Key

LOL, so true. But even hearing it today, it doesn't seem that old because it isn't dated as many doomsayers have been doing, and getting it wrong. Can't be wrong if you don't know how soon is "near." (Perhaps nearer than it was 2000 years ago. Who knows?)

Just a simple question out of curiosity. As the Open Pulpit portion of this forum can not be replied to, then why does it show there is a certain number of replies? Where can one view these replies?

I'm always a skeptic of those who pen any kind of date. For what true purpose can that serve? Is it not better to just simply say, "Repent, for the end is near?" Also, as there is no means yet for a mass exodus of our planet to another habitable one, then what could we truly do to survive the end of the world? (Only way would be spiritually, as many believe. But to where?)

Actually, I believe he was giving reference to some Christians view of God. God being the parent, and mankind being the kids.

Your clothes are not your faith. But merely your uniform that conveys your faith to others. Therefore, you can never "take off" your faith, only your uniform. May God bless you and your steadfastness in faith. Your brothers and sisters here in America, I am sure would wish you well and present prayers or positive energy your way, as will I. It was said for Christians, "ask, believe you have it, and so shall you have it." (I paraphrase, of course.) This mindset for the law of attraction has applied to many religions. It is positive assurance for calming of mind. Asking of prayers and well wishes is never offensive, nor should it be hindered. Be well, Brother, and go too with God. Amen.

I'm thinking his train of thought was more along the lines of teenagers taking things for granted, so unless something bad happened and he didn't get the punishment he feared he'd get, he really wouldn't give any thought to what he should have been thankful for in the first place. My take, anyway.

Well then, I suppose to you I may be strange or creepy on some subjects. I tend to consider various viewpoints or possibilities, but am too laid back to be overly concerned with many of them. I find it interesting. I suppose one might think the same of a God who, supposedly, is much the same way, except for the laid back part.

Sorry for the previous blank post. Couldn't get the edit to function correctly. This was a military example, and not a personal concern. As I said, in parenthesis, just one of many pros of a landline. Is it so strange to consider many uses of a thing?

Not an interpretation I've seen used for this question before. Interesting.

Sidetracked, sorry. What's wrong with buying dvd's? Blu-ray still plays them. And VHS is no longer prevalent. Nothing wrong with landlines, either. These days, an enemy is more likely to track a digital signal than an analog hardline. (Just one of many pros.) Back to original topic. Relying may be the wrong word, I think. Referencing to filter information might be better. Watching only one channel gets a person only one view of the story, after all.

I'm of the general opinion that nothing can be written, whether holy material or news reports, without some kind of bias or viewpoint placed therein. Would that include a lie to get a point across or sensationalize to draw mass appeal or attention? Perhaps. The great anchors of the past were viewed with great respect for the way they presented the news. Not with a lot of playful banter, entendres, or informal address. Whatever the scandals of the past, though, did not bear the scrutiny that there is done today, I feel. Also, let's face it, with so much bad making the "news", people want a bit of "fluff" now and then.

Putting it that way, reminds me of Westboro. 'Course, in that case, it'd require lack of common decency, too. Just my perspective.

Perhaps, out of irony, we should start the Church of Common Sense, since, inevitably, people often get that wrong, too. We'll call the congregation, "Commoners." Haha

This could be true. Could also be true that one may have conflicting views among the personal, religious, and/or philosophical. Then things get really interesting, no?

We can define only what we know, sense, and experience. We attribute definitions to intangibles that we otherwise would not be able to simply because man has a need to grasp at the unknown and doesn't like not knowing. Because they are intangibles, everyone's sense of the definition may be different. Art, music, and pornography are defined according to one's personal taste in what is acceptable to them and what is not. Evil is an intangible. We can not see it, may not sense it, and may not personally experience it, therefore try to define it by other means, such as actions and beliefs. That is why folks view evil differently for different reasons. But, the common remains: what is acceptable and what is not.

Understandable, and agreeable. Though, it would seem Jesus did do as He preached. But I know of very few others. Actions do speak louder than words or intentions, and are thus easier to judge one by. Not so easy to judge one as insane when all appearances seem to present competencies. So short of being a licensed psychologist, can one truly gauge who may be insane or not? Criteria? Actions alone may not justify an insanity plea. Just saying.

I see that more as "Christian Abuse". I assume you were being sarcastic, though. Honestly, I think if Jesus would have seen all the horrendous events transpired by those claiming to do them in His name, I believe He would be aghast and angered. I don't think He ever intended such to happen. (Some of you would question His existence anyway, but really, if He did, this would be my impression of what He'd think of folks today. But, I could be wrong, of course.) After all, He preached to be a good neighbor and brother; to love all including your enemies, did He not?

Ideally, yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, misinterpretations and assumptions will always seem to exist within established organized religions simply because some followers feel a sense of entitlement or self righteousness over others in their beliefs.

Sorry, had to revisit this post. I still don't understand how that passage was taken out of context. You are saying we can judge someone, but only God knows what's in their hearts, thus we can be wrong. How can that be justifiable? Who's to say someone judged another as a witch and killed them, following the command, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," but it turns out the person was really a vessel of God's miracle at work? Unless you mean they judge and do nothing. (Which to me is almost as bad, but with the good fortune of a life spared.)

But it brings to question, what would an all powerful God have against those practicing magic? Not all magic is dark or satanic. Some are even used for good and well being. Thoughts?

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as saying that the homeless were just as worthy as the next guy, "even" as other folks don't see them that way. Just my take.

It would seem kind of funny for a God to worry about witchcraft or sorcery unless He feels, no, says they are real by forbidding it. You think? What would an omnipotent God have to fear from mortals, even magical ones?

Excellent contribution, Dan. I find no point to counter with my reasoning. Thank you for the entry.

I guess I'm not really looking for any real easy answers, just opinion of others for points of reflection. Your two cents presents another question, as well. If a person's belief system requires that they be unacceptable of other belief systems, as you said, then why associate themselves here where acceptance of others with differing worldviews of religion and spirituality is encouraged and considered mutually beneficial? Speaking of those two two cents, I hope you have good darning skills for that whole. Or do you just go out and buy another garment?