Religious

[wes]

James 1-19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

wes

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

So I take that you don't play the ponies. Then this is missionary work of some sort. Do you think gambling is a sin?

Gambling a sin? How could that be?
Of all the places I go to, at the race track I hear God mentioned frequently and see more people praying than any church in town.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

So I take that you don't play the ponies. Then this is missionary work of some sort. Do you think gambling is a sin?

If I remember accurately the episode of Biography, Boxcar was a horseplayer but quit several years ago. I believe he has been a part of off-topic discussions since that time. He obviously enjoys the banter here, like I assume we all do. His opinions are almost always influenced or dictated by his religion and he is unashamed (in a longwinded way) to defend and support those opinions that way. I gloss over when the text goes italic, but I've never thought of him as a missionary - Just one of many I've met in life that use religion as the core component in any discussion or argument.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have not answered reasonable questions other than this old refrain

The bible tells me so

As usual circular reasoning song to the same tune.
Why don.t you simply leave it at it is a matter of faith, not reason. I for one would find that acceptable. Problem is religion can not by argued intellectually, nor should it be. Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Evidence. Unless one simply says I believe

Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive, anymore than Faith is necessarily irrational. Since we're made in God's image and God is a Rational Being, we can reason just as he can.

And if the bible did not tell me so, then you would whine that only Boxcar's opinion tells us so. You cannot shake your double-mindedness, can you? Everything with you is Yes and No.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

So I take that you don't play the ponies. Then this is missionary work of some sort. Do you think gambling is a sin?

Many Christians do think it is sin (vice); but I have, yet, to find conclusive support for this notion in the bible. However, gambling can easily become sin. Of this I have no doubt.

And to answer your question about the little ponies, I am considering coming out of retirement in the foreseeable future, and in fact I have been involved in lengthy spreadsheet project to that end; for in recent months I've made a couple of very intriguing discoveries. But you know, I've become really, really spoiled (and perhaps even lazy ) with 'puters and software and such and so, ideally, I would like to approach the game with a pure "black box" approach -- you know -- just "bet 'em and forget 'em" and let the profits roll in.

Boxcar

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Many Christians do think it is sin (vice); but I have, yet, to find conclusive support for this notion in the bible. However, gambling can easily become sin. Of this I have no doubt.

And to answer your question about the little ponies, I am considering coming out of retirement in the foreseeable future, and in fact I have been involved in lengthy spreadsheet project to that end; for in recent months I've made a couple of very intriguing discoveries. But you know, I've become really, really spoiled (and perhaps even lazy ) with 'puters and software and such and so, ideally, I would like to approach the game with a pure "black box" approach -- you know -- just "bet 'em and forget 'em" and let the profits roll in.

Boxcar

Welcome back.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Welcome back.

I have actually never left. About 7 or 8 years ago my old programmer and I got back together and we've developed two outstanding programs and then things really got interesting when we integrated someone else's proprietary figures into the output of one of those programs. Things ain't been the same since. I figure within the next 30 days or so, I'll know if I have achieved my long-desired objective and can break out the bubbly.

Boxcar

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive, anymore than Faith is necessarily irrational. Since we're made in God's image and God is a Rational Being, we can reason just as he can.

And if the bible did not tell me so, then you would whine that only Boxcar's opinion tells us so. You cannot shake your double-mindedness, can you? Everything with you is Yes and No.

Boxcar

Reason out of faith and faith out of reason are two very different things.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Reason out of faith and faith out of reason are two very different things.

Huh? Do you have faith in anyone in this world? Do you believe in anyone? Do you really trust anyone? If not, well...I feel poorly for you. But if so, why? Why do you have this faith or confidence?

Boxcar

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Reason out of faith and faith out of reason are two very different things.

Work on this Boxcar. When you quote the Bible you are reasoning out of faith, not obtaining faith out of reason. The Bible passage may or may not be interpreted logically, but so may Shakespeare. Revelation happens everywhere by many authors outside of the Bible. It is what people do, interpret life. I'm working on a revelation to interpret claimers this morning. Praise be to God when I cash my tickets.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Work on this Boxcar. When you quote the Bible you are reasoning out of faith, not obtaining faith out of reason. The Bible passage may or may not be interpreted logically, but so may Shakespeare. Revelation happens everywhere by many authors outside of the Bible. It is what people do, interpret life. I'm working on a revelation to interpret claimers this morning. Praise be to God when I cash my tickets.

We all hold a priori beliefs that really cannot be verified directly. Logic, and Geometry, for instance are good examples. From Wiki....

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a Mathematical proof.


So there are logical and mathematical sciences where a certain amount faith comes before reason. The difference is that at some point everything that follows from a priori axioms gets the acid test. How do we know that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of it's sides? C^2 = a^2 + b^2. Be cause we can measure it. We can assume some validity in the a priori assumptions that led to this truth. So can Religious Faith be justified using the same acid test? Can it be observed and measured. No.

How do we know we exist? Descartes "Cogito ergo sum", " I think therefore I am" is possibly a good approach, but philosophically inconclusive. We all agree and will not argue endlessly about that premise.

Although we cannot measure our existence in logical and mathematical terms, we accept it as an priori truth by faith whether or not we understand it intellectually. So I will agree on I am, he is, we all are, with boxcar but not much else. We all construct on that assumption. HOW EXACTLY we build our proverbial house of cards is highly individual. That house can not be measured or weighed. It cannot be subjected to any objective verification.

But we can get an idea of just how solid it is and how it stacks up when it projects a conclusion into the realm of what is measurable and weighable. We cannot verify the lower floors of someones belief structure directly ( the axioms), but an unprobable inference from the upper floors, is revealing.

That is why it is better to leave it as a matter of faith than verifiable and logical truth. Philosophically making the Sun and Moon stop as in Joshua 10:13

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

is certainly an unprobable unverifiable inference if taken literally. Better to either look for it's meaning as allegory and poetry than to project this story as a truth into the measurable

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Work on this Boxcar. When you quote the Bible you are reasoning out of faith, not obtaining faith out of reason. The Bible passage may or may not be interpreted logically, but so may Shakespeare. Revelation happens everywhere by many authors outside of the Bible. It is what people do, interpret life. I'm working on a revelation to interpret claimers this morning. Praise be to God when I cash my tickets.

No! But that's not what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is trusting, believing, having confidence in God. Biblical faith is no different than the faith we have in our fellow human beings -- with one exception. We see our fellow man. But we trust, believe or have confidence in some human beings because we know them. Rational Faith presupposes True Knowledge. Rational human beings don't trust people they don't know. The faith we Christians have toward God is absolutely no different. God knows his chosen ones and his chosen ones know him. This is why we are told that we must be born again (experience the spiritual resurrection so that we can rise from our state of spiritual death) in order to see (perceive the kingdom of God). This spiritual resurrection is Eternal Life. Jesus said about this eternal life:

John 17:3
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
NASB

The force of the language in this text is staggering on two levels. On the linguistic level because this particular Greek word translated 'know" is a very powerful. It denotes far more than mere intellectual knowledge. It means having a personal, intimate knowledge of the person known such as a person would have with his best friend, or mother would have of her daughter or even a husband would have with his wife, etc.

And Jesus in his prayer here asking that they may know God and Jesus Christ. Well, the 11 (in whose presence he was) certainly had personal, first hand knowledge of Christ. They spent nearly 3-1/2 years with him during his ministry. So just as these 11 knew him intimately, he's praying to the Father that they would also have this kind of knowledge of Him.

A Christian's faith, Al, is not in a book. The book is a means of God's grace. But the book isn't God. This is where you have gone astray. Biblical Faith is in the book's Divine Author. The author is the supreme object of our faith. And that faith is not blind. Paradoxically, it is "sighted" faith because Christians have the Spirit of God living within them -- they are united to the object of their faith. Even though the knowledge that we have of God is imperfect (as even the apostle Paul admits), nonetheless is it is genuine. It is real. We believe God because we know him. We know him because he lives in us.

Gal 4:9
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God...
NASB

Boxcar

[Capper Al]

I was bored and fell into this thread. I'm out of here after this. The bottom line is what a lot of tradition religion people want is not as much God, but to resolve that they find reasoning difficult. They usually mess up their own life on their own. They submit not to God, but to a way of thinking. This helps them to live a better life. I wish they would say thank God and leave it at that and not preach.

[boxcar]

On the Rush thread, I had an interesting exchange with the Chicken who postulated that the Church (as an institution) is subject to civil authorities and its secular laws because to Chicken this institution was no different from some man-made corporate entity; therefore, at the end of the day, the State should be the final authority in Church matters. And certainly, a compelling case could and should be made for legitimate exceptions for extreme cases whereby some religious organization's tenet of faith would seriously conflict with criminal laws, as one example. For example, NJ brought up the extreme example of whereby the State should step in to prohibit the practice of child sacrifice (as though that was a common practice of some religion here in America.) But still that is indeed an extreme case whereby civil authorities should step in and exert its authority.

My response to Chick was that the Church cannot be compared to some human institution or organization because the Church is not a human institution, since it was not instituted by any mere mortal. It was instituted by Christ. The Church belongs to Him. The Church is Christ's Bride. Christ is her Bridegroom. The Church is his Body; He is her Head. The Church is His Sheep; He is the Sheep's Chief Shepherd. The Church is God's New Covenant people. It is his Holy Nation -- a borderless nation -- under this covenant, etc., etc. Of course, these spiritual concepts usually cannot be understood by unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot generally relate to this kind of institution. They categorically reject these kinds of biblical metaphors. The world largely believes that the Church was founded and established by a handful of ragtag over-zealous, religious fanatics -- or to the PAs of the world -- Loonies, if you will. This is how the world largely thinks of the Church.

Now, we can understand better why this perennial tension has from the very beginning existed between the nations of the world and God's Nation. Between human kingdoms and God's Kingdom. Between human government and His government. The world simply rejects these biblical truths, so the world largely "tolerates" the existence of the Church, as long as the Church doesn't ruffle the feathers of civil authorities. Of course, in totalitarian states, the Church is generally outlawed because this kind of government makes no bones about who is the final and only moral authority of its people. But if I understand "end times" prophecy correctly, the current "truce" between most nations and The Holy Nation will be dissolved. The Church will undergo great persecution. The world will no longer tolerate her existence, thanks largely to the antichrist. The "genocide" of the Holy Nation will be of utmost importance to antichrist because if he can destroy all God's people, then to whom would Christ be returning? Who would be awaiting Him? The Beast he will have proven that scripture can be broken -- that God not only broke his promises, but that He was too weak and impotent to keep those promises; and therefore, the antichrist is the one and only true god. (And what I have just said about the Church applies with equal force to the nation of Israel! Many in the world will be rooting and cheering on the sidelines for the destruction of Israel because this, too, would discredit the Scriptures. And once the bible's integrity is concretely discredited, the world would be off its hook!). In short, God's chosen people are inextricably entwined into the fabric of God's revelation. As one goes, so does the other. And the more militant unbelievers understand the connection between the two and the ramifications to the destruction of God's people -- in the same way many thinking Evolutionists understood the profound impact their Materialism would have upon the scriptures and the Christian Faith.

I have digressed a bit here because too many of us suffer from mental myopia. We fail to see the big picture. We fail to interpret history correctly, also. But it's important to understand the uneasy relationship that has historically existed between the physical Nations of the World and the spiritual Holy Nation, and interpret the current assault on the Church by our own government in the context of history and the bible, for that matter. But let's return to Chick's premise -- that religious freedom only applies to People -- that the First Amendment only applies to People. And that the Church cannot and should not be classified as People -- even though it is an organic and spiritual body of believers, and not a human institution. There was an excellent example or what I think Chick was talking about in an old story that has resurrected itself.

Should Religious Business Owners Be Legally Permitted to Turn Away Gay Customers — And Vice-Versa?

Remember Victoria Childress, the baker in Des Moines, Iowa, who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding?

There was a great deal of debate surrounding the story, with supporters claiming that it was her right as a Christian business owner to decline the service; opponents, though, called her stance discriminatory and decried it.

Just this snippet is enough to make my point and probably Chick's too. Opponents to this Christian businesswoman's stance yelled "DISCRIMINATION". But since when doesn't a business owner have the right to refuse service to a prospective customer? (A big exception to this comes under the Federal Civil Rights Laws with a class of business known as a "public accommodation", such as supermarkets, drugstores, etc. Also, some state laws have significantly expanded upon Federal Civil Rights Laws. California being a great example of this.) But in most scenarios with smaller businesses, the owner can refuse to serve a customer. The business owner has the right of first refusal. In this baker's case, she stood on Christian principle because she did not want to send any tacit signals of approval to her prospective customer about her sinful lifestyle. Fully understandable. She in no way, shape or form wanted to participate directly or indirectly in her customer's lifestyle. If a prospective customer has the right to make overt statements about her lesbian lifestyle in the market place, then why shouldn't the Christian baker enjoy the same right by refusing service? The baker was simply acting in accordance with her conscience and her understanding of the scriptures.

So, now let's switch gears. What would happen if down the road, lesbians become a protected class of citizen under the Civil Rights Laws? Not a far fetched hypothetical at all. What if lesbians or homosexuals are afforded the same protection as racial minorities? What is sexual practices are equated with race -- put on the same level as race? What do you think would happen if some same-sex couple were to walk into my bible-believing, evangelical church wanting one of our pastors to marry them? According to Chick's definition of "Church", my local church would have to violate its conscience and marry such a couple. We'd be bound to obey civil authorities.

By the way, the lesbians considered suing the baker but I guess they changed their mind. I suppose Iowa hasn't gone over the top yet, as California has with its laws. If this had occurred in CA, the Christian baker could have been fined or jailed or both, I suppose.

But this is why the Catholic Church should take up the battle with the government -- because I think this tyrannical government will take that next step. God knows the Catholic Church has very deep pockets and certainly could afford to take aggressive legal action against the government's tyranny. But somehow I don't think this is going to happen. The Roman Church is too sympathetic to liberal causes. The Church is steeped in socialist ideology.

Here is the link to the rest of the Christian baker's story:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shou...nd-vice-versa/

Boxcar

[hcap]

Oh my God !

LESBIANS !