Dan56

That's for sure... But even though I've always contested my tax rate as being immoral, I'm responsible to pay what's demanded. Its not because I'm ignorant of the morality of my own actions, but fear prompts me to pony-up the money in order to avoid vacationing at the Iron Bar Motel.. I guess morals are sometimes suspended as a matter of self-preservation.

Morality is just the determination of right from wrong.. Is it right or wrong for a person to drive drunk or sober? Most Christians believe its wrong to get drunk, even if your not driving, but people with a lower moral table may not have a problem with driving drunk. If morality varies from person to person, then its defined by every individuals perception of what's moral. But where there are standards set and laws in place, we are all morally responsible and subject to the same quota, whether we agree with it or not. If your a parent, your morally responsible to care for your children, and if your your married, your morally responsible to be true to your wife. Not feeding your kids and cheating on your wife is unacceptable moral behavior. Failing to do the right thing is immoral, while not knowing what's right is just stupidity, whether its refusing to help an old lady across a busy street or ignorantly killing someone who doesn't believe as you do...

I kind of doubt it.... Their idea's seem more about obtaining land, power, money, control & dominance, and less about theology. Its kind of like telling an abused woman that her husband would stop beating her everyday if she would just conform to what he wants. There's no appeasing people who enjoy killing and terrorizing others, their objective is not to live in peace, religion is often just a guise or excuse used toward conquest... jmo.

Your professor was an idiot.... Nearly everything in life involves a degree of risk, but when a person puts lives in jeopardy by taking reckless risk, the probability of negative consequences makes them morally culpable. Drunk driving = high risk (immoral), letting your kid play on the monkey bars = low risk (morally acceptable).

I also don't have a specific place.. 'Where' is not as important as 'who' I worship.. The church was never described as a place , but rather the many membered body of Christ (Romans 12:5). But we are encouraged to gather together to exhort one another (Hebrews 3:13). I suppose just as you choose a restaurant with good food, you also worship wherever your fed? The group I'm most comfortable with meets in private homes and they have no name, but I haven't been there in quite a while.. I get most of my support, encouragement, and inspiration right here at ULC .... Just kidding of course

Fear can be an emotion, so staying neutral because your afraid in order to protect yourself at the expense of others, can be a moral decision. My point was that inaction is not always a safe bet. Not wanting to get involved and deciding not to do anything, can be the same as not caring, and that attitude can be construed as a lack of moral conviction. You define self-preservation at the expense of others as neutral, and that of an isolationist. But it can also define a morally deprived selfish person who has no compassion for anyone but themselves. I guess It all depends on the specific situation and how you choose to look at it.

But if you saw a woman being raped in an alley and decided inaction was appropriate, your decision to stay neutral could be detrimental to someone else.. If having no definitive moral convictions causes you not to do the right thing, then neutrality is not always a safe way to avoid doing the wrong thing. No problem, if you need any help, my morality is concrete :).... But of course, any Islamic terrorist would tell you the same thing!!

Absolutely... Destructive behavior is often justified, but seldom right. Offing yourself can be self-justified and self-destructive simultaneously. Or your doing nothing at all.. Sometimes we take a risk, it may be wrong, but if we're so afraid of failure that we remain idle, we never have success. Most people are wrong many times before they get it right. Perhaps mistakes and failures aren't so wrong if we learn and grow from the experience. The same theory might be applicable to learning basic moral values.

I personally rely on my belief for moral guidance. Without a belief system, our compass relies on our own sense of right & wrong behavior, resulting in the goodness or badness of our own character. When we reason within ourselves, morality becomes a matter of self-justification. Example; Stealing is wrong, but I stole a loaf of bread to feed my hungry children.... Speeding is wrong, but I broke the speed limit to get my pregnant wife to the hospital.. As the saying goes; "There's an exception to every rule, and I'm usually it". Given a good enough excuse, we are all upstanding moral citizens. But a poor excuse; 'Yes I shot him because I didn't like the way he looks', somehow makes us immoral.. Go figure

It also says: "The Pope denounced Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels as a “gesture of war”. So I doubt his comment was all-inclusive, it seems clear that Islamic terrorist aren't 'brothers' who want to live in peace.. I think the Pope was making a universal appeal for peace, but its also clear that the biblical God and Allah aren't the same God.. One God yes, but all brothers of the same God, no.

Yes, that's essentially my pov... Nothing wrong with praying for healing, its just my contention that the apostolic authority to command instantaneous miracles was a one time deal. I know a woman who was a one time Christian who got involved in a charismatic church which performed healings. When she failed to be healed at a service, the reverend told her it was because she lacked faith. She left the church discouraged and feeling like she wasn't good enough. That's why I'm very leery of preachers who claim to heal, they inevitably scare people away after they learn its all a gimmick. That woman now thinks Christianity is just a big malarkey, and says the reverend is nothing more than a fake who plays on peoples emotions. Imo, people who claim to do miracles today are a disservice to Christ.

No, I'm just convinced that men are not endowed with the power today to heal miraculously, like they were in the time of Moses/Joshua, Elijah/Elisha & Jesus/Apostles. "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people" Acts 5:12). Those miracles were for a sign to authenticate the message and the messenger, and this apostolic authority came directly from Christ. "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (2 Corinthians 12:12). To me, its clear that the gift of healing was meant to establish the church; "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark 16:20)..I still believe God can and does still perform miracles today if He chooses, but He does not give people that ability any more, those gifts served their purpose and have ceased. The purpose; "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:30-31). The miracles weren't meant to be forever replicated.. jmo https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/5-what-does-the-bible-say-about-miracles

I agree with your experience and analysis,. I believe many Christians are falsely taught that their faith can heal them today, but I've never seen solid evidence of it, nor do I believe such miracles occurred after the first century. I also post on the "Christian Chat" message board, and you wouldn't believe all the smack I get when I suggest such a thing.. Them freakin Christians can be brutal :

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (or a lion)

Succinctly put and well articulated.. Belief is not about evidence, its just a choice that's usually based on hope. But when someone has hope, I believe it can change them, whether their belief its true or not... That said, I probably have absolutely no business posting on this thread, not exactly my forte

I don't personally believe in modern day miracles.. The doctor ordered the defibrillator be used again, and that seems to be what revived the patient. And no one saw an angel, one guy heard someone call for help. Questionable? That's not to say that I don't believe God has done and can do miracles, I've just never seen one. I personally believe miracles were used to introduce the gospel, but ended at the end of the apostolic age because it served its purpose in establishing the new covenant. The next period of miraculous wonders won't come until the days of tribulation, but they won't be anything of God, except that of the 2 witnesses. jmo

Ditto.... Your non-combative nature speaks volumes about your character, maturity, and belief... While I don't share the same philosophy, you demonstrate more Christ-like attributes than most Christians.

Especially when your intolerant of bad things.

I can't vey well write an entire book of symbology (too long), but here Jesus explains some of it himself; 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains (nations), on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings (not earthly kings), which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour (5 months Rev 9:5)) with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. (Babylon=confusion)" (Revelation 17: 7-18) I didn't agree with anything Walid Shoebat concluded in the link, but the video response pretty well shot down it being an Arabic name, thanks for including the retort. The number of the beast is 666, meaning the man (antiChrist) appears at the 6th seal, the 6th trump, and the 6th vial.. It hasn't happened yet, I believe we are living in the 5th seal.

A wise approach in which I believe the bible was meant to be read and absorbed. The many differing opinions of theologians and scholars only serve to cloud what was intended to be simple. Too much analysis confounds the simplicity of the gospel, and makes a simple message confusing. "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25). Just read Revelation without all the conflicting opinions, its really not difficult to understand. jmo

I agree, everything is supernatural until we understand it.. How everything in nature works together in harmony could be construed as supernatural. While some might consider nature as some kind of coincident, I see it as a complete design that didn't fall together by accident. When there's an order to everything that exist, from a blooming flower, to birds flying south for the winter, those are everyday miracles. It only seems natural to us because its all we've ever seen and known, but the fact that it all meshes together and is not chaotic makes it a supernatural phenomenon. We tend to think that if we can understand it, its not supernatural, but the 'order' of things rather than 'disorder' is where I see a supernatural influence on all that exist. Everything on earth has a purpose and reason, which convinces me that something supernatural arranged it, and that cause was God.

I personally believe Revelation is 90% futuristic and allegorical, not so much preterism or ideological.. What you understand it to mean will be greatly influenced by whether you apply and interpret the symbolism to past or future events. jmo

As a Christian, I personally get a little tired of Christmas and the superficiality of it all; In the spirit of Christmas, people seem to enjoy cutting down a tree and decorating it (heathenism), and then killing a turkey and stuffing themselves with an enormous meal (gluttony). They often knock each other over to grab gifts for everyone they know (materialism), and go into a ton of debt doing it (usury). They teach children to anticipate the arrival of a mystical man bearing gifts (paganism), and to be good for this immortal Saint Nick (idolatry). Meanwhile, many adults are content watching football games all day with a 12 pack of beer (drunkenness). Dec 25th is about family, you and yours are all that's important (selfishness). We engage in these things to commemorate a man who detested all of it, and who was not even born on the day we celebrate. Perhaps it might be more honest to leave Christ out of Christmas and just recognize the 'Merry' part of it? Just my ridiculous opinion But I guess its all about hope for something more, something better. Cheers to a great 2016

No.

The Luke example was a parable which I believe indirectly referred to the Jews who rejected what Christ had to say. Needless to say, those who discounted Christ as Lord would perish. And the Matthew quote isn't a provocation towards war or violence, but just a statement that the Truth is divisive and would put people at odd's, even between family members. Assuming that God is good, God is just, and God is righteous, then anyone disagreeing with God would have to be bad, unjust, and unrighteous. While I don't pretend or presume to understand all of God's judgements, I assume and trust that in the big picture, all his decisions are right.