28 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhy don't you point it out to me and explain why it is flippant and bad for me
Yes there are people who value truth who dislike the lies you perpetrate.
And you often try to pass off insults as jokes and/or humour, so don't say you don't make
flippant posts, because one way or another that's admitting to another bold faced lie.
to do. Perhaps I can learn how not to do it in the future.
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is flippant and bad because flippancy is bad and a way of being bad is to be flippant. "And the flippant were bad. And some of the bad were flippant. And yet more were bad then flippant. And so it was. and so it shall be." Either you believe or not. There is no discussion. We agree to disagree. but you are wrong and I am right because I am not wrong. There now follows a list of random names:
Why don't you point it out to me and explain why it is flippant and bad for me
to do. Perhaps I can learn how not to do it in the future.
W. Pooh (Ashdown University)
Y. Bear (Yellowstone University)
P. Bear (University of Peru)
Sooty (Corbett College)
Baloo (Calcutta University)
29 Nov 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I like that video. That was really funny. Thanks for the laugh. 😀
It is flippant and bad because flippancy is bad and a way of being bad is to be flippant. "And the flippant were bad. And some of the bad were flippant. And yet more were bad then flippant. And so it was. and so it shall be." Either you believe or not. There is no discussion. We agree to disagree. but you are wrong and I am right because I am not wrong. T ...[text shortened]... oty (Corbett College)
Baloo (Calcutta University)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4vu8i5rVzg
01 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joe
Can some one explain to me how God allowing his only begotten son to be tortured to death absolves believers of their sins? What is the connection? Is God not bright enough to have been able to figure out a less sadistic way to accomplish the same task?
Can some one explain to me how God allowing his only begotten son to be tortured to death absolves believers of their sins?
What is the connection? Is God not bright enough to have been able to figure out a less sadistic way to accomplish the same task?
I don't like the way this question is asked. It assumes that the degree of torture Christ passed through is the degree to which I am forgiven of my sins. Much pain on Jesus' part means much forgiveness. Little pain on Jesus' part means little forgiveness. This is the impression the question gives.
But leading up to the act of redemption the Bible did not say "Without the pain of torture there is no remission." It did say "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"
The pain that the Son of Man passed through mostly shows His absoluteness to pass through anything in order to accomplish a redeeming death and resurrection for man's salvation. He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted everything for His Father.
The pain was in two portions. There was the pain He received from man, during the first three hours. But after that the supernatural events of the last three hours indicate that judgment of God upon Christ for man's sins.
The earthquake, was not of man. The darkening of the sun was not of man. The tearing of the curtain dividing the holy place from the holy of holies, from the TOP down to the BOTTOM, was not of man. The opening of the graves and the coming out of some of the Old Testament believers, was not of man.
The first three hours did display man's torture of Christ. The last three hours display that divine judgment upon Christ for the sins of the world. In either case what is testified to is the absoluteness of the Son to the Father's will. No man ever cared so little for Himself in exchange for His concern for the will of God.
He drank the cup. Had it been the Father's will for Him not to drink the cup of His crucifixion then He would have done the Father's will and not taken the cup. Only what the Father's will was was important.
I am not finished. That is all I can write right now.
01 Dec 11
So the pain that the Son of God passed through mostly reveals His absoluteness for the will of the Father.
This shedding of Christ's blood is like a blank check. Any amount of money can be written into the space. The worth of the check is unknown. No on knows how much "funds" is available to back up that check.
God, in eternity past, knew of His own perfection. God in eternity past, knew that the free will of His creations could cause them to become trangressors of His perfect being. In His foresight God ordained a blank check that could cover whatever reimbersement would be called for in the event that His perfection was violated, His law discarded, His majesty insulted, and His glory dispised.
The redemptive death of Christ is that "blank check" upon which the sinner can be assured that any amount of repayment is available, and not only for him, not only for her, but for the sins of all mankind throughout history.
No one knows the total worth of that one atoning death.
A picture is worth 1,000 words. In Egypt at the time of the Passover, the blood of the Passover lamb was wiped on the doorpost and lintel of the door of the house. Those inside could not see the blood. The destroying angel could see the blood. God said "When I see the blood I will pass over you.".
God did not look inside the house to see who was in the house. When He saw the blood, judgment did not fall on those in the house. The blood was mainly for God to see - "When I SEE THE BLOOD, I will pass over you." .
Only God knows the full worth, the full value of that redemtion. Its preciousness is incalculable to man. We know it covers all sins to those who are WITHIN its shelter. What that substitutionary death of the Son of God means to God is incalculable to man. It cost, its preciousness, and its worth is infinite to those who trust to come WITHIN its protective covering.
That is all for this entry. Next why could God not find another way ?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFMay I add....
Perhaps the one about Sanskrit being spoken in other planetary systems since trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago. Or was that a non-Christian doctrine? Have I got this wrong?
Sanskrit is eternal.
The planetary systems are also eternal .....but they are sometimes manifest and sometimes not.
They are manifest at the moment.
Just like when the water is in the ocean it gets transformed into water vapour and ends up unmanifest to the casual observer - but then finds itself over the land and then becomes manifest as rain to once again end up in the ocean.
The water is always existing - but is unmanifest sometimes and manifest at others times.
At the end of Lord Brahma's life the entire cosmic manifestation is dissolved and then re-created again - and it then starts all over again with the eternal life being impregnated back into their prospective destinations.....and it does this eternally until the soul develops their lost love for God which then allows them to return to their authentic spiritual home - back to Godhead.
The perspective of science on this matter - is very very limited as reguards to his existence.
This cosmic manifestation is not the first one......and not the last one.
And this universe is only one - out of unlimited universes.
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaGood post,dude.
May I add....
Sanskrit is eternal.
The planetary systems are also eternal .....but they are sometimes manifest and sometimes not.
They are manifest at the moment.
Just like when the water is in the ocean it gets transformed into water vapour and ends up unmanifest to the casual observer - but then finds itself over the land and then becomes manifest t one......and not the last one.
And this universe is only one - out of unlimited universes.
Unfortunately ,I'm sure that some will try to imagine/picture their own ideas of what those things mean.
I mean, they have to really. Thats the only way to start understanding.
But once you get into it, you gotta realize what should be imagined/visualized and what shouldn't.
For example, when you say "Lord Brahma's life the entire cosmic manifestation is dissolved and then re-created again..." , they are likely to put their own meaning on what they think "Lord Brahma", or even "cosmic manifestation" means.
In fact I think you also put your own slant on it by claiming such things as that your religion is the only true one.
I guess you mean organized religion. Like a group religion.
I dont like that. The only religion which is true is your own one-the one that is living and changing within you.
Whenever you refer to a book or someone's words as the ultimate truth, your are referring to a dead religion.
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo your saying when you went to school and learnt mathematics from a book 30 years ago...............that book is no longer meaningful now because the book is so many years old now.
Good post,dude.
Unfortunately ,I'm sure that some will try to imagine/picture their own ideas of what those things mean.
I mean, they have to really. Thats the only way to start understanding.
But once you get into it, you gotta realize what should be imagined/visualized and what shouldn't.
For example, when you say "Lord Brahma's life the ...[text shortened]... book or someone's words as the ultimate truth, your are referring to a dead religion.
I have said before that the Vedas present truth which is the truth yesterday, today and tomorrow.............just like the apple will fall from the tree because of gravity which operated yesterday, today and tomorrow and forever.
Because you were told 30 years ago in a book that the apple will fall from the tree because of gravity................does that mean the apple will now not fall from the tree because the book you read 30 years ago is now considered an old book.
Truth is eternal and never changes....so the book written a long time ago containing truth is still relevant now and forever.
In Christianity they said yesterday "thou shalt not kill".
But today they say "thou shalt not murder"
They have changed their doctrine because that is what false religion does.
False religion changes with the times.
True religion does not change.
The Vedas will never change because the Vedas are the only religion on the face of the earth that is true.
02 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by DasaGod is truth. What ever He says is truth. He once said seeds, fruit, and
So your saying when you went to school and learnt mathematics from a book 30 years ago...............that book is no longer meaningful now because the book is so many years old now.
I have said before that the Vedas present truth which is the truth yesterday, today and tomorrow.............just like the apple will fall from the tree because of gravity which never change because the Vedas are the only religion on the face of the earth that is true.
vegetation was food for man. That was truth under the original conditions.
When the earth changed it resulted in different conditions in which God
allowed man to eat the flesh of animals. God still spoke the truth under
the changing conditions. In the future the conditions will change again
and God will speak the truth about what we should eat. Get it, Spanky?
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Bible was written by meat eaters for meat eaters - and they fabricated and speculated anything they wanted to
God is truth. What ever He says is truth. He once said seeds, fruit, and
vegetation was food for man. That was truth under the original conditions.
When the earth changed it resulted in different conditions in which God
allowed man to eat the flesh of animals. God still spoke the truth under
the changing conditions. In the future the conditions will change again
and God will speak the truth about what we should eat. Get it, Spanky?
God or Jesus - had no part in the writing of the Bible.
The pure words of Jesus have been chopped and changed and removed and manipulated to satisfy the speculations of the animal killers.
Jesus had no part in animal killing.
Jesus taught reincarnation and many other wonderful things- but because this true knowledge clashed with the ignorant and superstitious Old Testament it was not presented........and now we have a Bible for the meat eaters written by the meat eaters.
Following Christianity makes a person sinful.
Its so utterly sad.