One of my least favourite human beings.
Dawkins' least favorite as well, I think. Dawkins refuses to debate him. Wonder why? Maybe because of the spectacular failure of Hitchens?
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
One of my least favourite human beings.
Dawkins' least favorite as well, I think. Dawkins refuses to debate him. Wonder why? Maybe because of the spectacular failure of Hitchens?
titus 2:13- "while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great god and savior, jesus christ, " .
the part in question lies at the end of the passage "...of our great god and savior, jesus christ,".
*granville sharp's rule-when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as cephas, or paul, or timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person.. this, as far as i know, has been an ongoing argument among trinitarians and non trinitarians for a very long time.
I agree with PSac. We don't even need the Sharp's rule to declare that Jesus has the same nature (God) as the Father. The scriptures that refer to this directly are sufficient.
But here is a JW apologist website that attempts to dismantle the Sharp's rule.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.html#
Interestingly his article begins by saying that the WTS's research is usually much superior to all else. Hahahaha
It looks like his main argument is that the "rule" does not hold true in other passages, and shows that these other passages are refering to 2 separate people instead of one, which would "violate" this rule. The article is frustrating in that it uses loaded terms and questions, and it argues much like a mind controlled JW would argue. However, he does have some valid points. But, like I said, this is of no consequence since the nature of Jesus is so clearly stated in many other scriptures. 1Peter is just a supporting verse that seems to refer to Jesus as "God". Whether it specifically does or not, I'm not sure. I haven't researched this "rule" enough to make a decision.
Looking at several other sites that are attempting to disprove this rule, it seems that they are all anti trinitarian and are trying to make a point about the trinity or lack therof, rather than investigate the "rule" to see if it is a grammatical absolute.
Here is an interesting answer to those that deny that the "rule" is absolute. It shows that the rule has many exceptions, but on 1Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the rule is valid.
http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Designs and mp always tell me to go talk to a rabbi too. If I'm not mistaken it was for the same reason that designs told you to. Nice references, Psac.
also, I couldn't agree with you more, band. It matters not how well our apologetics are if we are living a life inconsistent with what Jesus taught.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Sadly, deputy dog, no. I think the idea of being a brand new creation and being absolutely dead to sin is somewhat foreign to many. The knowledge that we are no longer the same after coming to Christ is missed by many.
And, btw, your previous post was not lost on me. You're right that we could focus on the intellectual excersise to the point of missing the need to be led by the Spirit. It should be more than just an intellectual excersise. However I think there is a big gap in knowing reasons why. Yes, belief is glorious. But it should also be reasonable.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Designs, no. If they focused on what the apostles focused on, namely help for the poor, sick, widowed, and orphaned they would be a better religion. They still would not be motivated solely based on love for Christ, since they've largely put him out of the picture. And they would still be 100% doctrinally wrong. They are a Jewish Christian religion that keeps Jesus in the background so they can focus on themselves (the gb).
As I've told other jws, "build a hospital, feed the hungry, support the poor, and then we'll talk abou you having the only true religion.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Cofty, I didn't necessarily speak of biblical inerrancy, though I myself do subscribe to it. I meant giving our kids the ability to rationally defend their belief in God. Many Christians cannot hold their own in philosophy, science, or history in regards to that. My whole argument is that this needs to change so more intelligent conversations can be had with othe intellectual non believers. William Lane Craig has been a major proponent for this, god bless him.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
My answer to the first question is yes. If Christianity were eliminated (which, in my worldview is impossible) people would still be good to each other. Is Christianity, though, a major proponent and motivation for people to love each other? Yes. Has it been responsible for motivating countless numbers of people to help others in need? Yes. Are there other reasons that have motivated people to help? Yes. But, due to the large amount of help that Christianity currently gives to those in need, would we notice if it was gone? Again, yes. We are taught that absolute morals come from God. He has placed into our hearts what is right and what is wrong. I don't believe it is merely an evolutionary function that evolved to sustain our species. We know that it is wrong to kill, not because of an evolutionary impulse, but because it was how we were made by God.
His love for us therefore makes us even more desirous to show the same sort of love towards those who are less fortunate. His giving up everything for us (including his position and human life) for our benefit. Why would I not,then, give up anything and everything important to me to do the same for someone else?
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Interested one, I meant that comment in the sense that high school and college time is a time when we all questioned everything. A that is a good thing. However, there will also be many attacks to their faith. This could be in the form of moral attacks with drugs and alcohol, or spiritual attacks of belief. The bible likens our walk in Christ as a battle in which we must be prepared. I have no problem in acknowledging that an atheists walk can be a battle too. It's terminology that the scriptures use to discuss our walk with Christ.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
Saying that Christianity is important to our society is not arrogant. And when did I ever say everyone that is not a Christian is a barbarian that needs supervision? I have made the claim and stick to it that the teachings of Jesus Christ have affected our modern society for he better and has been responsible for countless good things.
i've recently been thinking about our culture and how christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science.
) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of fundamentalism.
"feel good" churches seem to be the norm today.
You, as did the Catholic Church in the past, read Matthew far too literally. Jesus, in these chapters, was largely speaking of jerusalems defeat by the Romans. He was not commenting on astronomy by any means. And even if he was, he would have been speaking of supernatural signs from heaven and was not commenting on science and astronomy. Those verses have been used by certain groups to justify their practices, but those practices just don't line up with Jesus teachings. Jesus never commanded us to overtake the world. That is his job, and I am more than happy to leave that to him. We were never going to convert the world. No were we to try and force people into Christianity. If that has been attempted by some, that is their doing and was not the teaching of Jesus Christ.