Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Not much more to say

Oliver keeps fueling the fire on the OT violence issue. I dont' have much more to say on the subject. But here's a link to an article written by a Christian apologist on this very issue...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles...

Read it if you'd like. If not, no big deal. But I've said about all I can personally say on the subject.

» HeadZenCards - Not much more to say

In response to Not much more to say posted by BrianTubbs:

... except who the third person is.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brian Tubbs - Not much more to say

In response to Not much more to say posted by HeadZenCards:

Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father. and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

» Migisi - Questions on Mat 28:19

In response to Not much more to say posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father. and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

.

Do any other Jesus quotes command that one pray/baptise in the name of all three? I can't remember any. Help me out here. Nowhere in the Bible do I read of any of Jesus followers praying or baptizing people while calling upon the titles of Father, Son or Holy Ghost. I contend that this verse was later corrupted by the church to validate Trinity theology. I think the Father and Holy Ghost in this verse is an interpolation. I too suspect the canonization process.
.
Note the use of the singular 'name' in the verse. If all three names were to be used, wouldn't it read plural - 'names'?
.
The Son's name is Jesus. If you're using the names of the Father and the Holy Ghost too, what names do you use?? Do you pray "in the name of I AM THAT I AM" (the name God himself allegedly told to Moses)? I've never heard any clergy say this. If the Son and Father have names, what is the Holy Ghost's name?
.
If all three personages are ONE God, why not just pray and baptize 'in the name of God' rather than the servant personna 'Jesus'? And why the need to identify each? Would the 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost' feel slighted? Or was that done as a compromise to please early church disciples who couldn't accept the Trinity theology.
.
Is the Holy Ghost really a separate person having a unique identity, or is it the essence or 'spirit' of Jesus-IS-God?
.
What about Deuteronomy 18:20 - "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my [God's] name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods [Son, Holy Ghost], even that prophet shall die."
.
I know I've presented a lot of questions here. If you'd like to move this post to a new thread, I'm okay with that. But I would appreciate answers. Thanks ahead of time.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Biblical Canon

In response to Biblical Canon posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Logically...it is not necessary to reject ALL six of the above stages if one is unable to accept God ordering the violence that took place in the OT. There could've been a breakdown at any stage - and the ONLY stage that speaks to God's reality is Stage One.
.
You've heard the saying 'one rotten apple spoils the whole basket'. If a breakdown existed in any steps in the canonization process, the errors would corrupt the entire ~finished~ work, no? How would you know if 'God's reality' in Stage One was correctly expressed or not?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Big Important Distinction

In response to Big Important Distinction posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Writing the Constitution was one thing.
.
Ratification is something else.
.
You may not be aware of it; but, We the People hold the power of government in our hands. Our power is a little publicized fact of reality. Twelve men on a Jury--tried and true--have the ability to decide what is and what is legitimate law--that is the foundation on which our government is built. And, it is shakey ground in a certain sense.
.
What the Founding Fathers did one way or the other is immaterial to what we do today other than the fact that some of us are loyal to tradition. Some of us have no such loyalty--instead, we look to the future. I think that is a problem in many ways as it comes to play in our everyday life.
.
I watched some of the FOX News Presidential Candidate Debate last night before I turned it off in disgust and rolled over to sleep. The idea that these Republicans have isolated themselves into a box that is indifferent to the future exemplifies what I'm trying to say. Little boys playing tin soldiers when the reality is that human lifes are at stake. What an obscenity. They do not understand the American People--they are steeped in the traditions of political power.
.

-- posted by pink101

» HeadZenCards - GHOSTS!

In response to Not much more to say posted by BrianTubbs:

Would the Holy Ghost stop the LORD GOD or Jesus from inspiring their followers to kill babies with death or utterly destroy them?

Or is the Holy Ghost the orignial instigator of violence?

More importantly, do Christians really believe in ghosts? In 2007?

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brian Tubbs - Founding Fathers

In response to Big Important Distinction posted by pink101:

Sorry, Pink, I've taken a couple days to mull this over, and I can't embrace it.

Writing the Constitution was one thing.
.
Ratification is something else.

Agreed. The original Constitution was written by the Constitutional Convention and then ratified by the STATES (the people being represented by their state legislatures and state conventions).

You may not be aware of it; but, We the People hold the power of government in our hands.

I'm fully aware of this, but as you have said YOURSELF in previous posts - even the PEOPLE should be "checked." The United States was founded on the Rule of Law principle. Yes, the people govern - but they do so THROUGH and ACCORDING TO our legal and political institutions.

Our power is a little publicized fact of reality.

Hardly...especially with the Internet. However, I will grant that people with money have MORE influence than people without money. Although, this is MORE due to public apathy than capitalism. If people would get off their lazy rear ends - and VOTE and GET INVOLVED, that would be great. But many would rather dedicate their lives to sports, entertainment, drinking, partying, making money, etc.

Twelve men on a Jury--tried and true--have the ability to decide what is and what is legitimate law--that is the foundation on which our government is built. And, it is shakey ground in a certain sense.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Twelve people on a Jury have the ability to determine guilt or innocence WITHIN THE CONFINES of the LAW! A jury doesn't rewrite law.

What the Founding Fathers did one way or the other is immaterial to what we do today other than the fact that some of us are loyal to tradition.

First, EVERYONE should have at least SOME loyalty to tradition - especially that which has WORKED!

Second, you're just plain wrong here. What the Founding Fathers did is NOT immaterial anymore than what our Congress does today. When a law is passed (be it in 1789 or 2007), it has INTRINSIC MEANING - and that meaning is important. As Abraham Lincoln said: "The intent of the law-giver is the law." Are we free to change the law? Yes. But until that law is changed...it STANDS - and it HAS meaning!

Some of us have no such loyalty--

Very sad, but unfortunately, very true.

...instead, we look to the future. I think that is a problem in many ways as it comes to play in our everyday life.

Looking to the future without respect for the past IS a big, big problem.

But, I'm not saying ANYTHING against looking to the future. For crying out loud, Thomas Jefferson was ALL about the future. "I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past," he once said. I agree. But let's LOOK - before we leap!

You don't just go careening wildly into the future, following your feelings and impulses. There is a PROPER way to proceed into the unknown. And, yes, our institutions and our traditions can and should GUIDE us on that journey.
.
I watched some of the FOX News Presidential Candidate Debate last night before I turned it off in disgust and rolled over to sleep.

I was only disgusted with Ron Paul

The idea that these Republicans have isolated themselves into a box that is indifferent to the future exemplifies what I'm trying to say.

I don't see it that way at all

Little boys playing tin soldiers when the reality is that human lifes are at stake.

Every Republican AND Democrat knows that lives are at stake.

What an obscenity. They do not understand the American People--they are steeped in the traditions of political power.

This is just inflammatory rhetoric on your part. You're just venting, and I see no reason to respond to it.

Getting back to the issue at hand...

The Founding Fathers DO matter - and we should take time EVERY Fourth of July to consider our heritage, and not just enjoy fireworks!

» pink101 - Founding Fathers

In response to Founding Fathers posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Too long a post for me to deal with.
.
Can you break it down into parts? I can and will respond; but, first, I need it better organized.
.
I have to run now; but, I will be back.
.
Thanks in advance.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Off topic

Of course, Pink, you and I are way off topic from the original intent of this thread. Go ahead and respond if you'd like, but then should we decide to continue our discussion, we may want to start a NEW thread - or take it over to Socialism, where we're talking about issues related to the Founders, Rule of Law, etc. already.

Having said that....I really don't have much more to say on the Old Testament violence that was ordered by God according to the Bible. It happened, and the Bible says why it happened. I understand that there are many here who believe this discredits God, the Bible, and Christianity. I don't see it that way, although I admit that I find those passages to be very troubling. I find violence in general to be troubling.

Returning to the BROADER issue, however, of "God and Children" (Not just the Old Testament Canaanite campaigns), I think Jesus' teachings on children should guide any further discussion...

I refer to Matthew 19:4, Luke 18:16 - whichever is your preference.