Should There Be Age Limits In Politics?
News0 min ago
Self Righteous Religionists, Just Gotta Love Em Eh?
323 Answers
My sons G/F is pregnant.
Her Uncle is a pastor.
He's just stated that the baby (my grandson) is a product of sin.
You just got to love these people of faith havnt you?
Dick!!
Her Uncle is a pastor.
He's just stated that the baby (my grandson) is a product of sin.
You just got to love these people of faith havnt you?
Dick!!
Answers
During an impassioned sermon about death and final judgement, the pastor said forcefully, "Each member of this church is going to die and face judgement." Glancing down at the front pew, he noticed a man with a big smile on his face - the man was called Nailit. The minister repeated his point louder. "Each member of this church is going to die and face...
22:19 Thu 11th Feb 2021
// I think even you would have to concede that the word direct from God in your ears trumps anything his son might have had to say//
um no - they are co-equal innit?
this is a bit like N telling us what muslims believe.
Now the Creed ( one of them there are a few(*) has "proceedeth from the Father and the son" ( filioque )
and the orthodox chuches got their knickers ( OK cassocks) in a knot over this and were excused 'filioque'
here
https:/
But that didnt stop the muslim conquest c 650. Cairo was betrayed by Someone who was such a traitor that his name was expunged ( al-muqarqas) and who is now thought to be the Patriarch. The Pate thought he could get a better deal from the Muslim hordes than he could from Byzantium central whilst the Copts and Emperor were disputing this. No really
https:/
(*) Nicene actually
No - No someone ASKED - is it not better to come from the father rather than the son, doubtless thinking what a clever point and not realising there had been 500 y dispute over this - - around 1500 y ago
and all I can say is: thank God ( sozza andie!) he didnt ask about
homoousion and the difference to homoiousion
( yeah the difference is an iota or jot)
um no - they are co-equal innit?
this is a bit like N telling us what muslims believe.
Now the Creed ( one of them there are a few(*) has "proceedeth from the Father and the son" ( filioque )
and the orthodox chuches got their knickers ( OK cassocks) in a knot over this and were excused 'filioque'
here
https:/
But that didnt stop the muslim conquest c 650. Cairo was betrayed by Someone who was such a traitor that his name was expunged ( al-muqarqas) and who is now thought to be the Patriarch. The Pate thought he could get a better deal from the Muslim hordes than he could from Byzantium central whilst the Copts and Emperor were disputing this. No really
https:/
(*) Nicene actually
No - No someone ASKED - is it not better to come from the father rather than the son, doubtless thinking what a clever point and not realising there had been 500 y dispute over this - - around 1500 y ago
and all I can say is: thank God ( sozza andie!) he didnt ask about
homoousion and the difference to homoiousion
( yeah the difference is an iota or jot)
// Mary, and Jesus, who all claimed to hear God speaking to them//
I have missed the god bit for Mary - it was the angel gabriel innit
unless ....
you aver that the little baby jesus was God so whenever he said - Mum can I have a mars bar, god was speaking....
Not even at the tomb ( if she were one of the marys ) it was the angel who told them Christ had risen ....
I have missed the god bit for Mary - it was the angel gabriel innit
unless ....
you aver that the little baby jesus was God so whenever he said - Mum can I have a mars bar, god was speaking....
Not even at the tomb ( if she were one of the marys ) it was the angel who told them Christ had risen ....
Theland - I see my inconvenient points about Peter Sutcliffe are now being ignored - the final stage after platitudes and huffiness.
As an atheist, I have no problem brushing aside the nonsese of a belief in God, but as a Christian, you are always keen to proactively speak about your faith on here - unless of course you encounter questions that you simply cannot answer, of which there are dozens, and then you simply ignore them, as you are doing now.
Your credence both for your faith, and you as an advocate of it, are diminished when you take this approach - ignoring simple truths will not make them go away.
As an atheist, I have no problem brushing aside the nonsese of a belief in God, but as a Christian, you are always keen to proactively speak about your faith on here - unless of course you encounter questions that you simply cannot answer, of which there are dozens, and then you simply ignore them, as you are doing now.
Your credence both for your faith, and you as an advocate of it, are diminished when you take this approach - ignoring simple truths will not make them go away.
Theland - // Naomi @ 13:38 - what a strange question!
Sitting here, right now, feeling like this, definitely not.
My worldliness would be too powerful to to that. //
Does that mean that if God spoke to you and asked you carry out his wishes, you would ignore him, due to your 'worldliness', whatever that may be.
Surely that's not good enough - listening to God's instructions and then ignoring them - once again Mr Sutcliffe has the advantage over you - he did as he was told.
Sitting here, right now, feeling like this, definitely not.
My worldliness would be too powerful to to that. //
Does that mean that if God spoke to you and asked you carry out his wishes, you would ignore him, due to your 'worldliness', whatever that may be.
Surely that's not good enough - listening to God's instructions and then ignoring them - once again Mr Sutcliffe has the advantage over you - he did as he was told.
Theland, forget about the details of Naomi's question and just dealing with the general gist of it: If you were told by the being you claim to be your all-knowing creator to do something you found abhorrent, to kill someone, or hurt someone you loved, would you not do it? Surely it is part of God's plan?
Mozz - Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but His word would never pass away.
So, anything that contravened His word I would ignore.
Zacs - Noah's Ark - there's plenty of archaological evidence to support it, but maybe it was an allegory for something else.
Either way, it doesn't detract from the central message in the bible.
So, anything that contravened His word I would ignore.
Zacs - Noah's Ark - there's plenty of archaological evidence to support it, but maybe it was an allegory for something else.
Either way, it doesn't detract from the central message in the bible.
Theland - // Andy, if I thought I heard Gods voice, then it would be God if it complied with scripture. If it didn't, it was not Gods voice. //
Let me be sure I've got this straight - if God wants a word with you, he has to be sure that it complies with a series of writings compiled by men from eons ago, rather than simply speaking to you, and expecting you to listen, rather than checking the manual first.
If I was God, I would not be impressed that a being I created was checking my credentials before deciding if he was going to listen or not!
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that you, and your fellow God-fearing Christian Peter Sutcliffe did have a check with the gospel to make sure the message was on point - he wouldn't have to look much further than this little gem here -
Matthew 5:29
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
I think it's reasonable to assume that prostitutes offended Mr Sutcliffe a sight more than his eye or his hand, and as the gospel instructed, he set about removing them, because God told him to, and God's words are backed up in the gospel.
What her have then is -
message from God - check
gospel back-up check
All good and as it should be, so staving in the skulls of innocent women ticks all the boxes.
Doesn't it.
Let me be sure I've got this straight - if God wants a word with you, he has to be sure that it complies with a series of writings compiled by men from eons ago, rather than simply speaking to you, and expecting you to listen, rather than checking the manual first.
If I was God, I would not be impressed that a being I created was checking my credentials before deciding if he was going to listen or not!
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that you, and your fellow God-fearing Christian Peter Sutcliffe did have a check with the gospel to make sure the message was on point - he wouldn't have to look much further than this little gem here -
Matthew 5:29
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
I think it's reasonable to assume that prostitutes offended Mr Sutcliffe a sight more than his eye or his hand, and as the gospel instructed, he set about removing them, because God told him to, and God's words are backed up in the gospel.
What her have then is -
message from God - check
gospel back-up check
All good and as it should be, so staving in the skulls of innocent women ticks all the boxes.
Doesn't it.
I'm afraid not Andy. God would never contradict Himself would He?
When the scribes were inspired to write the new testament, and recording Jesus' words, the message was forever.
If people claim to have heard from God or angels, the test is scripture, otherwise we might act on the instructions of demons, as PS did.
When the scribes were inspired to write the new testament, and recording Jesus' words, the message was forever.
If people claim to have heard from God or angels, the test is scripture, otherwise we might act on the instructions of demons, as PS did.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.