Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 1:06:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you done a study in the Greek of these verse's?
View Quote


You say this, but nothing in the Greek translation makes any point as to whether or not the higher powers were spiritual or earthly.  That is just your personal interpretation...really just wishful thinking, nothing more.
View Quote


[red]Romans 13;1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.[/red]

Nothing wishful, or personal about it. Look at who wrote it, (a representative of God's kingdom), and the meaning of the words used. "Higher" basically means;
242 uperecw huperecho hoop-er-ekh’-o

from 5228 and 2192; TDNT-8:523,1230; v

AV-higher 1, better 1, excellency 1, pass 1, supreme 1; 5

1) to have or hold over one
2) to stand out, rise above, overtop
2a) to be above, be superior in rank, authority, power
2a1) the prominent men, rulers
2b) to excel, to be superior, better than, to surpass

"Power", means;
1849 exousia exousia ex-oo-see’-ah

from 1832 (in the sense of ability); TDNT-2:562,238; n f

AV-power 69, authority 29, right 2, liberty 1, jurisdiction 1, strength 1; 103

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
1a) leave or permission
2) physical and mental power
2a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
4a) universally
4a1) authority over mankind
4b) specifically
4b1) the power of judicial decisions
4b2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
4c) metonymically
4c1) a thing subject to authority or rule
4c1a) jurisdiction
4c2) one who possesses authority
4c2a) a ruler, a human magistrate
4c2b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
4d) a sign of the husband’s authority over his wife
4d1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
4e) the sign of regal authority, a crown.

"Ordained" means;
5021 tassw tasso tas’-so

a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); TDNT-8:27,1156; v

AV-appoint 3, ordain 2, set 1, determine 1, addict 1; 8

1) to put in order, to station
1a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
1a1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one
1b) to appoint, ordain, order
1b1) to appoint on one’s own responsibility or authority
1b2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upo

The whole idea here, is one of "lawful". As an ambassodor of God's kingdom, Paul is speaking of authority "ordained" by God. Would God "ordain" that which is unlawful, or contrary to his law? I.E., would God ordain "evil" to rule men? NO! He CANNOT do that which is contrary to his own law! This is why context, and language is important rik. God's word is good yesterday, today, and tomorrow....
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 1:08:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Jesus Saves!

Sakic steals!
He shoots!
He Scores!
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 1:20:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Liberty86??

I want that book. Or those books???
Are they available online, or did you buy them. What are the titles, where???

That level of crossrefrencing and the dictionary is very deep.

???
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 1:29:50 PM EDT
[#4]
I think Jesus would say that most of us are missing the point with the question. Jesus was obviously less concerned with how the government acted than with how we, as individuals treated each other.

What would Jesus say about some of the bashing that has been going on in this lamentable thread?
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 1:45:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
The "render unto Caesar" quote addresses the issue of taxation most directly and no one here has been able to counter it.
View Quote

It is actually very easy to counter it. Question: What exactly is Caesar's? NOTHING!!  Hence, there is NOTHING to render unto Caesar, because NOTHING is Ceasar's.

Here is a very good article on Jesus' Philosphy regarding government:

[url=http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html]Jesus is an Anarchist[/url]

The pertinent part(although the whole thing is excellent.):

Jesus on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar's!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government) as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's, being that they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.

When the Pharisees asked Him whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel's history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes--which were being used to support this occupation--were much hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees' intent in asking this question quite clear:

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer replaced (Psalm 109:8--see Acts 1:20); see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm 69:25. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."

In Matt. 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus testifies to this exact same thing after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes--see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . ." (NKJV), which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble" (CEV). He said this after in effect saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26)--yet one reason Jesus came was to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2 Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Jesus was being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have told people was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of betrayal would have gone unfulfilled. Yet the most important thing in all this is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar's! Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." But this just begs the question, What is Caesar's? Simply because the denari have Caesar's name and image on them no more make them his than one carving their name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his.

View Quote
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:01:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
income redistribution? (communism socialism, whatever)

View Quote


Jesus would say "What a man does with his money is between him and me"
And then he would go to the IRS and flip all of their tables over[:D]
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:14:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Liberty86??

I want that book. Or those books???
Are they available online, or did you buy them. What are the titles, where???

That level of crossrefrencing and the dictionary is very deep.

???
View Quote



Lucky us, it's a computer program.
Go here:
[url]http://www.onlinebible.net/index.html[/url]

Hit "downloads". This is an amazing program. I ordered the CD, which has more than the free stuff, although the free stuff is quite formidable. I've had it for years. Let me know how you make out...
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:29:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I think Jesus would say that most of us are missing the point with the question. Jesus was obviously less concerned with how the government acted than with how we, as individuals treated each other.

What would Jesus say about some of the bashing that has been going on in this lamentable thread?
View Quote


[red]Matt 23;32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.[/red]
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:40:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Jesus would say that most of us are missing the point with the question. Jesus was obviously less concerned with how the government acted than with how we, as individuals treated each other.

What would Jesus say about some of the bashing that has been going on in this lamentable thread?
View Quote


[red]Matt 23;32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.[/red]
View Quote




Mmmm, yes,

Matt 23 deals with the pharisees and other hypocrites who put small matters ahead of more important:

[red]Matt 23:23

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. [/red]

So, how does your quote apply to my original question regarding the bashing in this thread?
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:53:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Jesus would say that most of us are missing the point with the question. Jesus was obviously less concerned with how the government acted than with how we, as individuals treated each other.

What would Jesus say about some of the bashing that has been going on in this lamentable thread?
View Quote


[red]Matt 23;32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.[/red]
View Quote




Mmmm, yes,

Matt 23 deals with the pharisees and other hypocrites who put small matters ahead of more important:

[red]Matt 23:23

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. [/red]

So, how does your quote apply to my original question regarding the bashing in this thread?
View Quote


And who were the Sadducees and Pharisees if not unbelievers?? He is speaking to all scoffers...
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 2:55:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 3:09:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
And who were the Sadducees and Pharisees if not unbelievers?? He is speaking to all scoffers...
View Quote


[red]Matt23:1-3

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach."

[/red]

It seems clear that this chapter refers to those who are hypocritical in their faith lives, placing particular onus on those who lead and teach others and not on unbelievers in general. In other words, it could very well be seen as an indictment of those here who while claiming to follow Christ, bash the beliefs of others.
Link Posted: 11/10/2002 8:35:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Rik,

I have read alot of your posts on religious topics and just want to let you know that just because you believe what you say does not make it fact.

You are a very devout athiest and I'm afraid your faith is clouding your judgemnet,ask your self if it's you and a small handfull of others against everybody eles,as it often is maybe it's you.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 10:07:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
You really should learn how to calm down. I knew a guy, who like you, was angry at the world. He was in such a high state of stress and hostility 24/7 he got an ulcer before turning 30, then a heart attack at 33. Now he has to take meds the rest of his life and avoid all confrontations or risk blowing another gasket. No one really enjoyed being around him when he was healthy and didn't really give him any sympathy when he got all messed up. I am asking you as a friend, don't end up like him.
View Quote


Thanks for your "concern."  However since I am 36 and in perfect health and have plenty of good friends IN REAL LIFE (where normal people spend most of their time, unlike yourself), I will give your suggestion all the consideration it deserves: none.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 10:10:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
It is actually very easy to counter it. Question: What exactly is Caesar's? NOTHING!!  Hence, there is NOTHING to render unto Caesar, because NOTHING is Ceasar's.
View Quote


Wow, I have never seen quite so illogical a take on that verse.  Perhaps if you read it sometime you will note where Jesus asks whose image is on the coin.
It's very plain what the verse means.  It's very amusing to watch people try to wriggle out of it.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 10:14:23 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Rik,

I have read alot of your posts on religious topics and just want to let you know that just because you believe what you say does not make it fact.

You are a very devout athiest and I'm afraid your faith is clouding your judgemnet,ask your self if it's you and a small handfull of others against everybody eles,as it often is maybe it's you.
View Quote


Of course you're wrong in just about everything you posted.
1)I am not devout nor am I an atheist.  Actually I have gotten into arguments with atheists who feel that I, as an agnostic, am too "wishy-washy."
2)I have never said that my belief makes anything a fact.  I have merely argued against those that DO state this.  If you had TRULY read what I wrote, you would know this.
3)I have no faith, so it can't cloud my judgement.
4)I would ask myself "if it's you and a small handfull of others against everybody eles,as it often is maybe it's you" but I have no idea what the hell that means.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 11:13:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You really should learn how to calm down. I knew a guy, who like you, was angry at the world. He was in such a high state of stress and hostility 24/7 he got an ulcer before turning 30, then a heart attack at 33. Now he has to take meds the rest of his life and avoid all confrontations or risk blowing another gasket. No one really enjoyed being around him when he was healthy and didn't really give him any sympathy when he got all messed up. I am asking you as a friend, don't end up like him.
View Quote


Thanks for your "concern."  However since I am 36 and in perfect health and have plenty of good friends IN REAL LIFE (where normal people spend most of their time, unlike yourself), I will give your suggestion all the consideration it deserves: none.
View Quote


I can assure you that the guy I am talking about also mistakenly believed he had "good friends" but in reality were merely acquaintances. When that guy keels over, I don't think many people are going to show up for his funeral. Just think of my advice like the Ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Be, and don't end up like the non-repentant version of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 1:37:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe it is in Acts. After Jesus left the earth the apostles and his followers actually went into a commy phase. They gave up most of what they had and lived in a communist society. They did this while they waited for the second coming because the wanted to be ready. They didnt want to have to worry about personal belongings and just worked for the better of the wole group(this is actualy where Engels got the idea it would work came from). After quite some time when they realized that the second coming wasnt going to be for possibly long time they decided that maybe the whole commy way of life wasnt so cool. They went back to their old way of life, got jobs so they could better support their own families while they waited for Him to come back.

Moral of the story, it was tried in thier time and they figured out it wanst so grand. It hasnt changed since then. Communism doesnt work and all we have to do is wait for it to collapse in on its self ,which it is already been doing from the get go, and protect our own intrests in the mean time.
[sniper]
View Quote


This was also tried in Utah by the early Mormons.  They called it the United Order, I think.
View Quote

And we all know about Utah and those crazy mormans.
[sniper]
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 1:59:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rik,

I have read alot of your posts on religious topics and just want to let you know that just because you believe what you say does not make it fact.

You are a very devout athiest and I'm afraid your faith is clouding your judgemnet,ask your self if it's you and a small handfull of others against everybody eles,as it often is maybe it's you.
View Quote


Of course you're wrong in just about everything you posted.
1)I am not devout nor am I an atheist.  Actually I have gotten into arguments with atheists who feel that I, as an agnostic, am too "wishy-washy."
2)I have never said that my belief makes anything a fact.  I have merely argued against those that DO state this.  If you had TRULY read what I wrote, you would know this.
3)I have no faith, so it can't cloud my judgement.
4)I would ask myself "if it's you and a small handfull of others against everybody eles,as it often is maybe it's you" but I have no idea what the hell that means.
View Quote


I'm sorry but I don't buy the agnostic line,this is a black and white issue.

Look at it this way, most athiests or agnostics site logic and lack of imperical evidence when explaining their lack of belief in God or belief in the way most view Him.

Mathmatics is the cornerstone of all logic and if you take the most rudimentry concepts in mathmatics,addition and subtraction, you debunk the imperical evidence concept completely. For example, the #2 will always represent 2 until some outside meand either adds or subtracts to or from it. It will never evolve into another number, it will not deteriorate into a lessor amount without any outside force intervening. If you add another number to the first, then there is nothing to indicate you have four, no ground rules of physical evidence to indicate that you no longer have two individual groups of two. You can only logically deduce that there has been an increase by logically deducing that two plus two makes four.

There is no way that you can ever expect that you can use logic to overthrow itself, because there are absolutes and truths logical deduction has guiding principles to keep it from carreening in any direction.

So since we know that two plus two always makes four, and oak trees always make oak trees, and apple trees always make more apple trees, then  you can't believe that complex protines can evolve into human beings typing messages back and forth on the internet without a external changing force.

An agnostic believes that this is possible, but he needs more evidence. An athiest believes that there is no evidence. But both are wrong because two plus two is always four although the only evidence I have to proove it is that I logically deduce that two plus two more is now a new number different from the third.

Now I know that the question of God is a lot more complex than basic Kindergarden math, but the simple logical principles that non-believers  use to argue nonsence never change. I could argue that two plus two equals three remainder of one all day long, but it is only a matter of time before people start to wonder what it is that I have against four.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 2:33:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Just think of my advice like the Ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Be, and don't end up like the non-repentant version of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
View Quote


Instead I will think of your advice like a bit of dogshit I accidentally stepped in and will wipe off my virtual shoe as quickly as possible.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 2:39:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I'm sorry but I don't buy the agnostic line,this is a black and white issue.
View Quote


No, sorry, it is not black and white and I couldn't care less what you do or do not buy.


So since we know that two plus two always makes four, and oak trees always make oak trees, and apple trees always make more apple trees, then  you can't believe that complex protines can evolve into human beings typing messages back and forth on the internet without a external changing force.

An agnostic believes that this is possible, but he needs more evidence. An athiest believes that there is no evidence. But both are wrong because two plus two is always four although the only evidence I have to proove it is that I logically deduce that two plus two more is now a new number different from the third.

Now I know that the question of God is a lot more complex than basic Kindergarden math, but the simple logical principles that non-believers  use to argue nonsence never change. I could argue that two plus two equals three remainder of one all day long, but it is only a matter of time before people start to wonder what it is that I have against four.
View Quote


No, sorry, that whole line of "thinking" is totally without logic or merit.
Neither atheists nor agnostics nor most Christians believe in Creationism.  Atheism and agnosticism are, respectively, the active disbelief and the position that it cannot be known regarding anything supernatural exists.
Whether or not there is a creative being, life evolved.  We know this happened, there is no doubt whatsoever.  The vast majority of Christians in the world, including the Pope, acknowledge this to be so.
Don't try to turn the argument between belief and unbelief into one of Creation vs Evolution, because most christians accept evolution.
As to whether the universe itself requires a creator...well, my position would be that we don't know enough about the universe to say that yet.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 7:06:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:Whether or not there is a creative being, life evolved. We know this happened, there is no doubt whatsoever.
View Quote


There is much doubt.
First of all the known way to tell the age of something does not work and that is a fact.
Every time I turn around sience is reevaluated the suspected life span of a pyramid or some skeletal,artifacts,mummys or something.
Truth is they don't really have any idea.
99% of evolution is based on the belief that there has been enough time for the changes to take place but the method for determining that only works some of the time.

The Pope and "Christians" that neglect to understand that the belief in evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible,and the Pope is not a representative of Christianity.
The word Christian describes somebody with a specific set of beliefs,if you believe something eles thats fine but your not a Christian.

Don't forget what Darwin said about his own ideas on his death bed,it is still at best only a theory.

There is a reason why Christianity permeates the globe,even though there are many faiths and some many times more popular people still believe.

And this is about Creation vs Evolution,evolution is the only arguement against creation that is why so many cling to it the way they do.
Even though it has never evolved in to a more refined concept that can be substantiated in ways other than conjecture people still hold on with blind faith.

Creation is on the other hand the only viable explanation for our inability to duplicate any of nature's accomplishments even though we have consiousness to our advantage.


Link Posted: 11/11/2002 7:10:05 PM EDT
[#23]
I should probably question my sanity for even replying to this thread, but here goes.

First of all, since communism and socialism didn't exist in Jesus' day, it borders on pure speculation what he would have said about them.  It may be fun, but I don't know how you guys can be so serious about it.  I sympathize with RikWriter's skepticism in the face of your dogmatism about something so speculative.  It is one thing to examine and try to understand what Jesus actually said and did and why he did it.  It is quite another to attempt to predict what he might say in a given hypothetical situation.

Having said that, RikWriter, I'm not sure Jesus was even mainly talking about taxes when he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."  The explanation put forward by Tom Wright makes a lot of sense to me.  Wright argues that Jesus' response was a cryptic saying about revolution and God's kingdom.  On the one hand, he was evoking the words of the Maccabean revolutionary Mattathias, who said "Pay the Gentiles back in full."  To quote from Wright, "Jesus says, in effect, 'Well then, you'd better pay Caesar back  as he deserves!'  Had he told them to revolt?  Had he told them to pay the tax?  He had done neither.  He had done both.  Nobody could deny that the saying was revolutionary, but nor could anyone say that Jesus had forbidden payment of the tax." ([i]Jesus and the Victory of God[/i], p.505)  Jesus saying "Give to God what is God's" also has a double meaning.  On the surface it simply means that one should give God the worship he deserves.  But at deeper level, Jesus is playing off the fact that it was considered blasphemous for devout Jews to carry coins whose image and inscription broke the first and second commandments.  As Wright says, "This is not a summons to a detached piety.  It is a call to renounce paganism, and to worship and serve the true god and no one else." ([i]ibid[/i], p. 506)
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 7:18:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
There is much doubt.
View Quote


No, there is not.  As I said, I am not going to get into a creation v evolution argument on this thread.  Start another if you want to argue about it, but I've hashed all this out before...which you could see for yourself if we had a search function.
The fact remains, I am not an atheist and your feelings about it won't change anything.  The fact also remains that I have no faith in any belief, and am not a devout anything.
That's all I am going to say on this subject with you...you live in my town, IM me and we can get together for lunch so I can explain to you why you're wrong about evolution.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 8:02:52 PM EDT
[#25]
I just want to go on the record as apologizing to zonan.  I feel like I overreacted to his initial post and it just snowballed from there.
We had some cross words and I think we had a mutual misunderstanding, but we've straightened things out and hopefully can avoid it in the future.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 9:52:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just think of my advice like the Ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Be, and don't end up like the non-repentant version of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
View Quote


Instead I will think of your advice like a bit of dogshit I accidentally stepped in and will wipe off my virtual shoe as quickly as possible.
View Quote


You do seem to have quite a bit of stored hostility. Many people use anger as a defensive mechanism when deep emotional trauma surfaces. If you need someone to talk to, I am willing to listen.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 3:06:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:

You do seem to have quite a bit of stored hostility. Many people use anger as a defensive mechanism when deep emotional trauma surfaces. If you need someone to talk to, I am willing to listen.
View Quote


Of course you are...you obviously have nothing better to do.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 6:28:06 AM EDT
[#28]
Economically speaking there is such a huge difference between Christ's time and our own.  In his time nearly everyone was impoverished and the government really was a tool of the rich (or the rich were the government if you prefer).  It was really easy to starve to death back then, and life was brutish and short.  Things have changed a lot--you would really have to work at starving to death in the modern USA, or even China and India.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 3:40:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is actually very easy to counter it. Question: What exactly is Caesar's? NOTHING!!  Hence, there is NOTHING to render unto Caesar, because NOTHING is Ceasar's.
View Quote


Wow, I have never seen quite so illogical a take on that verse.  Perhaps if you read it sometime you will note where Jesus asks whose image is on the coin.
View Quote


So if I scratch my name into your TV, that means its mine? No, and neither does the fact that image on the coin makes it Caesars

It's very plain what the verse means.  It's very amusing to watch people try to wriggle out of it.
View Quote

Yes, it is fun to watch you wriggle out a statist meaning.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 4:33:45 PM EDT
[#30]
No lib, what's amusing is watching you trying to shoehorn the politics of the 21st Century onto a 1st Century religious reformer.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 9:18:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, I have never seen quite so illogical a take on that verse.  Perhaps if you read it sometime you will note where Jesus asks whose image is on the coin.
View Quote


So if I scratch my name into your TV, that means its mine? No, and neither does the fact that image on the coin makes it Caesars
View Quote


If his TV came with your picture plastered across its front, I might at least question whether it belonged to you or whether you had some right or control over it.

Jesus said, "Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius,  and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

They owned a coin with a human portrait?  They were breaking the second commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."  (At least they were breaking the second commandment as they understood it.)

And when he asks, "Whose inscription?", we don't know exactly what the inscription said, but many of the denarii of that time had an inscription something like "DIVUS AUGUSTUS PATER", which means Divine Father Augustus, or simply DIVUS AUGUSTUS (Divine Augustus).  If the denarius they gave Jesus had such an inscription, that is quite an interesting coin for a Jew to be carrying in light of the first commandment: "You shall have no other Gods before me."

Don't you think Jesus might have been pointing out the irony of the compromised position of the very people who were trying to trap [i]him[/i] as being in a compromised position?
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 9:32:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
No lib, what's amusing is watching you trying to shoehorn the politics of the 21st Century onto a 1st Century religious reformer.
View Quote


I don't know that I would call Jesus a religious reformer.  The way I understand his actions, he claimed to be bringing the fulfillment of the Jewish hope for restoration and return from exile.  When I see you describe him as a reformer, what comes to mind for me is one who (to quote the dictionary) "amends or improves by change of form or removal of faults or abuses."  A commonly held view of Jesus is that he mainly wanted to clean up some of the abuses and errors in the Judaism of his day by teaching them how to love and accept each other better.  I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, so forgive me if I'm responding out of order.  I don't see Jesus as that type of reformer at all.  He came to fulfill the dearest hope of the Jews of his day.  What he did was very much in context of the Judaism of his day.  He was a fulfiller more than a reformer, though he did that in a way that was controversial and contrary to many people's expectations.

I agree with you, though, about the problems with projecting the 21st century back onto the 1st.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top