Goey

By Free2love Nope, wasn't kidding at all. I'll try to help you get it. Your dad died ( you didn't say how) and you hold the RCC responsible for his death. If not "somewhat" responsible, then you imply total responsibility. Because they "lied"? It might be helpful if you said how your father died and what the lie or lies were that directly caused his death. I agree with you in principle on the hierarchy issue. I disagree with any kind of clergy/laity division within the "church". I have been studying that for quite a few years and have my own take on that. But I never said the RCC did not have an hierachy. IMO they have one of strictest and potentially abusive hierarchys in Christendom. But that was not my point at all. You hold them (RCC) responsible for his death, because as you said, "...the reason my Catholic father died at the age of 41 was ignorance of the word of God because his church left him ignorant and defenseless. This implies that the church, in this case the RCC, must repsonsibile for teaching the word of God perfectly and inerrantly, and that if they did, your father would have not have been "ignorant and defensless", and therefore would not have died. If an organized church is to be responsible for teaching the Word perfectly, they must know it perfectly (no one does) and must also have the authority to teach it. For the church to have the authority, there must be an hierachy of some kind. But you say there is and should be no hierarchy. Even if a church did teach the word perfectly, there is no guarantee that any particular person would accept and follow it unless obedience to that hierarchal authoruity was demanded and somehow guaranteed. You also said, "The spirit-filled believer has "the mind of Christ" and all the faith anyone could ever need and we don't need anyone to tell us how to believe, what to believe, that we're not believing or that we're believing wrongly." If this is the case, then it cannot not the responsibility of any church or organized religious group to teach people out of their ignorance, but instead the responsibility of the believer himself. Does this not also apply to your father? -- (and to mine who commited suicide ?) Which is it? Is a church or it's leaders ultimately responsible for what a person believes, or is it the believer himself? In regards to you dad you seem to be putting 100 percent of the onus upon the church, and for everyone else upon the beleiver himself. That's my point.

Sogwap, The problem is with how the software works, not because someone is actually logging in under you name. I have seen it where others have supposedly been loigged in, but when I entered chat they were not there. At other times folks that were actually in chat were not shown as being there. Again, it's a probem with the software, not with somone using your name.

Dumb? It was hypothetical.... Next dumb comment ? ..... <_<

I've got to ask .... If the content was along religious lines other than Evangelical Christian, would it have received the same rating? What if it had a strong Catholic content? Or a strong Buddhist content? Or a strong agnostic or atheist content ? All have the capacity to "offend" someone or another. I suspect the movie got its rating mostly because it was Evangelical Christian based, which is pretty much out of favor these days with the Hollywood crowd and quite afew other.) Gotta protect the kids from those nasty evangelicals you know... If the kids see this movie, they may end up getting saved, born-again, praisin Jeeeesus and looking for miracles. Discusting! .... Hey, let have more gay sitcoms for the kids to watch why don't we? Actually, I suspect that the rating process is not very objective, clearly defined , or applied fairly across the board in regards to religious content.

Try a Google search for "coconut oil arthritis". 1-4 tbs of coconut oil daily might help you. It is also extremely good for the immune system, having excellent anitviral, and antimicrobal properties..

According to the Forums ...

Todd, I agree. The mind is a powerful and beautiful thing. It can gather & collect information, sort it, catalog it, analyze it, make conclusions and much more. This is done at several levels, and is not necessarily by consicous effort. Sometimes things seem to come together rather suddenly. This might be considered inspiration or even "revleation" by some folks. And from this could come the "God told me" or "God taught me". It may be a matter of prospective, or a matter of ignorance (for lack of a better word) of how the mind is able to work. I see this as one possible scenario in regards to "God told me". In some cases this may be true. However, in others it seems pretty clear what they are talking about. For example, "God told me" coming from someone who professes to be a Christian, and also speaks of the gifts/ manifestations, prophecy, holy spirit, etc, -- would imply divine revelation to me. On the other hand, "God told" me coming from a Roscrucian might take on a slightly different meaning. Language can indeed be flexible, but allowing that flexibility should not disable us from being able to effectively communicate with each other. Take "God told" for example. In general, I think this kind of language basically comes from or is borrowed from a Christian subculture where it is very common. It is learned. Kinda like what we call "Wayspeak". Regardless of whether or not God is actually told anyone anything, within that subulture "God told me" is acceptable if not expected. Yet when used outside of that subculture the term is foreign, unintelligible and seemingly esoteric to those hearing it. I would think then that the person using the esoteric term outside of its culture would understand that and would attempt to communicate in terms that could be more easily understood. Or at least attempt to explain a bit. However, it is possible that this may be the only way that person knows how to (or is willing to) communicate outside of their subculture.

Roy, Although you have used the "God told me" saying from time to time, I don't want you to think that this thread is specifically about you. Others here have used it as well. And not only here at GS, but in general. From my observation it is fairly common among certain groups of Christians. I hear it on TV from some preachers. My question is, why do people feel it necessary to say "God told me?". -- What is the purpose in that? Is it to show others that they are on talking terms with God - to exalt themselves in a small way? -- Is it to make what they say more authoritive -- more believable? -- Is it an ego thing? -- Is it a cultural thing, a conversational style used within certain groups? Is it really God directly talking to them? -- Or is it thoughts and ideas coming together inwardly? Honestly, when someone say "God told me" I am LESS likely to accept what they are saying than if they just said it.

Abigail posted: Exactly.... And the person saying "God told me" knows that it can't really be proven or disproven. But being the smarta$$ person that I am, I am many times tempted to say "Well thats odd, God told me something quite different." -- Or ask them just exactly how God "told" them. Was it out loud? Did you see Him when He spoke?... Or in the worst case scenario I want to tell them, "God told you no such thing." But usually, I just hold my peace. What I suspect in some cases is that the person saying "God told me" is in effect saying - Don't challenge me on this, my mind is made up and I don't really want to know what anyone else thinks about it. It sure puts an end to a discussion when someone plays the "God told me" trump card. If you see things differently from them- you are arguing with or disobeying God.

Sometimes people use the term "God told me" in conversations. Sometimes it is in reference to biblical interpretation. For example, "God told me the this verse means xyz." Maybe that is how you understand it, maybe it is not. Sometimes it is in reference to a personal situation. "God told me that this was the truck to buy." Or "God told me that I need to quit my job". How do you respond when folks say "God told me" ?? -- Is God really talking to these folks as they say? And if He is, did He also tell them to anounce that He told them?

Dancing, It seems to me that you are splitting hairs with language, specifically articles in the English, to make whatever point it is you are trying to make. The use of "our" in regards to something does not necessarily preclude the use of "the" in regards to that same thing. For example: You and I could host a party for everyone at GS on July 1. We could bill it as a the party of the year - a big hoopla. We could call it "our" party since you and I put it together. --- Other GSer's when speaking among themselves might also refer to it as "our" party, since is it for them. But they could also legitimately refer to it as "the" party. Q: What party? A: The party for Gsers that Dancing and Goey put together. There is no rule of language would prevent someone from asking another, "Hey are you going to the party?"

Does it ?

Sorry about your dad. I have heard the "it was God's will thing" before, but it was from Protestants rather than Catholics, and then from individuals and not necessarily representatives of the Church itself. I don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff and didn't before, even as a kid. But I can see how it could make someone feel when coming from a priest. I lost my Dad to suicide when I was 19, and he was 49. It wasn't said, but I know that certain of his friends and relatives believed he was going to hell for it. One even paid a priest for a special prayer for him to keep him from going to hell. But I doubt there was anything that could been said that would have eased the pain for me then.Anyway, it seems you are holding the church somewhat accountable for your father's death ...("the Church left him ignorant and defenseless"). I fail to see your reasoning here. If as you say, that we are all the church and there is no hierarchy, then how can you hold the RCC accountable? By holding the RCC accountable, you are implying that the RCC had the power and responsibililty to not leave him ignorant, which then suggest an hierarchy. Maybe you could share your reasoning on that. As Mark pointed out in his post, What TWI taught and still teaches is what is known as Word-faith theology. This is the name it and claim it kind of faith (believing) that is supposed to get you fire engine red drapes, and a good parking spot at the mall.I would draw a sharp distinction between "faith" and "word-faith theology". Faith is necessary and still a huge part of becoming and being a Christian. Again, I wouldn't write "faith" off completely. Although love is the greatest commandment and will never pass away, faith is also still neccesary. However, I will wholeheartedy agree that "word-faith theology" as taught by TWI, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland and a slew of others is dead wrong. It is leaven that leavens the whole lump IMO.But something else to consider: Yes, they did lead us wrong, but we followed them didn't we?. We put our trust in them and what they taught didn't we? Didn't we choose to believe what they taught us? Yet the Bible and the Holy Spirit were right there with us all the time. Also, you are saying that we don't need anyone to tell us what to believe or that we are believing wrongly, yet isn't that kind of what you are doing in this post? -- telling TWI, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc and those that subscribe to their teachings that they are wrong? Just an observation. Personally, I see no problem with pointing out certain errors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor the other apostles had a problem with it. Pretty much agreed. Yup, as a result of our acceptance of the erroneous "law of believing" and the God wants your rich stuff -- many of us went to God with the solutions and answers instead of the questions. Many times, we were less than humble. One of my favorite sections of scripture. I don't get "freaked out" when people tell me "God told me". I just usually take it with a grain of salt. I seldom give any weight to something when someone says "God told me". It seems to be quite common these days, with all the wannabe prophets going around contradicting each other with all the "God told me" stuff.Some folks seem to use the "God told me" line when they want to close the discussion or when they want ot refuse any input or feedback from others. Personally, I think it sabotages the conversation most of the time when someone says that. If God truly told them something, passing it on is enough. If it is truly from God, those that have ears will hear. His sheep hear his voice and don't need to be told whose voice it is. Nice Post

1. Take a verse out of context and apply it to something completely different. 2. Appy a modern meaning to an archaic English word. 3. Take a verse literal if that fits your preconcieved interpretation, if not then say its figurative. 4. Pick the translation that best fits what you already believe. 4. If all else fails, simply claim that GOD told you the interpretation.

From T-Bones Post: I don't subscribe to any particular theory on creation days. It doesn't matter to me. If anything I lean towards an old Earth. However I have heard this argument before -- that if the Earth were young, then God is somehow being deceptive and lying to us... I think this is a very weak (and unnecessary) to support an old Earth view. There are lots of mysteries that were hidden in the OT. If we subscribe to the theory above then God was deceptive in hiding it in the OT and by not laying it all out clearly. Things on Earth past about 50,000 years old cannot be accurately carbon dated. Things past that are dated upon theories and guesses related to geological layers. Young-earth theorists argue that the layering occured due to a global flood within the past 10,000 years. The presumed "deception" according to them is not God's doing, but rather that of faulty science. What about Adam and Eve? A natural reading of Genesis shows that Eve was made as an adult, with the appearance of age. But no matter, at whatever point in life she was made/ created, she would have had the "appearance of age". Even a baby has the apearance of age. So does a seed if you think about it. Like I said, I dont subcribe to a young earth view, but the argument about God being deceptive if the earth is young - is totally bogus IMO.

Sudo, Lol ...... That one sounds kinda like a Martindale teaching.

Click Here

Rather than look at where the English exactly corresponds, I would look at the where the original languages might corresspond. The Hebrew word for gathering together in Gen 1:10 and the Greek word in 2 Thess 2:1 are not synonymous. Also, the Greek word in the Seputagint for "gathering together" in Gen 1:10 does not correlate with the one in 1 Thes 2:1. Brenton translates Genesis 1:10 from the Septuagint as: And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good. My point is that only through a particular English translation is there an exact match in "gathering together" between Gen 1:10 and 1 Thess 2:1. This is not likely to take you very far in further understanding of either Gen 1:10 or 2 Thes 2:1 If you want to make comparisions, I would suggest looking at verses that use the same word in the same original language, and not necessarily where the English may exactly match by translational coincidence. In 2 Thes 2:1 the Greek for gathering together is from episunagô . This word is used in various forms in the following verses. 2Th 2:1 Hbr 10:25 Mat 23:37 Mat 24:31 Mar 1:33 Mar 13:27 Luk 12:1 Luk 13:34 In Gen 1:10 the Hebrew word for gathering together is "miqveh" and is used in the following OTverses, but is only translated "gathering together" in Gen 1:10. Gen 1:10 Exd 7:19 Lev 11:36 1Ki 10:28 1Ch 29:15 2Ch 1:16 Jer 14:8 Jer 17:13 Jer 50:7

Hi Mark, While I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" in the strict sense of the term, I do like to explore these kinds of things from time to time. Below are some fairly good links that touch on this. The first three are fundamentalist - literal 6 days. The last one treats it figuratively (where day mean age or aeon). The best I can tell, one of the main arguments for the six days being literal 24 hour periods, is the use of the term "and the evening and the morninng". One writer argues that if a day was meant to mean an aeon of time, then why would the term "evening and morning" be used? http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=42 http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR114.htm http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/OT/sixday.htm As for me, this is one of those things that seems insignificant in the whole scope of things, since one way or the other, it does not really affect my faith. Personally, I think the writer of Genesis was probably more concerned with showing God as the Creator and life-giver, than trying to establish the exact time frame in which the universe was created.

How silly. The definition above for "Lord" could be applied to nearly anyone who was in a position of authority. Employers, coaches, cops, drug lords, etc. Problem here is that "Lord" is an archaic term and it pretty much limited to British aristocracy. It is not a title we use today with the exceptions of refering to God or Christ, or in regards to drug "lords". Catholics may use it, but I am not sure there. In regards to apostle (#1). Mr. Wierewille was not a "prominent Christian missionary". He was not prominent in Christian circles nor with the general populace. His "prominence" was relegated to his own small following. Therefore only #2 could possibly apply. "Apostle" (#2) from above could apply to anyone with an idea or cause that is being promoted. - like the latest illegal designer drug, or a new fangled weight loss program. So what does this do for Mr. Wiereille? In regards "lord" that puts him in the same category as any drug lord or mafia boss. In regards to apostle, in the same category, as any snake oil salesman. CK, why not just call him God?

Excellent response CK! You would make old Doc Vic proud. I see you have really put your critical thinking skills to work once again with that very well thought out response and explanation.

Ok then, what is the deal maker? -- I mean what good evidence is there that is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was married and had kids? Don't you think that if Jesus were married to Mary Magdelene or anyone else, that there would be at least a hint of it in the scriptures? Why do you suppose that Jesus' wife and kids were not mentioned in Mark 6:3 but only his mother and siblings? Don't you think that the early church fathers would have written at least something about it if Jesus had been married? Yet not a word along those lines. What about church tradition? Nothing at all. What we have is a few modern writers speculating on this, some gnostic writings that speak of Jesus realtionship with Mary Magdalene, and a couple of modern fiction novels. Yet no ancient writing, gnostic or otherwise says or claims that Jesus was married or had children. Nada. Nothing. Yet some folks want to speculate that Jesus was married with children. It seems to me that some folks just simply "want" Jesus to have been married and have kids, because it somehow makes him and more human.

NLL, Not to worry. I think you just had a temporary lapse. Seems you identified it pretty quickly which is the main thing. However, I doubt leaving that church and running for the door is the solution, since that church does not seem to be the actual problem. Your description makes it seem like a pretty good church. Waybrain? Could be ... But maybe it is just something within yourself that needs to be addressed. Spiritual highmindedness maybe? That is not unique to TWI, it happens to a lot of us Christians at times no matter where we attend church or felloswhips. Remember, it is only through Christ and what he accomplished that any of us Christians stand worthy before God. Why not go back to that church and speak to the pastor? Tell him/her what happend - what you were thinking. Why you left. See what kind of feedback you get. If it is a good church they will probably be able to help you. I bet they are concerned and wondering what happend to you.

Greek, I am not sure that we agree on what constitutes a "spiritually-minded" Christian. What do you think makes a "spiritually-minded" Christian?

Lovematters, I would think that "IF" Jesus had been married to a woman, Mary Magdalene for example, then the alegorical marriage to the Church would not have worked.