Kawika

"Separation of Church and State (SoCaS)" means, simply, that the two entities DO NOT INTERFERE, INVOLVE nor ENDORSE eachother.

A law requiring the POTUS to endorse a "Religious Practice" is Clearly a Violation of the principal of Separation of CHURCH and STATE and is therefore a Violation of Law if the US Constitution States that there should not be a secular law requiring religious practices.

SoCaS was the thing that prompted the pilgrims from western Europe to migrate to America.

Our leaders, in the beginning of the history of the US, were influenced by powerful fraternities and not religion; although these leaders were interested in providing an environment where practicing individual religious dogma would not be interfered with by government, and vice versa.

Tom B

Shadow...well constructed comments...Peace...Tom B

Joanne Martin

Does it say "how" everyone has to pray.

Prayer definition -An earnest hope or wish

Maybe it is meant to remind our country to reflect on goals and wish for the future. Therefore, the law is not concerning any religion at all which keeps the law constitutional. It doesnt say to pray to God or all praise Jesus...it simple states to pray and last time I check no one was being forced to take part if they didnt want to. The only person who could claim this is against their rights is whoever is residing in the White House if it require that they observe this day...does not say all US citizens must partake.

Sheila

Can't be done. All decisions are based on that individual's religion -everyone in government included esp. narrow-minded atheists (not that all atheists are narrow-minded, but the ones who are, are so whiny and controlling). Atheism is religion. Stop forcing it on me. You just want all other religions eliminated except your own - for you and others like you to be the only people free to practice their religion at all times and in all places. Others are NOT forcing their religion on you. You aren't forced to do other religious practices, just forced to tolerate it if you are capable of being tolerant. But, you, you would force all other religions not to be practiced for the sake of only yours getting to be used.

Hypocrite. And an unintelligent one.

Joanne Martin

I can see what you are saying. And I have respect for anyone who is not just deciding they believe in anything because they are told to. That's not faith its a learned behavior.

I will agree that after so many years of being raised Catholic and never quite feeling comfortable in my own I skin I went out and studied and asked questions and did everything i could to see if there was anything that made any sense to me. When I found my "truths" it wasn't convincing myself it was the truth, I just knew it in my heart. I started from there and moved on. So yes, it's not a choice like picking out a new jacket, where you decide what you may like or even worse..pick one as a way of retaliating against something or someone in you life. But a choice in the way that, even in your case, you knew what it was you wanted answered in order to continue down one path or another. Deciding that your rational mind could not find evidence of the Divine and therefore there has been nothing for you to believe to be any more than what we are experiencing here (I am not being specific, I have had many Athiest friends who all have their own view of what that means to them, so please accept my apology if I am misrepresenting your understanding in anyways. Just using an example). So then we can all "choose" to believe or not believe in any way we want. It took me many many years to find anything to grasp onto and still find myself falling back on "Fear of God" since I spent the majority of my childhood having it cemented into who I am.

Sheila

Anna, you say, "People do not choose their beliefs." Maybe you didn't, but plenty of other people DID (such as me) Really you CHOSE, too. You chose to find a lack of evidence. Seek, and you shall find. You were comfortable (something you liked about it) to decide there was no God.

This may or may not have you rethink things and change your decision: http://creationinsights.org/is-there-empirical-evidence-for-gods-existence/

"The third point of evidence for the existence of God is the Law of Biogenesis.

1) The Law of Biogenesis states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. No exceptions in nature or in the laboratories have been observed. 2) All living entities exist as single or multicellular organisms. 3) The logical conclusion is that cellular life originated supernaturally.

4) There must be a God!

But, I suppose another possibility is that from a "everything is predestined" point of view. Then we absolutely do NOT choose ANYTHING."Choice" would be just some sort of fairy tale concept. And, maybe it is. If that be the case, you are right.

Sheila

Anna - Actually you are so right and I am so wrong. I did NOT choose my belief in God - even though it feels like that's what's true. And NO ONE chooses to believe in God (John 6:44). But, God does promise if you seek to get closer to Him, He will get closer to you (James 4:8). But, truly you can't seek Him unless He is already drawing you to Him (John 6:44).

And, maybe destiny also has something to do with "no choice." I don't know about that.

kimberly

Sheila...the verses you quoted are specific to that place and time. They aren't generic.

Sheila

Kimberly, I'm quite sure that John 6:44 & James 4:8 apply to all people for all time and all places - OT, Eden, and the time to come included. JESUS does NOT change.

But pray tell, how do you use John 6:44 & James 4:8 in a way profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness?

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws them,and I will raise them up at the last day." James 4:8 "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." 2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

kimberly

wrong...God does not change. Jesus changed.

kimberly

Sheila...you misquoted HEB 13:8. The meaning is that Jesus is the ONLY Christ. Not that he never changed because he did. The designation of "Christ" is not Jesus' last name. It is who he was. His true last name was and is "Son of God" and that is a patriarchal name, not a familial one.

kimberly

Sheila....you posed a lot of questions in your post. I had to break it down. Compare John 6:44 with John 6:66. Jesus was referring to having called his disciples and when those following him saw they weren't to be chosen as Jesus' "elite" they simply lost interest in him and went their way.

Sheila

Kimberly, I did NOT misquote Heb. 13:8. The NIV states it as, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." That is not a misquote. But, thank you for your interpretation of it, though I disagree that the context is somehow referring to

Maybe you meant to say I'm interpreting it wrong? I don't buy that you are right about that. It seems plain as day that in the grand realm of everything, Jesus Christ of Nazareth does not change. He's the same as He was in the beginning, in the OT, in the gospels, in the epistles, in the present, in the future - He does not change. In the scheme of that, yes, He's also the ONLY Christ. I see that Heb. 13:8 is also showing that in context of verse 9 "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings..." In context with other places in the Bible that'd be referring to false christs - antichrists; and false prophets.

LOTS of christians find comfort in Heb. 13:8 literally believing Jesus does NOT change, knowing full well all the apparent changes Jesus went through - even being made a little lower than the angels. But He was the SAME. At no point was He powerless to do WHATEVER He chose to do - including suddenly NO LONGER being a little lower than the angels if He chose. NOTHING was impossible for Jesus at ANY point in time except for Him to lie. When Jesus was mere man, He was once asked, "If you can..." He answered back, "If you can!" (Mark 9:21-24). There was nothing Jesus could not do, except He could not lie. He is the same yesterday and today and forever. Even Ps. 118:6 is referred to in Heb. 13. The same Jesus of 118:6 was the SAME Jesus as man, and the SAME Jesus at death, and the SAME Jesus risen from the dead, and the SAME Jesus to come. Who He is essentially does NOT change. The focus is on that regardless of WHEN Jesus is, He does NOT change. He was the one Who laid down His life & He was the one Who could take it up again (John 10:18).

My guess is that you'd completely agree with all the interpretation at https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/JESUS-CHRISTTHE-SAME-YESTERDAY.pdf . I do not. I see so many holes in it, it is as though Swiss Cheese.

For instance, it says, in parentheses below:

(Study the statement, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever,” in the light of II Corinthians 5:16, and no doubt the new light will safeguard you against divers and strange doctrines, ...) 2 Corinthians 5:16 "So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer."

The way I see it, the worldly point of view is that Jesus DOES change - that's how Jesus WAS seen by those who knew Him as a man. None of them truly understood He'd come back after dying at crucifixion. To see Jesus as changing is a WORLDLY point of view. You can bet that the "worldly" point of view of Jesus sure wasn't/isn't that He does NOT change.

Thank you about comparing John 6:44 with John 6:66. I'm still not seeing how Jesus isn't meaning John 6:44 to apply to EVERYONE for all time.

BTW, Jesus' NAME is one we do NOT know as of yet - Rev. 19:12.

kimberly

Sheila....you didn't read Rev 12 far enough...……

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (meaning...he is the SON of the Logos of God or by John's definition of Logos, the SON of the old commandment of God)

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. (And he carries the name of God Himself who is the patriarchal Father meaning he is the SON of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords)

The name of Jesus meaning the surname isn't "Christ". And v12 is simply saying that the name WRITTEN (which he is bringing with him) isn't known to man which is referring to God the Father who has no surname because He has no predecessor.

And clearly Jesus changed...………Malachai 3:6 is in reference to the Lord who is God the Father. Not Jesus

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead;...……...

kimberly

Sheila. Jesus and the apostles, including Paul actually did heal everyone around them. Its why thousands of people followed them around. Numerous times, Jesus had to get away from the crowds to be alone. He was a superstar of the people and it made the Jews murderously jealous.

People aren't healed today like they were then. Nobody is walking around putting ears back on when a follower cuts if off with a sword. Most healing done today is by doctors. Nobody is raising the dead. Nobody is being instantaneously made whole. Those kinds of miracles were done in conjunction with Messiah being on earth and/or to emphasize the witness of the gospel. The crux of the matter is that the "gospel" was preached to completion way back then (100%) and there is no on-going church organization continuing that completed work except those who have falsely taken up the record of that witness (the NT letters) and usurped it for their own agenda.

Prayer is NOT for healing. Ironically, people get sick, go to the doctor and get fixed up then attribute it to prayer and God rather than the doctor. They fudge by saying God gave the doctor the skill to fix them. But, that isn't healing as described in the Bible which was nearly always instantaneous. Does God answer prayer? Yes, if one prays correctly. An example in point between a miraculous healing and normal recovery: My mother-in-law was given a massive dose of morphine in the hospital by accident and it killed her in bed with a "do not resuscitate" so the nurses weren't able to do anything to her. My spouse immediately began praying and the old lady literally came back to life because of that prayer. Quite obviously an angel had stepped in to help out because of that fervent prayer. Otherwise, she would have remained dead as a doorknob. But, the broken hip she was in the hospital for healed quite naturally after that and there was no "miraculous healing".

Most people think that if they pray, they are to expect instant gratification of whatever they want. Such is hardly the case most of the time. The answer will most likely come long after death and at the resurrection or even after that. A miraculous healing in the Bible was not usually associated with somebody "praying" over them. It was performed by a simple word or touch. That is NOT happening today. Its just reality and there's a reason for it.

By the time Paul had finished his witness, miracles were no longer performed simply because the "gospel" witness to the world had been fully completed. It is why the churches of the apostles were scattered and the disciples were sent to be torn apart by lions. There was no miraculous intervention to prevent that. We have the record of the apostles and Paul's completed gospel and the events which took place during that witness in the pages of the New Testament. For modern religious organizations to attempt usurping that witness which was an EYEWITNESS for their own agenda makes them liars and when they ignore Heb 7 to take money from their followers, it makes them not only liars but thieves.

Sheila

Kimberly - Yes I had read all of Rev 12 prior to my post you replied to. As for "Christ," it is the Greek version of the word "Messiah." Both words mean "The Anointed One." Of course it's not a surname. No one said it was. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I think I'm seeing now what you are trying to say about Rev 19 that I hadn't seen before. That all the written names on Jesus were surnames that His Father is also known by, including the name that no man knew except Jesus. And, Jesus' name specifically is " The Word of God." Or, perhaps you are meaning that all those other "names" we identify with both the Father & the Son are just titles, and the surname of the Father then would be the name no man knows except Jesus. That does make sense that the Father has no surname that's been past on to Him, because there was no one before Him.

The entire chapter of Malachi 3 is clearly in reference to Jesus and John the Baptist. Malachi 3:6 refers to Jesus. Psalm 102 & 103 refer to Jesus. Ps 102:27 "But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end." Psalm 103:17 "But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him, and His righteousness unto children's children." Jesus is the same and the countenance of His character (mercy) is everlasting.

There is nothing in the Bible that refers to the Father that doesn't ALSO refer to the Son - John 5:19. The ONLY way to the Father is through the Son. The Son does not change. Rev. 1:18 refers to that Jesus was dead - but that was NOT a change. The power of Jesus did NOT change. He had the power to lay down His life and to take it up again - John 10:18. Just as the Father does NOT change, neither does the Son. The power of the Son is constant, and does not change, and that is true of the Father. Even in death, Jesus' power was the same. Even as being made a little lower than the angels, Jesus' power was the same - He had not changed.

Sheila

Kimberly- You say, "Jesus and the apostles, including Paul actually did heal everyone around them." No, they didn't. Paul couldn't heal himself of his "thorn" - and I'm sure plenty he encountered did NOT get healed simply because they did not request it. Acts 3:1-7, Peter gives attention to the man he commanded to be healed. Healings were NOT the same method every time. Jesus even chose to use things such as spit and dirt to heal a person rather than simply commanding it, or the person simply touch Him. And NOT everyone in the presence of the Apostles or even Jesus were healed. Matthew 13:58 tells us Jesus did FEW miracles in His home town. Certainly NOT because He couldn't - but He didn't and His choice in that matter had something to do with the people's unbelief - lack of faith. And, ALWAYS heal? In Acts 5, a married couple drop dead for lying.

You say, "Prayer is NOT for healing." What are you talking about? That's in direct opposition of scripture such as: And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.(James 5:15-16). If you think about it, "Lord heal me" is the only legitimate prayer. Asking God to heal someone else, help someone else, etc. really is all about healing our own self. The Lord's prayer is all about our own healing. Jesus died that we may be healed. By His stripes we are healed. Prayer IS for healing - esp. for healing our severed relationship with God.

Your say, "By the time Paul had finished his witness, miracles were no longer performed simply because the “gospel” witness to the world had been fully completed." NO - miracles still were being performed, and witness to the world has NOT even yet been completed. Where is it written that the gospel witness to the world had been fully completed?

Miraculous intervention didn't even prevent Stephen from dying - or the loads of christians that died under Saul (Paul). There was no magic time that miraculous intervention was happening all the time and then stopped. Your description is flatly false. Scripture doesn't back it - if it did, why haven't you shown where it is written?

You say regarding nowadays, "Nobody is raising the dead. Nobody is being instantaneously made whole." Yet you tell of a story where your mother-in-law WAS raised from the dead. And, I myself have performed two instantaneous healings - and more than those, it's just that those 2 healings were the starkest in being miraculous.

What's your agenda that you are ignoring what is plainly true?

kimberly

Sheila...……

Wherever the gospel was preached, there was healing. And the healing was indiscriminate to those who were hearing the gospel for the purpose of a witness. It wasn't prayer but the preaching of the gospel that initiated healing.

James 5: 15-16 isn't about physical healing but spiritual healing. Its about resurrection and salvation in the day of judgement. All too often, people read these passages and assume that if they pray (for themselves instead of for one another as James is saying) they will receive some kind of instant personal gratification. That is not the intent of prayer at all and certainly not the intent of the passage. And, these passages do not include some manner of touching or laying on of hands for physical healing.

Nor does the Lord's prayer include physical healing.

The gospel was fully preached (100%). It is recorded in the pages of the NT that it was. It was of necessity preached by EYEwitnesses. No so-called "preacher" claiming to "preach the gospel" today is an eyewitness of Messiah. They are liars who take upon themselves a dead work with an agenda to take money, which makes them thieves as well.

Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have FULLY PREACHED the gospel of Christ.

Mark 16:5 And he (Jesus) said unto them (the 11 apostles), Go ye (ye 11...NOT a generic directive) into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature...……….v20 And they went forth, and preached EVERY WHERE, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word WITH SIGNS following. Amen.

My mother-in-law was dead but not gone. It wasn't a physical healing but was a miraculous intervention that started her heart and brought her back to consciousness. She hadn't been dead for days or even minutes but would have died without that intervention. And it wasn't some "preacher" who did it or even the person asking for help. Sometimes, that help is given but not with the intent of "preaching the gospel" or as a witness to that. It is an act of mercy due to a stupid mistake by the nurse. As I said, mother-in-law still had a broken pelvis.

The horrendous fact that you say "you" perform healings makes you a disgusting liar. Moses was severely punished for taking credit when he struck the rock to bring forth water.

Sheila

Kimberly - you say of me: (The horrendous fact that you say “you” perform healings makes you a disgusting liar). Yeah, that's a really unkind of you say about me. Yet, you said, "..,the apostles, including Paul actually did heal everyone around them." You're giving them credit for things God alone can do. But, duh, apart from Jesus we can do NOTHING. And that's no wonder since EVERYTHING is of Jesus (Eph. 4:4-6).

My point in saying, "And, I myself have performed two instantaneous healings – and more than those, it’s just that those 2 healings were the starkest in being miraculous" wasn't to bring glory to myself - duh! And, God knows this - and He knows what Moses was doing. And, He knows what you were doing saying that the apostles and Paul healed people. I worded the healings I was used for clearly saying "I did it" to make it clear that I wasn't mistaking someone else pulling off a sham as doing it. It was me - and no mistake the cats were healed. I don't know why you took it wrong. But, I do know if you're going to go around accusing people of taking credit the way Moses did, you better quit using language elevating people (the apostles and Paul) to the status of God yourself. But bibically, the chapter of Luke 9 is about the disciples healing people. And, it flatly says the disciples healed people - through the authority was given to them by Jesus, and obviously EVERY healing was due to God, and not any of the disciples.

Yes, I DID heal the cats - God used me to do that. And, I've healed LOTS else - all with God using me to do that. And, just because your mother-in-law's hip was still broken does NOT mean it wasn't a healing for her to be brought back to life. Where in the Bible are you reading that miracles always COMPLETELY healed a person of ALL their infirmities? The Bible doesn't say that. Partial healings? We've little idea how many of the healings in the Bible were partial verses completely healing all a person's infirmities. There's specific example of both "complete" and partial in the Bible - and a whole lot of examples that don't make it clear. Specific examples of partial: Jesus healed a blind man in 2 stages (Mark 8 :23-24). And the greatest miracle is forgiveness of sins - but when Jesus forgave this man his sins, his physical infirmity remained (Mark 2:1-12). People that were physically healed all eventually died. If the people had been COMPLETELY healed, they would have never died.

God uses me to do "partial healings" on a daily basis. The glory is His. Where does healing come from if not from Him? The Bible tells us that it is through God that healing occurs John 9:30-32.

So you are saying Mark 16:15 says when the gospel witness to the world would be fully completed? What is it in that verse that says "when" it'll happen? I'm not seeing it. Matthew 28:16-20 is a description to teach all nations. It obviously is a GENERIC command, and not only to the 11. That is why other people like Apollos, Timothy, Stephen, etc were following the command of the Great Commission as well. It is why it is STILL done today. This command has NOT been completed yet. We are still in process of reaching ALL nations.

Miracles did NOT stop with Romans 15:19. 1 Cor. 13:8-12 is about when the perfect comes. And perfect is something that can be seen face to face. At that time there will be no more need for prophecies, speaking in tongues, or knowledge - and those things will pass away at that time. That time has NOT come yet, 1 Cor 15:35-58 is where Paul describes when the perfect will have come. Revelation was prophesy and wasn't written until 95 AD. Long after the time you claim that the gifts had stopped.

Prayer most definitely is for healing, as I said. It was you who later differentiated physical healing from spiritual healing. The Lord's Prayer most certainly IS about physical healing if that is the intention of the person praying: "...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" - Lk 5:12-13, is about Jesus doing what He wills by HEALING. Or, even WHATEVER part of the Lord's Prayer the person may be praying with the intention of asking for specific healing. The only legitimate prayer is "Lord heal me." And the Lord's Prayer is all about, "Lord heal me" - and yes that'd include spiritually. “Lord heal me” is the only legitimate prayer

kimberly

Sheila.....taking the specificity of scripture and applying it generically is the poorest form of biblical interpretation. Taking scripture and applying it to oneself is paranoid delusion. I cannot help you.

Sheila

Kimberly - You say: 1) "I cannot help you" - yeah, that's not biblical. 2) "taking the specificity of scripture and applying it generically is the poorest form of biblical interpretation." Yet, you take a specificity of Moses and apply it to me. Hypocritical much? Because you are with your "poorest form of biblical interpretation" comment that you yourself use. 3) "Taking scripture and applying it to oneself is paranoid delusion." That one is the grandest piece of nonsense I may have ever read. If Scripture doesn't apply to us, then what's it good for?

kimberly

Sheila....you haven't asked for my help. I never compared you to Moses. I warned you about what happened to Moses when he took it upon himself to perform a miracle. big diff. ah...you asked what the Bible is for? It is a record of condemnation against humanity to be used in the day of judgment. It is not for any one individual to use as they see fit......2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this FIRST, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Yet, it was prophesied that was exactly what would happen...that false church organizations would be started on the basis of Jesus being Messiah……….often by a single individual who would appoint themselves as having been "called" to supposedly "preach the gospel".

Luke 21:8 And he (Jesus) said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for MANY shall come in my name (IE/as "brothers".."brethren"..."Christians"), saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and the time draweth near (of my return): go ye NOT therefore after them.

Sheila

Kimberly - 1) You say, "you haven’t asked for my help." And, that's supposed to be some sort of excuse for why you CAN'T help me? Wow! How about considering offering it? Regardless, the CAN'T part of that makes no sense no matter how you spin it.

2) You say, "I warned you about what happened to Moses when he took it upon himself to perform a miracle." Yes, that's what I said, that you took a specificity of Moses and applied it to me. Hence, you fitted your own category of how you define "the poorest form of biblical interpretation" as being “taking the specificity of scripture and applying it generically." Also thus, you fitted the category of being hypocritical. BTW, admitting it has got to be your first step in overcoming it. Also, that specificity of Moses that you applied to me, does NOT apply to me because I did NOT do what Moses did. Just like when you put Paul in the same category as Jesus, you were NOT doing what Moses did. And, when the Bible itself says that Jesus' disciples were doing healings, the Bible itself did NOT do what Moses did. Case-in-point, if you're doing to use a specificity of the Bible and apply it to an individual (be it yourself or someone else or everyone) at least be accurate about it. You did it, and you weren't even being accurate.

3) You talk about 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this FIRST, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." You are sure complicating the interpretation of that. It simply means exactly what it says. It is saying a prophecy means ONLY what it means, and misinterpreting it does NOT change or add to the meaning of the prophecy. The prophecy is its OWN interpretation, and nothing else. That does NOT mean "don't privately try to interpret a prophecy." It DOES mean that your interpretation of a prophesy does NOT change the prophesy regardless if your interpretation is right or wrong.

4) Your concern about people establishing churches on the basis of Jesus being Messiah, often by a single individual who would appoint themselves as having been “called” to supposedly “preach the gospel;" is partially unfounded. Sure, there's reason to be concerned about that. But, it is a deception to believe that because that happens, NEVER is a single individual called to ACTUALLY preach to the gospel. People really are called to ACTUALLY preach the gospel nowadays. And, Paul identified for us how to ascertain the difference. These verses are guidance for finding who is legit and who is not: A) 1 Cor. 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
B) Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. In other words, preachers of the gospel are NOT going to preach a gospel contrary to what Paul preached. That's how you know whether they are legit. It seems you are demonizing ANYONE preaching the gospel in a church nowadays. Why are you doing that? Are you incapable of differentiating?

5) I asked you, "If Scripture doesn’t apply to us, then what’s it good for?" You answered, "It is a record of condemnation against humanity to be used in the day of judgment." I'm unsure I agree with that. This is a good place to explore what the Bible says about itself - https://www.openbible.info/topics/itself But regardless, your answer to me is saying that Scripture DOES apply to us. This is contrary to what you said, "Taking scripture and applying it to oneself is paranoid delusion." Because, now you are saying that taking Scripture and applying it as a record against oneself to be used in the day of judgement IS accurate application of Scripture for an individual. If it applies to humanity, it also applies to EACH individual of humanity. And, are you now going to continue to stick with that somehow that is paranoid delusion?

BTW, the way I see it, Scripture is good for showing us that God’s Son, Jesus, is guiltless, and in His innocence is His salvation of His children. And, when the perfect comes, we also will be guiltless - our sinful natures no longer just crucified (yet not dead) but dead and gone. And, being then innocent, we, too, will be guiltless sons of God. The only possibility of us being guiltless is that we belong to Jesus because we were bought at a price, and by baptism we are born again a new creature.

6) Yes, the Bible is for any one individual to use as they see fit - so long as the individual is doing the will of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible is it discouraged for people to study Scripture on their own - not even in the times of Moses which were under the old covenant. There's no example of "if you study Scripture on your own, it will be this terrible thing that happens to you." But, for instance, Heb 13:20-21 does tell us this: Now may the God of peace Who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

"Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth." - John 17:17

kimberly

Sheila is an excellent example of what a lifetime of religious brainwashing can do to hide objective biblical research. It is brainwashing to the point of paranoid delusions. My guess would be one of the more predominant cults.

Sheila

Kimberly - So what you're telling me is that in the face of a supposed brainwashed person, you are unprepared to give a defense for the hope you have?

Regardless, the CAN’T part of your ever growing list of EXCUSES makes no sense no matter how you spin it.

And, how about you ASK instead of GUESSING? Guessing without asking is a reflection of being lazy - so is making excuses.

My guess is that your denomination is Borean. Did I guess right? If not, what is it?

BTW, I was the only one who passed the question showing "not brainwashed" in high school. And, I've been in active practice of NOT being brainwashed since toddlerhood/preschool - and ever since.

kimberly

Sheila. No, I'm not Berean. And no I'm not going to ask for fear you will write a book back at me. Right or wrong..the volume of your responses are impossible to respond to. So I can't help you and I'm under no obligation to defend my biblical research.

Sheila

Kimberly - Yet, another excuse why you "can't" help me. You say, "I’m under no obligation to defend my biblical research" - I suppose that's true if you want to be unbiblical about it. But, that's undoubtedly NO reason why you CAN'T help. How about quit lying about it and say you WON'T help.

I had asked what your denomination was. And, you didn't answer. So you are going to be weak about that, too? Or, just in case you missed it, what is your denomination?

Yeah, book writing is a literal thing of mine. But, I simply would have answered you what my denomination was had you asked. You know full well not ALL my posts are a "book." And, your supposed "fear" that I would do that to answer my denomination is obviously another one of your lies.

You can choose to be unprepared to give a defense for the hope you have in the face of a supposed brainwashed person. But, what matters is what God expects of you.

Sheila

Kimberly - Where does it tell, "Miracles were no longer being performed..."

Would you also say miracles are no longer performed today?

kimberly

Sheila......Timothy was told to take wine for his stomach problems. Healing miracles were no longer being performed by then simply because the gospel witness had been completed by that time. Miracles today are fundamentally different than during that Messianic age. Today, all of us have experienced those unexplainable "near misses" and those are indications that an angel stepped in to alter the outcome in some way. However men are not going about emptying hospitals and bringing people back to life. Those kinds of miracles won't be done again until Jesus returns. So, don't believe those tv charlatans. They are fakes.

Sheila

Kimberly - Where is it written, " Those kinds of miracles won’t be done again until Jesus returns" regarding doing healings?

If that were true, why did Paul bother asking God to remove his "thorn"? Wouldn't Paul of all people know whether healing miracles were no longer occurring, and therefore NOT ask? The reason Paul's thorn was NOT removed was Rom 9:15 (For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") because God does as He pleases - and the pot has no business criticizing the potter. Jesus didn't ALWAYS heal everyone where He happened to be when He was man on earth either. If healings were happening today, why would you expect even MORE than what Jesus did? We can still do it today, but it needs to be in accordance with His will, and I've yet to meet a person who is a mind reader of God.

And, since the time of Paul, LOTS of people have even been brought back from the dead (even EXCLUDING by medical miracle). I haven't done it. I haven't seen it done. But, I've read about it and seen reenactments of the stories. And, my belief in those is based in that it DOES happen in the Bible - OT, Gospels, and Epsitles; and the other healing miracles I HAVE seen.

I've even been used to do 2 miracles that were instantaneous healings! I was the SOLE healer being used (besides God and if the cat himself was being used as a healer, & another time it was a girl cat that was instantaneously healed). And, I've done SO MANY other healings - sometimes taking longer, such as healing a crack in my tooth. But, even that was still a pretty speedy healing.

So, since it's so obvious that miraculous healings ARE happening since after the time of Paul, and even nowadays, where did you find it written that " Those kinds of miracles won’t be done again until Jesus returns"?

And, what's your take on scientific studies showing that prayer works with effectiveness beyond placebo effect?

kimberly

It is the Faith OF Jesus that matters. Not the Faith IN Jesus

kimberly

The tithe was not money. If one wished to buy back his tith with money he had to pay 15% of the value....not 10%. And there is no NT dictate to give money to some church organization. The gospel was fully preached and the NT churches were dismembered...literally. Christianity today has usurped a dead work and without any justification to steal people's money. Its is as false a religion as any other today.

Sheila

Kimberly - Yes, I know tithing in the Old Testament when it was about money was about redeeming something to be tithed - the 15%. I did NOT say 10% is tithing.

I DID say that it's common for preachers to push the CONCEPT of giving 10% of one's gross income. But, you are right if you are referring to that a whole lot of people call that concept of giving 10% tithing - including the Merriam Webster Dictionary at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tithe .

There's no NT dictate for giving to some church organization? Well duh! The only burden put upon gentile christians was Acts 15:29 - of CEREMONIAL law. If you love Jesus you follow His commandments (John 14:15) - those are NOT a burden, and are NOT ceremonial law - and Jesus lists them in Mt.19:16-19 & His new commandment John 13:34. Jesus commandments are reinforced in Romans 13:8-10. And, ALL 10 of the Ten Commandments are commanded within the Epistles - including the Sabbath - rightly understood by how Jesus defined the Sabbath.

Here's some of where it is about giving in the Epistles, and also some of it is about paying "pastors" - put in quotes because it's NOT the word used, but it FITS the category: 1 Co 16:1-2 2 Co 9:6-7 1 Timothy 5:17-18 "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Galatians 6:6 1 Corinthians 9:14 1 Corinthians 9:9-14 And here Paul directly compares the WHY for giving under the new covenant to be the same for the WHY for giving that existed under the old covenant. And, under old covenant I'd call "those who are employed in the temple" described in these Bible verses to be "some church organization." Your charge, "And there is no NT dictate to give money to some church organization" does not biblically hold water. At the very best it is deceptive - which is not cool either. Yes, while giving is NOT commanded, it IS encouraged - and IS encouraged to give to CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS. Do you really think that if bricks and motor churches divinely appeared throughout the lands at the moment of Pentecost and were SAFE to use and somehow divinely were only allowed to be used by christians that christians would have abstained from using them because having meetings in their home was a legitimate choice, too? I think they would have used the church buildings for the same obvious reasons nowadays. NOTHING wrong with the organization of christian churches today that did not ALSO exist as a problem back then (1 Cor 3 as an example describes strife amongst the various kinds of christians of that day). It'd do you well to get off your hypocrisy on this issue - & stop the division & woe your wrongful beliefs are causing. 2 Corinthians 11:7-9 - Vs 8 Paul states, "I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you." - a description of church organizations gathering money to support preachers. Philippians 4:16-19 Romans 13:7

The stereotypical christian churches of today where people gather weekly (or more) in a big building is NOT prohibited in the Bible. They ARE modeled after the churches described in the Epistles. It really is too bad for you if you still do not understand that.

If such church buildings existed back at the time of Epistles and it was SAFE to use them & only christians could us them, they would have used the buildings for the same things we do - minus technology, etc.

kimberly

The passage in Romans was specific to Paul's "you" rather than to a generic "us". One must remember that Paul's letters were to give courage to people who knew they were destined to be sentenced to be torn apart by lions in the Roman colosseum. He was NOT teaching them how to live. He was teaching them how to face death with faith in God and assurance of a better resurrection. Those times are long past. And the generic "we" of today live in the time between when the gospel was preached to completion and the return of Jesus. "We" are the "rest of the dead" and will probably die before Jesus returns to be resurrected at the day of judgement which is long after Jesus returns. A return that is necessary to prepare for that day. A day in which God Himself shall come and the dead will rise ("us") to stand before him. So, use of such passages to perpetrate some sort of abstract religiosity is to use the Bible for other than what it was written for. Yes, we can have an assurance of the Bible's actuality but that shouldn't lead to an assumption "we" are "them". Even though it gives us an understanding of what happened and of things to come and of hope.

Sheila

Kimberly - Paul was teaching people how to live - all of them, and including us. He included us by very fact that he expected the christians to continue teaching what he had taught them. Hence, he included us - all of us.

Paul was teaching people how to live. This is starkest with his dealings with the Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians (particularly chapters 2 & 3) about telling that people to quit waiting around doing nothing while they awaited Jesus' return. He taught them how to LIVE, and not wait around doing nothing.

Paul certainly was NOT teaching them that they were NOT going to live long and most certainly every one of them would face the death of a martyr. That was NOT what he taught them. He DID teach them, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain" paraphrased from Philippians 1:21. He taught it to the Philippians by use of his personal example and conviction - meant ALSO for them to apply to themselves (Philippians 4:9). And, he taught this same thing EVERYWHERE he preached the gospel - though we only see it succinctly like this in a letter to the Philippians. He taught them how to live, and about death.

Of course we are not them. But, what was with "them" applies to us - and WAS meant to apply to us. It's not like there's anything new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

kimberly

No Sheila...Paul was helping his people to face death. Not teaching them how to live. It was a sober time for those people. And "grace" is not some kind of merciful pardon. It is a delay in judgment to prevent immediate annihilation. We continue to live "under grace" but that will not avoid the day of judgement. Nor are Paul's letters generic to the point that those "ye" become today's "we". These letters are a record of what transpired and how events played out and were dealt with. This was the end of the generation of Messiah and the beginning of the end of the world. That "end" of the world has continued to this day and it is the last age of mankind's reign upon the earth and it will continue until Jesus returns.

Sheila

Kimberly - 1) I gave you Scripture examples of how Paul was teaching his people how to live. If you categorized the life and times of Paul out of the Scriptures in 2 categories of "taught people how to live" vs. "helped his people to face death," you'd have more than one in the "taught people how to live category." And, it would out number the "helped his people to face death" category. "Love your neighbor" was the huge thing Paul pushed for "how to live": Gal 5:13-14, Rom 13:8-10, Romans 15:2, 1 Corinthians 10:24,1 Thessalonians 5:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Colossians 3:13, Ephesians 4:25, Galatians 6:2, Galatians 5:22-23, Rom. 12:10, Philippians 2:3, Romans 14:13 etc. And, yet another verse that Paul describes how he LIVES, meant of course as an example for others to follow: "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Gal 2:20

What specific Scripture are you thinking of that describes Paul helping his people face death. Yes, I know such Scripture exists, but I'm wondering what specifics are on your mind.

2) You say (And “grace” is not some kind of merciful pardon). But, indeed, that is what grace is. But, you are correct that it will not avoid the day of judgement. Yes, grace is a delay in judgment, but it is because "...He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), not simply because "to prevent immediate annihilation" as you say. So as 2 Peter 3:9 describes, grace is a merciful pardon, for those who come to repentance and so do not perish.

Kawika

Here you go...

Read what you wrote:

"May 3, 2019 at 5:40 pm How come everyone, including the Universal life Church, always find problems with Christianity?Are we really that bad? I don’t believe practicing gays should be The leaders in my church, No more than the town drunk or the thief that keeps on stealing, should lead my church, and there are not. They are more than welcome to come and worship with me, another sinner. I have no problem with what you do in your church, do you have a problem with mine? If not, thank you. Howard"

Howard

Here you go…

Read what you wrote:

Kawika-Please read first Corinthians 6 chapter verse nine. If that doesn't work, please turn to Romans first chapter verse 26 through 32.If you need more, I think there are some. As far as I know you are welcome to come and set in my pew in church. I'd love to have another sinner to visit with.

Sheila

Kawika - so you've a problem with religions that believe being gay is sinful. How intolerant of you - freedom of religion! I mean wow - Howard Pippin IS tolerant of other churches completely finding the idea of gay as not associated with sin. He is TOLERANT of other beliefs while sticking to his own. I applaud just about anything that is "Live and let live" like Howard Pippin is doing - and I applaud him for being tolerant of other beliefs. I'm ok with KKK members if they have the same TOLERANCE for other beliefs - though I really dislike people finding themselves believing in races being superior to other races, but I can tolerate the belief if hateful actions are not to follow. Many religions demean the value of women - I'm a woman, and as much as I disagree, I can tolerate these beliefs if hateful actions are not to follow. There's people downright hateful toward materially "rich" people, which I disagree with, but I can tolerate if hateful actions are not to follow The Bible can be used to show negative things about gays, women, and rich people (there's more, but just some examples) - and because it feels so wrong to be biased against gays or women (though probably easy to feel biased against rich people unfortunately which I think is due to people's natural inclination to covet) it just very much seems that Paul had difficulty explaining things well, which he did confess he had a problem with: 2 Corinthians 11:6, 2 Corinthians 10:10, 1 Corinthians 2:4 , 2 Peter 3:16
Lots can be pointed about Paul seemingly hypocritical regarding women, also in comparison to what Jesus said about women, and considering even in the OT Debra was God's chosen judge to lead Israel. But, I can tolerate people believing gay is wrong, even in the NT; and that there's things wrong for women to do in comparison to men - but it does help me that at least I can see where they are getting their ideas from. Most gay people are not going against their natural inclination by being gay. I say most, because the Bible in NT does describe heterosexuals going against their natural desires to behave homosexually instead (Rm1:26-27). Seems clear to me that heterosexuals choosing to be gay is definitely immorality. But, it's not clear to me that it's immoral when gay is the person's inclination to begin with. Sex outside a committed relationship is promiscuous and is sexual immorality (I consider a lot of people married by 7-year marriage law - 7 years together after consummation, but likely I believe that just because it makes me feel better). People who divorce and remarry (& the ex isn't dead) are living in adultery and so sexual immorality - yet there's no example in NT of commanding or even encouraging such people to divorce again and be alone just so that the adultery didn't exist anymore. Seems clear to me it's the being promiscuous that the NT is referring to that cannot go to heaven. And, all of us commit sins in that list to some degree. I believe when our sinful natures are finally completely done away with, then so are the titles. I have witnessed people who beyond that shadow of a doubt believe gay is sinful, but are not at all hateful toward gays, and gays attend that pastor's church although the pastor is open about that he believes gay is sinful. BTW, the gays attending the church continue to be gay. Probably not all of them, but I'm just guessing nearly all of them stay gay. "A Course In Miracles" has a somewhat negative stance about homosexuality in T 13: 3&4 , but basically says heterosexual attitudes can be similarly distorted, but do contain a more natural potential because sex relations are intended for having children. Yet, it does not condemn homosexual relationships that I see. I know a gay man who heals people using qigong (he's a Buddhist) who is married to a man. The Bible does tell us that one cannot be doing miraculous healings except if that person is from God - John 9:33 " If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” I do not believe this refers only to Jesus (the Messiah) because the Jews were well aware of that Elijah and Elisha also did miraculous healings - obviously because they were from God, although unlike Jesus, they were sinners. It doesn't make sense that someone from God is going to be incapable of going to heaven.

What is annoying from my perspective is that in this day an age, it is so vehemently politically incorrect to talk about the merits for why people believe gay is sinful regardless of whether it's promiscuous or not. Such people that believe gay is sinful most definitely does not make them hateful people - but some people who believe it's wrong are murderously hateful people. Like that makes any sense in light of the new covenant - no, it does not make any sense. I am intolerant of murderous people, even if it is their religion.

I don't think racism is a bad thing to get out into the open either. All In The Family was considered very humorous for it's time - viewers not afraid to look at how ludicrous racism is, and not afraid to NOT hate the racist. Now that's a trick!

Ok, anyone who didn't hate me before, likely does now.

Wordy enough for you, Kawika ?

Bub

It says that god is a homophobe?

Howard

Sam May 17, 2019 at 6:47 am It says that god is a homophobe?

You read it Sam, you tell me what it says. I don't know what that word even means.

Bub

I told you what I think it says. Why don't you tell me what YOU think it says. Then look up the meaning of that mystery word I used in my previous comment. After that, go back and read that verse again.

Sheila

You ask me, "You don’t think that christians rub their religion in the faces of others like you say the atheists? Like any other religion?"

Your second question, "Like any other religion" is far harder to answer since the possibilities are infinite. So, to answer the question - I don't know.

Now your other question about christians rubbing their religion in the faces of others like [some] atheists do. I added "some," because in no way, shape, or form did I say ALL atheists do that. To answer your question, yes some christians do, and some christians don't. The ones that do, have a maturity issue within their growth as a christian (all christians do, as well as everyone else for that matter regardless of what beliefs are right). Other times, the christian is NOT rubbing it in a person's face - and it's the perspective of the offended person that's the problem - as long as the offended person's religion is being tolerated, too. Legally in our country we are supposed to tolerate all religion that doesn't break laws such as murder people, etc. And "tolerate" doesn't mean you can't express disagreement with what you are tolerating.

kimberly

Matt 18:20 is a passage specific to the apostles. It was not a generic passage directed at any "Christian". Taking such a specific passage and applying it generically to one's own agenda is the poorest form of biblical interpretation.

Sheila

Kimberly - I did not realize that about the context of Mt. 18:20 the first 5 times I read the Bible from beginning to end. I just took it for what it was saying - no agenda on my part. I hope you realize you don't need an agenda to make a mistake.

BTW, do you see a problem with public prayer when it's not for show?

kimberly

Sheila...Public prayer goes hand in hand with public preaching. Jesus and the Apostles prayed publicly in several instances although it was Jesus' practice to isolate himself when he prayed. But he called the temple the "house of prayer" (Matt 21). In my opinion, one of the greatest examples of public prayer was that of Stephen who prayed to God while being stoned to death (Acts 7). And, were the disciples not exhorted to be of "one mind" and "one mouth" in glorifying God (Rom 15:6)?

" That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Sheila

Kimberly - Yes, thank you!

And thank you that you know a lot of the ins and outs of taking the Bible into context.

Sheila

You say, "Atheism is not a religion no matter what you say." Hmmm... proof you're hoity-toity.

Never mind that the spirit of the law in the Constitution says atheism is a religion, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says atheism is a religion. You're going to make yourself feel better by attacking me as the supposed know-it-all authority.

Grow up - it's not about what I say, it's about what's true. Stop believing what you want to just because it makes you feel better - and beyond that, even superior. That's lame.

You say about prayer studies, "The ones I’ve read say just the opposite." Of course the ones you've read say the opposite. You're one of those narrow-minded atheists that'd only find that.

You say, "Point me to just ONE double blind, peer reviewed study that says that." - meaning positive results occur apparently due to prayer because it goes beyond placebo. Why stop at double blind? This one is triple blind - & showed positive results occur apparently due to prayer because it goes beyond placebo: https://truthbrothercom.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/facts-and-proof-of-god-existencescience-medical-studies/

There more if that ONE triple blind study isn't good enough for you.

Atheism is religion, because the dictionary told me so.

Bub

Sheila,

Hoity-toity? So your first sentence is an ad hom? How quaint. Who's attacking who here? In fact, your comment is riddled with logical fallacies throughout. Nice work.

You said, "Never mind that the spirit of the law in the Constitution says atheism is a religion, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says atheism is a religion. You’re going to make yourself feel better by attacking me as the supposed know-it-all authority."

First, I would never presume you to be the supposed know-it-all authority. In fact, so far, I haven't found you to be particularly authoritative on anything , and I derive no pleasure in pointing that out.

And secondly, I do mind because I don't think you understand what that means. The courts have held that the establishment clause is equally applicable to the nonreligious and the anti-religious. As the 7th Circuit Court stated, “Atheism may be considered, only in this special sense, a religion.”

"Atheism is religion, because the dictionary told me so." LOL! I almost spit coffee when I read that. Hey, if it's on the internet, it must be true!

The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not say that atheism is a religion. The second definition indeed says, "a philosophical or RELIGIOUS position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."

Religion and religious are different words that mean entirely different things, and substituting one for the other is disingenuous at best, ignorance at worst.

It's funny you should site Merriam Webster, the ONLY dictionary that has the word "religious" in one of the definitions of atheist. Try the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries, or the dozens of others for some perspective and context.

Even funnier, Noah Webster’s first compilation of American English in 1823 defined religion as involving the worship of God.

Where did you ever get the idea that I am an atheist? My wife thinks that is hilarious! You wrote, "Of course the ones you’ve read say the opposite. You’re one of those narrow-minded atheists that’d only find that."

And then you point me to a Christian blog about a study? Really? That's the epitome of hypocrisy. Fortunately in my narrow-mindedness, that study is one I found in the journal that actually published it, and I read it years ago. You obviously did not.

It is a meta-analysis of three studies, one finding that prayer helped, one finding that it didn't, and one finding that prayer actually made things worse! I'd say that's inconclusive at best. Certainly not a win for the efficacy of prayer. Try again, you said you had plenty more.

If you're really so sure prayer works, pray that I will not reply again. Hell, get all your prayer warriors together to help you. That'll show me by God!

I say your Kung Fu is no good!

Howard

Sam May 19, 2019 at 5:47 pm I told you what I think it says. Why don’t you tell me what YOU think it says. Then look up the meaning of that mystery word I used in my previous comment. After that, go back and read that verse again.

Sorry Sam I won't play your game Howard

Sheila

Sam - Quaint? Sure, such a word would serve you well as a nickname, or "Hoity-toity." Your pick.

You know what's quaint is you accusing me of doing a fallacy known as "personal attack," by in turn actually using ad hom directed at me. Yes, quaint indeed.

Your realize that with ad hom "genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." So you, instead of having a genuine discussion of the topic that it's hoity toity for an atheist to say, “Atheism is not a religion no matter what you say" ; instead you go ahead and attack my keen observation and me by using your whole first paragraph as an ad hom. Yeah, I guess nice work on your part. No, it's not.

So, the one example you gave of my supposed abundant use of ad homs, was not even an ad hom. No surprise. You're not very open-minded in your thinking. You look to find what will support your sense of superiority. Hence, hoity-toity.

You say, "...I would never presume you to be the supposed know-it-all authority." Then don't spew some nonsense about, "Atheism is not a religion no matter what you say." Like typically it'd matter to you what I say, but for this topic you are so utterly entrenched that it doesn't even matter what I say. But, since you've abundantly clarified that's not what you meant; that only leaves that you meant that you are the supposed know-it-all authority, and so what I say couldn't possibly matter in comparison to what you know to be absolutely true (never mind that of course it's not). But really I think I was right on track. You meant that no matter what I say, since really I'm no one of readily verifiable significance on the subject, atheism is not a religion (never mind that it most certainly is). And, to attack me, who is in no authority to impress you to believe otherwise, makes you feel better. In other words, easier to go after a small fish (me) than to take on a big one. Of course it's possible those are not the only 2 possibilities of what you meant about, "Atheism is not a religion no matter what you say." If not, then what did you mean? Why your emphasis on me in that comment?

So of course I wasn't going to keep the focus on pretending an impressive authority on the subject is you or me. Instead I pointed out it's absurd not to recognize what Constitution and Merriam Webster Dictionary say refuting your claim that atheism is not a religion.

You say, "Hey, if it’s on the internet, it must be true!" in sarcasm that because the Merriam Webster Dictionary is on the internet, one ought to question whether it's true. Yet, you know it's a true as the hard-copy. Mine's from 1986, and there's not a lot of difference between the two for content of definition. Though I suspect you fall for a whole lot of the propaganda on the internet - so much is from "respectable" authorities.

Anyway, yes atheism is a religion according to Merriam Webster Dictionary by #4 definition that religion is, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Although the 3rd definition may fit most atheists better as, "scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS," meaning that it must fit their criteria for determining what's real, not known yet, for sure false, etc. But, #3 & 4 also fit for agnostics, etc. Religion and religious vastly different from each other? Uh, no. Religion #3 "scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS," Religious #3 "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful." As for your quote about the 7th Circuit Court stating, “Atheism may be considered, [only] in this special sense, a religion,” you can see now that the correct way to write it is with "only" in brackets. Which means "only" is an inserted word. So, how did it originally read? I'd guess it was, “Atheism may be considered, in this special sense, a religion." Meaning, it's not the #1 definition in the dictionary for religion. Don't you see yet your constant search for feeling like the superior religion in the simplest way possible of pulling yourself out of the category. As logic dictates, that's not possible, because atheism is a religion.

You ask, "Where did you ever get the idea that I am an atheist?" Because you buy into the idea that there aren't any studies that show that prayer works. But, as it turns out, really you HAD read such studies showing that prayer works, but I'm guessing you decided to think nothing of them because of the ultimate conclusions of a study that compared study finding that prayer helped, study finding that it didn’t, and study finding that prayer actually made things worse. You claim, " Certainly not a win for the efficacy of prayer." Yet, the most obvious is that it IS a win for the efficacy of prayer. It IS showing up in some studies as better than the placebo effect would. So it's no so much as question as to whether it happens, but why in some cases, and some cases not? Is this the study you are referring to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/ ? That's the study I used that contains studies showing that prayer works. There was even a study of bush babies (the primate animal used) that showed prayer works. There's many more. You were asking for just one, why are you wanting more?

You said, "And then you point me to a Christian blog about a study? Really? That’s the epitome of hypocrisy" about the prayer study I showed for what you asked. That's not hypocrisy whatsoever. Where's the hypocrisy in that? I found that study within https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/ , which is how I found it elsewhere. What's the hypocritical part of all that? You said you'd never seen ANY. I did my best to pick ONE abundantly clear that such studies exist.

You say, "If you’re really so sure prayer works, pray that I will not reply again." Oh yeah, like it's a good idea to pray for something I don't want. Or, like anything I pray for, God will say, "yes." Luke 11:11-13 Jesus says, "What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” Now the obvious flip side of that is if you ask for something bad for you from your parent, the parent isn't going to give it to you. And, there are parents who'd give their children bad things to be mean; and it would have been perhaps interesting to hear the wisdom Jesus would impart if any of the people listening had been a child with a parent like that. My point, is God doesn't promise to give His children whatever they ask for. He does promise to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask for the Holy Spirit, and not to give them something bad in response for asking. So when Paul prayed for God to take away his physical affliction, and God didn't do it. God wasn't giving him something bad, there was loving parental purpose for it. Each of the apostles (except John) was martyred. Despite how the ways of man understand that to be bad, it was not. God's ways are higher than our ways FAR beyond a child not understanding the loving withholding of something by a parent (no you don't get to play with the loaded gun little 3-year old Johnny, etc.)

BTW, just because if arguments happen to be fallacy, it doesn't mean the premises is false.

Bub

Sheila

Obviously you are in the grip of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and your incoherent rambling word salad reveals your desperation to win at all costs. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes, and I'm praying your eyes will be opened.

I won't be engaging with you any further as I'm taking Mark Twain's advice;

'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

Have a super sparkly day!

Sheila

Sam - Sam - Wow, you replied back. I prayed you would!

Yes, you're an idiot. But, I'll take the advice in proverbs over Mark Twain's. 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5 NIV)

Although very similar to Mark Twain's, a difference is that which is more important? A) Compassion for your brother to sacrifice becoming a fool yourself so that he might not continue to be wise in his own eyes, even though after all the effort he may still be wise in his own eyes, and you have become like him. or B) Don't take the risk of helping your brother because it's going to harm you unless he does not continue to be wise in his own eyes. or C) B mightn't be a true option. Instead it might referring to don't take the risk of helping your brother because it's going to harm you if he continues to look wise in his own eyes or even if he doesn't. In which case you both fall into the pit of folly; or your brother gets out because of your compassion, but you're definitely in the folly pit to stay. & D) Mark Twain's says the idiot is definitely going to win. So with his, there's no sunny side up - no point in trying.

I like to try to side with a decision of compassion, but I don't always do that.

I do know I do listen to advice (I consider it) and I am willing to learn. I suppose one day I'll be wise if I'm not already. How about you? (being an idiot in one or more things doesn't make you an idiot in all things - you have hope)

"If you listen to advice and are willing to learn, one day you will be wise." (Proverbs 19:20 GNT)

My advise for you is that you knock of the ad hom, and instead engage in genuine discussion of the topic at hand.

To be avoiding the topic to engage in ad hom instead, is just the telltale sign you're hiding being the loser of some debate you have in mind.

Such as I found the ONE study you asked for - that was all you required. And you acted incapable of engaging in genuine discussion about it. Like LOSER even really matters. You couldn't even attempt to explain to me how me providing you to a link to a Christian blog about a study that fulfilled your requirements was somehow "the epitome of hypocrisy.”

I mean if we're both going to be such poor sports about it (gloating is unbecoming of a winner) - may as well take that to it's logical conclusion. Two poor sports having it out - interesting.

Joanne Martin

I do keep myself amused...

However I dont think I am making assumption just observations...

Joanne Martin

Prayer is not just religious...and the state is not yelling what or how to spend that day...its an "observed" holiday. Isn't it a lot more Peaceful in your life when you simple ignore something that does not impact your day to day life AT ALL...looking for things to get angry about that do not directly effect you small circle in the universe is simply asking for the spred of unnecessary hate

Kawika

Joanne Martin

I suggest you take what you read at face value.

Joanne Martin

I will ask the same of you Kawika

Sheila

Thank you for your piece and peace. Thank you for not forcing your beliefs on others, and for being tolerant of other's beliefs.

You are a breath of fresh air - thank you!

Kawika

Sheila

Brevity my friend...brevity...

It appears that your worthiness is directly proportional to your level of insecurity.

Kawika

Replace "Worthiness" with "Wordiness."

Sheila

Himmm... you say "It appears that your wordiness is directly proportional to your level of insecurity."

Must be your short way of saying, "Yeah, when you get things all convoluted and challenge me to follow what you are saying, I just can't do it. I understand a 1st grader can probably do it - but I just can't. It's beyond my ability."

Hmmm... Well, too bad for you, but great for the 1st grader.

Kawika

Joanne Martin

You are hilarious. I love the amusement.

Here, the bottom line:

A law requiring POTUS to endorse religion is not only unconstitutional but flies in the face of the principal of Separation of CHURCH and STATE.

...the rest of the rhetoric is simply funny.

Sheila

Kawika,

Only because you're comfortable with your hypocrisy do you find it amusing.

Being amused is more important to you than accepting truth.

Must be bliss - so is ignorance.

Sheila

Kawika,

As usual, you probably aren't seeing your stark hypocrisy. Here it is:

You said, "A law requiring POTUS to endorse religion is not only unconstitutional but flies in the face of the principal of Separation of CHURCH and STATE."

Yet, this is EXACTLY what YOU want. You want a law allowing ONLY atheism in government - endorsing ONLY the religion of atheism.

There is no separation of church and state. There is required no endorsement of any one religion.

Separation of church and state can't be done.

Though there are laws that disrupt non-profit status if you use a church to endorse a political party, etc.

Ok, to endorse people, but not at church services or a church's format, and not at the polls.

Kawika

Sheila

Are you an expert on hypocrisy?

Sheila

Kawika - Aren't we all an expert on hypocrisy?

Joanne Martin

One definition of prayer is an earnest hope or wish. It also states that you pray to a God or object of worship. Buddhist dont pray, we meditate.

The only one being forced to pray and observe this day is the POTUS, so I guess until they find an issue with this day it will stick. I have said it a few times now, but why waste so much energy getting angry about something that has been going on for a very long time and I can guarantee that it is not observed by anyone i have ever met. So just dont observe it. No one is forced to light off a fireworks display on the 4th of July...so should the firework display done at the White House be canceled.

Rev. Brien

As I said, I am neither for nor against, but what ever decision is made MUST be the same for ALL religions. You cannot just pick and chose. I am amazed that no one sees the built in conflict. I am not looking to be convinced, I am just trying to drag the wortless conflict out into the open. Peace

Jean Bakula

They preach all the time already. I think it's the way some Christians try to push their beliefs on others. Or think "their" church is the only right one. And it's so much in politics in the US now. I meet new people and the first thing they say is, "I'm a Christian." Not, Hello, or Nice to Meet You, Or My Name Is. It's like "I'm a Christian is supposed to explain everything about them." It's annoying, so I feel I don't want to know them any further. If so, before you know, they want you to have a copy of "their" Bible, etc.

Sheila

You say, "Christians have always been “allowed” to practice their faith." Truth be told, that's bunk even in the US. But, beings that your obviously atheist, no surprise you wouldn't recognize that. Not that some atheists don't recognize that christians are NOT always allowed to practice their religion in the US - but many, such as you, don't recognize it.

You say, "I have never seen any other religious group post so much on social media." Hmmm... so what? BTW, I don't remember seeing those on Facebook. Beings that I'm christian, I suppose they don't stick out to me, and doesn't sound like something I'd participate in. Bad experiences with chain letters is probably why - so I find stuff like that at the least to be somewhat annoying. But power to it if it uplifts others.

You say, "If schools allowed the bibles and prayer meetings, how long would it take for these kids to start preaching in class or the halls or the cafeteria?" So what? Oh, I get it. You'd much rather see your religion FORCED on others by sheer not allowing others to practice their religion in a reasonable manner. Hoity-toity atheists like you are so annoying.

Really - you don't get it? You want absence of God in schools - absence of Him. That's the very definition of your religion. Hoity-toity to the extreme.

Bub

Congrats Alicia! You're now a member of the Hoity-Toity Society, defenders of Truth, Justice, Equality and Freedom!

Sheila

Sam, you say your Hoity-Toity Society are defenders of Truth, Justice, Equality and Freedom.

No, you most definitely are not.

Find a country that doesn't have freedom of religion so your atheism can legally reign supreme as the only allowable religion.

kimberly

You're wonderfully smart Sheila but you did say "Many religions demean the value of women – I’m a woman, and as much as I disagree, I can tolerate these beliefs if hateful actions are not to follow." That is "agreeing to disagree".

Sheila

Kimberly - I see, thank you.

Maybe I don't "tolerate" things to the degree it seems I've claimed. As in continue to voice my opinion, "test the waters," and see if the logic and reasoning of the opposing party may have changed to the point of being ready for a change in thinking. Sometimes that's my form of "tolerating."

But, also, Bible encourages to "agree to disagree" in "small" issues (Rm 14:1-13)- And not to have petty arguments - 2 Timothy 2:23 (I fail at this one a lot - not too good at distinguishing what's petty and what's not). And also not to judge unbelievers by the same standards we judge believers (1 Cor.5:12-13).

So, agreeing to disagree isn't necessarily about "that person has nothing to give as evidence of their reasoning that can survive reality and logic from an opposing argument." It might simply be that it's the wrong thing to do to continue, regardless of evidence. Biblically speaking - convincing a brother of your way of thinking for "small" stuff is HARMFUL for your brother - Rom 14:20-23,particularly vs. 21 that has "... or do anything that causes your brother to stumble" in it.

kimberly

Awesome answer and all fine quotes even if taken out of context to some extent. Many who use the "agree to disagree" approach combine it with the time-honored tradition of shunning to create an impression of their superiority when they find themselves losing in the discussion.

Sheila

Kimberly - interesting that people would use "agree to disagree" to look superior rather than allowing themselves to be on the "losing" end of a discussion. It wouldn't be my reason for using "agree to disagree."