Key

Member
  • Posts

    1,555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Key

  1. Actually, there is. Many, in fact. The foremost is whether to accept anything on faith alone to begin with. Then there is the basis of what Christ taught, to question and verify. As He said there would be many false prophets that would come after He left, we are to question so as not to be led astray. But how to verify, or confirm? Christ didn't write the Bible; He who was without sin. Instead it was written by men who were fallible, and, quite frankly, possibly very sinful, or may have had a personal agenda. How to trust that then? Therein is the need for a God reveal of sorts, no? There are many many more thoughts for inquisition. Lastly, but you did choose a faith that aligns with what you think, for that is how readily you accepted it.
  2. In as much as his response may have been used to your view, he actually was responding to me, my friend.
  3. Therein lies the conundrum then. If one is to take anything on faith, they then gamble on which faith is right. Some say the truth will be revealed to them, but the truth may be that none are right, for that is one of the many odds in gambling, isn't it? Some say, choose the faith that feels right, or aligns with one's own beliefs. Another gamble. Islam feels right to some, Christianity to some, and so on. Then there is the extortion for faith view, where an ultimatum is issued to conscript followers to a faith. The believe or suffer severe consequences recruitment drive. This only brings the obedience as slaves kind of adherence to the faith. Oppression rarely creates true faith, but rather drives desire for self preservation from the oppressors. This is the Heaven and Hell presentation to many people, don't you see? If God truly gives free will and wants folks to use it to choose Him to follow and adhere, then why the need for an ultimatum?
  4. All well and good, I suppose. However, there are those who see in Scripture that He had said if one has much faith in Him as a mustard seed, one shall be saved. Whereas, it is He is also to have said that to those pleading to Him to be saved from eternal torment He will proclaim He never knew them. In essence, turn His back on those clinging to the mustard seed of faith to be saved. For why plead, if unbelieving He can save them even then? Just one of several issues I have heard others present as argument for contradiction. Then, there are many who argue, as Scripture is written by men, no matter their inspiration, as men are corruptible or infallible, so, too, may be the written word. There lays the burden of proof without the use of Scripture, unless Scripture can be conclusively be proven to be true, as well. How do you prove Heaven and Hell, without any Holy Texts? This is what you are being asked. So, how would you answer?
  5. Thank you for sharing this.
  6. I, for one, was never even aware of a Universal Life University. Not sure it's affiliated with us. I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm mistaken, and possibly point you in the right direction. Peace and blessings.
  7. Your comment on bias is also true to a certain extent. To have bias, however, is to deny equality. Having preference of one thing over another is never equality. I said as much in regards to what science has or hasn't proven. As for the speculation comment, the same could and has been said of creationism. As for the "running constant interference", isn't that part of testing one's faith? Clearly that point has been made many times in the Bible. And, again, it is only truly interference if one's faith is obstructed, which, again, can only be done by the one holding onto that faith.
  8. 1. I am glad you see that point. 2. Never once have I read that he opposes people praying in public. Only that he opposes displays of ANY religion on grounds of public institutions that are suppose to be constitutionally neutral on the subject. I have, however, seen him post verses that show the hypocrisy of the matter. When obvious bias is displayed, it is showing a practice of inequality. As for evolution, there are plenty of scientific evidence and studies to show genetic mutations can and do exist naturally. So, whether you wish to narrow it to macro or micro, it makes no difference over the course of many generations or years, because it does happen. It is science, that is being taught, not faith. Can science be proven wrong? Yes. Science is ongoing, which is why it is peer reviewed. But science is also used to prove or discredit, isn't it? Creationism has not yet been proven, but hasn't been eliminated as a possibility, thus is based on faith, and not a science. (Main reason it is debated to be taught in public schools.) 3. The holidays in question were appropriated. So, you can say they weren't being celebrated as their own holidays, either. Their intent was to show hypocrisy, and worked for the most part. If one group can have a public display on a given day, so can another. Yet, one group seems to have a problem with it, just like the other that is presenting the mirror. Btw, I recall, I had stated before somewhere, a belief can not be disrupted or interfered with unless an individual changes their own beliefs.
  9. To clarify, for others to advocate the removal of "In God We Trust" from courtrooms and upon currency would not be offensive to you? And what if that advocacy was successful? Isn't that kind of what you've been arguing about in various threads? That others are "intruding", "interfering" or other such action upon "Christian" holidays and displays. Make no mistake, I am not an atheist, but neither am I a mainstream Christian. I have no problems with what Jonathan has been saying. Especially considering that "God" is personal, according to what Christ taught. It is what I do that does matter, but that doesn't justify a mob rules mentality.
  10. His point: our government is not suppose to show preference of one belief system over another, or even a lack thereof, (which is even in the Constitution that everyone is so quick to defend in their own interpretation), yet there like an official seal of approval are displays that clearly define a preference for Christianity over everything else. That is what bothers him. That is not a demonstration of equality.
  11. Newsflash: unless you are living in a Islamic dominated society, you are still the one who doesn't mind them living among you. They are not the "culturally dominate" members of society here, so they are tolerant because we are tolerant. In an Islamic state, they tend to be less tolerant. Another point.
  12. Newsflash, Dan: They would mind us living among them. That's the point.
  13. To be fair, the Constitution can not enforce itself. It is reliant upon the nation's citizens to do that. So it is our government institutions and law enforcements that skew the protections with bias.
  14. As plausible as that possibility might be, one would think that a species capable of deep space travel may have overcome the necessity of needing humans for food.
  15. A side note, "cultural dominance" is what it implies in name, dominance. Dominance does not need a majority, and could be a minority. (Look at the history of South Africa where whites, a minority race, dominated blacks, the majority race.) The very use of dominance does not present respect, yet demands it from those oppressed. I think this is the confusion that maybe Dan has on the subject. Perhaps he intended "cultural majority", instead. Dominance is not an issue, except in numbers alone, and respect could indeed be practiced universally. But, as much as this seems plausible, I really don't know his mindset, so how can I really know. This is just a bit of speculation on my part.
  16. If I might offer a bit of tangent by way of a science fiction television show, maybe a bit of insight as to why an alien might be interested in our religions in comparison to their own? On one or more of the Star Trek series, it is a practice of observing less advanced cultures that allowed them to better understand their own past development, and to better understand relations between foreign species or cultures, without violating a prime directive against use of influence or presenting technology that hasn't yet been manufactured by the observed specimens. We may well read about our past, but how better to understand it than to watch it unfold before our eyes, without our involvement, of course.
  17. Here's a silly little question, though. Given that many cultures before Christ had similar stories to the Bible's Genesis and a few other excerpts, how could you be certain it truly matched? Also, it is very likely the alien's language would be quite different than ours, meaning names and other terms or phrases may be very different, as well. I never truly understood how we got Jesus from Yewah in our own translations. It just might be the only true universal "truths" are that we are all born, live, and then die.
  18. Didn't Jimmy Hoffa leave a light on? Or maybe I got the quote wrong.
  19. Sure, ya leave for July, and the fireworks kept happening here, and ya missed it all! LOL Welcome back.
  20. Umm...no. If I'm searching, things get messy. But that's okay, as I'm told that messiness is a sign of a genius. (Not necessarily a stable one, though. 😉)
  21. Dan, whether it is applicable or not, it is still a generalization that is both offensive and often untrue. Maybe that is your experience, and so becomes your opinion. I'm sure "liberals" deal with the same observation of conservatives. Your observations often overlook any nitpicking, unless you feel it is done to you. (My observation here. Others may agree.) Others may also be direct and to the point, but your opinion may not allow you to see it that way, either. I always try to remain civil, as it is pointless to fly off the handle with total strangers with every little misinterpretation that scrawls across the screen. I don't fault you in your beliefs, for they are yours. Equally, I do not fault anyone else for theirs, or lack thereof, for they have their reasons, as well.