Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DMaA who wrote (55538)	7/6/1999 5:01:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) of 67261

It's a difference of perspectives really. We believe we are solely responsible for the condition of our soul. Yet we believe that without God's will we have no chance in any regard. You believe you are not responsible and that go betweens can smooth things over for you. The idea that God can't deal directly with his creation (the human condition) sort of nullifies his all powerful and all knowing characteristics. He is perfect, as is his creation, though we have limited abilities to appreciate that. The idea of having parters to God or go betweens such as the priest hood that forgive your sins is definitely not ok in Islam. There is only one qualified judge and he needs no help. There are tons of conflicts that I see in your perspective. Who did Jesus say to refer to in the prayer now refered to as the Lords Prayer, for example. And didn't he say for those who preach and cast out demons in my name, on the day of judgement I will swear I never knew you. As much as I love Jesus, the idea of John 3:16 nullifying everything else instead of validating everything else offends me. Its the word "begotten" that pretty much draws the line between us. It implies a description of God that has temporal limitation. May as well pick a stone, or a cross to worship. Not for me. Had John been commanded by Gabriel or God to instruct Jesus's followers that only by following the message/the way of Jesus (that would of course include a commitment to the level of sacrifice Jesus made for the truth) could they be saved at judgement day, I would have no problem with it. Actually I figure if 3:16 was John's actual statement he got a bit carried away, it is definitely not a message God sent him to deliver to mankind and no such attribution was made except by interpretation.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next