Search results

Not necessarily. You're assuming that the intention is to combine in this way-- to "be one" in the sense of one big group. However, there is a difference between "being one" physically and "being one" spiritually. No doubt, your assumption is based on what you have learned in church. And why...

The linguistics don't matter an ounce when you take the context into account. How many of Jesus' parables feature individual people doing individual acts? And how many feature groups of people all working together to perform a group act?

Ah, but you see, these decisions occured in essentially the same moment. Thus, there could not have been a change on the influences acting upon my mind. Thus, your assertion falls flat.

Ahh, but I did BOTH, Rodger. I said I was going to do it, and then I decided not to. How does this disprove your ideas? It's simple: People's actions derive from their thoughts. So too do their words. If our actions are defined at any moment in time by the greatest influence upon us...

No, it does not make perfect sense to ask this question, and I'm pretty sure that you just blew your own argument out of the water. The keys to your argument are: 1. People don't have free will; they act as they are most strongly influenced to act. 2. God is ultimately influencing these...

Notice that in this parable, nobody makes an exponential increase of the talents given to them. Also, nobody pools their talents together with other people in order to create a massive amount of talents, with which to build a kingdom. This parable is very much a personal message to individual...

Listen carefully: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works..." Is Jesus talking about "the church" as a whole, or each individual Christian? I believe he was talking to each individual Christian. And what brings glory to the Father? Going off and doing grand...

Theology is extrapolating meaning from something that was not said. Interpretation is listening to what has been said. I'm interpreting.

Nobody really loves Toffee Crisps, guy. I thought you were bright enough to see the distinction... *sigh*

If I had free will, I wouldn't. However, since I don't have free will, I am unable to give you an answer on this subject. By the way, why did you even ask me that question? If there really is no free will, it makes absolutely no sense to ask such a question.

Hmmmm.... I'm getting the feeling that I may have to stand in line before it's my turn to kick you in the sack :p

So.... if I meet you on the street, and kick you right in the sack, as hard as I can, you're saying that I really didn't have any choice in the matter? Do you think that'll hold up in court? Will you testify for me? I think I'm starting to like this way of thinking. :D

Oh, so that's what I think! Thanks for telling me, Rodger. :rolleyes: A couple of years ago, there was a guy who posted something on this forum about a group of people who were somehow set apart from the rest of us by God.... they had a name for themselves, but I forget what it was...

The first rule of logic is that terms do not mean all things to all people; they mean what they mean, and any added meaning or improper use of the term is illogical. And theology is conjecture. Ever thought the theologians might be wrong, Tommy? Didn't Jesus say that by the time of the...

Because in the beginning there was God, and God was only one thing. Now, if God is love (which is to say, God's character is the personification of love), then does it not follow that the true meaning of love is one thing, rather than several things? My thoughts do not derive from the English...

Ah, I see now. Basically, what you're saying is that it's impossible not to have chosen the choice that you've made. Of course it's impossible not to choose what you chose, because what you chose was chosen because you chose it. Now if you had chosen differently when you chose to make that...

Umm.... what?! I mean........ what?! .... If the philosophers were trying to bring love back to its original meaning, why did they end up with three meanings, instead of one? They were not simplifying the subject at all; they were over-complicating it, which is exactly where we stand right...

Yeah, thanks for all the links. I'll be sure to check them all out...:rolleyes:

But you do admit that if love is to be divided into categories, and if one of those categories is to be designated as Eros as the Greeks maintain, that the buggery of children by Greek philosophers is within the scope of that category? Is it not written, "You will know a tree by its fruit,"...

Then why didn't God cease creation with the animals? Animals do God's will; the "want to" is ingrained into their instincts. Here's what I don't get: God's going to impart "want to" into people who otherwise wouldn't want to do what he wants them to do. Sounds to me like God is second-rate...