Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[darthska]

And again no one has yet to address and answer my original question...

How is it if a person again lets say... they claim/profess to be drug free/sober living... yet in still smokes/drinks hangout at bars.. Will be chastised and seen as a fraud and not being honest... ala still a addict.

Yet a person can claim/profess to practice and follow (insert any religion)... yet violate, dismiss parts of the religion, and and not follow/truly practice said religion... But arent seen as a fraud or disingenuous and can still claim they are what they say they are despite their actions directly conflict what they claim to be?

There are more and more people waking up to exactly what you're talking about. There are more people willing to stand up and realize how fraudulent that is, hence this story.

 

[blastercombo]

but the fact remains that there are exceptions to you argument, which means that it is indeed you who are still wrong.

Lets take another example: Wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this: Wisdom preserves those who have it.--Eccl 7:12.

Like I stated earlier the discussion is more nuanced than you're making it seem. Plus http://niketalk.com/t/622055/pastor...the-gospel-across-the-globe/420#post_22915102 gave a broader context for you to consider.

No, the fact remains that your "exceptions" only work if you don't tell the whole story. Not only that, your "exceptions" aren't exceptions at all. Your gonna clown my verses at out of context then post one and do the same thing? I got it, you won't budge and that's fine but your argument isn't valid. your list of names proved nothing and I showed you how

 

[boris]

Just to give an example, I've read multiple interpretations for the verses in Leviticus regarding homosexuality, none of which are clearly the correct interpretation. I have to assume there are more examples of this throughout the Bible. 

You would be correct if you are saying that each interpretation is different. As far as English versions, I have found that the King James and American Standard versions are the most literal interpretations. I can't speak for all versions, but the meaning should be the same in a particular passage across the board. Biblehub.com and the Bible app give multiple versions so you can compare what is being read.

Allow me to clarify, there are multiple interpretations derived from the original Hebrew text while considering the historical and cultural context. In other words, we don't actually know the true meaning of these verses, but it can be narrowed down to a few possibilities.

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

 

but the fact remains that there are exceptions to you argument, which means that it is indeed you who are still wrong.

Lets take another example:  Wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this: Wisdom preserves those who have it.--Eccl 7:12.

Like I stated earlier the discussion is more nuanced than you're making it seem. Plus http://niketalk.com/t/622055/pastor...the-gospel-across-the-globe/420#post_22915102 gave a broader context for you to consider.

No, the fact remains that your "exceptions" only work if you don't tell the whole story. Not only that, your "exceptions" aren't exceptions at all. Your gonna clown my verses at out of context then post one and do the same thing? I got it, you won't budge and that's fine but your argument isn't valid. your list of names proved nothing and I showed you how

my dude it's okay to be wrong.

 

[bravo]

What I want to know is why 'Rev. 3:9' not looked into deeply.  If Christ himself was an Israelite and the Israelites are lost why doesn't the church do DNA test on the remaining bones and whatnot?

My theory is the current Knights who rule the church do not want the people to know Blacks were the rulers of the kingdom.  
 

Real talk, why would Jesus go to Egypt to blend in if he didn't look like them?  These white folks have been playing fools ball with blacks the whole time and any and every one who prays to a white jesus should be smacked 3 times; one for the father, the son and the holy spirit. 

 

[dutchroyalt]

There are more and more people waking up to exactly what you're talking about. There are more people willing to stand up and realize how fraudulent that is, hence this story.

and ive yet to have a so called follower even try to defend or address this....

just like logic truth and facts... they avoid this like deadbeat dads avoid child support

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

Time for black jesus...

 

[dutchroyalt]

 
What I want to know is why 'Rev. 3:9' not looked into deeply.  If Christ himself was an Israelite and the Israelites are lost why doesn't the church do DNA test on the remaining bones and whatnot?

My theory is the current Knights who rule the church do not want the people to know Blacks were the rulers of the kingdom.  
 

Real talk, why would Jesus go to Egypt to blend in if he didn't look like them?  These white folks have been playing fools ball with blacks the whole time and any and every one who prays to a white jesus should be smacked 3 times; one for the father, the son and the holy spirit. 

and why is cesare borgia the depiction of jesus... also leonardo said that this is what iuno i guess the spirit told him what the image of jesus would look like... yet the bible description and cesare are damn near polar opposites... And why is his image in most parts still used today?

 

[darthska]

There are more and more people waking up to exactly what you're talking about. There are more people willing to stand up and realize how fraudulent that is, hence this story.

and ive yet to have a so called follower even try to defend or address this....

just like logic truth and facts... they avoid this like deadbeat dads avoid child support

I'll go ahead and give you the answer that they will. Not all of them have been told the answer they're supposed to use for this one:
"We are all sinners. We all fall short of the glory of God. The Bible even says, 'No one is perfect; no, not one.' That's the beauty of his forgiveness. Without his forgiveness, our imperfections (like fraud and hypocrisy and mockery and all of them) would condemn us to hell. But we are justified by his gift of life, a gift we don't deserve, but he gave us anyways."

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

 

There are more and more people waking up to exactly what you're talking about. There are more people willing to stand up and realize how fraudulent that is, hence this story.

and ive yet to have a so called follower even try to defend or address this....

just like logic truth and facts... they avoid this like deadbeat dads avoid child support

I find that hard to believe.

 

[dutchroyalt]

I'll go ahead and give you the answer that they will. Not all of them have been told the answer they're supposed to use for this one:
"We are all sinners. We all fall short of the glory of God. The Bible even says, 'No one is perfect; no, not one.' That's the beauty of his forgiveness. Without his forgiveness, our imperfections (like fraud and hypocrisy and mockery and all of them) would condemn us to hell. But we are justified by his gift of life, a gift we don't deserve, but he gave us anyways."

But how does that change the narrative... actually that excerpt is basically a irrelevant blanket statement...

Lets apply that to lets say a murderer.... So if i go out and kill people.. i can claim im not a killer, if i state im not perfect, i make mistakes, im only human. That exonerates me from the murders ive done, and gives me a pass or excuses me to go out and continue to kill people? And I can make the claims that im no killer, and that i dont murder people?

 

[darthska]

"No, we're not supposed to use his undeserved forgiveness as an excuse to keep sinning. We're called to be so humbled by his undeserved gift that we are challenged to stop sinning and 'get right'."

That's the response.

Of course the major flaw is that it doen't address anything, because it's all hypothetical, not actual. "We're supposed to be... we're called to be..."

... but you aren't.

If the majority... VAST majority, even... If the vast majority of a religion don't actively practice and live by it's concepts, then that shows that even THEY don't believe it's concepts, and they are following/clinging to that religion for reasons OTHER than it's concepts. Popularity? Family? Pressure/fear of being outcast socially?

 

[blastercombo]

Here's the fundemental paradox between mans nature and the requirements to be accepted into haven. Paradise is made only for those who are worthy yet it is written over and over than it is mans nature to be unworthy. Written in the bible God, Jesus, you name it, all go on to say man sin because that's who they are. In fact of all people only ONE man (Jesus) has proven himself to be worthy. So who's heaven really for then? NOBODY. You can argue that's why Jesus died, but then the logical next conclusion is that heaven is a place EVERYONE will go to.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

How so when what you are reading basing your beliefs on is someone accounts of what someone believe they think the bible says... Your more or less based your faith and beliefs on hearsay... third party, he say she say, and passed down gossip... The contradiction is that the bible says beware of false prophets and people who claim and distort my words... yet your version of the bible clearly states thats what it is doing on the front cover...

It clearly says xxx... persons version. So arent you in a sense defying god? If he says follow my words, and not what others say, or claim. Then you read and lay claim to a edited, or rendition, a persons 3rd party version of his words and teachings.

And what about the 27 or so chapters/books that were removed in modern bibles? Are you telling me that around 150-200 years or so ago god came down and did a proofread/editing of his words and said you know what lets cut the fat and trim like 33% or so of the bible...its too long of a read and we need to make it "reader friendly".  

Your statement has a lot of presumptions that could go into a multitude of answer . Ask me a specific question and I will do my best to answer. Secondly, your notion that 27 books of the Bible were removed 150-200 years ago is in no shape or form credible when we dig into who, when and how the Bible was put together. That never happened and there is zero proof to support that claim.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Allow me to clarify, there are multiple interpretations derived from the original Hebrew text while considering the historical and cultural context. In other words, we don't actually know the true meaning of these verses, but it can be narrowed down to a few possibilities.

What verses are you saying we don't know the true meaning and how do you know what the true meaning of those verses are? I ask because your statement was very general. I'm just trying to see an example of how you came to these conclusions.

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

"No, we're not supposed to use his undeserved forgiveness as an excuse to keep sinning. We're called to be so humbled by his undeserved gift that we are challenged to stop sinning and 'get right'."

That's the response.

Of course the major flaw is that it doen't address anything, because it's all hypothetical, not actual. "We're supposed to be... we're called to be..."

... but you aren't.

If the majority... VAST majority, even... If the vast majority of a religion don't actively practice and live by it's concepts, then that shows that even THEY don't believe it's concepts, and they are following/clinging to that religion for reasons OTHER than it's concepts. Popularity? Family? Pressure/fear of being outcast socially?

But the source material itself categorizes who these people are.  Their chosen source material censures such an attitude so it's really not about what they believe but it's on them. In short it's called hypocrisy, but even then the source material allows room for immaturity, for the lack of a better word; but that allowance for imaturity isn't to be taken as a condoning of immorality (as defined by the source material).

See Matt 7.22

It's like saying cancer research is flawed because doctors smoke. It may be flawed for other reasons but certainly not because those who promote in it or engage in it smoke.

 

[darthska]

No, no... you don't need to practice a cancer-reducing lifestyle in order for your research to take place.

But it like saying that a known cure for cancer must be flawed if the distributors of that cure all have cancer themselves, and won't take what is sold to be as a known cure. If they don't believe in it, why are they so passionate about it?

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

No, no... you don't need to practice a cancer-reducing lifestyle in order for your research to take place.

But it like saying that a known cure for cancer must be flawed if the distributors of that cure all have cancer themselves, and won't take what is sold to be as a known cure. If they don't believe in it, why are they so passionate about it?

the simple answer is they aren't practicing what they preach. no?

No need to convolute it further. That's the nuts and bolts of it, what you are questioning is their actions (as was itterated dutch and yourself); those actions stand in contrast to what is expected of a supposed christian. So the simple answer that they are acting hypocritically.

play with the analogy how you will, but i obviously see that you got my point.

 

[darthska]

Absolutely.

So moving further...

If the vast majority of a religion is hypocritical, I cannot be convinced that THAT religion contains 'universal truth', because it simply does not make sense to me that someone would claim something to be true for all when they don't embrace it themselves.

If I, one person, try to sell an idea that I don't myself buy into, it would be difficult for any reasonable person to buy into that idea.

If I were a singular member of a COLLECTION of MILLIONS of people who were trying to pressure a reasonable person into an idea that we were hypocritically not buying into our selves, that person would struggle to buy into that idea on it's own merit alone. They might buy in off of curiosity, or peer pressure, or something else, but the merit of that idea is shot when the people loyal to it are largely hypocritical in their own execution of that idea.

 

[Sumrndmdude!]

 

[darthska]

The Bible is just a highlight reel of him through time.

Drowning your entire creation except for one family and 2 of every animal... as ludicrous as that story is... that is NOT something that should be considered 'highlight reel' material.

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church.

This idea that God doesn't think women should be spiritual leaders... don't you find it a little convenient that the people who presented this idea... were men? You don't see how that is self serving? At all?

- "God told me that Lakers fans are superior!"

*non-Lakers fans go right along, thinking "Well, he said God said so, and I'm not one to argue with God."

- "But wait, aren't you a Lakers fan?"
- "Quiet, you. I didn't make the rules. God did. And told me. Strange coincidence that I happen to be a Lakers fan, but don't let that be a distraction to what he has ordained."

Like I alluded to in a response yesterday: critical thinking is removed from religious logic.

"That's because we are humans, trying to understand the ways of an omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving Creator."

Well, all-powerful in that he created the heavens and earth, supposedly... but apparently needed a day to rest. All-powerful, though. And all-powerful in that he can write Ten Commandments on stone... but if something needs to be written on paper, he needs people like Paul to take that project up. Writing on rocks? Piece of cake. Paper? Not so much. All-powerful.

And all-loving in that he'll let you into heaven if you either deny the natural way that he supposedly made you, or ask for forgiveness for being the way that he made you. Not sure that's all-loving or all-manipulative, but that's just semantics, right?

 

[boris]

Allow me to clarify, there are multiple interpretations derived from the original Hebrew text while considering the historical and cultural context. In other words, we don't actually know the true meaning of these verses, but it can be narrowed down to a few possibilities.

What verses are you saying we don't know the true meaning and how do you know what the true meaning of those verses are? I ask because your statement was very general. I'm just trying to see an example of how you came to these conclusions.

I'll post the link to what I'm talking about when I'm not on mobile. I'm referring to the verses in Leviticus that people use to defend the notion that homosexuality is an abomination. Based on what I've read, there are multiple ways to interpret the original text.

 

[boris]

This is one of the links discussing what I'm getting at.

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php#

 

[Coromanti]

 

 

This is one of the links discussing what I'm getting at.

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php#

And as christians one ought look at the teachings of christ of forgiveness and acceptance for it is their sin to bear no your own.

 

[dutchroyalt]

Your statement has a lot of presumptions that could go into a multitude of answer . Ask me a specific question and I will do my best to answer. Secondly, your notion that 27 books of the Bible were removed 150-200 years ago is in no shape or form credible when we dig into who, when and how the Bible was put together. That never happened and there is zero proof to support that claim.

um what presumptions it says its a rendition a version right on the front cover so how am i presuming? also the dead sea scrolls is the oldest version of so called biblical writings we have.... and it has an additional 27 books... So how can something older be less credible then a version edited thats recent... not to mention it says its a reprised and edited version on the front cover lol.

Those teachings predate to early a.d. times, while lets say kjv is what a few hundred years old, yet your trying to say it has more validity then a version dating back somewhere around 100 a.d. lol how does that even make sense to you. a 200-300 y/o reprised edited version is closer to the truth then a 2,000 y/o version lol.....