KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

▼

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

Thank God He Was

from JoeUser Forums
What if Jesus Christ was never born? What would it be like here and in the rest of the world? Would it make a difference at all? It is a thought provoking question isn't it? What if Jesus had never been born?

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in politics. Our representative form of democracy rests on explicitly Christian principles of church and state. So do our principles of free speech and religious tolerance. In fact, the very founding of this nation was motivated by the goal to establish a Christ-centered community. If Jesus was never born, there wouldn’t be a United States of America, at least as we know it today.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in education. The world’s oldest universities were all founded on Christian principles, so that students could grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same is true of nearly every one of the first one hundred colleges and universities in America. Eventually people would have developed institutions of higher education, but there would be no Oxford, no Harvard, no Yale, and no Princeton. Furthermore, Christians have always been pioneers in promoting literacy and universal education. Even America’s public school system is part of the legacy of Puritan education. To this day, linguists are working all over the world, in the name of Jesus, to put native languages in written form and teach people to read the Bible.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in literature, music, and the arts. There would be no Messiah for Handel to write into his famous oratorio—no Christmas music at all. There would be no Pieta by Michelangelo, and no Last Supper by Leonardo. There would be no cathedrals in Europe, no Hagia Sophia or Notre Dame. There would be no Gospels and no New Testament, and therefore no story of the prodigal son, no parable of the good Samaritan, and no Sermon on the Mount. There would be no Divine Comedy by Dante, and no Paradise Lost by Milton.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in science and medicine. It was the Christian worldview—with its insistence on the rational order of the universe and man’s dominion over creation—that gave rise to modern science. Followers of Jesus Christ were also pioneers in the art of medicine. The first hospitals were established by Christians who believed they had a God-given responsibility to heal the sick.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in charity and the protection of life. It was the followers of Christ who first introduced the Roman world to disinterested benevolence, to helping someone who couldn’t help you in return. Pagans were amazed to see that Christians not only took care of their own needy people, but also provided for other people’s poor. It was also the followers of Christ who first abandoned the nearly universal practice of infanticide. The birth of Christ taught them to protect the lives of their own children, and to rescue foundlings and orphans.

Humanly speaking, none of this would have happened if Jesus was never born. What I have said so far is only just the beginning, of course, and it is also true that many wrong things have been done in the name of Christ—that is a topic for another occasion. But simply in terms of secular history, the life of Jesus Christ has had a far greater and more positive influence on the world than anyone else in history.

But to bring what I have said closer to home, if Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make to your own destiny. You would have no atonement for your sin, no resurrection from the dead, no hope of eternal life, and no Savior to call a friend.

What if Jesus was never born? But Jesus was born. As the angel said to the Christmas shepherds: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:12). And the rest, as they say, is history.


Link
religion
31,158 views 203 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, this is true Sodaiho. I find it interesting the two books of the bible most attacked are Genesis and Revelation. Why? Because the first book speaks of Satan's end and the promise of a Messiah. The last book show's Satan's end by the conquering Messiah, Lord of Lord and King of Kings. I've heard one guy include Jonah saying these three are most attacked because the first book predicts the incarnation of Christ, Jonah predicts his resurrection and the last book of the bible predicts his second coming.
End of quote


Good afternoon, KFC,

I am less inclined to consider understanding the stories in Genesis (Bereshit) as "attacked", than you are. My sense is that what is attacked or ridiculed in the suggestion that all of the stories therein are factual accounts. Ock makes excellent points regarding the physics of things. He is not necessarily attacking the stories. There is a deep and profound difference. Those, such as I believe, yourself, who hold a literal understanding will always be on the interpretive defensive and, I suspect, rightly so, as literalism is a poor foundation for a spiritual practice on the one hand, and a literal understanding of allegory loses the teaching power of the story itself, on the other hand. Worse, science and math will expose weaknesses or flaws in the logic of the meanings and facts of stories, at which point, those who base their faith on a literalist POV will have little to rest their faith upon. Hence the strong reaction by fundamentalists to scientific examination of scripture, especially when the stories do not square with the facts.

For example, if we were to locate a actual garden of Edan, it would in no way mean that there was truth to the story of an Adam and Eve, etc. A historical site is not a "fact" it is a place that has historicity. What we take this site to mean and the stories about it, is always interpretive, always. This is a good thing as it allows for growth and a dynamic relationship with the thing itself.

Be well.

Reply #152 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well that's not me...nor is it biblical.


Well, I'll let you take that up with St. Augustine. He's the one that said it.

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity ... It is this which draws us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #153 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I'll let you take that up with St. Augustine. He's the one that said it.
End of quote


I do respect Augustine so I'd have to probably read this in context. I think I know where he may be leading to and that's not exactly what I was referring. I mean we can be curious about the demons or the occult but we shouldn't go there.

hahahahah Glad to see you reading Augustine tho....or are you just visiting a sight of objections?

Hey, did you catch my latest Ock?

He is not necessarily attacking the stories.
End of quote


I wasn't referring to Ock Sodaiho. I was speaking to you. You are the one that told me to drop the literal talk. So this remark was for your ears not Ock's.

For example, if we were to locate a actual garden of Edan, it would in no way mean that there was truth to the story of an Adam and Eve,
End of quote


oh I'm aware you feel this way. I'm sure if I could produce the ark you wouldn't believe it. Someone around here actually said that (forget who). In fact, the Pharisees wanted to have Lazarus killed because he was the topic of conversation. That's the mentality I see when you say such things.




Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
My statement about light isn't about the speed of it. Try again.[/quote]

ummmm well that's how it looks Ock. You said this:

quote]Scientific evidence shows that it takes light, at the least, 10,000 years from it's creation at the center of the sun to get to us
End of quote


Not about the "speed," just about how fast it gets from point A to point B. hmmmm.. Sounds like speed to me. All that we know about light travel, no matter how you talk about it, fits within the realm of a creationist worldview. How gold got here also fits within the creationist worldview. God didn't create by evolution or by starting with small simple things and eventually make bigger more complex things, so I get that this makes no sense to you.

This is from my son....hahahaha he's probably getting sick of me asking him questions, but I spent years answering his. Anyhow he answered my question with this:

there's too many problems with his astronomy paragraph for me to have time to really deal with it. Origins science isn't somewhere he wants to go with a creationist.. Tell him that Jason Lisle has covered these astronomy topics numerous times and creationists have no struggle with astronomy in a young earth model- Lisle is an astronomer and astrophysicist. I met him. He's a really smart and nice guy. He used to be an evolutionist but became a creationist when he started realizing that scientists aren't aware a lot of times about their presuppositions and how those presuppositions bias their interpretation of data. he's developing a model of astronomy based on a creationist worldview.

just in case your buddy (that would be you Ock) doubts his credentials:
PhD (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
MS (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
BS (double major physics and astronomy, minor math; summa cum laude)
Ohio Weslyan University

Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jason Lisle
End of quote


That guy is a freaking joke. He's just throwing around those credentials to be a creationist poster boy.

Read this for a good tear down of one of his articles. WWW Link This man claims to be a scientist yet disrespects the entire institution. It's sad and pathetic.

By the way, turns out that the Big Bang Theory idea was originally proposed by a Roman Catholic monk, Georges Lemaître in 1927...it's not a secular idea at all...it came from a monk of all people!

~Zoo
Reply #156 from JoeUser Forums Top
I read some of Lisle's words reprinted from interviews and articles here and there. Not enough to pronounce any judgments, but enough to get the impression that he's stretching and certainly enough to see that the scientific community considers him a nutwhack.

there's too many problems with his astronomy paragraph for me to have time to really deal with it.


I don't understand why you need to ask your son something you've spent years answering. But whatever. So your son didn't have time, and you've spent years answering this (and so won't go through the tribulation again?), and we have, for YOUR answer...nothing (again). Well let me just pick one thing. Either of you have time to answer (aka tell me what Jason Lisle says) one thing?

Explain, in clear language, your hypothesis (or any hypothesis that you've been told was fact if you wish) that explains how we've had light all through human history, but that history <= 10,000 years old and it takes light 10,000 years (the lowest possible number) to get to us from the center of the sun. It's so simple to prove me wrong. Just answer this question and we can put this matter to rest.

God didn't create by evolution or by starting with small simple things and eventually make bigger more complex things, so I get that this makes no sense to you.


Of course it makes no sense to me since we see small things turning into more complex things all the time. In the one second that passed between me typing one word and the next in this sentence, 700 million tons of hydrogen became 695 million tons of helium 93 million miles from us. It does so every second. Were I to believe in god, this mechanism by which the simple becomes more complex would be "exactly" how I would define the creation as occurring. In fact, I would posit that 6 days was too long for a god to take. I'd claim the whole thing was done in an instant - that the universe was set in motion with God knowing that it would result in many complex things. I would see this as the most elegant and intelligent way to do it. And I would see that THAT, at least, was in keeping with what we observe.

Not about the "speed," just about how fast it gets from point A to point B. hmmmm.. Sounds like speed to me.


Then your understanding of speed as it relates to how long an object takes to get from point A to B is limited to say the least. The speed of an object says one small part about how much time it takes to get from point A to point B. If it's a clear shot from point A to B, then speed is all you need to determine travel time. For light in the center of the sun, it's anything but a clear shot. Why am I explaining this - you know it.

PhD (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
MS (astrophysics) Univ of Colorado Boulder
BS (double major physics and astronomy, minor math; summa cum laude)
Ohio Weslyan University


That's nice. So let's catalog all the scientists in the world that have these same degrees. Then we'll count which ones agree with Creationism and which do not and we'll be able to prove which one of us is right. Hopefully that's as funny to you as it is to me.
Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't understand why you need to ask your son something you've spent years answering. But whatever
End of quote


because I'm not into astonomy. I know very little. Some, but not much.

That's nice. So let's catalog all the scientists in the world that have these same degrees. Then we'll count which ones agree with Creationism and which do not and we'll be able to prove which one of us is right. Hopefully that's as funny to you as it is to me.
End of quote


you know, it doesn't really matter what I say Ock you've got it all covered. So go ahead...believe what you want...*shrugs shoulders* you ask and I give you answers but I'm a bit tired of your insulting every answer I give to you. We have different world views. I admit, I'm coming from a biblical worldview. It's not a surprise. I know you think I'm an idiot. Think what you want. It's the only view that I believe has the answers for those tough questions that the evolutionists can't answer.

I read some of Lisle's words reprinted from interviews and articles here and there. Not enough to pronounce any judgments, but enough to get the impression that he's stretching and certainly enough to see that the scientific community considers him a nutwhack.
End of quote


of course they do. Anyone in the Science world that even slightly aludes to a Creator God is going to be hog-tied and tarred and feathered. Their career is over. It's long known that your career can die if someone higher than you gets wind of your belief in such things. It's ok to say the answer for this world being here is evolutionary theory with no God process but it's NOT okay to take that same evidence and put God in as a theory. Remember the Creation Scientists have the SAME and believe in the SAME evidence.

If you read more about Jason you'd see he was interviewed on CNN and he has no problem (as most Creationists) in teaching side by side the two in the school systems. It's the other side that are up in arms. Why so threatened? If they have it lock, stock and barrel it shouldn't alarm them.

There's much more than meets the eye here.

If I didn't give Jason's credentials you'd be asking me for them. I thought I covered it so you wouldn't have that to complain about but I can see it doesn't really matter what I say or don't say.



Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
That guy is a freaking joke. He's just throwing around those credentials to be a creationist poster boy.
End of quote


Time I picked on Zoo for a while? I know I've ignored some of your comments (sorry about that) but here's a few for you to think about.

Throwing around those credentials to be a creationist "poster boy?" That's not really a very smart thing to say...to be nice Zoo.

What type of credentials do you have? I'd like to read your articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals that discuss your novel research findings!

My son met Jason personally and said he's one of the most intelligent Scientists he's met thus far. He's met some of the smartest men in the field of Neuroscience yet he thinks Jason has some very interesting things to say. He designed an entire planetarium and is working on a very scientificly based creation model of the cosmos. Just because people don't believe you, doesn't mean you're wrong (history can prove that).

You'd probably say the same about my son even thou he's been educated at three diff secular universities with a 4.0 average in all three. He's also received a grant for his work which is not an easy thing to do being only one of 8% of the field to receive such a grant. I actually saw the grant letter to him and I was very impressed and proud of his accomplishments.

You said you like to learn Zoo. You're young. You've got a ways to go.



Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top
What type of credentials do you have?


We don't ask personal questions here.
Reply #160 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's not really a very smart thing to say...to be nice Zoo.
End of quote


Smart? It has nothing to do with intelligence, I'm just telling you what I see.

What type of credentials do you have?
End of quote


A well functioning brain and respect for the scientific process, unlike Dr. Lisle. However, I am currently working on a B.S. in Zoology which is farther along than our friend, Dr. Lisle is concerning biology.

His arguments are not scientific. You see, the thing with creationists is that they form a conclusion and then search for evidence. Science is about discovering evidence and finding conclusions. This guy has it all backwards. He's centered on God exists, let's find evidence not look at this, let's figure out what it means. He's already made up his mind and that's never good for scientific growth. I'd actually support creationism being taught as a legitimate scientific subject if they would just follow the rules that everyone else does...but they don't. They're going about it backwards and that's not good science. Never was, never will be.

Just because you have a Ph. D. doesn't mean you're a hero. It just means you've invested time and effort into a chosen field of study, written a few papers and earned it. Now if you decide to abandon all your scientific principles after you earn your Ph.D., well that's your decision...but people won't take you seriously anymore.

~Zoo
Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top
So having a couple of letters behind your name means you're always right?
End of quote


No, I've never said that...actually to me I could care less how many letters you have. Some are just intellectual idiots.

You've seen His political views. Does His considerable formal education in the field of politics and philosophy automatically make Him right whenever He speaks on the topic?
End of quote


Nope. Like I said you have lettered people on both sides of the fence. And I haven't seen his political views actually. So I really don't know what he believes in that department.

Funny how when KFC was asked about her own formal education, she puffed up and haughtily informed us it was none of our business, and that she doesn't answer 'personal questions.' Yet she's more than happy to brag on the accomplishments of at least *one* of her offspring. (The other she simply denies knowing at all, at least on these forums.)
End of quote


It's my perogative. I give out some personal information as I deem not because someone demands to know.

Ha. It's funny if I don't say anything about my offspring than there would be something wrong with me (aka Gid) and if I do, I'm a braggart. It's all context LW. I've been on here more than two years and I've said very little about this particular offspring as he doesn't want me to share things about him here. There's a lot I can't say for fear of jeopardizing his career.

Never fear LW is here eh LW? Feel better?

However, I am currently working on a B.S. in Zoology which is farther along than our friend, Dr. Lisle is concerning biology.
End of quote


Like I said you have a long way to go to fill Dr. Lisle's shoes. Maybe we'll see you on CNN someday as an expert in your field?

His arguments are not scientific.
End of quote


Of course they are. They're just interpreted with a different worldview. That's it.

You see, the thing with creationists is that they form a conclusion and then search for evidence.
End of quote


Not true. Like I said you have a distorted view of creation science. But I undersand because you've followed your teachers..hook, line and sinker.

Science is about discovering evidence and finding conclusions.
End of quote


Like the theory of evolution?

Just because you have a Ph. D. doesn't mean you're a hero
End of quote


well we are in agreement here Zoo.






Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like I said you have a long way to go to fill Dr. Lisle's shoes.
End of quote


Not really, if I as an undergrad can see the flaws in his argument, then he has some issues.

Of course they are. They're just interpreted with a different worldview. That's it.
End of quote


*sigh* That's not the way you do things in science. You don't have "worldviews" you have facts and evidence...then you develop hypotheses and test them. If you haven't thrown out a tested hypothesis, then it becomes a theory with thorough testing. It has nothing to do with seeing it two different ways. Of course that arises, but that's why we use peer reviewed papers so that everyone can evaluate something so that we can all agree on it. If not, then there would be a million variations of classification systems and no one would have any idea what anyone else was talking about. That's why we use one language when naming organisms- Latin. That's why we have a standardized periodic table...it's why science is an institution instead of a bordello of chaos.

Like the theory of evolution?
End of quote


Exactly like the theory of evolution. We have found evidence of linkages between organisms. Darwin saw this and made the connections. He did not say, "Evolution sounds cool, let's go make up some evidence." Evolution really wasn't an idea at that time, so I fail to see how one could take it and look for justification.

Science is about the means finding an end, not the end finding the means. A scientist looks at something and figures out what it is, what it does, where it came from. He does not assume it came from God and look for verification of that belief.

~Zoo

Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you somehow ashamed of the fact that you don't have a degree? Just curious...
End of quote


Honestly LW....I don't have a degree. I'm working on it tho. Instead I sacrificed my life and chance at a career for my kids. All three have graduated college and have done very well for themselves. So I know I did a good thing there. Do I regret going to school and getting my schooling over with? Sometimes. I know it's going to be harder for me now. But when I look at the boys, I know it was worth it.

But hey, I'm the same age as you. My kids are grown and fully functioning adults so now It's my time. I'm hoping to continue my education now they have all flown the coop.

Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top
Darwin saw this and made the connections. He did not say, "Evolution sounds cool, let's go make up some evidence." Evolution really wasn't an idea at that time, so I fail to see how one could take it and look for justification.
End of quote


Darwin said many things. One of the things he said to have his theory fully realized or proven is that transitional fossils would have to be found. They have not. All we have so far is like begetting like. This is backed up by the Genesis account not the evolutionary account.

Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whatcha needin 'em learnings fer, KFC? Donchano dat us Christians don't need none of that intellectua junk?

Seriously though, Christian and Intellectual is not mutually exclusive. The problem with most intellectuals is they tried to replace the workings of the spirit with the workings of the brain. It doesn't work like that. But you just keep wondering why we don't use our brains, and keep using your hammer to put screws in the wall.
Reply #166 from JoeUser Forums Top
of the things he said to have his theory fully realized or proven is that transitional fossils would have to be found. They have not.
End of quote


Yes, they have. Many in fact. I thought I linked to them at one point in one of these conversations. Well, I'll do so again. WWW Link While wikipedia isn't the greatest, it gets the point across. If you don't believe it, there are plenty other websites out there with loads of info on transition fossils.

Oh...found a good one. Meet our friend the Tiktaalik roseae: WWW Link

~Zoo
Reply #167 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts # 109 to OCK,
It's just that your #73 reply, that "truth is relative", "survival of the fittest", etc., examples aren't really a persuasive rebuttal to what I've given as demonstratable physical evidence of the existence of God, that we can know by human reason, namely the law of causality and the argument of the inner voice of conscience.
End of quote


Lula posts:
Ever hear of the law of causality? It tells us that every effect must be due to a power or agent that caused it. Nothing in the world came into existence of itself...including the phenomena of the moral law dictated to us by inner voice of our conscience, of which I'm sure you agree we all have.

Motion comes from a mover; design from a designer, life from life and the moral law dictated to us by our voice of conscience from a Lawmaker or Lawgiver. The proof of causality is simple and irrefutable. A watch takes a watch maker, the Cosmos manifests design that supposes a Designer of infinite intelligence and power, whom we call Almighty God.


Lula asks AsaxyGirl:

So, what's your rational argument as to where our interior law known as conscience comes from? If not from God, what's the source....From where/ from what/ from whom does our conscience come?
End of quote


ASAXYGIRL POSTS: # 117

Based upon what I have studied in biology, psychology and sociology, survival of the species. The interior law, as you call it, is borne out of the increased likelihood that the species will survive if certain "good interior law" is adopted as opposed to bad. This "interior law" is also largely learned behavior. If a species does not act in accordance with the majority of its community then there are repercussions that can be a "mild slap" to ostracism to death. This is not only with humans but also with mammals, reptiles, insects, etc. Zoo, correct me if I am wrong. I'm not a behavioral biologist or zoologist but I am a closet ecologist.
End of quote


I wasn't able to respond sooner due to computer problems.


Asaxygirl,

You do realize, don't you, that by claiming the source of our inner voice of conscience evolved by natural selection, specifically what Darwin called "survival of the fittest", you've placed your faith in the gospel according to Darwin?

"Survival of the fittest" is meaningless. The terms, natural selection and survival of the fittest are actually circular reasoning. They are tautologies so said T.H. Morgan, an AMerican geneticist. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed...or those things which have succeeded were able to succeed. The survivors are the fittest and the fittest survive. These survivers survive, they don't evolve into something better.



The idea that mankind descended from hairy primitive apes which themselves had evolved from mud millions of years earlier is plain bunk...the Darwinist establishment and those scientists who diligiently work in support of this has simply not made its case to date. Sorry about that.

Nevertheless, I'll keep my mind open to your point of view and if you can show factual evidence that our conscience is a product of Darwinism evolution, then I'm willing to change my mind.
Reply #168 from JoeUser Forums Top
From Reply #108

Sodaiho posts: #63

There is no factual evidence outside of the statements in the Christian scripture of Jesus miricles, his teaching, or much of anything else related to Christianity.


LULA POSTS: When you question the authenticity of the miracles attributed to Christ, you question the New testament, the patristic writings of the early Christian centuries, which are surely as authentic as are the histories of ancient Greece and Rome.

I remember reading one of your posts in which you said you greatly admired Christ's Sermon on the Mount. To do so, you take admit that Christ is Divine and competant to perform miracles ....

SODAIHO POSTS:
I do admire that sermon, as I admire many sutras of the Buddha and writings of the rabbis. I do not admit Jesus was any more or less divine than any man or woman.


LULA POSTS:
In His sermon, CHrist establishes a complete expression of Christian doctrine by which His followers are guided. We learn that the important and chief work of life in the service of God, that fancies that the world holds as most worthwhile are of no consequence, and even harmful to those who place the God first plan in their life.


There are 2 accounts--St.Luke and St. Matthew. From them we learn that Christ's teachings are a sharp departure from the Mosaic tradition, in fact advanced far beyond them in human relations.

Moses had appealed to people hard of heart by promising material blessings as a reward of right living. So it was that the Jews had always considered wealth representative of God's blessings, sickness and misfortune as proof of His wrath..so too their harshness towards the sick and unfortunate, their misunderstanding of Messianic prophecies. But our Lord dispelled these with the Beatitudes. He talked to the poor, to the less fortunate who knew the burden of oppression. How great was their rejoicing when Christ proclaimed the foundationstones of His kingdom...Blessed are this...Blessed are that...Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but to elevate it to Christian perfection...something Anne Coulter knew well as we have already discussed.

Yes, Christ wasn't about a political or military revolution, He proclaimed a spiritual revolution.

Moses had said thou shalt not commit adultery, divorce is to be tolerated..but Christ said evil thoughts and impure glances are sinful, marriage is to be restored to its primitive sanctity, one man and one woman for life. The Old Law had said they were to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the New Law demands that Christians suffer violence for their conviction. The Talmud which you have said that you frequently read, teaches the pagan is not our neighbor, have no pity on the Gentiles. The Christian must love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who maltreat and slander us.

Oh, yes, the Savior changed the whole view of life...He raised our minds and hearts to heavenly things. He assured us of God's love no matter how difficult the path. Oh yes, a new teaching, a new program, apart from the materialistic background, the synagague to His Church, a visible human organism, yet spiritual in nature.

There is no doubt as to His teaching...it has come down to us through the ages...what is old, is new every time it is taught.
Do you know what happened when He came down from the mountain where the Sermon was given to Capharnaum? One of the elders of the synagague came to seek His help on behalf of a Roman centurian whose servant was close to death. Slaves were regarded as cattle then. Christ acceded to their request and before He got to the centurian's house, and knowing that a Jew would be rendered unclean to enter into a Gentile's house, he sent friends to tell Christ that he was not worthy that CHrist should enter under his roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. Our Lord praised his faith in the presence of all and said that at that hour the servant was healed. I believe that CHrist performed the miracle of healing the servant.
End of quote


SODAIHO POSTS now JEWBU # 125
Lula, as regards your detailed reply to my post, you present a lot of tainted information, spun either by you or your sources to make a case for Christianity and against Judaism. Why?
End of quote


Saxygirl posts #140
I haven't seen your response to Sodaiho in this thread regarding the question he asked.

Lula, as regards your detailed reply to my post, you present a lot of tainted information, spun either by you or your sources to make a case for Christianity and against Judaism. Why?


I'd like to see who/what your references are that are not Christian biased...in other words verification by an impartial third party. I do not ask this to try and "show" you that you are wrong. I am genuinely curious. I do not follow your faith but that does not mean I am above changing my mind when presented with unbiased data.
End of quote


JEWBU and SAXYGIRL,

First, Jewbu, please note for your convenience, I posted my initial comment that is in question. Please explain what is "tainted information". Second, my comments were not meant against Judaism per se, as they were defending the differences between the Mosiac Laws and those of Christ's Sermon on the Mount teachings which you have admitted you admire.

Interestingly enough, my response to your question Jewbu goes rather well with my discussion with Saxygirl concerning from whence comes our conscience, that critical voice of right and wrong within every person that assesses the morality of a situation. We know interiorily when we are doing wrong; an inward voice rebukes our conduct, dictating to us a law we did not make. This law of right and wrong dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a Lawgiver who has written His law in the inner depth of our heart.

There is only one mention of the word "conscience" in the Old Testament Wisdom 17:11 which is a Book much influenced by Hellenistic ideas; conscience and all the nuances it suggests are more typical of Greek than of a Hebrew mode of thought.

This is not to say that the Israelites were not unaware of that natural human phenomenon, the experiencing of peace when when has done good or of remorse when one has done evil. And perhaps no where else in world literature is remorse of conscience so superbly described as in the reaction of Adam and Eve to their disobeying God. Gen. 3: 7-11.

In the intertestimonial period and in the rabbinical literature there are some developing theory of conscience. What I was pointing out in the above comments was that the general tenor of Jewish thought was that of an excessive emphasis on the external act. The paramount importance of one's internal motivation was increasingly neglected. As a result, cultic and ethical activity tended to become increasingly formalistic and to be judged solely on the basis of their external conformity with the Law and its traditional interpretation.

While there isn't any specific term for conscience in the Gospels, their spirit is essentially different from that of any of the rabbinical writings. This spirit lays emphasis not on the external action, but on the heart, the interior disposition from which it proceeds. St. Paul offers a systematic teaching, both philosophical and theological on conscience. What the Law is for the Jews, conscience is for the pagans Rom. 2:14-17. Whoever acts against his conscience commits sin v. 23. The Biblical sense on conscience is obviously not the fully developed Christian understanding of the nature and function of conscience, St.Paul exposition of what that conscience is and of how it ought to function in the various problems he called upon to solve is a daithful development of an outline furnished by Christ Himself.









Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
Moses had appealed to people hard of heart by promising material blessings as a reward of right living.


OCK posts: #112
Silly people with hardened hearts. Oh wait...who was it that hardened them? Exodus 7:3 (Stacked Deck Theory proven WITH the bible)
End of quote



Here's a little different take on what Exodus 7:3 means...


All those "silly people with heardened hearts" have them becasue they all hardened their own hearts just as happens today. Ex. 7:3 concerns Pharao, Moses and the 10 plagues of Egypt.

V. 3 means that God is not the effecient cause of the Pharao's hardness of heart, but by permitting it, and by withdrawing grace from him in punishment of his own malice, which alone was the proper cause of his being hardened.

God sent the 1st plague only after miracles worked before Pharoa produced no effect. The plagues gradually succeeded each other beginning with the least and when these availed nothing, they became more and more dreadful. Moerover, they didn't follow each other day afte day, but between the several plagues there was an interval of days, sometimes of weeks.

Paharao is a warning example to us of impenitence and of obduracy. God didn't warn him only outwardly, by Moses' words and by the 10 plagues, but also inwardly, by His grace. But Pharao would neither listen to the admonitions of God, nor obey the movements of divine grace, and so by rendering himself unworthy of further graces, he at last became quite hardened. Once or twice he made good resolutions about letting God's people go, but as soon as the pressure of necessity was removed, he did not keep them. God foretold him some 14 days before it was sent, and would in His Mercy have spared Pharao and his people. Pharao despised the divine warning as an empty threat and remained hardened. He is the type of defiant sinner who will not listen to any exhortations, does not carry out good solutions, peseveres in sin, and finally becomes quite hardened.

St. Paul is urgent in his warnings against obduracy: "According to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God." Rom. 2:5. Something to seriously think about.

OCK POSTS #112
The Old Law had said they were to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the New Law demands...


The eternal law of god changed? I guess the first law was just a theory.
End of quote


Nah, no theories at least that I know of in Sacred Scripture, OCK.

What I wrote makes perfect sense when one understands that the OLd Law was fulfilled, completed in the New and Eternal Law of Christ.
Reply #170 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now see? That wasn't so hard was it?

And to be perfectly honest, this little 'admission' makes you seem far more human to me, a real person with flaws (not that not having a degree is a flaw, but it's obviously something you felt you were lacking,) regrets (you "sometimes" regret not getting one earlier) as well as dreams and desires, (you are working on one now.)

Thank you for the direct answer, and no, I won't 'use it against' you. How could I? I have no fancy letters behind my name either, haha. And now that you've shared something real with me, I'll reciprocate in kind.

I used to feel intimidated by highly educated people. I've never doubted my own intelligence (or my ability to learn) but I felt 'lesser' than them when participating in certain types of discussions and would often not comment at all out of fear of saying something foolish or just utterly wrong.

As I've gotten older, though, I've encountered many 'educated' idiots and come to realize that those with degrees are just like everyone else in that some are brighter than others and some STILL don't know what they're talking about.

And then I up and married an intellectual, a man who'd spent a good deal of his adult life ensconced in the halls of academia...well read on a wide variety of topics and considered an expert in some.

And ya know what? My beloved egghead, for all his letters and degrees, all of his erudite bloviations on politics and philosophy, for all His work 'bettering His mind' cannot balance a checkbook to save His life, hehehe.

Go for it, KFC. Get that degree, but do it to please yourself, not to 'validate' your opinions. While I disagree with most of them, they're just as valid as anyone else's, degreed or not.
End of quote


You're smart, LW. You probably have a lot more street smarts and common sense than I ever will. I've learned that the only time a degree really matters is when you're looking for the work to get the experience you need to really know what you're talking about. Have a degree? Who cares. Have 10 years experience? Now that's something.

That being said, taking economics in college actually taught me about economics. So when I hear Brad talk about taxes and how they affect the middle class more than him, I'm able to critically think about it instead of having no knowledge at all the test it against. But you could get the same economic knowledge without a college degree.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants requires 150 credit hours in order to certify a CPA. So I have to, pretty much, get my Master's in order to qualify. So I have to have degrees for my career. But if you don't, it's mostly just a bunch of wasted money. Much cheaper to just take the classes you want to and ignore the degree program.

I'm glad you got over the intimidation. You have much to add to most discussions.
Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice to see you back Lula. Go get'em..... :LOL: 
Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice to see you back Lula.
End of quote


Thanks KFC.

I've still got computer problems and back at the shop writing this!



Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula:
All those "silly people with heardened hearts" have them becasue they all hardened their own hearts just as happens today.

Bible:

Exodus 7

3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.
~New International

Ok, I am missing something. "I will harden Pharoah's heart" is pretty clear. And if it isn't clear what it is, it's clear what it isn't. It isn't "And Pharoah will harden his own heart."

Explanation how you got from God doing it to Pharoah doing it, please.
Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top
ooooohhhhhhh Ock we've been here so many times before. This is one of the favorites of the non-Christians. Did you know that? Goes well with the Matt 7:1 we discussed before.

Go back and read Exodus again and notice how many times Pharaoh hardened his heart FIRST and then it says God hardened his heart. I think there is about 10 times you'll see this going on.

What you are seeing in the beginning here, in the verse you cited, is God's instruction to Moses. He's unfolding what the ultimate end will be because God can look ahead and know how it's all going to pan out. He's giving Moses confidence. If I had a bible here with me I'd point them all out to you but I think you can open it up and figure this one out yourself.

PS......where did you get the above? Did you really open up a bible or did you go to some site that's anti-Christian that points out the bad stuff by taking scripture out of context? Just curious.





Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
God can look ahead and know how it's all going to pan out.
End of quote


Yeah...that's the thing. I'm not sure God really does know how everything will turn out. I mean, at one point He even regrets making humans...I don't think He thought us through as much as He should have.

~Zoo