preacherman preacherman

The Word of God

▼

The Word of God

How Important is the Word of God to the Church Today?

from JoeUser Forums
How important is the Word of God for the church today? Does the church seem to be a falling away from the truth of God's Word supplanting it with a gospel more palatable to the flesh?

preacherman
religion
11,920 views 87 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think not having any standards or rules is a wonderful thing (BLECH!)! If we did not have any "doctrine" or "model" as you say, killing each other would be okay. Stealing your neighbor's Mercedes would be cool with everyone


if you truly believe there was no such thing as order, laws and morals prior to judeo-christian history, you were ripped off for at least part of whatever youve paid to be educated.   if you arent aware of societies that have been horribly cruel and inhumane theocracies, that goes double.


make fun of the consitution all you want.  its the only thing standing between you and someone whose god insists his followers sacrifice virgins.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
preacherman: "Don't you think the values of a people dictate the direction of the nation... we kind'a saw it in the election this past November. The Democrates thought that the war, jobs, economics, etc.... would be the focal point of getting the upper hand and discounted that a vast majority of the people still have a high expectation for the moral issues that seem to be undermining our society, of which the marriage of homosexuals, sodimites.. or what ever a society calls them."

I don't think you are correctly interpreting the results of this election. First, only 22% of those who voted chose "moral values" as their top priority. Secondly, the polling questions were poorly worded. When voters were given more choices with regards to "moral values," the moral values that people were most concerned about were: 1. poverty and 2. greed/materialism. Abortion, gay marriage, and that ridiculous Const. amendment was at the bottom of the barrel. When terrorism/Iraq war was put together into one category...that was the top priority. When taxes, jobs, economy, were put into one category that was the second priority. People voted for Bush for two main reasons: Fear of terrorism and Fear that Kerry wasn't up to the job of protecting them. The third main reason people voted for Bush was because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry for whatever reason. It was not so much a "moral mandate" as it was fear and an "anti" Kerry vote. Many conservatives (particularly fiscal conservatives) wanted Bush out but given the choice of him or Kerry...they voted for Bush. There really was no moral mandate.

"homosexuals, sodimites.. or what ever a society calls them." I think we should just stick to calling gays people, human beings, persons. Calling someone a sodimite is pretty degrading don't you think? I would also point out that gays are not the only people in society engaging in sodomy especially when the definition of sodomy includes oral sex (which it often does).
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marcie Helen: I did not say that you were a fool and I specifically said that you have a right to believe whatever it is you want to believe just like others have a right to believe in something different or in nothing at all. My point is that one person's religious beliefs or a group of people's religious beliefs cannot be imposed on society as a whole via governmental action. I respect your choices and your beliefs. What I find disturbing is that the ideological right wants to impose their beliefs on all of us through government. That shows blatant disrespect for those who disagree with their religious beliefs.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was under the impression that your original question called for differing opinions...what seems odd is that now, having realized that you can't make all of us agree with you, you have resorted to calling people antichrists...tsk tsk...WWJD?


If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God.

What would Jesus do? The same thing he the rejecters of His word in the Gospel of John- "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me". He would tell you to believe on the Word of God and be saved.

What do you say philomedy- do you want to trust Him today? He does not force Himself upon us, but is looking for those who are sick and tired of living insin. He is merciful and longsuffering but a day is coming in which He will pour out His wrath, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the shall wail because of Him.

Well, thank you for making my entire point for me. You can make the Bible say whatever you want, which is why it is an inadequate source of morality.

What do you believe should be a nations source of morality? Or should there not be one and every man do that which is right in his on eyes? What should children be taught about honesty, integrity, etc.... should they be taught that muder is wrong? Marcie brings up an excellent point, if there are no reasons to teach morals would the terrorist actions be construed as immoral, or do you even believe they are? Should the children of a ntaion be taught to do what they want and let the chips fall where they may?

I personally find it unbelievable that human beings would not have been able to figure out that killing and stealing was wrong if the Bible hadn't been written.

Before the Bible was written Cain killed Abel his brother, and check out the reason he did- Genesis chpt4.

philomedy you have a lot of opinions but the problem is they have no power or authority except in your heart and we know from the teaching of the scriptures "the heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all things; who can know it?" We can't even know our own heart it will fool us! The revelation of the human heart can only be revealed by the Spirit of God and the Word of God. Just ask God, He will show you.


preacherman
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is how the Bible gets "misinterpreted" as well. You can make anything say whatever you want to say. BTW...I think the Constitution is a secret code from the Devil. Read it backwards. PFFFFFT.


Marcie.... did you just agree that the Bible can be interpreted to say anything you want? I thought you disagreed with that?



This country makes decisions by majority rule. And in the states where the voters CHOSE to not allow gay marriage...the majority ruled. Gotta love democracy, right?


We may be able to vote on this, but the problem isn't the voting. It's that people are applying religion to their political choices in the first place. The way I see it, when it comes to politics, people should view every decision they make from not only their situation, but from the government's viewpoint as well. The problem with the issue of gay marriage is that the only problem anyone has with it is religious. Even if that does matter from the eyes of an individual (which I don't think it should because I don't know how one person's so-called "sins" affect anyone else), it should never matter in the eyes of the government. I'm going to assume that you agree that the role of the government is to protect the rights of everyone, no matter what their race or gender or religion is, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If you see homosexuality as inborn, you can compare it to race or gender. If you see it as a choice (which is ridiculous), you can compare it to religion. Either way, it doesn't affect anyone else, so it's the role of the government to protect their rights.

Philomedy is right, this isn't a democracy, which would allow anything to happen if the majority said so. That would allow for all sorts of bad things, because there wouldn't be any checks. The US is a constitutional republic. Sure, we use majority rule to decide a lot of things, but there are still other checks. You know there's a problem when the government stops doing its job and starts discriminating because the majority of people claim God says so.

I'd also have to agree that morals would still exist without the Bible. Morals aren't based on what God says. Morals are based on respecting the worth of other people. We can't kill people because they have worth. It doesn't take a supreme being to figure that out. If your argument were true, so sense of justice or morality or equality ever could have existed in non-Christian civilizations. You can look back to Hammurabi's Code or to the Greeks or the pre-Chirstian Romans. Sure, they still weren't perfect, but their morals were evolving to respect everyone. Then remember the Inquisition. Even the Christians did bad things. The "Word of God" isn't necessary for people to do good things. I think I could have figured out that killing people is worng by myself.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
We may be able to vote on this, but the problem isn't the voting. It's that people are applying religion to their political choices in the first place.


I just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
philomedy you have a lot of opinions but the problem is they have no power or authority except in your heart and we know from the teaching of the scriptures "the heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all things; who can know it?" We can't even know our own heart it will fool us! The revelation of the human heart can only be revealed by the Spirit of God and the Word of God. Just ask God, He will show you.


You have a lot of opinions too, and the problem with those is that they are all based on a being that may be as fake as a unicorn. Trust me, the reason I don't kill, or steal, or cheat on my girlfriend, is not because God says I shouldn't, and its not because a leprechaun says I shouldn't, and its not because Santa Claus doesn't want me to. My morality is based on something that I can show you. Yours is based on hearsay.

Before the Bible was written Cain killed Abel his brother, and check out the reason he did- Genesis chpt4.


Yeah, and after the Bible was written, no one killed anyone, and everyone had lollipops whenever they wanted...

What do you believe should be a nations source of morality?


Whether something is immoral or not should be judged based on whether or not it hurts or devalues another human being in any way. Murder does this, stealing does this, being unfaithful does this. Homosexuality does not do this. Consensual premarital sex does not do this. Denying homosexuals the rights that everyone else has does this. There are, of course, gray areas, and in those cases I think utilitarianism does a fine job of deciding things, or at least its worked for me in the past.

If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God.


And thats according to whoever wrote the Bible, right? And did you prove to me that God wrote the Bible yet? No, I remember that I asked, but that question of mine was conveniently dismissed. Look, lets agree to disagree. You can call me the antichrist if I can call you the inquisitor. Or Cardinal Fang. Can I call you Cardinal Fang?

What do you say philomedy- do you want to trust Him today?


Let's set this straight: I trust Him. I don't trust you telling me what He does or doesn't want me to do.

I think I could have figured out that killing people is worng by myself.


Right on. There's nothing wrong with giving God credit, but we can't discredit ourselves either.

I just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.


Good point.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.


Right, I'm not saying we should control it. I just disagree with it. What I said is that I think it's fine for people to look at something from an individual point of view, but people should also see political decisions from the government's point of view. But it is only my opinion. I recognize that people will never make political decisions without thinking of themselves. I just don't see how gay marriages influences anyone else.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?


preacherman
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?


I can agree with that.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
A Nation Void of God
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power abd Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

The order is this a nation (or individual) has the free choice to reject the creator. It would kind'a be like a child rebelling against his/her parents. But in the spiritual ralm the creations rejection of the creator will not find any excuse.

believe in God. I have plenty of faith.


I can accept you say "you believe in God, and have plenty of faith." I hope your faith is in something that will stand the test of time.

preacherman
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry philomedy I hit the submit button before finishing the thought.

The nation or individual willfully rejects God:
God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Sounds a lot like America today? Heh?

preacherman
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
"So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?"

A government should not advocate or favor one religion over the other. A little thing in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Establishment Clause" was put there exactly for that reason. The Founders were all too familiar of the entaglements of religion and government. While they believed in religious freedom for all citizens, they did not want the government getting involved in it. Period. The monarchies in Europe and the Church were far too eager to scratch the other's back in order to shore up their political power and it led to tyranny and a lack of religious freedom. The Founders believed the best way to preserve religious freedom for all is to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is not to say that we, as individuals, cannot hold our own religious beliefs. It means we are not entitled to impose them on the whole of society.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
preacherman: "If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God."

Implying that those who do not exactly share your religious beliefs are tantamount to the anti-Christ is not going to win people over to your side of the discussion. You seem like a reasonable person but this line of thinking makes you appear to be very intollerant and disrespectful of those who disagree with your beliefs. I don't ever recall Jesus calling anyone the anti-Christ for not following him. Just because a person does not necessarily believe in something does not mean they are "against" it or "anti" anything. This is starting to sound a lot like the whole "with us or against us" mentality. If we don't believe in your version or interpretation of the bible, then we must be the anti-christ? Does that sound normal to you? People have their own methodologies of interpreting the Bible and many of them are deeply spiritual, religious, people who simply have a different methodology of interpreting the bible. They are Christians...how does that make them the anti-Christ? What about people of other religious faiths...they are good people, spiritual people...but because they have faith in another form of religion that equates them to the anti-Christ? Sorry, but I think you are misguided in your analysis on this one.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #64 By: T_Bone4Justice - 12/5/2004 9:34:39 PM
preacherman: "If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God."

Implying that those who do not exactly share your religious beliefs are tantamount to the anti-Christ is not going to win people over to your side of the discussion. You seem like a reasonable person but this line of thinking makes you appear to be very intollerant and disrespectful of those who disagree with your beliefs. I don't ever recall Jesus calling anyone the anti-Christ for not following him. Just because a person does not necessarily believe in something does not mean they are "against" it or "anti" anything. This is starting to sound a lot like the whole "with us or against us" mentality. If we don't believe in your version or interpretation of the bible, then we must be the anti-christ? Does that sound normal to you? People have their own methodologies of interpreting the Bible and many of them are deeply spiritual, religious, people who simply have a different methodology of interpreting the bible. They are Christians...how does that make them the anti-Christ? What about people of other religious faiths...they are good people, spiritual people...but because they have faith in another form of religion that equates them to the anti-Christ? Sorry, but I think you are misguided in your analysis on this one.


I agree, and I gave you an insightful.

"Anti" means against, and I don't think not believing that Jesus was the messiah makes the person against Christ.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
preacherman: "God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I believe you are quoting Romans 1:26 but this biblical passage could mean many different things. For example, Nelson writes "Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship. Paul says we all fall short of the glory of God. You don't find Paul saying that all homosexuals are going to hell; he says nobody has it right." You see, it is all up to what methodology you employ to interpret these passages and who's to say that yours is any better than Nelson's or anyone else's? You are perfectly within your right, as an individual, to interpret this passage to mean whatever you believe it to mean but others have the right to believe it means something else entirely. So who's to say which one is correct let alone have the arrogance to demand that the government mandate one of these interpretations over the other via governmental laws that only serve to discriminate against a politically vulnerable group?
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting comment that I think almost any Christian community encounters. I think though that most religions face a dilema of how to encounter the 'modern world' with their dogmas and doctrines that sometimes seem to be inconvenient in the world. Being a Catholic, many parishes encounter this dilema, and sadly, many do a less than stellar job of it. Despite the efforts of the leadership of the Church especially in Rome, many parishes choose to ignore the Gospel and teach a 'social Gospel' where it is ok to let your brother die on the starve on the side of the road when you have a meal in your hand. So long as your a 'nice person' things are ok. Few people that actually study the Bible can claim that a requirement for salvation is 'niceness'. Most would claim faith enacted with love for neighbor is. I used to claim, 'I am not a bad guy. Never did drugs. Never killed anyone. Never did this or that.' But I never did anything! I never helped others. Never believed in Christ with my heart. Ok. adios. Me done.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
You get an insightful ttraider82

That's the faith described in James2:14-26. When this action is the results of the Spirit of God in a believer- it's praise and worship.
What about when it done out of the rules and regulations in the church?

preacherman
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
But in the spiritual ralm the creations rejection of the creator will not find any excuse.


I fail to see how not bowing down to God as an ultimate source of morality is rejecting Him.

God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.Sounds a lot like America today? Heh?


Um...not really considering how homosexuals are far outnumbered by straight individuals. The passage also seems to imply that women have one natural use...were I a woman I would be rather insulted.

On a closing note, this also assumes that homosexuality is a choice, which happens to be a faulty assumption. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is being straight. I assure you, I am not straight because I choose to be...it is just what I am. If I were presented with a man and woman, I would not stand and ponder for any length of time before deciding that I would rather boink the female. It's just how it is. Saying that homosexuality is a choice is like saying that, as I sit here typing, it is my choice to eat the apple sitting next to me, or to eat the desk. Technically, I suppose there is a choice...but logically?

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord" philomedy. There are desire inherient in man that he can not change. For some it may be homosexuality, for some beating their wives, for some it is allowing the opver-powering of alchol/drugs to cause them to devour their family, for some cheating their neighbor- if it's not a choice doesn't it have to be something in them that is inherited?

The Biblie teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Our sin is not our actions, yet is the inherient tendancies that a man and woman (all) are born with- the evidence is the sin of Adam & Eve- disobedience to the Word of God? All God said, is of every tree of the garden you can freely eat but of the tree of the knowledge of godd and evil- don't touch. Did they make a choice philomedy? Did they choose to be disobedient or was there sin like every other man & woman- inherient.

preacherman
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord" philomedy


You're gonna have to tell me what they say...I'm really not familiar.

if it's not a choice doesn't it have to be something in them that is inherited?


Inherited is not the right word, since that implies familial lineage. I would say naturally occurring.

The Biblie teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Our sin is not our actions, yet is the inherient tendancies that a man and woman (all) are born with- the evidence is the sin of Adam & Eve- disobedience to the Word of God? All God said, is of every tree of the garden you can freely eat but of the tree of the knowledge of godd and evil- don't touch. Did they make a choice philomedy? Did they choose to be disobedient or was there sin like every other man & woman- inherient.


I'm really not a big fan of the original sin thing. I personally refuse to accept that being born was wrong of me, and that the sheer fact that I came into existence is enough to make me a sinner. Adam and Eve clearly made a choice...but was being born mine?
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord"

The scriptures say in Jeremiah 13:23 that the heart of an individual that is accustomed to doing evil can not do good- the evil kind'a becomes the primary nature. It's all its ever known. It require something to help it (heart) change.

The inheritence comes from the thought that it does not matter who would have resided ian the garden, you, me , my wife or your girlfriend, we would have all done the smae as Adam and Eve. I can believe it because I fulfilled that truthuntil I was twenty-eight years old, and never realizze I was disobedient to the Word of God. You are correct- "it was naturally occuring" in me my nature.

The scripture says "since by man (Adam) came death- why? because he was disobedient to God's Word- I would have done the same thing. For as in Adam all die, because of sin, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. There is life if we trust in the sacrificial death of Christ. He who knew no sin became sin that we might have the righteousness of Chirst.

preacherman
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
The scriptures say in Jeremiah 13:23 that the heart of an individual that is accustomed to doing evil can not do good- the evil kind'a becomes the primary nature. It's all its ever known. It require something to help it (heart) change.


Thats a bit more fatalistic than I care to be.

The inheritence comes from the thought that it does not matter who would have resided ian the garden, you, me , my wife or your girlfriend, we would have all done the smae as Adam and Eve.


Maybe we would have, maybe we wouldn't have. We don't know. What we do know is that Adam and Eve did, and we did not. I don't see why that sin is inherited to us.

You are correct- "it was naturally occuring" in me my nature.


I was referring to homosexuality only...as for the drug abuse and wife beating, I do believe those are choices. Perhaps eventually they cease to be, but the first instance is certainly a choice.

Why is it impossible for an official with faith to make decisions that would agree and adhere to the undertones of our unreligious laws because they follow morals? Why can't a person with faith have intelligence and serve their office as dutifully as a non-faith based person? It almost wreaks of "Only the ignorant would worship a God they cannot see"..Philomedy is a well spoken individual who has somewhat tried to be delicate in this situation...yet keeps tossing in preacherman's face "You cannot Prove God"..as if God has no real meaning to preacherman because he can't point him out on the street...as if the worship of the diety lessons preacher's arguement..because he has no proof.


It is not impossible for a religious official to uphold non-religious laws. In fact, I would say it is mandatory for a religious official to do so. However, it is not right for that official to force his religious values politically onto a nation.

Also, I would never say that belief in God is ignorant, or I would be calling myself ignorant. I just think that basing morality on God is irrational. I'm not saying that God has no meaning, simply that we should not blindly believe what God supposedly said. If some guy on the corner told me homosexuality was wrong, I would not disregard the fact the homosexuals don't hurt anyone just by being homosexuals. Why should it be any different because God is the one that says its wrong?

Belief in God doesn't lessen arguments about morality, but using God as a crutch certainly weakens it. I can tell you whether I think something is moral or not, and point to an example to show you why, and you can point to an example to show why you think I'm wrong, and we can go from there. However, when you declare something immoral "because God said so," what can I say other than "I think you're wrong," and what can you say other than "I think I'm right?"