Dems & Reps

[DoinTime]

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You put to much faith in the physical words of the bible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



How much faith should we ascribe to the words of the Bible? We find the answer in 2Tim 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

Interesting how you provide "the answer" from the very material that is question.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Interesting how you provide "the answer" from the very material that is question.

Forget it...I tried to make that point weeks ago...

Them: "The Bible is the living word of God!"

Me: "But how do you know?"

Them: "Because the Bible says so!"

 

[Timebuilder]

Them: "Because the Bible says so!"

AND because...

God is trustworthy, and would not allow us to be mislead. We, for some unfathomable reason, are important to Him.

So it's not just that the Bible says so, it is because He is in sovereign control, and nothing gets by Him. The tragedies we cry over are but a short moment to Him, and our sadness ends here, with these limited earthly bodies.

What better way for a God that needs no other certification other than His own awesome creation, to give creedence to His word by putting it right into scripture by His own inspiration.

No one but God can be so bold, and only the lost will complain. What an interesting synergy.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Forget it...I tried to make that point weeks ago...

Them: "The Bible is the living word of God!"

Me: "But how do you know?"

Them: "Because the Bible says so!"

No it is not just because the Bible says so, it is because the Bible claims so and we (or at least I) have found those claims to be true. We (the people that are true Christians) have evaluated its claim and found it to be true based on scientific truths, prophetic truths, rational thought, and the evidence of change happening miraculously in one's life who has decided to accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. If you don't want to buy that then it is cool with me. Christianity is not for everyone. As Jessie Ventura says "it is for the weak minded who need a crutch." Let him, and whoever else wants to, think that way. I hope no one misunderstands me. I don't share my beliefs in God because I want to see people accept me or agree with my view on the way things are. I respect other people's beliefs but when they challenge my beliefs I will give a response when I see one is appropriate. Some of you have brought up some interesting points (maybe even trying to criticize Christianity) and it was a good opportunity to reply and clear up any misconceptions. If you follow the belief of Jessie Ventura (as I already said) that is cool with me. I am only worried about what one person thinks of me, and that is Jesus. That is why I follow what He says. Not just because He says so either, but because I know so through the above mentioned findings.

BTW—Typhoon, You have limited God to a specific revelation that you have created. You would not accept God being real unless He revealed Himself the way you have decided is best (as you described a few weeks ago.) Unfortunately I don't think you will find Him that way. You claim that we are narrow minded as Christians (which I can understand someone thinking that way even though it is a misconception) but I challenge you to think a little outside of the box you have limited God to. And that is not a personal attack, just a friendly challenge on your beliefs.

 

[Typhoon1244]

fLYbUDDY...no. I'm not going to let you pull me into another religious discussion on this forum. If you want to argue, go to YGBSM or P.M. me...but not here.

This is about Republicans and Democrats, remember?

 

[fLYbUDDY]

fLYbUDDY...no. I'm not going to let you pull me into another religious discussion on this forum. If you want to argue, go to YGBSM or P.M. me...but not here.

This is about Republicans and Democrats, remember?

I am not trying to pull you into anything. You brought it up. If you wish to further discuss it then you can PM me or go down to the YGBSM (PM me if you do cause I rarely check that board.) That is ONLY if you are wanting to discuss it. My goal in life isn't to convert people to Christianity (even though I am sure some of you have labeled me as that.) Once again you brought up a point about the Bible and I simply gave a response. No arguing is/was intended.

Getting back on track here.......

Do you fly from the right seat or the left seat?

 

[Timebuilder]

This is about Republicans and Democrats, remember?

I just checked, and the original post in the tread contains the beginning of a discussion of the establishment clause, so right from the first post on page one there has been a religious component to this thread.

So, I guess we're still on the right track.

 

[Super 80]

Interesting how you provide "the answer" from the very material that is question.

The Bible has something that verifies its source and that is prophecy fulfilled.

The prophecy that foretold of the Messiah was completely accomplished with Jesus' death and resurrection in a way that confounded the conventional wisdom of Jesus' day because they did not discern between the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God from Isaiah 61:2.

This is the verse that Jesus read when he returned to his synagogue to read and expound on the Scripture in turn as they went through the law and the prophets as was the custom then. This is the verse that starts his ministry. Jesus stopped reading at the year of the Lord's favor because the very next words were for a time some two thousand years distant now.

Only God can tell you what will happen before it does and only the God of the Bible has consistently done that.

I have over 300 prophetic statements made about Jesus describing some 60 aspects of his ministry that were all fulfilled in Jesus.

Don't like that; I have more. Prophecy fulfilled. No other book or religion can make that claim.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I just checked, and the original post in the tread contains the beginning of a discussion of the establishment clause, so right from the first post on page one there has been a religious component to this thread.

So, I guess we're still on the right track.

I know it was from the beginning and I know Typhoon is just covering himself so when the usual crybabies start saying alls we talk about is religion and politics he can say "no not me, I am talking about politics but I have already linked the politics to aviation and am against the religious (or whatever they are) discussions on this thread." As I already said I will not be the one to start the religious debates, but when someone else starts it and all I do is give a response, and then you accuse me of starting it and looking for an argument I will have to say that I feel (yes it is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth to you) that it is wrong!

PS-Did I use too many “ands” in that sentence above?

 

[Typhoon1244]

You brought it up.

The hell I did. Doh referred to religious freedom in the originating post, WrightAvia questioned him about it, and you started the revival meeting...with the help of Timebuilder.

All I did was agree with DoinTime...

 

[fLYbUDDY]

The hell I did. Doh referred to religious freedom in the originating post, WrightAvia questioned him about it, and you started the revival meeting...with the help of Timebuilder.

All I did was agree with DoinTime...

No, I didn't bring up the whole "is the Bible true stuff(?)." What I brought up did involve politics, even though it centered around a religious theme. You and DoinTime were the ones to shift the gears into a "how true is the Bible" thread. I was talking about the political injustice given to other "religious" groups verses that which are given to Christianity. You don't have to believe in the Bible to see that.

The reason I targeted you rather than DoinTime as starting it (the validity of the Bible) is because, even though you both kinda started it, you were the one that accused me of wanting to argue about it and "pulling you into another religious debate." That is obviously not true.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The reason I targeted you rather than DoinTime as starting it (the validity of the Bible) is because, even though you both kinda started it, you were the one that accused me of wanting to argue about it and "pulling you into another religious debate." That is obviously not true.

Posted earlier by fLYbUDDY
Typhoon, You have limited God to a specific revelation that you have created. You would not accept God being real unless He revealed Himself the way you have decided is best (as you described a few weeks ago.) Unfortunately I don't think you will find Him that way. You claim that we are narrow minded as Christians (which I can understand someone thinking that way even though it is a misconception) but I challenge you to think a little outside of the box you have limited God to.

Now...tell me again how it's "obviously not true" that you were trying to draw me into a religious argument.

So I started it, huh? I'm sorry, I thought it was somebody else who started quoting scripture...

Posted even earlier by fLYbUDDY
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."(John 3:19)

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Now...tell me again how it's "obviously not true" that you were trying to draw me into a religious argument.

So I started it, huh? I'm sorry, I thought it was somebody else who started quoting scripture...

Yeah, so I didn't get into the apologetics of it all (that is, the scripture you quoted me quoting). That wasn't to start a religious debate that was to show where I get my beliefs from. Which is obvious. So just because I lit a match doesn't mean I was trying to burn anyone with it. Although that seems like what you have accused me of.

It is obviously not true that I was trying to draw you into a religious argument because the scripture and all the other posts I made before responding to your response agreeing with dointime, weren't like "hey this is for Typhoon!" "Lets duke it buddy!" Just because I tie religion into my (limited) political views and that (the Bible and God) is the passion that burns in my heart and drives my every belief doesn't mean that when I express it I want to argue with people. That is where I think the confusion is happening. In fact I don't like arguing at all. And now it seems we are arguing. I have already said I respect you as a pilot and as a person Typhoon and the last thing I want to do is argue with you. In fact I originally thought you wanted to engage in a FRIENDLY conversation about life's purpose and how we got here. I never once thought you wanted to argue it and when you accused me of that being the agenda I responded the way I did
.

 

[Typhoon1244]

If that's your idea of an apology, I accept.

No seriously, the whole religion thing is a lot like the RJDC threads. Nobody is changing anybody's mind, so what's the point? I don't mind a friendly discussion, but when Generaltso comes at me with a stick, I don't need comments like "Typhoon started it" floating around!

(Are you getting any of this Generaltso? Why? It's obviously not about aviation!)

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Cool! Thanks for understanding and forgiving me for possibly misunderstanding you. (yes, it kinda was an apology/excuse)

Also I would like to apologize further since I know you got tagged the last time we had a religious discussion. I probably should have been more sensitive to that. Have a good night!

 

[Timebuilder]

I think the difference is that the RJDC discussion won't reallly affect most people, but the plan of salvation will.

Now a lot of show-me types will carp about the "lack of proof", as we discussed several weeks ago. I didn't formulate this plan for God, and I'm willing to go on the assumption that He did a better job than I would have done.

I guess it's just another general discussion.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I guess it's just another general discussion. : D: D

I agree that it is a general discussion. Why is that so hard for some to see?

 

[TonyC]

Tony C.

I count four times John uses antichrist. Of those three specifically use the in the Greek. One time that John uses antichrists in the plural it is used as the subject of a clause.

Furthermore, even my study Bible equates John's antichrist to the man of lawlessness and the beast.

So if you don't see it, there's nothing else I can do to show you where the antichrist is written about as the pivotal player in Daniel's midweek of the seventieth 'seven.'



1JN 2:18 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming..." I have not studied John's letters as much as other books, but I understand this as a simple declarative statement of a future eventuality. How do you read it?

I guess it boils down to which version of the Bible we're reading. My memory is from the King James version, but I've looked at a couple others to find what you've said. As it turns out, some Greek manuscripts contain the article "the" and some do not. I submit to you that the context of the passages supports the omission of the article.

I was dead wrong in asserting that antichrist is not used as a noun. I maintain that it's not used to refer to a single, evil, powerful beast.

I John 2
18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time.
19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

John proclaims that the end time, the last time, was already upon him and his audience nearly two thousand years ago! He referred to a plurality of antichrists, not a single superpower. AND, he referred to the present tense existance of those antichrists, not some future event. Later, he defines the meaning of antichrist.

22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son"

Here, the word looks to me more like an adjective, but I suppose we could stretch for a noun, but that's not the most important aspect. Anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ (that's a WHOLE lotta people) is against Christ - - anti - christ - - antichrist. It's a characteristic, a description, a label used for those who deny the deity of Christ. Plain and simple. It's not a monster that will come someday to break seals and gobble believers. You've likely spoken to antichrists today, and probably in a pleasant tone of voice.

This concept is repeated in the next letter.

II John
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

The culprits that deny that Jesus Christ came are deceivers and antichrists, and they existed at the time of the writing.

I apologize for relying on my memory whilst chastizing you for not finding "the antichrist" in writing. I should have reread the material myself before forming the questions. I do believe, though, that a careful study of I and II John will lead you to rethink your view of THE antichrist as a single, powerful beast-like creature that will appear at some point in the future. The passages all refer to something that has already happened.

... but I understand this as a simple declarative statement of a future eventuality.

The whole point of John's conversation on the topic is to point out that it's NOT future tense, it's PRESENT tense, then, ~2,000 years ago. Note he said it IS the last time, and even NOW are there many antichrists.

Furthermore, even my study Bible equates John's antichrist to the man of lawlessness and the beast.

Sorry, I don't put as much faith in the commentaries written by men as I do the inspired words. It's hard to find a commentator that can keep his own beliefs from being injected into the interpretations and "comments" that are printed in those so-called study Bibles. Same goes for many versions of the Bible. As we've just seen, the addition or omission of a single word here and there can have a profound impact on the meaning of the passage.

Back to the end times thing. Do you believe there are major events that must occur between now and the rapture? (I perceive that you do, but I may be mistaken.) If so, then you feel pretty safe that it won't be tonight, right? If I'm still on track with you, how can you explain that the second coming will be like a thief in the night, and we should always be watchful, prepared? If there are events that must occur first, why should we bother being ready now? In my mind "I know it's not now" doesn't fit with "we can never know when."

If you're still reading, I apologize for the length of this post. If I had done more homework before opening my mouth in the first place, we could have avoided some of the confusion.

 

[TonyC]

Good story?

You put to much faith in the physical words of the bible. The bible is a story, and a good one at that. If Jesus were to come back to earth and see what Christians had done to Christianity we would surely be in for another wet 40 days and nights. But then, that story was just fiction too.

Consider for a moment...

The Bible claims to be inspired (II Timothy 3:16)

If the claim is true, the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God.

If the claim is false, the Bible is a complete fraud.


How can it just be a good book? Or a good work of fiction?

 

[doh]

doin'time,
I can spin with the best of them! My rant, my spin!