• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

A problem in the context of assertions of truth.

Just that the church is so very divided which reflects badly on scripture. I would expect unparalleled clarity from the creator of the universe.

...unless God is forced to limit himself in order to uphold man's 'free will'.
What do you mean by "forced to limit himself"? I see it as a choice by God to put some things out of his control (willfully).

He could be super clear and have everyone doing exactly what he wishes. Sounds kinda dull. Wouldn't a humanity running itself off the leash be at least a little entertaining? I know I like to see my kids doing stuff on their own a hell of a lot more than doing stuff by rote.
 
Grew up in one. And again, to Hell with them if they use their religion to do evil. Most real-life, touching grass Christians I run across are totally down with the salad bar approach. Never heard the Sister I've mentioned here say a negative word about anyone, or their religion. She tolerates my heathen ass with a warm smile.

Not Every Christain is this comic book portrayal of nasty hypocrisy.
No, they're not. Jimmy Carter for example was the most Christian person I have ever encountered. The Plains Babtist Church for which he was a lifetime member was affiliated almost from day one was a Southern Baptist church. That is until about 30 years ago when it dropped affiliation.

They became unaffiliated because of the way scripture was handled by Southern Baptists. Until then Baptist dogma was that scripture was the word of God. But interpretation was left up to the individual. The Southern Baptists changed that by giving that authority to the pastors. So the Plains Church broke away.
My lot were really into the turn the other cheek, forgive others, god loves everyone…. Until it came to Roman Catholics they are heretics, evil and monstrous and not Christians, worshipping graven images, praying to people, worshiping Mary. (Interesting this is what made me learn so much about Roman Catholicism, I was wondering what they did actually believe .) Mind you this was as much about local politics as it was about religion.
I always found this a bit strange. I grew up in Protestant churches. First, Methodist, then a Lutheran church and then two different Baptist churches. Liked the first and totally hated the second. The second had this Pastor that was overly fond of preaching hellfire, damnation. God was more a threat than anything else. They all badmouthed the Catholics. Especially the last one.

But my experience was that the Catholics were the most loving and tolerant of others. They were also on average the most unaware of what the scripture was. As for worshipping Mary and the other Saints, they would say they weren't worshipping them. But that the saints having been human were more relatable. They would say there is a difference between worship and veneration. And to them, statues and paintings weren't graven images, but visual aids.
 
Which quote? The one I explained earlier?

"The one you explained"?
Well, for a start, you could drop the attitude and just say what you think.
Secondly, I am glad you have single-handedly resolved a question that has caused considerable controversy and differences of opinion among theologians for centuries. Have you shared the benefits of your wisdom with them?
 
"The one you explained"?
Well, for a start, you could drop the attitude and just say what you think.
I literally don't know which quote you want me to explain. I gave you my interpretation of Matthew 5:18 in Post #157 as I said, is it something else?

Secondly, I am glad you have single-handedly resolved a question that has caused considerable controversy and differences of opinion among theologians for centuries. Have you shared the benefits of your wisdom with them?
What makes you think I've single-handedly resolved it (assuming Mat 5:18)? I'm just reporting what my church taught me in Bible study. Because you asked me to. I'm not sure why I'm being attacked for it.
 
I literally don't know which quote you want me to explain. I gave you my interpretation of Matthew 5:18 in Post #157 as I said, is it something else?


What makes you think I've single-handedly resolved it (assuming Mat 5:18)? I'm just reporting what my church taught me in Bible study. Because you asked me to. I'm not sure why I'm being attacked for it.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? You posted your church's explanation for it, along with the other risible guff like other denominations being Satanic. That was not, then, your explanation or interpretation. If it's from your church, then, from what you posted, that's excuses, and not necessarily a valid theological point. If, OTOH, that is your own personal standpoint, then you should have made that clear in the first place, and also be prepared to defend it.
 
Matthew 24:2, Luke 21:6 and that many stones that were part of the temple still stand upon one another. They were not "demolished", "thrown down", or torn down".
I was and am asking for a source that affirms that 'not one stone will be left upon another' didn't happen.
They were "left standing". They still stand today.
#192 says otherwise.
 
Does it matter? And I think that's what I've been doing.
I guess it matters if you are a Christian as it (the OP) remains somewhat catastrophic to Christianity. I mean, I have tried to read the passages in a favourable way to Christ but it just doesn't seem to work. I have asked many Christians but there is no consensus - only awkward interpretations of the text.

I went through all your posts but didn't see anything that specifically deals with the OP....not that you have to. I think that you at least used to be a churchgoer.
 
I guess it matters if you are a Christian as it (the OP)
remains somewhat catastrophic to Christianity. I mean, I have tried to read the passages in a favourable way to Christ but it just doesn't seem to work. I have asked many Christians but there is no consensus - only awkward interpretations of the text.

I went through all your posts but didn't see anything that specifically deals with the OP....not that you have to. I think that you at least used to be a churchgoer.
In your opinion.

But it is patently obvious that it is not catastrophic to Christian religions as we have had Christian religions for almost 2000 years.
 
What do you mean by "forced to limit himself"? I see it as a choice by God to put some things out of his control (willfully).

He could be super clear and have everyone doing exactly what he wishes. Sounds kinda dull. Wouldn't a humanity running itself off the leash be at least a little entertaining? I know I like to see my kids doing stuff on their own a hell of a lot more than doing stuff by rote.
I'm not entirely sure what I mean.

There is a conflict between God's sovereignty and man's free will. Give man too much free will and Christ doesn't end up on the cross and there's no saviour. And the other way round, as you point out, is dull - we end up as automatons....and nobody is choosing anything.
 
In your opinion.

But it is patently obvious that it is not catastrophic to Christian religions as we have had Christian religions for almost 2000 years.
In terms of objective logic it can be seen to be catastrophic. Many Christians don't want to look at the trees - and just focus on the wood.

I'm just holding feet to the fire.
 
Do we have any openly Christians here? It seems to me that the closest answer we get to the OP’s question is non-Christians telling us how Christians of various denominations cope with the question.
 
Do we have any openly Christians here? It seems to me that the closest answer we get to the OP’s question is non-Christians telling us how Christians of various denominations cope with the question.
Many of us here were brought up in a Christian religion and we can answer from that perspective. For example, I went to a church school until the age of 11. My family on my maternal were very much part of a Christian community so by association so was I. As another example - one of my aunts was a very active member of the chapel - she was part of the group that organised Billy Graham's first UK visit and she regularly communicated with him, she even knew Cliff Richard! I still have the Bible she gave me for my (if I remember right) my 11th or 12th birthday - I'd asked for it as present - it was of course the right Bible not for instance a Roman Catholic bible, so it would have been impossible in my family to avoid learning about our Christian religion. (For those interested they were a holdover of "primitive Methodism.")

Then you have a lot of us that have continued to "study" the doctrine of other Christian religions.

Poem seems to think they have found a "gotcha", but all the current Christian religions in effect shrug their shoulders and say that's not a problem for them and it was addressed almost a couple of thousand years ago,

Most Christian religions are (internally) axiomatic.


ETA: It certainly wasn't learning about Christine.
 
Last edited:
Poem seems to think they have found a "gotcha", but all the current Christian religions in effect shrug their shoulders and say that's not a problem for them and it was addressed almost a couple of thousand years ago,
I cited C.S. Lewis in the OP who admits the scripture is embarrassing. I am not aware that he had any resolution to the issue. He just points out Jesus affirming that only the Father knows the exact hour and day.

Jesus is warning his followers about the end times so that they know in advance...yet it appears that he has confused them.

Much hinges on the exact meaning of 'abomination that causes desolation' that Daniel referred to (since this is the sign his followers are to look for). Antiochus Epiphanes apparently set up a image of Zeus in the Temple in 167BC which appears to fit the 'abomination' description. I am not aware anything like that occurred in 70AD.
 
Are we saying there are zero followers of Christ on International Skeptics?
 

Back
Top Bottom