One thing I think should be kept in mind is that in the biblical days, Jesus had much to prove--specifically whether or not he was actually a holy being, and the son of God. Jesus healed the man for this reason.
Healing large wounds of the skin--in this case, amputated limbs/body parts--goes aga...
@Purmou: Even if God intends a person born without an arm to be that way... I don't think it follows that this means He intends for someone who's had an arm amputated to not have an arm.
Yes I am pretty sure on that one. Even if I was wrong in that reading however you are making another leap between natural and synthetic that is also not found in that passage, nor is it a premise of the OPs question.
The first one doesn't even relate to the point he's making--except to say that "Oh my G-d" is not using the lord's name in vain. It offers a completely different line of reasoning than he does.
And his second link is just random babbling by someone who doesn't really understand the concept in the first place.
No, it is not. In the end, what is in your heart is what counts. Because God doesn't look at what we say (primarily ;-)), but at what we think and feel.
Here's a nice analysis. Hope you won't mind the domain and look at the actual argument.
Another link, this one potentially a bit more palat...
@Purmou: I think saying that God healing someone is "going against God's word" is quite a stretch... especially since elsewhere the Bible tells us to pray for healing
@Caleb: The first article he references does talk about verses, but it doesn't give specific references.
> the Exodus version can be translated as “in a vain oath” while the Deuteronomy version can be translated as “in a false oath.”
In fact, that article may even have a very valid point... that the commandment is against oaths, and not against speaking the Lord's name irreverently... But that's not the point Jurgen was making at all, so I think using that article as evidence for his view is silly.
@Purmou Yes, but as Lord of creation (Colossians 1:15-20) among many other things I don't see any reason why he can't intervene and do something with creation that wouldn't have been the natural course of it. He does so many times in Scripture.
@Flimzy For those who actually tracked that issue, yes it is implied. Not everybody has had their eyes glued to the wire here tho and I think it's good to have a variety of meta posts from different angles all helping to re-enforce the scope of things.
@thephpdeveloper Most would say that nobody is born a Christian
Although many groups believe in baptizing infants as soon as they are born (or within a few days), and some would say that baptizing them makes them Christians at that point
I do not believe that baptising infants is a good idea now a days, if we are to assuage the idea that Christians are simply taught from birth to follow Christianity and do not critically consider their religion. I think if Christianity is to gain any credibility, we need more people to come to Christianity rather than being born into a Christian family and just follow Christianity because that is what they've been told they should do.
ahh... @Filmzy and @Ben good discussion here. I see where you guys are coming from. I was asking about those raised by as Christian from birth. I'm a new Christian who recently converted 5 months ago. Would want to ask about handling family's views on the conversion.
I consider myself to be a reborn Christian, there was a brief but serious moment where I doubted everything, but came back around to Christianity through critically thinking about the situation.
@Flimzy Um ... I don't think that's actually what most of them would say. They say it makes them part of the visible covenant body but not that it automatically makes them saved or regenerate.
@Caleb: I don't know what the majority would say... I'm just imagining that some might say that makes them a Christian... that's the closest I can come to "Christian from birth." But now I see that's not at all what @thephpdeveloper was even asking... he was asking who is a recent convert, so he can ask them some personal questions :)
@Flimzy Obviously some do say that, but I think if you dig around that is a perversion of misunderstanding of the teaching of infant baptism. I don't happen to subscribe to the notion but I am an elder in a Reformed church that teaches it. The least we can do is not generalize the teaching based on some people's miss-perceptional but rather the thing itself.
@thephpdeveloper I'll assume you mean your mom dad and siblings as you've answered with how you were raised. As far as I can tell I do not think that there should be any conflict with Buddhism and Christianity, I think they have similar ideals, except Christianity has a deity. I honestly don't forsee a problem
If you follow Christianity as Christ instructs, you will be in good standing as a Buddhist.
@Ben i see. well I think that this question about new Christians coping is rather more of a question of open-discussion than question of absolute answer, and as such I won't post this up on the site.
Taoism is self-centered, Buddhism is not, Buddhism is about finding inner peace, but it is understood that this inner peace is the same inner peace of everyone. iirc
@Ben: In other words, Buddhists don't depend on the actions of others or God to achieve inner peace... they depend on their own actions to achieve this
@thephpdeveloper I have heard many people say that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion... and I think that's probably true. Is till think that buddhism is not very compatible with Christianity. Certainly some practices may be... but taken as a whole, I think it is not.
@Ben: put another way, in what does a Buddhist place his faith? He places his faith in his own ability to meditate, clear his mind, etc, to achieve inner peace. And you're right... without believing in a god, it's hard to put faith in God :)
I am a Christian. You say you are. But we are not.
It seems that a lot of folks are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the scope of this site. While I respect the SE staff* and have been impressed with the effort they have taken (and judgement they have shown) in nurturing this site ...
The bible is not a literal text, there are many interpretations, it's difficult to nail down what exactly is truth, from that which is fiction. It is up to an individual and his human experience reading the bible to obtain some inkling of truth, and hopefully find solace and guidance in the word.
The bible was written over thousands of years by many different people from many different backgrounds, the bible is a VERY small sampling of all that has been written concerning the Abrahamic God. It was collated by a democratic system of people a millennia ago. There are proofs that are irrefutable that some things in the bible likely didn't happen, and some claims and observations made in the bible which couldn't have been made. God did not construct the bible people did. It's Fallible.
there are proofs, which are irrefutable, that the bible makes claims, that it cannot. Further there are irrefutable proofs, which show that events in the bible were highly unlikely.
@Ben Christianity is not a game of probability. Likely or unlikely has nothing to do with it, in fact most of us generally claim the things God choose to do are highly unlikely as far as man goes.
"Irrefutable proof" that anything is "highly unlikely" just means that the odds are against something happening... it doesn't mean that the thing did not or could not occur.
Now if your claim is that there are things the Bible depicts for which there is irrefutable proof that it didn't happen... that's a much more meaningful claim.
Many things are not just unlikely but impossible. Virgin birth anyone? Resurrecting one's self from the dead? This isn't about likelyhood, it's about what God decided to do and did and the testimony of those things.
he said something along the lines of "if they keep working together like this there will be nothing they cannot accomplish, quick make up a bunch of languages and make make them speak them"
thus confusion set in and they abandoned the project.
@Ben No. Nor did it really matter about eating a particular fruit. In both these cases the issue wasn't the action, eating fruit or stacking a bunch of rocks up, it was the disobedience and pride and their general rebellion against their maker that got them into trouble.
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
@Ben: Again I say... you have to understand the context of the historical account... it's a historical account being shared by an oral culture, but being interpreted by a written culture.
In the Genesis account of the tower of Babel a bunch of guys got together to build a really tall tower somewhere in the desert. God gets wind of the afair but it doesn't sit well:
Genesis 11:5-6 (ESV)
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built....
@ElendiaStarman Unfortunately, that would get closed as being too broad.
@Ben: The creation account in Genesis is viewed by many (myself included) to be consistent with modern scientific understanding of the formation of planets.
@Ben: Most Christians however disagree with me on this point.
I'm sorry, but unfortunately I am not convinced that the bible is at all an accurate historical record, it might be as accurate as you'll get for the time, but it's not accurate because it's an oral tradition, then written into text, then translated and rephrased.
Is it "true?" A photographer might say "No" because he would not have been able to photograph that shot... because those exact people didn't stand in those exact spots at the exact same time, etc.
But that's not the point of the painting at all.
So interpreting it in that context is completely illogical
@waxeagle it extends to just about everything. But the real point is that it doesn't matter if these things REALLY happened or not, they do represent some truth.
@waxeagle I'm just saying if Christianity is to be taken seriously we need to stop interpreting the bible literally a historical record.
You certainly can, and some percentage of believers do believe in some form of Theistic evolution in an effort to reconcile the findings of science with the revelation of God in his word.
The essential breakdown for creation systems is (with lots of co-mingling and blurring):
Naturalisim: Old,...
@Ben I'd say there are issues at a certain point if you can't take the historical record seriously. Pretty much once Israel gets cranked up. Before that there are some questions. However if the Bible is the inerrant word of God the question becomes why would God's word contain historical inaccuracies?
@Ben: I don't think it's a question of the literal word of the Bible or not... Even if the Bible is 100% literally true in the western sense of "literal"... and completely infallible... Christ is still supposed to be the center of our lives, not the Bible.
I went to a college, in which such a preacher would stand in the middle of campus crying at the top of his lungs about how we were all going to hell one way or another, The women because they were learning, the men because they were drinking, or squandering their youth, etc etc etc.
I interpret the Bible as clearly condemning homosexual acts (not homosexuality though), but I seem to get along with homosexuals just fine IRL. On the internet it might be different, I've never before really stated my views on the net.
I interpret that the only place where homosexuality was clearly state to be avoided by god was while the jews were in the desert. And I think this along with many of the rules god laid our for the jews were there to preserve his people such that their numbers would survive the climate.
Certainly there are times when I make the conscious decision to sin... but as a rule, I have never said "Despite being a Christian and knowing that X is wrong, I'm going to chose to do X"
@Ben I would agree with that as well.... that it's a mixture of genetic and experience
No, it is not. In the end, what is in your heart is what counts. Because God doesn't look at what we say (primarily ;-)), but at what we think and feel.
Here's a nice analysis. Hope you won't mind the domain and look at the actual argument.
Another link, this one potentially a bit more palat...
You certainly can, and some percentage of believers do believe in some form of Theistic evolution in an effort to reconcile the findings of science with the revelation of God in his word.
The essential breakdown for creation systems is (with lots of co-mingling and blurring):
Naturalisim: Old,...
