[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S. Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds "They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again" "Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip" "Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy" "As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular" Posting Articles Now Working Here Another Test Testing Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" "New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris" "Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony" Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX) Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’ ‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist' Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away. No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say ! "Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ " "Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate" "The Teleprompter Campaign" Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh "Pagans in Paris" "Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election". Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Pope tells priests to pardon women who have abortions Source: AFP URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-tells-pr ... women-abortions-110936598.html Published: Sep 1, 2015 Author: Staff Post Date: 2015-09-01 08:17:04 by cranky Keywords: None Views: 3789 Comments: 44 Pope Francis on Tuesday called on priests to pardon women who have abortions, and the doctors who perform them, during the upcoming Jubilee year -- overruling hardline traditionalists within the Catholic Church. "I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it," he said. In a message outlining special measures for the Jubilee, Francis said he knew that while "the tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness... many others... believe that they have no other option". The Argentine pontiff said he was "well aware of the pressure" that some women were under to abort, adding that he had "met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonising and painful decision". The 78-year-old, who has repeatedly urged the Church to show greater compassion, said priests should use "words of genuine welcome", as well as making sure those involved were aware of "the gravity of the sin committed". Francis announced earlier this year a Jubilee year -- traditionally a time for remission and forgiveness -- which will run from December 8 to November 20 and be celebrated not only in the Vatican but in dioceses across the world. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-4) not displayed.       .       .       . #5. To: redleghunter (#3) Vic IIRC, previous to this decision only bishops could hear abortion confessions. I heard at one point a woman had to go to the Vatican for such confession. I don't know the canon law on the subject. I do know that Scripturally speaking, the Pope was given the authority by Jesus to do as he is doing in this case. Abortion is ultimately just another kind of murder. Paul was a murderer. He was forgiven. So can repentant women. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   11:21:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: redleghunter, cranky, GarySpFc (#4) ...God already manifested Himself in the flesh for all to see. You just don't believe the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ... But, even Thomas doubted until he put his hand in nail prints and side of the Risen Christ. THAT is the most perfect post and testimony I have ever seen. The "doubting Thomas" example, and Christ's own words of assurance of His Grace while on the cross next to the criminal Believer say volumes for all cynics. I pray that any one with so much as the proverbial faith of a mustard seed embraces Christ's own words, prayer to our Father, and the evidence and scholarship are sufficient for seekers of the Truth. Thanks, brutha. Liberator  posted on  2015-09-01   11:28:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: cranky (#2) It may be time for God To reveal Himself or move on down the road. "Reveal" Himself personally to YOU? Or enmass to Disbelievers? God has already revealed Himself repeatedly in THIS life to those who ask Him into their lives; He's revealed Himself in the miracle of Life; He's revealed Himself in the Gospel as well as Scripture. No one in history I've NEVER seen has ever "revealed" themselves to me; Why should I believe their existence, words, or deeds? (Just sayin') Liberator  posted on  2015-09-01   11:33:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: cranky, redleghunter, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#0) Pope Francis on Tuesday called on priests to pardon women who have abortions, and the doctors who perform them... Stunning. We have a "Vicar of Christ" forgiving and enabling cold-blooded murderers....AND refusing to condemn mass murder! This guy is the biggest charlatan ever and obvious ANTI-Christ. Roman Catholics must be under a spell to continue appeasing this satanic agent of evil. Dave Hunt was right -- The Vatican is run by Satanists. Liberator  posted on  2015-09-01   11:39:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#5) Paul was a murderer. BEFORE he became a follower of Christ. Catholic women by definition commited murder AFTER they became follwers of Christ - a distinction with a major difference. These women knowingly committed murder of their unborn child while at the same time knowing God's words on the subject, undoubtedly being reminded time and time again of same by the same priests that will now give them absolution. Yes, it is God's to forgive the repentant, IF so repetance is sincere. But of course there is always an escape cluse for the Church. "Is one excommunicated after having an abortion? Q. A few years ago I had an abortion. I realize I committed a serious sin, but according to a test performed with our doctor's advice, the baby had a "catastrophic" defect that was fatal. I know now that does not make the abortion any less wrong. I confessed the sin and the priest told me I was forgiven. But I live every day with the pain and guilt over what I did, and I pray for forgiveness. I just read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that a person who has an abortion automatically "incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae'" by the very act of committing the offense. Have I been excommunicated from the Catholic Church all this time, or did the priest have authority to absolve me? Since my confession, I've been receiving Communion every Sunday at least. Is that wrong? (Ohio) ........................................The same paragraph contains two other words that you passed over but which are significant for you. It notes that "formal cooperation" in an abortion constitutes a grave sin and can incur excommunication. This space is too short to explain what that means, but it introduces even more conditions before an individual is excommunicated. To give an idea of what I'm talking about, in order to incur this sanction a person must be of majority age and, more important, must be aware when the act is committed that an excommunication is involved if the act is carried through. I believe many Catholics like yourself know abortion is wrong, yet do not know that an excommunication follows, if they even know what an excommunication is. Furthermore, if the woman is experiencing terrible fear or confusion, or if she is under severe pressure from family or close friends, there may not be an excommunication. As the catechism explains, in attaching the penalty of excommunication, the church simply wishes to make clear the gravity of destroying unborn life. It in no way pretends to limit the infinite scope of God's compassion and mercy." In other words, you, my dear Catholic lady, probably didn't know about this excommunication thing when you had your abortion so don't worry about it now, all is forgiven. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   12:01:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: SOSO (#9) In other words, you, my dear Catholic lady, probably didn't know about this excommunication thing when you had your abortion so don't worry about it now, all is forgiven. In other words: we made up all of these church rules in the first place, we have the power of the keys, so we can change whatever rules we made up to fit new situations or sticky cases. There's a reason the Torah is about 300 pages long but the interpretive Talmud fills 26 volumes, a veritable encyclopedia of legal opinion. There's something everybody hates somewhere in God's law. God's law is quite short, and stern, and absolute, and he repeats most of it three times to really drive home the point. God expects men to obey his law. Men don't wanna. So men - particularly pious men who WANT divine favor and access to divine power, but who won't follow ALL of the law - "interpret" the law in a way that nullifies the parts they won't follow. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   12:45:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) So men - particularly pious men who WANT divine favor and access to divine power, but who won't follow ALL of the law - "interpret" the law in a way that nullifies the parts they won't follow. Kinda like the U.S. Consitution потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   13:05:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: SOSO (#11) Kinda like the U.S. Consitution Like all law. Men like to make law for other men, because men want to be obeyed in all things. Everybody wants to rule the world. However, men hate to be ruled. They don't mind following laws that don't get in their way anyway - and they think themselves virtuous for doing what they were already going to do and for not doing what they never intended to do - for that makes them "law abiding" in their own eyes. But let one law stand athwart of their intentions, and they will break it without remorse, if they can get away with it, or seethe and boil with (self-)righteous rage if they obey it because they don't think they can get away with evading it. Men's hatred of being ruled by other men is actually legitimate: God never gave men any power to dominate other men by force, including force of human law. The only law that God bound man to follow is his own. Of course men don't want to obey THAT either. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   13:26:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Everybody wants to rule the world. Not everybody, you can have my place in line for that. "Men's hatred of being ruled by other men is actually legitimate: God never gave men any power to dominate other men by force, including force of human law. The only law that God bound man to follow is his own. Oh? Then why did God punish all men for Adam and Eve's sin? Adam and Eve certainly seemed to rule over all other men that followed it that regard. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   13:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#8) Stunning. We have a "Vicar of Christ" forgiving and enabling cold-blooded murderers....AND refusing to condemn mass murder! This guy is the biggest charlatan ever and obvious ANTI-Christ. Roman Catholics must be under a spell to continue appeasing this satanic agent of evil. Dave Hunt was right -- The Vatican is run by Satanists. The article did say the Pope Francis stated those women who come to a priest repentantly. That changes the tone significantly from the article's title and lead in. This declaration of the Pope is more a delegation of previously held authority. Catholic canon law is most difficult on the matter of a woman and accomplices aborting a baby" Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated. An abortion is defined as "the killing of the foetus, in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, published in the "Acts of the Apostolic See" vol. 80 (1988), 1818). This definition applies to any means, including drugs, by which a human being present in the woman is killed. Thus, once a woman knows she is pregnant the intentional killing of the new life within her is not only murder but an excommunicable offense. A woman who only thinks she might be pregnant has a grave responsibility to find out and to protect the possible life within. Any action to end a "possible" pregnancy while probably not an excommunicable offense would be callous disregard for life and gravely sinful. [...............] In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power. [...............] One complicating factor for anyone in this situation is that intentionally withholding mortal sin (abortion) or knowledge of one's excommunication invalidates ALL the absolutions for other sins given since the time of the intentionally overlooked sin. Culpably withholding mortal sin or an excommunication means that even after the priest says the words of absolution because of dishonesty on the penitent's part, the sin has not been absolved. Absolution is not magic, it depends upon sincere repentance from all known mortal sins and a firm purpose of amendment. Such sins would need to be confessed again, as part of an integral (complete and honest) confession. This is not the case if the person did not know that what they did was sinful in the eyes of God and the Church, but only found out this out latter. Since they did not withhold from confession what they knew to be sinful their prior confessions are valid. The Church makes every effort to make Penance available and obliges priests to make anonymity possible as well (c. 964). There is really no valid excuse for delaying one's full return to the sacraments. All those who have had abortions should come home to Christ and the Church. So it seems from the bolding only bishops or a designated priest can hear a confession for abortion. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   13:44:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: redleghunter, Liberator, Vicomte13 (#14) So it seems from the bolding only bishops or a designated priest can hear a confession for abortion. Not true. See the link in post #9. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   13:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#14) The article did say the Pope Francis stated those women who come to a priest repentantly. That changes the tone significantly from the article's title and lead in. This is true. The headline is deceiving. I'm still getting mixed messages from him: "I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it," he said. In a message outlining special measures for the Jubilee, Francis said he knew that while "the tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness... many others... believe that they have no other option". The Argentine pontiff said he was "well aware of the pressure" that some women were under to abort, adding that he had "met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonising and painful decision". "I am well aware of the pressure that led them to this decision," Francis said. "I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal." HE "has decided"?? Whoop-dee-do! Firstly, it is CHRIST who forgives and absolves those with a contrite, repentant heart. It is scriptural for man to forgive each other as we well know. And let us not forget -- the Vicar is but a man himself, no more blessed or greater than, or less a sinner than anyone else. I consider such an official decree as hubris and arrogance. Francis also appears to be a bit TOO soft and understanding of what he describes as a "moral ordeal" or "pressure" in choosing to murder the unborn. As though the wrong car or entree was chosen. That moral ordeal" or "pressure" is about selfishness or convenience. Where was his further chastisement and reasons to reconsider abortion? Naah -- he didn't go near it with a 20' pole. He's a coward IMO. It seems from the bolding only bishops or a designated priest can hear a confession for abortion. Who are designated-hitters of forgiveness in the thousands of cases of the RCC's scandalous, sinful pedophile clergy, rape, and hiding behind the name of Jesus? Liberator  posted on  2015-09-01   14:06:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#16) It seems from the bolding only bishops or a designated priest can hear a confession for abortion. Who are designated-hitters of forgiveness in the thousands of cases of the RCC's scandalous, sinful pedophile clergy, rape, and hiding behind the name of Jesus? Perhaps this is the Vatican's quid pro quo for its sin of enabling and protecting pedophiles among the Church's ranks? You know, you give us a pass on this one and we will give you a pass on abortion (and gay marriage). Next in the batter's box is birth control - coming soon to your neighborhood parish. It's knida like Obama's trade of five Islamic terrorist leaders for one American desserter. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   14:17:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: SOSO (#13) Then why did God punish all men for Adam and Eve's sin? He didn't. He punishes each man for his own sins. All sin, so all are punished. The very young and innocent are not punished for their sins when they are killed. They are blameless victims killed like Abel - BECAUSE OF the sin of others. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   14:34:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: redleghunter (#4) You just don't believe the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ. That's true enough. I don't believe any of the chapters in the Bible were written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred nor are they first person accounts written by eyewitnesses or participants after the fact. I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown. But, I have no reason to believe, for example, that the historical Luke sat down one day and penned the Gospel of Luke. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   15:43:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: cranky, liberator, GarySpFc (#19) I don't believe any of the chapters in the Bible were written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred nor are they first person accounts written by eyewitnesses or participants after the fact. Then you have deemed the Scriptures complete frauds with the intent to deceive. That puts all historical manuscripts tucked into the fraud category by your approach. So for example, the Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts is not the Simon Peter who wrote this: 2 Peter 1: Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: So the above was a fabrication? If so then all the letters we supposedly have of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson et. al. are fabrications. We only have historians who tell us that the letters belonged to those men. All the original eyewitnesses are dead. So there's not much of any history that seems trustworthy for you. For the NT Scriptures we can put a 'cap' on your escape clause. In addition to the NT manuscripts, no later than the end of the 1st Century we have sermons and theological works quoting the exact same Scriptures we have today. No writings or works of antiquity can claim the same. That is how the early church fathers combated heresies. They had the Word by tradition and in writing. That is called a dual independent check. Nothing else from antiquity other than Judaism can claim that. I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown. Again we have the testimony not only of the NT Scriptures themselves, but those who followed who used them in sermons and KNEW those who walked with Christ. The Apostle John it is estimated by 2nd century church fathers lived until the close of the 1st Century. He was young when he walked with Christ on earth. Sounds like a bit of investigation into early Christian church history is in order for you. For example: John the Apostle walked with Christ and witnessed His death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven. Then he wrote about it and lived another 60 years or so. While John evangelized Polycarp became his pupil. When John died Polycarp became a bishop/overseer. Polycarp taught Irenaeus and passed down both the oral message and taught him from the written word. By the time of Irenaeus theological institutions cropped up throughout the Roman Empire. This was mid-2nd Century. What's interesting is spread out all over the Roman Empire with no internet, these bishops and theologians somehow were writing sermons and papers on the same scriptures. But, I have no reason to believe, for example, that the historical Luke sat down one day and penned the Gospel of Luke. Actually, based on an unbroken line of Christians from the time of Christ, and the wide use of and attribution of the Scriptures while Apostles still lived should lead you to be amazed. For example, Paul's epistle to the Galatians was not just found in Galatia, but all over the Roman Empire by the turn of the 1st Century. That's pretty amazing. At the turn of the 1st Century Polycarp quotes from 17 of the 27 NT books we have today in a two page letter to his congregation. The link below shows all the NT (and some OT) quotes Polycarp uses at the turn of the 1st Century, which is evidence the scriptures themselves were in wide circulation during his lifetime: Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown. Leading scholars who studied manuscript evidence and actually conducted digs or examined archaeological data extremely disagree with you: Dating the Books of the New Testament Who Wrote the New Testament Books? But you have seen these links before and even more. Here's the information on various religious and secular manuscript evidence from antiquity: Manuscript Evidence So you have seen all of the above before. It is not a question of having 'no reason to believe' but looking for any reason to doubt. If you want to throw out thousands of years of scholarship just because you could not witness it unfold on TV or the internet, then you deny all of history or think history is a giant ponzi scam. So if you would like to discuss the evidence I presented you, I will be more than willing to discuss. However, don't bother continuing this conversation if you find no reason to believe anything from history. Because that is the standard you have established for everything from history. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   16:47:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#18) Then why did God punish all men for Adam and Eve's sin? He didn't. He punishes each man for his own sins. All sin, so all are punished. The very young and innocent are not punished for their sins when they are killed. They are blameless victims killed like Abel - BECAUSE OF the sin of others. You are kidding, right? Every man is born with original sin, which is bestowed upon him by God because of the actions of Adam and Eve, and, if of which they do nothing about they will be condemned to Hell for all eternity. The only exceptions are those that die before they had a chance to be baptized by their parents or guardian or by their own choosing once hearing the Word and those who died prior to Christ's scarficie on the Cross. Yes, Abel was blameless for his murder but even if had never sinned in his entire life he died bearing his original sin which was bestowed on him by God and for nothing that he did other than being born. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   18:14:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: redleghunter (#20) Then you have deemed the Scriptures complete frauds with the intent to deceive. Do you actually believe there were human eyewitnesses to the Creation? And they were taking notes as Creation occurred? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   18:26:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: cranky (#22) God was there. Do you think He was at Creation? Don  posted on  2015-09-01   19:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Don (#23) God was there. Maybe. But I'm not looking for God. I'm just looking for contemporaneous, eyewitness, human accounts of the events recorded in various books of the some bibles. That's all. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   19:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: cranky (#22) Do you actually believe there were human eyewitnesses to the Creation? And they were taking notes as Creation occurred? Genesis is quite a jump from discussing the Roman Empire era. Goal post shifting noted. We were discussing Caesar, Jesus Christ and the NT era. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   21:39:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: redleghunter (#25) We were discussing Caesar, Jesus Christ and the NT era. And the article is how the largesst Christian church on the planet has succumbed to secularism. Most all other Christian denominations have as well. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-01   21:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: cranky (#24) I'm just looking for contemporaneous, eyewitness, human accounts of the events recorded in various books of the some bibles. Secular pagan Roman society had no contemporaneous sources. They conquered, killed or enslaved them. Again holding a double standard. The NT was not written by one person, but multiple authors. Yet their accounts match. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   21:45:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: buckeroo (#26) the article is how the largesst Christian church on the planet has succumbed to secularism. Most all other Christian denominations have as well. First I agree with you. Second, when has a thread ever kept on subject here on LF unless the subject is pot or Copland. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   21:55:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: redleghunter (#28) Since the Pope of the largest Christian faith has sucummbed to secular points about abortion, the church shall soon describe the theological reasons for priest-gay relationships. And you Christian guys think it is about the devil when it really all about the US Supreme Court. You missed the points about politicks. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-01   22:01:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: buckeroo (#29) Since the Pope of the largest Christian faith has sucummbed to secular points about abortion, the church shall soon describe the theological reasons for priest-gay relationships. And you Christian guys think it is about the devil when it really all about the US Supreme Court. You missed the points about politicks. First I think you need to read the article. The pope is not condoning abortion but delegating absolution for the sin of abortion to every priest. Previously this was reserved for bishops an special confessors. The SC does not need any "help" from the devil to do devil's work. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   22:17:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: redleghunter (#30) The pope is not condoning abortion but delegating absolution for the sin of abortion to every priest. In fact, he is condoning "absolution of abortion" by his decree. He lowered the bar by messing up the playing field. buckeroo  posted on  2015-09-01   22:19:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: SOSO (#21) (Edited) I am not kidding. God said that he punishes people for their deeds, and adults all sin. Little kids are sinless, and their angels constantly see God. God kills each man for his own sins, not for the sins of Adam. You have recounted the tradition that explains why many believe that infant baptism is necessary - to wash away "original sin", but Scripture is silent on this matter. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   22:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: redleghunter (#25) Goal post shifting noted. Either there are first person, eyewitness accounts transcribed at the time the events described in Scriptures occurred or there are not. I say no such first person, eyewitness accounts have yet to be uncovered. Pliny wrote about of the eruption of Vesuvius at the time it erupted. Herodotus' accounts of Marathon were written while survivors of the battle were living. Xenophon recorded many daily events in the lives of ordinary Greeks. Even first hand accounts of Socrates trial and punishment are available. I've even read of an account of a person complaining about the fees Hippocrates charged him. The list goes on and on. I just wish I could find some similar accounts of events mentioned in Scriptures dating from the time the events actually occurred. Who knows? Maybe that synagogue that predated and survived Jesus will cough up something. I'll just have to wait and see. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't cranky  posted on  2015-09-02   7:49:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: buckeroo, Vicomte13 (#31) In fact, he is condoning "absolution of abortion" by his decree. He lowered the bar by messing up the playing field. The article made it clear absolution only for a repentant heart. Abortion is murder. The Popes in the past have reserved abortion absolution to repentant women, and providers through only special confessors or bishop. It is a 'special' case as in the West abortion is the most common form of murder on a daily basis. FWIK, IAW Catholic canon law, any parish priest can hear and absolve the mortal sin of murder but not for abortion. So for example, someone is on death row for homicide and converts to be a Catholic, with contrite heart repents of his/her sins, any priest can hear that confession and IAW the Catholic church absolve said sin. So the delegation of such absolution for abortion I believe is temporary during the year of Jubliee. So the Pope from what I observe in this article is not 'downplaying' or condoning the sin of murder by abortion; he is letting every priest in the Catholic church to now hear and absolve the sin of abortion just as every priest can hear and absolve a man or woman who committed any other type of murder. Now, I am a bit rusty on my CCC given I am now Evangelical, but I'm sure Vic can fill in any holes I may have left. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   9:04:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: redleghunter (#34) That is accurate. The Catholic Church, for political reasons, decided that abortion is an especially-bad-totally-heinous-murder (as distinguished from the merely-bad-partially-heinous type of murder), and so made absolution a matter for a bishop. For the Jubilee Year, Francis has decided that abortion can be confessed like any other murder. This is merely a matter of Church administration, not a change in doctrine. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-02   9:51:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: cranky (#2) Sad to day, Bob, but words are cheap. It may be time for God To reveal Himself or move on down the road. God created the entire universe in six consecutive 24 hour days, as the Creator, He is the owner, as the Owner He get's to make the rules. One of those rules is HE tells us what to do, we do not demand of Him or tell Him what to do. Unless you are 100% sure He either does not exist or that you want to go to the lake of fire for all eternity, I think you might be careful of how you speak about Him. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-09-02   9:58:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: cranky, GarySpFc, liberator, tomder55 (#33) Either there are first person, eyewitness accounts transcribed at the time the events described in Scriptures occurred or there are not. That does not even happen today. During the Gulf War in 1990-1991 all the history books you have today on the subject were interviews with Soldiers AFTER the events happened. Sure CNN and others had some cameras around but the media could never capture even a fraction of the story. So Army War College historians came down and interviewed all of us for the engagement my unit was a part of. All 2,000 Soldiers gave an account in some form or fashion. Read the beginning of Luke again. I did and it sounds a lot like how the Army War College investigated the events of the historical engagement I was a part of. Pliny wrote about of the eruption of Vesuvius at the time it erupted. How do you know that? What is the earliest extant manuscript evidence of Pliny? Pliny A.D. 61-113 Earliest Copy 850AD Number of copies: 7 NT? Less than 100 years and 5600 copies. Pliny is a sole source. The NT had 8 separate authors. Not even close Cranky. Herodotus' accounts of Marathon were written while survivors of the battle were living. Again not even close: Herodotus: 480-425 BC. Earliest Manuscript: 900 AD 1,300 year gap. NT? Less than 100 years and 5600 copies. Herodotus loses. If you read any of the scholar reviews I linked from Gary's site you will see the dating of the NT books. Most were complete no later than AD 70 before the fall of Jerusalem. That is less than 40 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most of the disciples who walked the earth with Christ were still alive and active planting churches, writing epistles, throughout the Roman Empire. See the epistles of Peter for example. Also, Paul who did not witness physically the events of Jesus Christ said the following circa 50 AD: 1 Corinthians 15: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. I don't know why you keep suggesting the NT books were written after everyone who eyewitnessed events were dead and gone. That's just a false statement given the VERY early manuscript evidence. Xenophon recorded many daily events in the lives of ordinary Greeks. Must be hearsay as we don't even know if Xenophon wrote what is attributed to him, plus he could have embellished daily events to make 'ordinary' Greeks look good. Just applying your method. The earliest manuscript evidence for Xenophon? 9th-10th Century AD are the earliest. So another over 1,000 year gap. http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/3451/5733 http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/greek_classics.htm#Xenophon Xenophon 430 – 354 BC Earliest manuscript 9-10th Century AD. I will let you do the math this time. So about 1,000 years. I just wish I could find some similar accounts of events mentioned in Scriptures dating from the time the events actually occurred. Who knows? Maybe that synagogue that predated and survived Jesus will cough up something. I'll just have to wait and see. They are there, but you have ignored them. I gave you a great work to start with. The Sir William Ramsay research. He confirmed Luke used accurate geography, political leaders, and day to day life in 1st Century AD Roman Empire. But you do put a lot of faith in fragments collected 700 hundred to thousands of years later by Catholic monks and transcribed into manuscripts. That IS the GAP, huge between these supposed reliable secular historical accounts. But for some reason you keep missing the point that the NT manuscripts are less than 100 years. LESS Than. All the others are hundreds of years and in some cases 1,000-1,300 years later than the original writing. So I have exposed your double standard. Luke says "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."----Cranky says can't be Luke. Skepticism Xenophon says "I went to the market today and heard a great speech."--- Cranky says that is reliable history. So by the evidence presented...The NT is the most reliable collection of documents from antiquity. The NT books have a less than 100 year gap from the autographs to the earliest manuscipts. Other such well known documents from antiquity don't even come close boasting only Homer with a 500 year gap between original copy and manuscipt copy. Supplemental: Where in the units of a time gap where lower is reliable and greater is less reliable: The NT manuscripts time gap is less than 100 years Other comparable historical documents exceed by 500-1000 years or more this standard. Timeframe from original to earliest manuscript copy is not the only factor in heavy favor of the NT books. The number of manuscripts are important as well. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. Here are some comparisons: Plato: 7 Caesar: 10 Aristotle: 49 Sophocles: 193 Homer: 643 Again the comparsion is not even close. The NT wins hands down. Supplemental: Where the increasing number of manuscripts allow for greater accuracy of a text and the fewer in number allow for error in the text: The NT has 5,600+ extant manuscripts, whereas the closest comparable historical document has less than 200 extant manuscripts. What I can gather from your responses is that you will not even entertain the evidence presented. Some advice from Aristotle may be in order: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle And that is the meat of the matter with NT skeptics. If those pages are truly what they say they are and about Who they say it is about, and what they say is Truth indeed...then one is left with the decision to accept or deny the claims. Many do not want to be faced with that kind of decision. They rather deny it all happened or somehow there was an unreliable transmission of the message etc. But going down that road is futile and illogical. Why? Because when you apply the same standard to non-NT historical documents one will have to deny all history. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   11:22:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Vicomte13 (#35) Thanks. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   11:23:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: redleghunter, cranky, Vicomte13 (#37) They rather deny it all happened or somehow there was an unreliable transmission of the message etc. But going down that road is futile and illogical. Why? Because when you apply the same standard to non-NT historical documents one will have to deny all history. Awesome support and logic all and all, Red. Detractors of the veracity of Scriptures may as well dismiss ALL of history by their own criteria and standards. I believe Cranky is sincere in his search for truth. But if one seeks the half-empty glass rather than the full glass, they will find and dwell on IT. This glass of historical documentation, witnesses, and preservation corroborative translations and manuscripts of people, places, and things is as full and reliable as history gets. It's overwhelming. Especially given the preservation of those manuscripts (written in multiple languages as to assure its preservation and corroboration over several centuries.) There is one issue that I believe must be considered when considering the veracity of the history of Scripture, and that is MOTIVE. As we all know, "motive" is the very first question when assessing crimes, war, events, or reason. IF Scripture as well as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a lie, to whom did it profit as a matter of financial or personal/group power? Surely not Jesus Himself, nor his Apostles, nor disciples, NOR the early Christians -- ALL of whom paid dearly with their lives. Even those who disbelieve in the Deity of Jesus Christ can find no subversive or coercive motive but an ideology based on nothing but love...fellowship...discipline, morality, forgiveness, redemption, humility, repentance...and ultimately, the answer to THE question of the Key to Eternal Life. That leaves a motive based purely on...providing the Salvation of Man for sinners (all mankind) whose Redeemer indeed fulfilled multiple ancient prophecies. Man himself is not capable of concocting such a intricate woven story spanning thousand of years. That leaves only One as its author. Liberator  posted on  2015-09-02   12:07:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: redleghunter (#37) That was a very good expose of the historical record. Of course, for parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are manuscripts from the First Century at the latest. Some of them are a century or two older. They are copies of copies, and they do not contain the complete Old Testament, but they give us a view of the relative accuracy of transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Christ over a gap of 1000 years, to the earliest complete Hebrew texts: the Aleppo and Leningrad codicies, both from about 1000 AD., Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-02   12:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Vicomte13, liberator, GarySpFc (#40) Of course, for parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are manuscripts from the First Century at the latest. Some of them are a century or two older. They are copies of copies, and they do not contain the complete Old Testament, but they give us a view of the relative accuracy of transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Christ over a gap of 1000 years, to the earliest complete Hebrew texts: the Aleppo and Leningrad codicies, both from about 1000 AD., Indeed and thank you for pointing this out. We decided in our conversation to keep 'works' within the time of Christ plus or minus a few hundred years. And the DSS do fit that timeline. Add to the fact, as you know, how often the TaNaKh is quoted in the NT from both the Greek LXX tradition and Hebrew/Aramaic tradition. We also know Jerome used the existing OT texts available to him during his life (382 AD). When we carefully examine the various extant pieces of evidence, the Bible stands above every other work of antiquity and beyond. So what's left to argue on this point with skeptics. They deny their entire history if they hold secular historical documents to the same standard they hold Scriptures to. So what's left of possibilities. One is such skeptics know the message and commands in scriptures but choose to reject them/don't like them. What is frightening for many (and just about everyone has been there) is that the Scriptures have absolutes. The Creator's Absolutes. And the fact is we all fall short of the standards for those absolutes. Yet those same Scriptures show a merciful, graceful, loving and longsuffering God who loves us so much He promises all who come to Him contrite and repentant will receive His Spirit and He will write His statutes on our hearts. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   13:46:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: redleghunter (#41) Here is what is left to the reasonable skeptic: The best attested of ancient manuscripts are these: Egyptian hieroglyphic stories of their gods and kings, dating from circa 1200 BC. These are well attested because they were painted on the inside of sealed tombs and vaults in desert places. Babylonian-region clay prisms containing cuneiform records of various things. These are well-preserved because of the medium: baked clay. Hebrew writings of the 1st Century BC and 1st Century AD. These are well- preserved because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the oldest complete Old Testaments are in Greek from the mid-350s AD (Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; the oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex, from 1010 AD). Christian writings, starting with the two (nearly) complete Greek Bibles of the mid 350s (the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). There are some fragments from before that. And there are lots and lots of manuscripts from after the 300s. From these four streams of ancient writings, we have four reasonably complete sets of ancient religious writings: the Egyptian Books of the Dead, the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epics, the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek and Latin New Testament. From the Christian monastic tradition we also have a considerable corpus of ancient Greek and Roman pagan writings, because the monastics copied older manuscripts before they fell apart and disappeared. The oldest and most famous of the Greek epics are those of Homer. Granted that these copies are, in age, from the middle ages and were copied by Christians, but clearly they are copies: Christians were not spending their time in the 1000s and 1100s devising pagan myths for the ancients. They were, rather, carefully copying the ancient pagan texts in order to preserve them for scholarly study. So, what do we have in terms of ancient manuscripts? Egyptian accounts of their gods and kings, and Babylonian accounts of their gods and kings, Hebrew accounts of their gods and kings, Greek and Roman accounts of their gods and kings, and Christian accounts of their man-god, whcm they believe is the eternal king. Human beings seem to be very consistent across cultures and times: they are fascinated by their gods, and by demi-godlike rulers. The "why" of that is not hard to discern: men are limited by nature, by other men, and by death. Through gods and beliefs in the afterlife, they seek to transcend these limits, and in the stories of demi-godlike men - Pharaohs ("sons of the Sun-god"), Gilagamesh and his demigod heirs to the throne, Moses and the prophetic line, down to David and Solomon and their lines, the Titans, the Olympian gods, the gods of hearth and home, and of course Jesus Christ, the demi-god born of a vestal virgin. The pattern repeats, because man's imagination strains against nature and death and darkness, and weaves myths of starfire. And men choose to believe these myths, and place their hopes in them...and that's what they write about. In the Greco-Roman Empire, a lot more people could write over a larger area than in earlier times. Also, the Greco-Romans were far more organized and systematic, on a vaster scale. So, when this literate empire formally organized a state religion, all over the vast area literate men wrote about what men always write about: gods and kings. The Empire became formally Christian in the 300s, and the vast bulk of ancient Christian manuscripts start to be churned out then, starting with the great codicies (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and continuing on from there. Now, these accounts of the gods and kings could be one of three things: (1) mythical accounts of divine powers intermingled with real kings reflect the ardent hopes of the human heart and are universal - all ancient cultures' texts and architecture focus, above all, on their gods, leading to a universal. (2) The other accounts are all fictional, deceits of Satan or conceits of men seeking power through false, except for the one account that is true...but how do we decide WHICH one is true? Just because our parents happened to believe one, so THAT must be the true one? OR (3) They're ALL true, and the world has been interacting with gods since the beginning. If that's the case, then the Christian god may really be the Most High God, because once he came along the other gods were driven visibly from the scene (except Satan and evil, who still hangs around in the shadows until the "Scouring of the Shire" at some point in the future. Number 1 requires no corroboration and is a rational assumption: we see no gods, science reveals nothing, apparently, so all of these ancient texts, including the very copious Christian ones are myths. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and there is no such proof. Numbers 2 and 3 require extraordinary proof, and to be acceptable to the skeptic, the proofs must be scientific. No manuscript speaking of gods can self-authenticate, and argument from the VOLUME of manuscripts is unavailing: in earlier times, the tribes were mostly illiterate, and they didn't have papyrus technology to make writing easier. The Greco-Roman Empire was the first "world empire" in the West capable of producing mass literacy, and therefore the bulk of ancient manuscripts are Greco-Roman (and from the hotter, drier, more urban and therefore more literate eastern parts of that Empire). That's why the Christian manuscripts are so numerous. Men write about gods and kings everywhere, which is why the volume of Greco-Roman writing is religious, just like virtually the entirety of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and all of the epic Greek works as well. The only extraordinary scientifically sustainable proof of gods is the Shroud of Turin, the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle, the Incorrupt bodies of the saints, and the more recent (and ongoing) Lourdes healing miracles. Because all of them are signs from the Christian god, therefore, the Christian god is a true God. And the other gods? Well, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures TELL US that angelic beings mated with humans and produced heroes of old, and YHWH humiliates the gods of Egypt with his miracles - against religious magicians who ARE able to perform minor miracles with the power of their gods. Jesus casts out real demons that twist people and kill animals. So, the truth appears to be answer 3: the gods of old are real, to an extent. But they were not good. And the Christian Father is the Most High God, above those lesser powers he made (and that departed from their orbits), and above men, whom he made (and who also departed from THEIR assigned orbit). That is how a skeptical pagan can arrive at the truth. To really BELIEVE it requires a divine revelation - a spark of faith from God to close the circuit. But certainly on the facts, written and scientific, the pagan skeptic can have all of the circuitry ready. But absent the divine revelation, he still won't quite believe it. Why? Because belief is confining, limiting, especially when it comes to sexual and financial matters, and matters of power. If a man thinks in the back of his mind that maybe it's just a myth and doesn't really believe it, will he REALLY give up all of that pleasure and luxury and authority? No. Hell, Christians who claim to believe it all don't follow the law and refuse to give up the violence, charging of interest, or forgive debts, or remain chaste or, in the absence of that, forgive other men's and women's sexual offenses, so if the Christians themselves, who profess the faith, refuse to actually OBEY their God, what reason does a virtuous pagan who DOESN'T really believe it have to follow the Christian myths anyway? The Christian God is pretty demanding. His only real followers are the ones who keep his laws or, if they fail to, who are mild, moderate, and completely forgiving of the weaknesses of other men and therefore never judge harshly. I myself passed from being a virtuous pagan to the latter form of Christian - the imperfect-and-therefore-very-forgiving-and-merciful kind, but only because God closed the gap. I think that virtuous pagans who DON'T have the truth but who follow their truth - what they believe to be god - and who therefore act more in accordance with the will of the real God - are more pleasing to God than Christians who don't obey and who are harsh and unforgiving. I would expect that there are more Jains in the City of God than there are harsh, unforgiving Christians. "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?" - Jesus Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-02   15:08:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Vicomte13 (#42) That is how a skeptical pagan can arrive at the truth. To really BELIEVE it requires a divine revelation - a spark of faith from God to close the circuit. But certainly on the facts, written and scientific, the pagan skeptic can have all of the circuitry ready. But absent the divine revelation, he still won't quite believe it. The above is true. Nice way of tying that up. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   17:09:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator, Don, tomder55 (#42) And we also have the following to consider from a conversation I had with a poster on another site. I believe his comments are quite close to your own above: In addressing the above question, there are 2 possibilities. Both require faith to believe. 1) No, nothing serious would happen 2) Yes, something serious would happen. You thus need to responsibly seek out what would happen If you believe 1) is the case, your religion is that you believe with faith that "nothing serious would happen". That remains your religion of faith but possibly without your own awareness. If you believe 2) is the case, it branches out into the various religions. Now here you go; A religion acts as a reliable vessel for an important message (truth) to pass along the line of humanity. The method employed to pass such a message is called human witnessing. This is the most efficient way for a truth to be conveyed among humans as long as God has a strong reason not to show up to humans in majority. There's no other way round. 1. Not all religions have a strong reason for their gods to hide behind. If a god is much more superior than humans and he cares about humans he should show up publicly to guide humans. The strong reason for the Christian God to hide behind is that all humans are bound to a covenant which everyone requires faith in order to be saved. God shows up to everyone simultaneously means no one can be saved. On the other hand, if God doesn't show up to anyone, then no humans can get to know who God is. No humans can know what are God's requirements set forth for humans to follow. The only way which works for a hiding God to make Himself known to humans, to make His requirements known to humans is to show Himself up to a small group of direct witnesses (explicitly His prophets and chosen witnesses), and for them to write about Him and what He wants then for others (humans in majority) to believe or not. There's no other way round for such a truth to be conveyed. 2. Now which God can explicitly name this method of conveying truth? Multiple accounts of witnessing, witnesses, prophets being explicit called God's witnesses, emphasizing on no false witnessing allowed, these are all unique characteristics of Christianity. No other gods can be true in this perspective. Moreover, no witnessing can be made more valid than those who martyred themselves for what is said and done. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8 redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-03   17:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com