100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Blood sacrifice | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/16/12 11:30 PM
|
|
If you base your logic on something you read in scriptures concerning what some prophet said, or allegedly condemned, I would say that you were simply basing your belief on what you are reading or on someone else's opinions. You are simply taking sides. And since I don't base my belief on said scriptures and what some long dead prophet had to say, I don't think much of the logic either. So it doesn't apply to me at all, and I still have no opinion about it. I don't base my belief on scripture. I can however, read it and see where and how it agrees with my beliefs. Nice cop-out, btw... You call having no opinion a cop out? I don't feel I am obliged to have (or express) an opinion on everything that pops up. Some things aren't even worth the effort. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The logic your using Pan is suspect for lots of different reasons. Your claiming that because a certain verse claims to 'predict' another that it has actually done so. For one, they are in the same chapter, so they're most likely written by the same author. For two, it could have been added after the fact, and you'd never know.
Am I making sense here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you base your logic on something you read in scriptures concerning what some prophet said, or allegedly condemned, I would say that you were simply basing your belief on what you are reading or on someone else's opinions. You are simply taking sides. And since I don't base my belief on said scriptures and what some long dead prophet had to say, I don't think much of the logic either. So it doesn't apply to me at all, and I still have no opinion about it. I don't base my belief on scripture. I can however, read it and see where and how it agrees with my beliefs. Nice cop-out, btw... You call having no opinion a cop out? I don't feel I am obliged to have an opinion on everything that pops up. Some things aren't even worth the effort. lol! You had an opinion on how I didn't make sense. It's not my fault you're confused, I tried... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Fri 03/16/12 11:34 PM
|
|
The logic your using Pan is suspect for lots of different reasons. Your claiming that because a certain verse claims to 'predict' another that it has actually done so. For one, they are in the same chapter, so they're most likely written by the same author. For two, it could have been added after the fact, and you'd never know. Am I making sense here? OK, next time you debate a science topic, make sure you use an old science book. That's the type of logic you're espousing right now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 03/16/12 11:42 PM
|
|
I don't base my belief on scripture. I can however, read it and see where and how it agrees with my beliefs.
Come up with all this stuff about God and prophets on your own did ya? Some folk call what you describe here confirmation bias. I call it looking for evidence to support what it is you've already made your mind up about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you base your logic on something you read in scriptures concerning what some prophet said, or allegedly condemned, I would say that you were simply basing your belief on what you are reading or on someone else's opinions. You are simply taking sides. And since I don't base my belief on said scriptures and what some long dead prophet had to say, I don't think much of the logic either. So it doesn't apply to me at all, and I still have no opinion about it. I don't base my belief on scripture. I can however, read it and see where and how it agrees with my beliefs. Nice cop-out, btw... You call having no opinion a cop out? I don't feel I am obliged to have an opinion on everything that pops up. Some things aren't even worth the effort. lol! You had an opinion on how I didn't make sense. It's not my fault you're confused, I tried... I don't have the time or energy to evaluate your psyche to try to figure out how to understand your logic or reasoning. You don't make sense to me. Don't take that too personal. I don't feel it necessary to understand you. I have faith that you know what you mean. I don't really have a need to know. I'm sure you make perfect sense to yourself. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 03/16/12 11:37 PM
|
|
It has already been SHOWN in scripture, thst God
was OPPOSED to human sacrifice. It has also already been SHOWN in scriptures, that GOD HIMSELF , stepped down (thru God the Son), and took our place on the cross, and not just some mere mortal man . God HIMSELF became man !!!! JESUS WAS CALLED EMANUEL.... GOD WITH US...cause He was fully God as well as fully man !!! Again....that was NOT just a mere man on that cross at Calvary !!! But of course, you will always have those people who will Completely DISMISS what scriptures say; and instesd, will CONTINUE TO TWIST what God's' Word says, due to their own LACK of understanding,and their REJECTION of God and His Word. And that is why NO man can EVER come to believe and accept God and What His Word says, UNTIL God FIRST DRAWS Him unto Himself.... and SAVES Him... and OPENS HIS EYES TO TRUTH ( SO HE CAN NOW FINALLY AND AT LONG LAST SEE). GOD THEN ALSO GIVES HIM A BRAND NEW HEART OF LOVE....A HEART THAT KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS AND LOVES GOD AND THE THINGS OF GOD NOW !!! THEN AND ONLY THEN, Will God's Word become PERFECTLY CLEAR to man!!! CAUSE HE IS NOW BORN AGAIN AND CAN NOW SEE !!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 03/16/12 11:41 PM
|
|
The logic your using Pan is suspect for lots of different reasons. Your claiming that because a certain verse claims to 'predict' another that it has actually done so. For one, they are in the same chapter, so they're most likely written by the same author. For two, it could have been added after the fact, and you'd never know. Am I making sense here? OK, next time you debate a science topic, make sure you use an old science book. That's the type logic you're espousing right now... This needs some explanation. I do not expect that that will come. I'd like to be wrong though. I mean, what does old science books in debates have to do with what has been clearly shown above? It is most likely the case that the same author predicted his own lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The logic your using Pan is suspect for lots of different reasons. Your claiming that because a certain verse claims to 'predict' another that it has actually done so. For one, they are in the same chapter, so they're most likely written by the same author. For two, it could have been added after the fact, and you'd never know. Am I making sense here? OK, next time you debate a science topic, make sure you use an old science book. That's the type logic you're espousing right now... This needs some explanation. I do not expect that that will come. I'd like to be wrong though. Don't worry, you are usually wrong... If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past... If you cannot or will not actually research what is written in the Bible, then you are intellectually dishonest... If you cannot or will not render a judgement on these things, then why are you here? Get it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 03/17/12 12:00 AM
|
|
I
f you base your LOGIC on something you read in scriptures concerning what some prophet said, or allegedly condemned, I would say that you were simply basing your belief on what you are reading or on someone else's opinions. You are simply taking sides.
And WHEN someone believes that way, all he has is just NOTHING but dead RELIGION. He doesn't have The Saving knowledge of Christ YET IN HIS HEART , but ONLY just has some knowledge about God in his HEAD ONLY. And that is why all he has is RELIGION. Nothing More !!! Cause he came to knowing on his own..and it was Not THRU GOD'S DOING !!! (Now....don't get me wrong here......there is Nothing wrong with starting off with religion and gaining head knowlwdge about God...and learning about God....but it is Only when religion turns into RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, (which is HEART knowledge of God) , that One is SAVED. And ONLY GOD can DRAW and bring a person to that point,where he becomes SAVED and his spirtual eyes are now OPENED. Man can NEVER come to Saving FAITH in GOD on his own. EVER. Scriptures have already POINTED THAT OUT TOO .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I f you base your LOGIC on something you read in scriptures concerning what some prophet said, or allegedly condemned, I would say that you were simply basing your belief on what you are reading or on someone else's opinions. You are simply taking sides.
And WHEN someone believes that way, all he has is just NOTHING but dead RELIGION. He doesn't have The Saving knowledge of Christ IN HIS HEART yet, but just has some knowledge about God in his HEAD ONLY. And that is why all he has is RELIGION. Nothing More !!! Cause he came to knowing on his own..and it was Not GOD'S DOING !!! That is why ONLY GOD can DRAW and SAVE and OPEN ONE'S EYES. Man can NEVER come to FAITH in GOD on his own. EVER. Scriptures have already POINTED THAT OUT TOO .
My faith then comes from God. Who are YOU to question it??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, you are usually wrong.
So you say, but do not seem to be able to show. If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. If you cannot or will not actually research what is written in the Bible, then you are intellectually dishonest...
Assuming that one is debating about the specific content therein, I may agree. However, the point being made by me throughout the thread is about what it takes to correctly judge anything at all, including but not limited to what is or is not true regarding scripture. If you cannot or will not render a judgement on these things, then why are you here?
Get it? I'm here to discuss what lies beneath the confidence that many display in their own ability to correctly judge. I'm here to discuss what it takes for something to be true or not. I'm here because the current conversation has garnered my interest. I'm here to offer another perspective that perhaps has yet to have been considered. Get what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, you are usually wrong.
So you say, but do not seem to be able to show. In this thread you have yet to take a position, u only ask redundant and irrelevant questions. I suppose you'll claim I'm wrong here too. 
If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. No, the topic is sacrifice. The Hades myth was just an example to show the corruption that was predicted. (you know what predicted means, right?) If you cannot or will not actually research what is written in the Bible, then you are intellectually dishonest...
Assuming that one is debating about the specific content therein, I may agree. However, the point being made by me throughout the thread is about what it takes to correctly judge anything at all, including but not limited to what is or is not true regarding scripture. Then you must research the root meanings. Dishonest... If you cannot or will not render a judgement on these things, then why are you here?
Get it? I'm here to discuss what lies beneath the confidence that many display in their own ability to correctly judge. I'm here to discuss what it takes for something to be true or not. I'm here because the current conversation has garnered my interest. I'm here to offer another perspective that perhaps has yet to have been considered. Get what? You can't get to what lies beneath the "confidence" until you learn where your own confidence (or lack of) comes from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 03/17/12 12:24 AM
|
|
Don't worry, you are usually wrong.
So you say, but do not seem to be able to show. In this thread you have yet to take a position, u only ask redundant and irrelevant questions. I suppose you'll claim I'm wrong here too. Everything I've written comes from the position I hold. What you're calling "irrelevant", I'm calling pivotal to understanding whether or not one knows what it takes to correctly judge whether or not something is true. Do you find that irrelevant? If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. No, the topic is sacrifice. The Hades myth was just an example to show the corruption that was predicted. (you know what predicted means, right?) So what you've written somehow does not apply to you, but rather only applies to others? The prediction, if genuine, comes prior. However, as clearly shown above, you've indicated that we should allow later scripture to supercede prior. That conflicts with your own claims about prediction. That also constitutes sufficient ground to reject your claims about the matter, for they do not meet the criterion you've set above. Do you not find that to be problematic? If you cannot or will not actually research what is written in the Bible, then you are intellectually dishonest...
Assuming that one is debating about the specific content therein, I may agree. However, the point being made by me throughout the thread is about what it takes to correctly judge anything at all, including but not limited to what is or is not true regarding scripture. Then you must research the root meanings. Dishonest... How does the root meaning help one to correctly judge whether or not the scripture in question is divinely inspired? I mean, are there certain kinds of meanings that can only come from God? If you cannot or will not render a judgement on these things, then why are you here?
Get it? I'm here to discuss what lies beneath the confidence that many display in their own ability to correctly judge. I'm here to discuss what it takes for something to be true or not. I'm here because the current conversation has garnered my interest. I'm here to offer another perspective that perhaps has yet to have been considered. Get what? You can't get to what lies beneath the "confidence" until you learn where your own confidence (or lack of) comes from. No argument here. Do you know what it takes for something to be true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people have Religion and Not Relationship yet.
HOWEVER...... there are slso those who have opened themselves up to RELIGIOUS SPIRITS(Religious STRONHOLDS) , which comes straight from the enemy . Religious spirits can ONY influence a person, WHO HAS COMPROMISED GOD'S WORD BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT GOD'S WORD,AND HAS INSTEAD, TWISTED GOD'S WORD FOR HIS OWN GAIN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, you are usually wrong.
So you say, but do not seem to be able to show. In this thread you have yet to take a position, u only ask redundant and irrelevant questions. I suppose you'll claim I'm wrong here too. Everything I've written comes from the position I hold. What you're calling "irrelevant", I'm calling pivotal to understanding whether or not one knows what it takes to correctly judge whether or not something is true. Do you find that irrelevant? Yes, it's irrelevant when I've already given my logical reasons. I don't need your appraisal to know they're sound. It's not my fault you're not sure of your own. If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. No, the topic is sacrifice. The Hades myth was just an example to show the corruption that was predicted. (you know what predicted means, right?) So what you've written somehow does not apply to you, but rather only applies to others? The prediction, if genuine, comes prior. However, as clearly shown above, you've indicated that we should allow later scripture to supercede prior. That conflicts with your own claims about prediction. That also constitutes sufficient ground to reject your claims about the matter, for they do not meet the criterion you've set above. Do you not find that to be problematic? Not at all, Hades is a Greek myth. Care to deny that? If you cannot or will not actually research what is written in the Bible, then you are intellectually dishonest...
Assuming that one is debating about the specific content therein, I may agree. However, the point being made by me throughout the thread is about what it takes to correctly judge anything at all, including but not limited to what is or is not true regarding scripture. Then you must research the root meanings. Dishonest... How does the root meaning help one to correctly judge whether or not the scripture in question is divinely inspired? I mean, are there certain kinds of meanings that can only come from God? It's like when you or others try to claim the Bible states "eternal torment in hell" The root words translated to both "hell" and "eternal" do NOT mean what they have written in most English Bibles. Simple fact-checking will verify this. Something you have refused to do or refused to post. If you cannot or will not render a judgement on these things, then why are you here?
Get it? I'm here to discuss what lies beneath the confidence that many display in their own ability to correctly judge. I'm here to discuss what it takes for something to be true or not. I'm here because the current conversation has garnered my interest. I'm here to offer another perspective that perhaps has yet to have been considered. Get what? You can't get to what lies beneath the "confidence" until you learn where your own confidence (or lack of) comes from. No argument here. Do you know what it takes for something to be true? Yes I do. I'm sure you'll tell me anyways... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CreativeSoul...the CONFIDENCE that a BORN AGAIN
Christian has, Comes from God , not man. The Holy Spirit that comes and Indwells a beleiver now, will BEAR WITHNESS with a born again christian's spirit,and let him know without a shadow of doubt, that he has truly become a new creation in Christ Jesus( born again). The Holy Spirit will also teach and lead him into all truth now, and will also enable him to tell the difference between truth and a lie. We have the confidence of KNOWING that we know that we know that we know ,when we have become born again. What follows in our lives also verifies this.....our hearts are made new, our lives are changed, we love like God loves now, we have great joy and peace now, and are made whole and complete (no more emptiness inside..that empty void that was there beofore has now been filled ). However, in the process prior to becoming saved,we do not throw logic out the window....God gave us a brain to use ALSO...so that we may understand God's Word and hear God's Word ,in order that Faith in God may come in the first place. You see,God ESPECIALLY DRAWS us by and thru the HEARING of HIs WORD (cause God also IS the WORD )...there is POWER in HEARING THE WORD OF GOD ...and that is why ALL of God's Word is true....all of God's Word is beneficial to a person..there are NO errors in God's Word WHATSOEVER,as some may say. CreativeSoul..Hope this helps a bit towards understanding why born again believers have such Confidence in God. Be Blessed now.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 03/17/12 02:02 AM
|
|
What you're calling "irrelevant", I'm calling pivotal to understanding whether or not one knows what it takes to correctly judge whether or not something is true.
Do you find that irrelevant? Yes, it's irrelevant when I've already given my logical reasons. I think that your missing the point that I'm making regarding knowing what it takes for something to be true. That being said... You're reasons do not bear, in any way, shape, or form, upon the pivotal importance of knowing what it takes for something to be true. Rather, the reasons you've given thus far are utterly irrelevant to knowing that. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you do not know what it takes for your own claims to be true. If you do not know that, then no reason is had for me to believe that you could possibly know which biblical claims are divine, or not. If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. No, the topic is sacrifice. The Hades myth was just an example to show the corruption that was predicted. (you know what predicted means, right?) So what you've written somehow does not apply to you, but rather only applies to others? The prediction, if genuine, comes prior. However, as clearly shown above, you've indicated that we should allow later scripture to supercede prior. That conflicts with your own claims about prediction. That also constitutes sufficient ground to reject your claims about the matter, for they do not meet the criterion you've set above. Do you not find that to be problematic? Not at all, Hades is a Greek myth. Care to deny that? Again, I think that you've missed the point entirely. The mention of Hades is not part of the problems being set out. One problem is - as clearly shown above - that you've claimed two things which negate one another. You've contradicted yourself. On the one hand you've claimed that later verses should supercede prior ones, but on the other you've believed the prior. Another problem is that it was most likely the same author predicting his own lie - which doesn't seem to be a very convincing prophecy. Unless that is, you're denying that that chapter was written by one author. Yet another problem WHICH WAS THE FIRST in this long line, is how do you know which verse to believe? Your answers thus far do not cut the muster test. How does the root meaning help one to correctly judge whether or not the scripture in question is divinely inspired? I mean, are there certain kinds of meanings that can only come from God?
It's like when you or others try to claim the Bible states "eternal torment in hell" The root words translated to both "hell" and "eternal" do NOT mean what they have written in most English Bibles. Simple fact-checking will verify this. Something you have refused to do or refused to post. Again, this does not address the point that I'm driving home. I agree that research helps to understand what the claims mean, however it says nothing at all about whether or not they are true, and/or divinely inspired. One can know what something means without knowing what it would take for it to be true. Do you know what it takes for something to be true?
Yes I do. I'm sure you'll tell me anyways... Actually, I want you to tell me. Afterall, it is the one question that I've asked in several different ways, but you've not answered yet. Given that I've answered your questions several times over, I think that you ought return the favor, so to speak, and at least answer that question. It will shed new light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give it some serious and careful thought. I'll check back tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you're calling "irrelevant", I'm calling pivotal to understanding whether or not one knows what it takes to correctly judge whether or not something is true.
Do you find that irrelevant? Yes, it's irrelevant when I've already given my logical reasons. I think that your missing the point that I'm making regarding knowing what it takes for something to be true. That being said... You're reasons do not bear, in any way, shape, or form, upon the pivotal importance of knowing what it takes for something to be true. Rather, the reasons you've given thus far are utterly irrelevant to knowing that. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you do not know what it takes for your own claims to be true. If you do not know that, then no reason is had for me to believe that you could possibly know which biblical claims are divine, or not. If you cannot or will not allow later scripture to supercede prior scripture, then you are stuck in the past...
If that were true then you've just removed the basis of your own argument. The verse you believe is prior not later, and thus you've not taken your own advice, and in doing so have given even more reason to reject the idea that you know what you're talking about. No, the topic is sacrifice. The Hades myth was just an example to show the corruption that was predicted. (you know what predicted means, right?) So what you've written somehow does not apply to you, but rather only applies to others? The prediction, if genuine, comes prior. However, as clearly shown above, you've indicated that we should allow later scripture to supercede prior. That conflicts with your own claims about prediction. That also constitutes sufficient ground to reject your claims about the matter, for they do not meet the criterion you've set above. Do you not find that to be problematic? Not at all, Hades is a Greek myth. Care to deny that? Again, I think that you've missed the point entirely. The mention of Hades is not part of the problems being set out. One problem is - as clearly shown above - that you've claimed two things which negate one another. You've contradicted yourself. On the one hand you've claimed that later verses should supercede prior ones, but on the other you've believed the prior. Another problem is that it was most likely the same author predicting his own lie - which doesn't seem to be a very convincing prophecy. Unless that is, you're denying that that chapter was written by one author. Yet another problem WHICH WAS THE FIRST in this long line, is how do you know which verse to believe? Your answers thus far do not cut the muster test. How does the root meaning help one to correctly judge whether or not the scripture in question is divinely inspired? I mean, are there certain kinds of meanings that can only come from God?
It's like when you or others try to claim the Bible states "eternal torment in hell" The root words translated to both "hell" and "eternal" do NOT mean what they have written in most English Bibles. Simple fact-checking will verify this. Something you have refused to do or refused to post. Again, this does not address the point that I'm driving home. I agree that research helps to understand what the claims mean, however it says nothing at all about whether or not they are true, and/or divinely inspired. One can know what something means without knowing what it would take for it to be true. Do you know what it takes for something to be true?
Yes I do. I'm sure you'll tell me anyways... Actually, I want you to tell me. Afterall, it is the one question that I've asked in several different ways, but you've not answered yet. Given that I've answered your questions several times over, I think that you ought return the favor, so to speak, and at least answer that question. It will shed new light. You still don't get it... I DO NOT CARE what you think of my reasoning, period. For the record, I point out the true facts about what is written and I point out what is wrong, NOT what is divine... That ultimately is upto the reader, something which you seem to have a problem with, obviously including yourself... And you haven't answered either question. The closest you came to answering is to say that you agreed sacrifice is sick and demented. just let it go............ |
|
|
|
|
