ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

StrongAxe's Blog Replies
Post a New Blog

Vote on StrongAxe as a helpful ChristiaNet blogger by clicking this link. Currently StrongAxe has 1434 votes. The higher the number of votes the more helpful this blogger is considered by the ChristiaNet community.


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
Samuelbb7:

The problem with EGW's writing isn't her support of scripture, but rather, those things she wrote that were completely loony (literally, in this case).

The problem with people is they take verses out of context. We are to compare scripture with scripture. We are to look at who the writing is too and when. We are see the event in which the writing is set.

While this is sensible, the Bible itself does not actually say this. So this is a "tradition of men", even though it is a very reasonable tradition.

Reading scriptures in the original languages helps understand the nuances that translators can only approximate.


Why Don't People Read The Bible
  
Nicole_Lacey:

I think it's more likely that the reverse of this is true. Many people don't bother to read the bible, because they "know" that it already agrees with them, so there's no need to see if that's actually true. The very idea that some of their ideas might not be biblical is so foreign to them, that it doesn't even enter into their heads (and they react violently to anyone who even suggests it). Unfortunately, the "my mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts" attitude is all too common, in contrast with the biblically approved example of the Bereans who never took anything for granted, but rather "searched the scripture daily to see if these things be so".


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
john9346:

You wrote: Please tell us on what basis do, "we have no way of knowing?"

OK. Please tell me what way YOU have to determine the "true and correct meaning" of a scripture when some people disagree with the interpretation.

Sir, tell me, have you honestly studied Exo 21:22 in context yes or no?

Yes. I have looked at the original Hebrew. Have you? Just as with the English translations, the word rendered "mischief" does not specifically indicate whether it applies to mother, child, or both. There are differing opinions on this. How can you determine for sure what was originally meant?


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
john9346:

If scripture says "God says X", and person A says "This means Y" and person B says "No, this means Z", short of God speaking from heaven who is right, we have no way of knowing. Many scriptures are ambiguous thus (e.g. the miscarriage scripture says "unless there is mischief". Does this mean injury to the mother, or child, or both? It's not clear from the context, and there have been opinions on both sides).

Calling someone a heretic is one thing. Killing them for it (which Calvin did) is NOT something Jesus ever taught (it contradicts "love your neighbor"), so it would make some one, de facto, a heretic himself for doing it.


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
jerry6593:

You wrote: What! You're becoming as looney as cluny. EGW NEVER said any such thing. The Investigative Judgment occurs in HEAVEN, prior to Christ's return.

Again, there is no mention in the Bible that anyone has to pour over the books in heaven for centuries before opening them. All are gathered, the books are opened, and they are judged.

The whole doctrine of "investigative judgment" is because of the Millerite prophecy that Jesus would return around 1844, and when he didn't, rather than admitting that the whole notion was hogwash, it was retconned into "He DID come then - just not HERE", giving the lie to "behold, I come quickly".


Why Don't People Read The Bible
  
mike4879:

The Mormons belive the Bible is the word of God, inasmuch as it is translated correctly, and the Book of Mormon is the word of God. It is curious they place a (sensible) condition on the accuracy of translation of the Bible, yet they lack the caution to place a similar condition on the Book of Mormon - they assume it must necessarily be translated correctly because their prophet (Joseph Smith) couldn't possibly have been wrong when translating it - even though he was proven hilariously wrong when translating other things (e.g. a heiroglyphic fragment he bought from a traveling salesman, and that he claimed was the Book of Abraham - but it was later shown to show religious practices of pagan Egyptian gods).


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
jerry6593:

This has nothing to do with left or right. Why do you have to make everything about that?

Both passages you quoted show an imminent judgment - those judged are before the throne, the books are opened, and they are then immediately judged.

If Christ has not yet returned but will later, why did EGW say he already had? The idea of "investigative judgment" is back-pedalling to explain how Christ has already returned, yet has not ACTUALLY physically returned yet. It is verbal sophistry designed to cover up a failed prophecy.

Jesus himself said how he would return - as lightning visible from east to west (i.e. instantaneously so every eye can see), not invisibly and taking centuries to actually arrive.


Transubstantiation In Christianity
  
john9346:

You wrote to Monk_Brendan: I seriously remind you sir only heretics in the history of the church held this position you are promulgating.

The problem with calling someone a heretic is, who gets to adjudicate who is a heretic and who isn't? Calvin called Catholics heretics, while Catholics called Calvin a heretic. Who was right, and how can we which is which? You can't say "the side who agrees with scripture", because both sides will claim they do. Unfortunately, short of God speaking from heaven and saying "this is my servant in whom I am well pleased", there is no objective test.


God Of Opinions Of Man
  
jerry6593:

You wrote: Dan 7:9,10 ... Rev 20:12,13

Precisely. Note that those being judged stood before God, and the books were opened, and they were judged, right then and there. They didn't have to wait hundreds of years for God and his bureaucracy to process the books in heaven unseen, to see what they meant. That may be the case in bureaucracies on earth, where when you apply for something, it may take years for the application to be processed, but not so in heaven.


Transubstantiation In Christianity
  
Cluny:

You wrote: I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

Yes, but it also says Jesus was a vine, yet he gave no grapes nor wood.
It also says he is the lamb, yet he gave no wool.
He is the morning star, but he didn't have fusion that vaporized the earth.
He is the Alpha and Omega, yet doesn't occur at the beginning or end of any dictionary.

Yes, it means what is says, but in what CONTEXT does it mean it? Literally? If so, then Genesis 1 took 168 hours, yet you have repeatedly said that you don't believe that (or many other things) literally. Why is this one thing so very different from all the others?


Transubstantiation In Christianity
  
Cluny:

You wrote: I'll believe our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

The issue here isn't believing what the words SAY, because none of us dispute that. The difference of opinion is what those words actually MEAN in the context in which they are given.


Transubstantiation In Christianity
  
Cluny:

You wrote: God Incarnate said over bread and wine, "This is My Body and Blood."

All the other examples you gave were imperatives, commands about what he wanted to happen in the future (which subsequently did), but this is an indicative statement of fact in the present tense, so it can't really be lumped in with them to make an analogy. He didn't say "Let this be my body and blood".


Married In God's Eyes
  
Leon:

You wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever Axe! Now, will you please stop your whining? Thank you!

I'm just writing in an emotionally neutral manner, not whining, but I'm happy to drop it if you are. When I first saw you on these blogs, I remember having pleasant discussions with you. I would be happy to return to that place again.


Married In God's Eyes
  
Leon:

You believed Monk_Brendan is acting childishly towards you.

Instead of just saying this, you also use charged words like "pesky", "Neverland", "grow up", and "sonny boy".

I just pointed out that kind of behavior is equally childish (without using any charged language).

You wrote: 'Axe: Really? Yet another passive aggressive swipe at me from another dude with issues. You guys, grow up! smh

You accuse ME of being childish, again with words like "dude with issues". It seems more like you are the one with issues, since you aren't discussing rationally, as adults do, but rather think you can get your point across better by using insults.


Married In God's Eyes
  
Leon:

You wrote to Monk_Brendan: You're such a pesky child. It was you who picked a fight with me on this blog. You need to grow up & leave Neverland, & stop bugging adults who are way above your level of maturity sonny boy.

If some childishly starts throwing mud at you, and you respond by throwing mud back, it's just as childish as they are. You don't show that you're more mature than a child by imitating its behavior.


Videos Don't Lie
  
Samuelbb7:

The video probably captured the Pope's actual words, but its conclusions are incorrect. As I said in my previous post, the Latin "lucifer" means "light-bearer". The Devil was called "Lucifer" because he was an "angel of light", and was originally a good guy. He only became Satan AFTER he fell, and lost the right to the name "light bearer", and instead became the Prince of Darkness. Nevertheless, he has tainted the name, just as the Nazis tainted the swastika, which was originally a positive symbol, and British King John was so corrupt, he tainted that name so it is forbidden for anyone in the royal line of succession to be named John, lest there ever be a King John II.


Is Silence Consent
  
If silence were consent, then God would be the worst sinner of all, because the world is full of such corruption and delusion, with people hearing so many conflicting voices saying "THIS is the right way" that they don't know what to believe, and God sees this, but lets it happen anyway. Is God a sinner?


Transubstantiation In Christianity
  
As Cluny has pointed out, the bread and wine really become body and blood. They don't do so physically, but rather metaphysically.

We are assustomed to such semantic nuances in real life. For example, there is no physical test you could do to tell a wife from a fiancee, or a fiancee from a girlfriend, or a renter from a house owner. There might be some other physical evidence of marriage or ownership (e.g. a ring or a deed), but these merely reflect reality. They don't cause reality. Melting a ring or burning a deed doesn't change that reality. Marriage and ownership are metaphysical, rather than physical realities. They are, nevertheless, real. So are countries, virtues, churches, philosophies, etc.



Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.