guy I really don`t like that much is Christopher Hitchens what do think about him?
Nice essay, Bri! It's an encouragement to look deeper into such accounts as this.
Not trying to be nit-picky but, did you notice that you used Paul's name instead of Peter's throughout? I think you can edit.
love,
Rez
You know I actually quite like Richard Dawkins as a human being as it were, but of course don`t agree with most of his comments about Christianity. One guy I really don`t like that much is Christopher Hitchens what do think about him?
I quite like him... he's got a very biting sense of humour, and can be very blunt.
I find atheists an intriguing - but ultimately irrational - bunch.
My best friend is an atheist, and I used to be one myself, so I know how atheists think. They have very "rational" (or so they suppose), scientific, skeptical minds ... but the problem is, not everything under heaven and earth can be rationalized or put in a test tube for testable, repeatable experimentation ...
... which really screws with the atheist's mind!
I find that Dawkins and Hitchens tend to make very simplistic arguments in favour of atheism. I read most of The God Delusion recently (got bored near the end), and while it puts forward quite a compelling argument (which convinced my friend to go from agnostic to atheist), his arguments are, quite frankly ... full of holes.
In fact, if Dawkins' worldview is true (i.e. evolution, a possible multiverse etc), then why couldn't some godlike entity have evolved, anyway?
If we have supposedly gone from slime to human in 4.6 billion years, double that and you could easily get to godlike entity.
Take that one step further (he argues for possibly multiple universes, i.e. a multiverse) then all it takes is for one godlike entity to evolve, with the capacity to create a Universe, and BOOM ... "In the beginning, [godlike entity] created the heavens and the earth."
And that's just for starters.
What about energy? Can energy evolve? Can energy become intelligent, and form thoughts? What if, at some point, vast, unlimited energy developed the capacity for thought, and to sustain that thought ... with its vast resources, it could be ... BOOM: ..."In the beginning, [vast, intelligent energy godlike entity] created the heavens and the earth."
So their skepticism of the idea of gods or God is ... irrational :D
Nice essay, Bri! It's an encouragement to look deeper into such accounts as this.
Not trying to be nit-picky but, did you notice that you used Paul's name instead of Peter's throughout? I think you can edit.
love,
Rez
I'm so daft I cannot believe it. Indeed it is Peter. Why did I type Paul the whole way through? If anyone wants proof that i`m not perfect here it is. I shall edit. It was actually the first draft I posted so never went through it to check. Also the word paste was supposed to be paster lol I need the change that as well. LOL Thanks for letting me know Rez.
No problem-o bro!:thumbup:
I'm so daft I cannot believe it. Indeed it is Peter. Why did I type Paul the whole way through? If anyone wants proof that i`m not perfect here it is. I shall edit. It was actually the first draft I posted so never went through it to check. Also the word paste was supposed to be paster lol I need the change that as well. LOL Thanks for letting me know Rez.
Don't be too hard on yourself, pal. You aren't alone. I actually didn't notice either since I was so wrapped up in your own agony in wrestling over what I too perceived at first look as cruel and unusual punishment. So I'm with you 150%.
Especially when I relate so much to e-magine's experience with the charlatans who invade the trust of unsuspecting brothers. As he has personally experienced, so have I. And like him I try not let the bitterness destroy me.
Cheers,
sw
Thanyou SW.
I actually kind if laughed at myself when Rez point out my mistake because i`m quite good at analyzing scriptures with a fine tooth comb, only to forget some glaring detail like a name. LOL Fortunately it doesn't affect the analysis itself. Ive just corrected my little essay regarding the name and a few other spelling mistakes and a sentence or two that didn't make sense.
Its terrible that you have experienced charlatans who invade the trust of unsuspecting brothers. I know the cultural times now are completely different to back then, so such charlatans may not create as much harm as back then in terms of life and death survival issues. However the scripture that has Christ say the following comes to mind:
Mat 18:10 "See to it that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you, their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
Mat 18:11 For the Son of Man came to save the lost."
The word despise means according to strongs `to think against, that is, disesteem: - despise.`
The implication of this verse is not only that we all have guardian angels that represent our interests to God, but that the activity of any brother or sister who is acting against another in thought or deed, as with a charlatan has their acts, thoughts and deeds logged in heaven before God because Jesus came to save the brothers and sisters. So life and death could still be an issue as the victims could be stumbled out of their faith as opposed to food and immediate survival issues.