Do overt religious displays bias you for or against a business?

Great Debates
281

Re: Blessings

I’m not sure how **lightwait **is using it but I assume it comes from ‘may god bless you’, which to many people is a religious way to say have a nice day, but it goes further, to many Christians blessings (and curses) are real, and can flow through us to others. Words are very powerful, God said let there be light, and there was - we are made in God’s image and have some of that power through God. It is a prayer for the living God to look favorably on you. This is what Jesus told us to do, even bless those who curse you.

282

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
That is a good and fair question. The short answer is that I used to be one of those people, following the principals and going through the motions, sometimes picking and choosing what I wanted to follow, molding His teachings to my desires. From that experience I know that back then I would have considered myself a Christian, looking back I now would not consider myself one at that time (or at least a backslidden Christian).

Or as pointed out earlier, the term Christian can refer to anyone who claims to be one regardless of their true beliefs, so it that respect yes I was a Christian but not a follower of Jesus at that time.

If you are referring to a preacher, then this does not apply, I will not blindly take someone’s word on the scriptures, I will take the Bible as source text.

If you are referring to the Bible itself being second hand information, I have found to my satisfaction that the NT is at least accurate enough to be useful today to reach God, the spiritual gifts are real and true. Since the NT is true as far as I’m concerned, and the NT states that Jesus used the OT (IIRC every book of the OT except one is referenced in the teachings of Jesus in the NT), I would have to assume that the OT is also true.

Agreed, and I do look into other peoples translations and see if I can agree with them. Two interesting cases on this board, One poster has presented the idea that people can have the Holy Spirit indwelling them without them knowing Jesus (but still having Him) - it is a interesting idea and takes a bit unusual way of interpretation but it’s something I can’t dismiss as unscriptural and something I continue to research in my readings. Another poster takes only a certain aspect of the scriptures and dismissing/ignoring the rest, something I see as scripturally unsound.
[/QUOTE]

Your argument is a circular one, You come across to me (at least) that you believe(and that is your right) that your interpretation is the only correct one,or that you are oone of the only true Christians, but I cannot see where your interpretation now, is any better than when you say you believed differently. You seem to discount the fact that there are many sincere people who could be just as right(or wrong) as you. It is a matter of what human accounts you accept. You follow what someone said Jesus said( or did).since there are no original writings and that Jesus never seemed to have written anything except when he was said to write in the sand, there is no way of knowing for sure.

How do you decide what is true or not? Isn’t it just your faith in some human who could be wrong or right?

Monavis

283

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
So if Jesus gave you the cure for AIDS, perhaps some refined produce of a rainforest tree and you went around telling people about this and the source of this information how would the public look at you?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, another religion has beat Christianity to the herbal cure for AIDS.

"After the treatment session last week, Jammeh emerged carrying a tall wooden staff, a string of Islamic prayer beads and a leather-bound Quran. In front of him, 30 new patients waited on lawn chairs, drawn from the roughly 20,000 people currently living with HIV in Gambia.

He told them that during treatment they must cease drinking alcohol, tea and coffee. They also cannot eat kola nuts or have sex.

Jammeh then held up the Quran, pointing it at each of the patients: “In the name of Allah, in three to 30 days you will all be cured,” he said."
Don’t worry though, there’s a whole line of Jesus-inspired products for other diseases.

284

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
It is a prayer for the living God to look favorably on you. This is what Jesus told us to do, even bless those who curse you.
[/QUOTE]
I am aware of that, however, there is more than a bit of irony displayed when the person saying “blessings” or “bless you” or “have a nice day” uses it to close a message in which he has just told his audience to sod off.

285

[QUOTE=monavis]
Your argument is a circular one, You come across to me (at least) that you believe(and that is your right) that your interpretation is the only correct one,or that you are oone of the only true Christians,
[/QUOTE]

Yes I can see that, and as I stated it I do agree with you when you post:

But there is so much more, that even if I went into things like spiritual gifts (and I have in the past), and though it is enough proof to me, it won’t convince you as I am not able to prove it to you. That’s for God to do.

While the 4 Gospels are assumed to be written down years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the letters were written and copied, so we can assume even with human standards they are pretty accurate to the original letters, though as you state contain very little direct quotes of Jesus. Revelation has Jesus dictating to St. John the Divine which is a letter and we can assume that even with human standards it is pretty close to what Jesus said and reveled.

286

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Sorry, another religion has beat Christianity to the herbal cure for AIDS.
[/QUOTE]

OK is the American Medical Asso. doing some double blind studies, is it pending FDA approval? What is your reaction to this cure? You think anyone is going to take Der Trihs seriously when he tells that Jesus has reveled the cure to aids?

And other religions, or what I would consider spiritually based faiths has IMHO cured diseases, not all by the power of God (again IMHO).

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

I am aware of that, however, there is more than a bit of irony displayed when the person saying “blessings” or “bless you” or “have a nice day” uses it to close a message in which he has just told his audience to sod off.
[/QUOTE]

OK I got you. I took lightwait’s comments a bit different, less of telling everyone to sod off, and more like I don’t care to debate, but I can see it in the sod off way too.

287

Pardon, but I be a bit dizzy here. You want double blind studies done on the Gambia/islamic herbal no-sex-or-kola-nuts-for-you cure, but would accept other faith-derived cures on the basis of IMHO?

The mind reeleth.

288

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Pardon, but I be a bit dizzy here. You want double blind studies done on the Gambia/islamic herbal no-sex-or-kola-nuts-for-you cure, but would accept other faith-derived cures on the basis of IMHO?
[/QUOTE]

2 separate issues here:

1- No one will believe Der Trihs when he says that Jesus came to him and told him the cure to aids, like no one believes the person doing the Gambia/islamic herbal no-sex-or-kola-nuts-for-you cure. When I say no one, I’m not saying that perhaps Der Trihs couldn’t do some small amount of cures for the glory of God, but people who can bring this cure to approval and market won’t listen and Der Trihs will look like a fool to them, and perhaps made a fool by them.

2 - I do believe in spiritual healings, including demonic/satanic ‘healings’ for their own deceptive purposes

289

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Yes I can see that, and as I stated it I do agree with you when you post:

But there is so much more, that even if I went into things like spiritual gifts (and I have in the past), and though it is enough proof to me, it won’t convince you as I am not able to prove it to you. That’s for God to do.
While the 4 Gospels are assumed to be written down years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the letters were written and copied, so we can assume even with human standards they are pretty accurate to the original letters, though as you state contain very little direct quotes of Jesus. Revelation has Jesus dictating to St. John the Divine which is a letter and we can assume that even with human standards it is pretty close to what Jesus said and reveled.
[/QUOTE]

It is then, that one believes in John the Divine, and we can’t know if he misquoted Jesus, I know 2000 years ago it took a long time for word to spread and it is the same today as far as if a person is misquoted or not. I know I have been misquoted and someone took my meanings is a different way. As an example: Years a go if I said someone was gay, it meant he (or she) was happy, today it means something quite different.

How do you know that God hasn’t convinced me to the thinking I have now?

Monavis

290

[QUOTE=monavis]
It is then, that one believes in John the Divine, and we can’t know if he misquoted Jesus, I know 2000 years ago it took a long time for word to spread and it is the same today as far as if a person is misquoted or not. I know I have been misquoted and someone took my meanings is a different way. As an example: Years a go if I said someone was gay, it meant he (or she) was happy, today it means something quite different.
[/QUOTE]

We can assume St John understood what Jesus was telling him. Could St John have misunderstood, and then mistranscribed, perhaps, but unlikely, and Jesus may have been there looking over his shoulder at the time to point out any corrections. There is more of a possibility that St. John would have mistranslated what Jesus reveled, as the revelation itself really pushed the ability of a person of that time to understand. So St. John had to come up with ways to put into written words what he saw.

The OT is a bit different, there are arguments of when scriptures were written down and how long they were passed down by word of mouth. While we can normally expect word of mouth handed down for generations to change over time much more then written text, it does appear that the ability of writing does go back far enough to suspect that much of the OT was written quite early.

But the OT has another issue that the NT does not, that being the Hebrew language, not only not having vowels, there is usually many definitions for every word. One example is the word AVAD which can mean to work or worship, with many such words with multiple meanings it is a bit of a puzzle to piece together.

291

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
We can assume St John understood what Jesus was telling him.

[/QUOTE]

Why?

292

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Revelation 1:1 NIV]

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
[/QUOTE]

It’s in the first verse of the first chapter, Jesus just didn’t show St. John, Jesus made it known to St. John. This is translated in different forms, but most seem to indicate that Jesus did communicate to St John with no room for fuzziness.

Here we have Jesus explaining what St. John saw, so it seems like Jesus wants St. John to know.

[QUOTE=Revelation 1 NIV ]
19"Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels[c] of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
[/QUOTE]

Here St John is so confident that the words he has written down are accurate he includes this:

[QUOTE=Revelation 22:19,20 NIV]

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
[/QUOTE]

293

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
It’s in the first verse of the first chapter, Jesus just didn’t show St. John, Jesus made it known to St. John.
[/QUOTE]

According to John.

You are accepting his word for it. Why?

294

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
According to John.

You are accepting his word for it. Why?
[/QUOTE]

Objection! Hearsay! :slight_smile:

295

[QUOTE=acsenray]
Objection! Hearsay!
[/QUOTE]

I believe the words of a dead person are admissible, but we’re talking about his written word, so the hearsay objection is overruled.

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
You are accepting his word for it. Why?
[/QUOTE]

God has allowed me to, the words are true. From what I posted above in Rev 22:19,20 it shows to me that St. John knew what he wrote down is accurate and complete, and I believe the revelation was from God.

296

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
We can assume St John understood what Jesus was telling him. Could St John have misunderstood, and then mistranscribed, perhaps, but unlikely, and Jesus may have been there looking over his shoulder at the time to point out any corrections. There is more of a possibility that St. John would have mistranslated what Jesus reveled, as the revelation itself really pushed the ability of a person of that time to understand. So St. John had to come up with ways to put into written words what he saw.

The OT is a bit different, there are arguments of when scriptures were written down and how long they were passed down by word of mouth. While we can normally expect word of mouth handed down for generations to change over time much more then written text, it does appear that the ability of writing does go back far enough to suspect that much of the OT was written quite early.

But the OT has another issue that the NT does not, that being the Hebrew language, not only not having vowels, there is usually many definitions for every word. One example is the word AVAD which can mean to work or worship, with many such words with multiple meanings it is a bit of a puzzle to piece together.
[/QUOTE]

It is my understanding that nothing was written about Jesus until after this death and returning to heaven, so Jesus couldn’t possibly be looking over John’s shoulder.
Memories can be false as well. I have a sister who remembers things differently than the rest of the family,she is sincere in her beliefs but sometimes uses what one of the other family members have, to share it as her own.

It seems to help you live a good life so your beliefs (like mine) are what we find helpful in life. That doesn’t make others beliefs that are different any more right or wrong than ours.

Monavis

Monavis

297

[QUOTE=monavis]
so Jesus couldn’t possibly be looking over John’s shoulder.
[/QUOTE]

This is scripturally inaccurate as I read it on 2 levels, the first is that God knows all and sees all, so Jesus can see what goes on here on earth from His seat and the right hand of the Father, second is that Jesus came to John from Heaven in Revelation, Jesus was there. BTW this is not the only time in scripture that Jesus came back to earth, one very well known occurance was when Jesus came to Saul, a opponent of Jesus and the early church, after which Saul changed his name to Paul and wrote about 1/2 of the NT.

So we are not talking about years after the fact or even days, Jesus instructed St. John in person to write down these things at the time of the revelation.

298

[QUOTE=monavis]
It is my understanding that nothing was written about Jesus until after this death and returning to heaven
[/QUOTE]

Also there are some nonbiblical historical record that appear to be written during His life on earth, mainly government records IIRC.

299

Roundabouts where I live there is a Jesus radio station with huge billboards everywhere: “104.1 The Fish! Safe for the whole family!” (accompanied with a photo of a smiling (usually) white family). From billboard to billboard, the families may change, but the slogan is always the same.

I just want to go to their offices and firebomb them. (Just kidding, CIA or whoever Bush has tasked with protecting Jesus now). Not because their music makes me want to vomit; I’m sure my sort of music makes someone else vomit. It’s because their entire sale for their radio station is “safe for the whole family!!!” Not “It’s good inspirational music, and it’s safe for the whole family.” Not, “It will set your toe tapping and it’s safe for the whole family.” Apparently they believe (and they may be right) that there is is some target demographic that cares nothing about the quality of the music as long as it’s safe… they just want something that emits a bland steady drone from the ClearChannel mother hive that is free of anything that might promote “unsafe” thoughts.

I am thinking of launching a competitor station with a playlist consisting of public service announcements, prune juice advertisements, judiciously tuned white noise, and a single continuous tone. I’ll advertise it as a competitor to THE FISH and promote it as “THE SAFEREST RADIO STATION EVAR”.

300

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
I’ll advertise it as a competitor to THE FISH
[/QUOTE]
Are the call letters WHAL taken?