Key

Have you forgotten my inability to be as concise as you?

I'd prefer to start a new thread. This one has been perverted enough. Besides, I'm likely to leave a lengthy response of what I think on this particular excursion if ya truly got me started.

I vaguely recall someone had tried that once, years ago. Don't think it fared well, though. It broke down as usual along the lines of Christians vs. everyone else, thus the tangents drifted off topic frequently. I don't think the subject was ever reasonably resolved. Not sure where I'd place it. Maybe under Philosophy?

Staff is quite small, but do the best they can to promptly serve the community. Some time may be expected before you receive a response. For some it has been 14 business days, at least. If still uncertain or have not heard back, try emailing HQ from the Homepage of the ULC. Welcome and blessings to you.

Dan, at the time, when He rose from the grave. They only saw Him as He proclaimed Himself to be, the son of God, and intercessor on their behalf before the Father. Revelations came much later. but wasn't always accepted as Gospel until the Council included it as official Canon. So, it can still be argued that God did not reveal Himself, and that we only have a possibility. There are still many who argue, as you well know, that a powerful God, as He is proclaimed to be, could reveal Himself without any lingering doubt. Thus, if He had already, why is there still doubt? You can argue various details about free will this and that, but if it truly came down to the decision to accept or not, why not reveal without doubt. and still allow the choice to accept?

Only one way for the debate to ever truly be ended. That is God reveals Himself to everyone and removes any shade of doubt. Until then, forever shall it be an open question. However, in regard to an individual's personal belief, it can be open and shut, just as faith is accepted as fact to some, it can be accepted as fable to others. That's both the beauty and curse of an analytical mind.

No, I am not insisting that Christians alter their moral values, but rather look at them in regard to interactions with others. Again, it is not condoning sin to cooperate with others outside their religion toward a common goal that isn't itself a sin. So, yes, in that regard, they are, in fact, bigots. Working toward a common goal doesn't necessarily entail embracing outside moral standards, or lack thereof. That is where you always get it twisted. You really think you have to abandon your beliefs to work alongside of someone of a different religion or sexual preference? If so, you are a lot weaker in your faith than you claim to be.

If his disciples respected Him as the Pharisees did, He would. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Treating others equally isn't "condoning sin". To even say that is just an excuse to give yourself that discrimination is okay. To work with others to achieve a common goal outside of religion is not condoning sin, unless the goal is to actively participate in the sin. Give up the judging, Dan. It really doesn't work the way you think it does.

Christ literally commanded to love others as yourself. Love your neighbor, as well as your enemies. Where is that saying to treat anyone differently? By not doing this, how are you truly honoring Him? Btw, when He says that what you do for the least, you do also for me, that is not meant to put people secondary. All of this means, to value others or life more, as it honors Him to do so.

Very true. Even most Evangelicals today would probably contradict Him, sadly.

"What you do for the least, you do also for me." Thus, He is the objective. Not using all possible resources to assist in the objective is a form of denying Him, then. That along with the Samaritan parable demonstrates the hypocrisy of certain "Christians". It is also why there are many factions. Interpretation and faith, which interfere in the relation of doing works to save lives. Focus, initiative, and full use of knowledge and skill are better options to achieve intended goals when it comes to medicine, as we've seen through the ages time and time again.

Put that in the context of a temporary, and voluntary field hospital. If it was meant to truly save lives and was looking for people with a similar goal to do the same, then, yes, your statement is contradictory, in my view, when it places religion above their intended goal. Also, it's most Americans for now. Think about why that is. Then know it is becoming less as certain groups are becoming more associated as hypocrites, sorry to say.

Been awhile since I visited the Homepage for the ULC, but there was something similar found there at that site some time ago. You may want to email them a request there, or even ask at the official Facebook page. Sorry, I don't have a link for you, though.

Not true, you know. Medicine has determined that getting your heart rate up from time to time can be good for your health. So, aside from physical exercise...

Nope. I had no inkling that you had fear of something. Although, I do believe we all do. Myself, included. I had more in mind in asking why you posted fear as a question in response to my comment. Thought you might have had some insight to share. I'm no mind reader, Jonathan. And I'm more open minded to other views than some, I like to think. Frankly, I have no need to place reading John as a priority for me. So, if you had an opinion, share if you like, but I'm not the one asking for it.

Care to elaborate the question?

In fear, you may not be assessing anything, necessarily. Rather, you may be allowing your instinctual "flight or fight" response take over. In which case, nothing is learned until after your survival as to whether it was the ideal action to take. (Basically, as you state here.) Herd instinct is to run from a predatory element en masse. So as to reduce chance of of said element focusing on one single target within it, but rather on those outside of the herd. Which doesn't always work with humans, as mass target is a greater effect of mass casualties, if that is what is wanted. Otherwise, education and bias are taught from norms established by interactions of immediate influencers, which can be family, friends, or society one lives in. Depending on outside influence via migration away or access to information outside of one's society may or may not change this. Thus, it is a constant learning process, as well as an issue of acceptance one way or the other.

Another word for "judgement" is bias. So, yes, in many instances it is taught, everywhere, at all times.

It's called deductive reasoning. There's a saying, "big things start small." Who is to say that life didn't begin with a split cell? We have evidence than viruses or bacteria can evolve. So, it isn't so unremarkable to believe bigger things can evolve from small, simple things, too. There's also a school of thought that since time doesn't conform to a deity as does humans, one could create a micro-organism, knowing it could evolve into something bigger later, taking centuries rather than days. Men couldn't fathom that much time when the Bible was written. By that reasoning, all other religions can't be wrong, either, as you believe them to be.

That's another point. Why would science even try to prove there's a God? Besides, even if they were, they'd start with what He has left here for us. Kind of like backward engineering something alien to understand how it works, which is what scientist do all the time on everything else. Hence, all the peer review and testing to prove, debunk, or deem plausible.

Not so. We see evolution in viruses and bacteria becoming vaccine resistant, and transforming into newer strains. If all men came from one couple, then why so many races? Perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common ancestor"? Seems a plausible theory. Also, how does unobservable become plausible? It remains theory only, and cannot be continually tested as science can and is always.

There is a bit of similarity between creationism and evolution. Both theories encompass how man was formed from dirt. 😁

Good for you. Wish you well on whatever your plans turn out to be. Peace and blessings.

Hello. Welcome. Hope you are in good health, as well.

Welcome. Interesting line of ministering. Not everyone can be up to that task, yet I'm glad there are some like you. Blessings and Peace to you.