Religion II

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Impossible. I'm starting to believe you never had a straight-thinking moment in your life. As someone once said, "Wow!"

Oh look, you're practicing avoidance again...what a surprise. Completely ignored the very valid point I made in favor of your comedy routine.

Your entire routine is comedy, believe it or not.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Oh look, you're practicing avoidance again...what a surprise. Completely ignored the very valid point I made in favor of your comedy routine.

Your entire routine is comedy, believe it or not.

You have never made a valid point on this thread or on the Religion one. Quit flattering yourself.

But if you want really make a valid point, Mr. No Answers, identify for us all those OT "Trinity" passages that you have claimed are "misinterpretations".

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

No. I said it was an excellent post. That does not imply that I agree or disagree with any part of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
That is not the definition in Webster's.

Actually it is not my opinion and Webster agrees.
Post 1495 I stated:

Inalienable means it cannot be taken away

Webster's definition of the word "inalienable":

Definition of inalienable. :

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred inalienable rights.

Same meaning using different words.

You want me to believe you thought his post was excellent, but you do not agree with it, even though you have been opining there is no God? Okay, so tell us your not so obvious opinion about the courts' ruling that the Executive order violated religious rights. How could you even support such a decision, based on your self-acknowledged atheism?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No. I said it was an excellent post. That does not imply that I agree or disagree with any part of it.

Really? Well an inquiring mind would like to know just what exactly did you find so "excellent" about Hank's post? His punctuation, maybe?

[PaceAdvantage]

People really need to stop engaging you and feeding your gigantic ego. But then again, most everything coming out of you in this thread is comedy gold, so maybe there is some value in engaging you after all.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Same meaning using different words.

Different words, different meaning. The word in question is "natural," a word that does not appear in Webster's, and which imparts a religious connotation.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Haven't you had your coffee, yet?

I don't drink coffee.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Therefore, my point still stands. Jesus never taught that God is within you.

Prove it. The first change of "the Kingdom of God is within you" to Kingdom of God is in our midst" didn't happen till over 400 years after Jesus died.The KJV has never changed it.

The reason you and others change it is because you don't understand how Jesus could "Love his enemies" the Pharisees. Its because you operate on a superficial spiritual level and have no internal insight from the very God within you that Jesus was talking about.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And Jesus did not come to save "ALL humanity". He came to save HIS people

You are turning Jesus into a racist.

Jesus hung out with beggars, thieves, prostitutes and low life's. Did he ask them for their Jewish ID before preaching to them?

Jesus was the Messiah the Jews were anticipating. It does not mean he limited his ministry exclusively to Jews.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And from what has Jesus saved you?

From becoming like you.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And for the 99th time, I ask again: If Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom is "within them", would this not mean that the kingdom was also in the apostles who were with him and heard his words to the Pharisees?.

Yes

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

People really need to stop engaging you and feeding your gigantic ego. But then again, most everything coming out of you in this thread is comedy gold, so maybe there is some value in engaging you after all.

There is as much "value" in engaging Boxcar as there is in knocking on a deaf man's door.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay, so tell us your not so obvious opinion about the courts' ruling that the Executive order violated religious rights. How could you even support such a decision, based on your self-acknowledged atheism?

If the government can take action against a group based on their religion then that same government can take action against me based on my lack of religion. If today the president can say "you can't enter this country because you are a Muslim" then tomorrow congress can say "you can't vote, hold office, be a teacher, etc., because you are an atheist." The First Amendment says the president or congress cannot do that. The First Amendment trumps (no pun intended) any other consideration.


"I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself." - Thomas More

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

If the government can take action against a group based on their religion then that same government can take action against me based on my lack of religion. If today the president can say "you can't enter this country because you are a Muslim" then tomorrow congress can say "you can't vote, hold office, be a teacher, etc., because you are an atheist." The First Amendment says the president or congress cannot do that. The First Amendment trumps (no pun intended) any other consideration.


"I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself." - Thomas More

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Very logical...IMO.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Different words, different meaning. The word in question is "natural," a word that does not appear in Webster's, and which imparts a religious connotation.

The word in question is not in the definition of the word inalienable.

Once again I said it means:

Inalienable means it cannot be taken away

Webster's definition:

Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred inalienable rights

I said I prefer inalienable rights. What is your problem? Is it the Declaration of Independence stating self-evident truths men have inalienable rights from their Creator?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Very logical...IMO.

No it is not. There is no religious test to hold office or to be elected. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

Also, the establishment clause prohibits the government from forcing a person to practice a religion.

I understand why you may be confused as you are not a native citizen, but there is no excuse for Actor's ignorance on this subject.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

If the government can take action against a group based on their religion then that same government can take action against me based on my lack of religion. If today the president can say "you can't enter this country because you are a Muslim" then tomorrow congress can say "you can't vote, hold office, be a teacher, etc., because you are an atheist." The First Amendment says the president or congress cannot do that. The First Amendment trumps (no pun intended) any other consideration.


"I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself." - Thomas More

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Actually no. Our laws do not protect foreign citizens outside the country. That is why the President has broad powers to limit immigration into our country.

What you are arguing is American citizens should have no protections due to their religion, because there is no God, but non-citizen foreign Muslims outside of the country have religious rights.

Keeping out foreign citizens is not giving up any liberties under our laws. If you as American citizen are in a foreign country, our Constitution does not protect you, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in. This concept applies to everyone outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. If the Constitution does not apply to you, it certainly cannot apply to a foreign citizen outside the U.S.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Prove it. The first change of "the Kingdom of God is within you" to Kingdom of God is in our midst" didn't happen till over 400 years after Jesus died.The KJV has never changed it.

I've already addressed this argument many times. You interpretation would present multiple contradictions with other parts of scripture.

The reason you and others change it is because you don't understand how Jesus could "Love his enemies" the Pharisees. Its because you operate on a superficial spiritual level and have no internal insight from the very God within you that Jesus was talking about.

I had nothing to do with the footnotes inserted in the more modern translations. It was "changed" as the language scholars gained more insight over time into the original languages. In most translations, footnotes are provided to give interpreters an alternate reading so that they can decide for themselves. Most born again Christians accept the alternate reading for the arguments I have presented in the past, plus the alternate reading presents no contradictions to the rest of scripture. With your interpretation there are numerous theological problems.

You are turning Jesus into a racist.

How is that? God's elect is from all languages, tribes and nations on the planet.

Jesus hung out with beggars, thieves, prostitutes and low life's. Did he ask them for their Jewish ID before preaching to them?

Jesus was the Messiah the Jews were anticipating. It does not mean he limited his ministry exclusively to Jews.

A straw man argument. I never said he limited his ministry to only Jews.

From becoming like you.

No repentant, God-loving, God-fearing sinner would answer in the cavalier, sarcastic way you have. Truly...you are one of those self-righteous ones who Jesus has not called into his kingdom.

Yes

Then explain what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that were with him:

Luke 17:20-30

20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say,' Look, here it is!' or,' There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst. "

22 And He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 "And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. 24 "For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. 25 "But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.
NASB

The entire context of this passage is Jesus' teaching on his physical presence then and his physical appearance at the second coming. Nothing in this passage is speaking to an invisible, internal kingdom. Why would Jesus, after saying what he did in v.21, turn right around to his disciples to tell them that they would long to see one of the days of the Son of Man? There is a total disconnect between the two verses with your interpretation. But with the proper interpretation, the passage flows smoothly and coherently. By telling the Pharisees that the "kingdom is in your midst", he's alluding to his very person who was standing right there in front of them. Then he turns to his disciples to them that days will come when they will long to see one of his days, but won't see -- Jesus clearly alluding to his death, burial, resurrection and ascension at which time he would no longer be physically present with them (v.25). But he goes to assure his disciples (not the Pharisees but the disciples to whom he was addressing) that the day would eventually arrive when he returns a Second time to be seen by them and, of course, the whole world. There is not one thing in the context of this passage that says that he was speaking of an internal, invisible kingdom to the Pharisees and yet a visible, external kingdom to his disciples.

Moreover, as I pointed out often, the verb tenses are all wrong for the kingdom of God to within the Pharisees at that particular time since the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the Church until several weeks after Jesus spoke those words -- specifically at Pentecost AFTER Christ's ascension! To be in the invisible Kingdom in the spiritual sense is to be IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. So, either Jesus was very confused on the timing of the Gift of the Holy Spirit to his Church or you are. I vote for the latter!

Rom 14:17
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
NASB

But again, no one, save for Christ of course, was IN THE HOLY SPIRIT until Pentecost. Therefore, no believer was in the spiritual kingdom of Christ until Pentecost! This demolishes your interpretation. Since Christ is the Ruler in his Kingdom, he could logically and honestly tell the Pharisees that "the kingdom, (i.e. the KING) is in your midst" -- that is to say, standing right in front of you. This makes for continuity and coherency in the very next words he spoke to his disciples when he told them, in so many words, that he wasn't always going to be with them in the physical sense. This is why they would long to see one of the days of the Son of Man.

Also, Jesus never taught that God is within you. By you appealing to scriptures written by John and Paul, you once again engaged in the black art of equivocation. You're quite the accomplished liar.