over the past few days i've been reading and watching bill and melinda gates speak about their plans for a better world by 2030. they bet that due to technology and the compassion of people the world should improve more in the next 15 years than it has in all of history.
specifically lower child mortality rate, eradication of polio and guinea worm among other diseases, improvement of standards of living, greater access to education etc.. i'm a realist, so i'm not looking for miracles, but i believe most of these things are possible given the level of success they have reaped in other endeavors, and naturally emerging tech being used to make some of these projections possible.. you can see that the world is actually improving in many areas if you seek out the good news stories and statistics and look beyond the watchtower friendly fear porn about terrorism, and potential dangers from culturally diverse nations around the globe.
for instance 2014 had the lowest fatal airline accident rate in history despite the hyping of the ill fated malaysian airlines crashes.
... and denounce gays.
This is is precisely the reason I don't think they'll be around at all. You're absolutely right, they will denounce homosexuality. But the public won't stand for it any more. The Jws will be gone, as will any other organization against homosexuals. That is the future, and I firmly believe it will end religions that refuse to adapt.
over the past few days i've been reading and watching bill and melinda gates speak about their plans for a better world by 2030. they bet that due to technology and the compassion of people the world should improve more in the next 15 years than it has in all of history.
specifically lower child mortality rate, eradication of polio and guinea worm among other diseases, improvement of standards of living, greater access to education etc.. i'm a realist, so i'm not looking for miracles, but i believe most of these things are possible given the level of success they have reaped in other endeavors, and naturally emerging tech being used to make some of these projections possible.. you can see that the world is actually improving in many areas if you seek out the good news stories and statistics and look beyond the watchtower friendly fear porn about terrorism, and potential dangers from culturally diverse nations around the globe.
for instance 2014 had the lowest fatal airline accident rate in history despite the hyping of the ill fated malaysian airlines crashes.
since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.
just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.
for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.
@island man
this doesnt really have a baring on the thread but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to type your posts. Having been raised a witness I'm very ignorant on the subject of evolution and I found your posts very informative, I appreciate them very much.
the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
Thank you finkelstein. I really disn't want to have to type another long post.
As as far as the insinuation that I'm lazy and have not read the bible, I'll let that stand on its own merit. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and I was aware of all the information in the previous post above. So I get the sense I may have made you feel insulted somehow and if so I apologize. I was in a hurry this morning trying to get out and go somewhere, so it's possible I didn't express myself properly.
the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
Sorry in. Y first post I meant to address you not cofty.. Oi I'm out of it today.
well all I can tell you is I've read this in several works of scholars, so unless you have a doctorate or masters in classical language and such things I'm going to trust the more educated sources telling me this phrase, the one specifically used by Christ, was unique to him and unaccounted for.
like I said, the referenced where this is discussed they are addressing the original language ohrase not the transliteration, which may match the translation of a similar phrase elsewhere, however this one in particular is unique to Christ.
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
@ctrwtf
wow Ty, for some reason I assumed that was the gospel... :/ lol
the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
@cofty
scholars can't account for the origination of the phrase Son of Man. It's unique to Christ himself. They call it an ideolect, and he only used it when referencing himself. So when Christ asked, who are they saying the son of man is? It was the same as him saying, who are they saying I am?
son of man is not a phrase found anywhere else at that time, and when he said it it was not a reference to the Old Testament references to someone like A son of man, which is a different phrase.
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
Ok, I'll concede that point you made. However it still doesn't change the error regarding the second quote.
As to your example of Ruth, Ruth fulfilled the comment of Your first quote above to love her brother (sister). In doing so she was an example of what God wanted for his people, proven by christs example and words testifying to this. god would have been pleased with this.
There really isn't an issue in any of these references. Ruth was praised as an example of love. she followed the later example, love your brothers you can see first.
the jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
Jonathan Drake I currently doubt that Paul wrote the second letter to the church of Thessalonica, because it contradicts the first one, and as the priest Raymond Brown has noticed, the author tried to copy just exactly the same structure of the first letter.
Could you you point out the contradiction so I can check it out?
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote.
In the second quote is not a contradiction because of the point ive already made. However, if you read the context his reason for saying this is clear. He had just given an illustration, and the point he was making was that nothing should come between you and your devotion to following christs teachings. He wasn't giving permission to hate, he was saying if anyone gets in the way of your obeying his commandments and example or says they'll leave you if you do or whatever - you should choose to follow him instead. Whatever cost may come from choosing that life was your torture stake, and he said you should be prepared to bare it.
