gadgetlady

I'm done. I think anyone can read the past several posts and reach their own conclusions.

I believe that Ron's method of communication can be inflammatory and they are not necessarily the methods that I would employ. I believe it comes from the place he lives and the particular group of people that he has chosen to witness to; it's what he knows. I also believe that there is a core group of people that try to "get his goat." I am not playing "blame the athiest" in any sense. I am saying that there is a hefty group of anti-Christian (read: anti-conservative-Bible-believing-fundamentalist-Christian) people on this board who say things that, had they been said about homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, or [insert any group other than Christians here], would have caused a huge uproar.

I haven't been on any killing-sprees recently, nor has, let's see, , any other Christians I know. Could this, perhaps, just maybe, just slightly, be the type of remark that causes us conservative, fundamentalist Christians to cry "foul"? How would you feel if I boldly stated something patently false, that it was the liberal, Darwinian, athiests out there that carried out the Holocaust? Or were responsible for the mass-murder of babies in the womb. Oh, wait, that last one wouldn't necessarily be false.

What was said was, I don't think you are a Christian Fundamentalist terrorist, even if you take their side quite often. So, yeah, um, that's pretty clear to me. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/showpost.php?p=380488&postcount=854

What exactly did I do to deserve being called a terrorist, or a terrorist-sympathizer? I don't have a problem with discussion or even healthy debate. But there's a difference between that and deliberate baiting, which you yourself have ADMITTED to participating in.

I should have specified what I meant by Christian. I meant conservative, Bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian. You know, the kind of Christian that caused me to be called a terrorist recently (oh, that was later clarified to indicate that I wasn't really a terrorist, but that I just took their side). THAT kind of Christian. If you ask ANY of THAT kind of Christian whether or not there's Christian-bashing going on all over this board, I guarantee you will get a resounding YES. Of course, it won't be universal; a lot of them have left this site for other support sites.

Premies are precious, aren't they? Not that all babies aren't precious, but there's something so miraculous about them when they're born so young. God bless you and your entire family.

I would believe that if it were not TOM's normal practice to start controversial, Christian-bashing threads.

:scared: And you started this thread ... WHY? Because you knew everyone would agree, there would be no controversy, and it really wasn't a big deal (IYHO)? :faint: :faint: :faint:

Well, that article starts out by saying that there is no historical proof that Jesus even existed, so I guess you'd better not watch the show about his supposed bones. If there weren't no Jesus, there ain't no box, no tomb, and there certainly ain't no bones!

ROFLOL! Well, as usual Laurend, it depends on which "THEY" you are listening to. I would expect a website by the name of nobeliefs.com (where your quoted article came from) would try to produce "evidence" that the Shroud is a fake. Go to www.shroudstory.com for the other side of the story and another "they" that you might (or might not) be interested in the opinions of.

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I'm tired. I don't have much time in my life to debate ad infinitum so I don't know if I'll be back anytime soon, but I hope some of my input has caused some of you to open your minds and consider other options.

So everyone who has faith and interprets the Bible is right? What about when equally faithful people completely disagree? What about Jeremiah 17:9 which says "The heart is deceitful above all things"? It is certainly possible that a person with a whole heapload of faith can be very, very wrong. I KNOW there are people who have a lot of faith that you consider to be wrong in many areas. I'm not confused at all. I am, however, always learning and discovering nuances that I didn't understand before. These nuances don't contradict my original understanding, but rather enhance them.

Please read http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp to get a better understanding of my position. I think, after reading that, you will see it if perfectly feasible.

I believe, as science has well documented, that there can be changes within a kind of animal. In other words, dogs can be bred or can naturally develop with certain traits highlighted over others. I do not believe, nor has science documented, a change from one KIND of animal into another. No dog has ever changed into a cat, no fish has ever changed into a bird.

The Bible says that prior to the flood, neither animals nor humans were carnivores. In Genesis 1, God gives man specifically plants to eat, not animals; this is reinforced throughout the early chapters of Genesis. In Genesis 9, after the flood, man is then given animals to eat.

But it would physically hold two of every kind, which is what Noah was told to bring. Did Noah have to bring both German Shephards and Dalmations? Or was "dog" sufficient? If you'd like more information about it, go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp.

I dunno. The specifics about the ark are pretty, well, specific. If I just wanted to tell a nice story or a "wonderful lesson", I certainly wouldn't go into that much detail, cubits and all. Furthermore, in Matthew 24 Jesus spoke of the ark and of Noah as very real. I'm much more inclined to take Jesus' word for it.

If the Bible is only partially literal (I assume you believe in the literal resurrection), how do you determine which other part(s) are not literal?

First, when Jesus told a parable, the Bible prefaces it with something along the lines of "Jesus told this parable". So it is what it says it is. A parable. Second, just because one takes the Bible literally doesn't mean one can't use context to understand it and apply it to modern life. When the Bible talks about "denari", it literally means "denari". But in context, it means "the currency of the time". I could find a bazillion other examples but I'm sure you get it.

But you also have to understand the context of what cloak meant to someone during that time. If I lost my "cloak" at dinner tonight, it wouldn't be a big deal. If a traveller lost his cloak 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, it could mean his death. Let me give you another example. In Luke 11, Jesus tells of a man who knocks on his neighbor's door at midnight asking for three loaves of bread. Now for me, this wouldn't be a big deal because I'm up at midnight. But I have electricity, a computer, my kids are asleep in their closed rooms upstairs, and I'm a night owl. In the CONTEXT of the time, you have to realize what happened. Everyone in the family was asleep, in one room, on mats rolled out on the floor. The father had to step over family members to get to the door. The knock woke everyone up. When the Scripture says "midnight", you might think "oh, that's a few hours after everyone went to bed", but more likely everyone went to bed at sundown. So this neighbor's knocking on the door was a HUGE deal. And you also have to understand the nature of Jewish hospitality, and what it means when you have an unexpected guest, and why someone would knock on your door at midnight wanting bread. If you don't take CONTEXT into consideration, you just will not get the impact of this story.

That's a misapplication of terminology. God's creation of the world in six days isn't a context issue. Jesus' resurrection on the third day isn't a context issue. The commandment about not coveting my neighbor's ox or donkey IS a context issue; my neighbor doesn't have an ox or donkey, but he does have a really nice Beemer. God LITERALLY meant ox or donkey THEN. Contextually, however, He means the Beemer NOW. I am CONFIDENT you can see the difference.

That's correct, but we don't wear cloaks! If I read a story to my kids and the word "cloak" is used, I stop and say, "That's like a coat or a cape." So given that we don't wear cloaks, you have to interpret the verse FOR OUR TIME differently than was done DURING THEIR TIME. In other words, if I just said, "I don't have to do anything for the poor because I don't own a cloak", I would be disregarding the whole teaching -- throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in effect -- instead of applying the teaching to the world I live in. To bring it into deeper context, the cloak was your method of surviving in bad weather. You didn't have a nice warm Lexus to step into. You were travelling and it was your way of surviving. If you ignore the CONTEXT of the time and just think it applies to the physical garment, you're missing the teaching.

In the context of the day, cloak was literal, understood, and the appropriate word to use. In the SETTING of the day, cloak makes sense. In today's context, today's setting, today's circumstances, it doesn't.

Here's an example of something that's literal for the context in which it was written: if a man asks for your shirt, give him your cloak as well. Not too many people these days carry cloaks. So it was literal in the context of the time, but not literal for us today -- rather than cloaks, we should substitute coat -- or perhaps money. I'm sure there are a ton of things in the Bible referencing sandals or headcoverings, which make sense and were meant to be taken literally in the context of the day, but don't make sense literally today. I'm quite sure, intellectually, that all of you can grasp this concept.