Is there a preacher in the house?

[MorningStar]

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with wanting to win?

(Not that there was any 'contest' here whatsoever with you or anyone else here.)

The only contest was the bet with my cousin.

 

[eddieb]

matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

i saw a video of a saline injection abortion once. when the needle penetrated the womb the baby shook with fear. if it can feel emotions or fear, it is alive. therefore murder. Jesus did speak against that.

also in Jesus' day the word abortion, did it even exsist? any point she has is moot. abortion is murder. murder is an offensive thing. so yeah he did say something about it.

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

God does not condone murder of the inocent child and proves it when he said suffer not the little children to come unto ME ..for such is the kingdom of heaven is made of..ive tried to read this thread through to make sense of it.the one thing that really sticks out at me is this..IMHO God needs us to help win the lost ..IF NOT ME LORD THAN WHO WILL YOU SEND?although if salt lose its flavor than pour it out..we are salt to the world..which means we should leave a good taste in peoples mouths and to fight or push the word to prove a point hurts more than it heals ..we just plant the seed someone else waters and God recives the harvest..IMHO the parable of the tares and wheat sum it up best ..the workers in the field said there is tares (weeds) in our wheat lets run out and pull them...Christs answer was this..DO NOT remove them least you disturib the good Plants..seperate them at harvest instead..a caution for us to not upset the balance of things but to wait for God to do the seperating at His coming or the end time Harvest in the mean time plant his word wherver we can and pray the Harvest in..instead of worring about our personal tallys..In Christ name..Rev

 

[Kit Carson]

Uuugh, no, it was because those verses did not meet the criteria of the bet. How many times do I have to point that out? Sheesh.
They were not in his own words, were too vague by not having all the points of the message of saving sins by dying on a cross, or because they were completely irrelevant. It had NOTHING to do with personal pride, but pride in God's word being defended.

I will admit that I had to eat MUCH crow with her because she was actually right, not only on that point, but pretty much all the points she made with me. If anything THAT was a dent in my armour. To be honest, I'm quite surprised the bible condones killing innocent children, and smashing babies upon rocks, ripping open pregnant women, and not a thing about abortion, specifically.

So, I'm doing a bit of research on these things.

Always learning. :embarasse

Good Murning:

As you read the bible and research it, let it talk to you. Many of the answers that are not put into print are in the overall context of the truth of Gods spirit.

The bible says we shall not kill, that is black and white, and it means not to kill without cause, but it does not say anywhere do not go next door and beat up your neighbor because their dog did something in your yard. It simply says to love and treat your neighbor with respect and to go discuss this with him in an intelligent way. It is a moral understanding of things. Many of the laws of morality are within us. The bible will talk to you if you read it in a way wanting to know. If you mock it as you read it you end up with the baby bashing taking over your result.

Baby bashing and other things, spoken of in the bible were in many cases God looking ahead, telling the people the results of what would and will be for the sin of idol worship. You are men says God, and you are violent, when I use one part of you against another part of you, there will be untold violence. In some of the Psalms you see both fear and worry about death on one side and the joy of dispensing it in others. You see men speaking with their emotions to God. You see if with respect you can speak to God about anything, you can gripe, complain, get mad, ask questions, beg, as long as it is with respect. And yes you can talk of killing and the horror of it to God. So much of the baby bashing was God in an act of command due to idol worship, or men crying to God about the results, both in horror and in action of it. But under it all is the understanding of the justification of it, and looking at the world today, the result of allowance is instantly seen. In the old days the guilty and the criminal were killed, in the new days the guilty and the criminal are rewarded and the innocent ......innocent by our laws.....are killed.

Abortion.........well you see during those times it was not an issue. The world was not highly populated, and the goal was to populate the earth. Abortion is a situation of murder if done for selfish reasons, such as quite simply ........I do not want the child. Or I got pregnant from sin to begin with, and this is a very bad thing in my life right now, I do not for whatever reason want this child. This is murder.

God has little to say, mans traditional law says in those days if two men fight, and the woman is caught up in it and is pushed, thrown , hit ,or in some way hurt and the baby is aborted, that the punishment is set by the elders. But it was recognized as an accident and not a deliberate act.

So they were aware of abortion. They also lived a long life and did learn many things. So I am sure they knew how to abort a child if the mothers life as in danger and or there were indications it was a needed act. They would have done no less for one of their animals, but only in need . To abort a child just because, is murder, but for sane reasons it is not.

Many opinions on this, today, mostly all of them from men.

I like to listen to what Gods word says. I find him very intelligent, full of common sense and if his simple rules of morality are followed, very compassionate and he is always the same in any situation.

The main key......is to follow him, to take your own pride and put it away. Go listen and let the word of God speak to you. When you go with closed ears to begin with, it does you little good. As Satan is sitting there with all that baby bashing and loves to turn you away.

As for winning, I like to win too. But if it means I will cause harm or in some way have a negative result, I prefer to lose. Bending like a reed sometimes works better than pounding their ears full of sand. You see Christ and the holy spirit simply need you or I to speak the truth one time, then just like with us, the battle is between the truth and that persons own spirit. We are out of it at that point, and they have the freedom of choice.


Respectfully

Kit

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

Good Murning:

As you read the bible and research it, let it talk to you. Many of the answers that are not put into print are in the overall context of the truth of Gods spirit.

The bible says we shall not kill, that is black and white, and it means not to kill without cause, but it does not say anywhere do not go next door and beat up your neighbor because their dog did something in your yard. It simply says to love and treat your neighbor with respect and to go discuss this with him in an intelligent way. It is a moral understanding of things. Many of the laws of morality are within us. The bible will talk to you if you read it in a way wanting to know. If you mock it as you read it you end up with the baby bashing taking over your result.

Baby bashing and other things, spoken of in the bible were in many cases God looking ahead, telling the people the results of what would and will be for the sin of idol worship. You are men says God, and you are violent, when I use one part of you against another part of you, there will be untold violence. In some of the Psalms you see both fear and worry about death on one side and the joy of dispensing it in others. You see men speaking with their emotions to God. You see if with respect you can speak to God about anything, you can gripe, complain, get mad, ask questions, beg, as long as it is with respect. And yes you can talk of killing and the horror of it to God. So much of the baby bashing was God in an act of command due to idol worship, or men crying to God about the results, both in horror and in action of it. But under it all is the understanding of the justification of it, and looking at the world today, the result of allowance is instantly seen. In the old days the guilty and the criminal were killed, in the new days the guilty and the criminal are rewarded and the innocent ......innocent by our laws.....are killed.

Abortion.........well you see during those times it was not an issue. The world was not highly populated, and the goal was to populate the earth. Abortion is a situation of murder if done for selfish reasons, such as quite simply ........I do not want the child. Or I got pregnant from sin to begin with, and this is a very bad thing in my life right now, I do not for whatever reason want this child. This is murder.

God has little to say, mans traditional law says in those days if two men fight, and the woman is caught up in it and is pushed, thrown , hit ,or in some way hurt and the baby is aborted, that the punishment is set by the elders. But it was recognized as an accident and not a deliberate act.

So they were aware of abortion. They also lived a long life and did learn many things. So I am sure they knew how to abort a child if the mothers life as in danger and or there were indications it was a needed act. They would have done no less for one of their animals, but only in need . To abort a child just because, is murder, but for sane reasons it is not.

Many opinions on this, today, mostly all of them from men.

I like to listen to what Gods word says. I find him very intelligent, full of common sense and if his simple rules of morality are followed, very compassionate and he is always the same in any situation.

The main key......is to follow him, to take your own pride and put it away. Go listen and let the word of God speak to you. When you go with closed ears to begin with, it does you little good. As Satan is sitting there with all that baby bashing and loves to turn you away.

As for winning, I like to win too. But if it means I will cause harm or in some way have a negative result, I prefer to lose. Bending like a reed sometimes works better than pounding their ears full of sand. You see Christ and the holy spirit simply need you or I to speak the truth one time, then just like with us, the battle is between the truth and that persons own spirit. We are out of it at that point, and they have the freedom of choice.


Respectfully

Kit

and to God be the praise Thanks for that Kit

 

[Kit Carson]

Yes Sir...Mr. Perkins.

To God is always the praise, from God is always the truth. Such a simple way. To simply bow our own will and accept his. It is not so hard.

Kit

 

[MorningStar]

Well, after some research it does certainly show that the bible does indeed condone killing children for what most reasonable people would consider 'petty' reasons and the justifications for these killings are weak at best. Meaning, it doesn't matter what 'time period' it was, it would still be unreasonable to kill a child for petty reasons, especially if that child had absolutely no crime or understanding of why their action would have been wrong. (ie. the age of understanding).

For example, Exodus 21:15 and 17 state a child should be killed (which the punishment was take large stones and smashing their head till their head splattered blood and they died), for simply striking or cussing a parent.

Exodus 21:<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-2093">15</sup> "Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death."
Exodus 21:<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-2095">17</sup> “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."


The 'cussing' or cursing a parent, when applied in context with the original Hebrew/Judaic texts meant cursing just as taking the Lord's name in vain. The 'striking' (or attacking) part is self explanatory, although I have seen MANY weak apologetic sources state it was if the child killed a parent, but the original Hebrew words do not match that translation. Also, a small child would not have the strength to kill a full grown adult, so this is clearly an action which most 'moral' and sane people would consider 'petty'.

There is also much contention over the questionable actions of Elijah in 2nd Kings 2:24 where he kills 42 children for simply calling him 'bald'. According to the bible, Elijah sent two 'she bears' to rip to shred these 42 children as they called him 'baldy' while he ascended a hillside. I must admit, even through the eyes of a Christian, I must question how a supposed 'holy man' could be so petty as to destroy 42 children for a superficial bit of name calling. You would think a supposedly 'moral' and 'holy' person would have more patience and at least offer a scolding, a lesson, rebuking, even a second chance etc....but no, all the children got was a violent, bloody death.

Now, could this story be metaphorical? I would think yes, highly likely. The possibility of just two bears being able to kill 42 children is simply not possible unless all these children were paraplegic, blind, or severely mentally challenged. I mean, how in the world does 42 bears catch 42 screaming, frantically running children? Did they all just huddle in a group while the bears just killed them one by one? Not likely.

The only problem with this particular story being metaphorical is that it would still be considered 'scare tactics for kids' to keep them in line, literally bordering on 'mental child abuse'...still very disturbing in my opinion.

I guess some things just do not make sense after hundreds of re-writings, hearsay, mistranslations, etc. of the bible.

 

[MorningStar]

Regarding abortion, the bible in no way shape or form justifies killing unborn babies. The commandment of 'thou shalt kill' does not specifically mention the unborn.

Also compared to the original Hebrew texts, the age of considering a child living was when they took their first breath. Not at conception. There is no verses stating conception is when they are considered human babies.

I have always found the mistake of considering 'viable biological tissue' as a 'living baby' with full consciousness and awareness. A group of cells is not a baby, it is simply biological tissue that must further developed to become a baby. Additionally, the baby MUST be able to breath on its own according to Judaic/Hebrew texts.

If we were to consider ALL biological tissue as 'living babies' and adjust our actions to protect all living cells, it would completely stop all human function.

An example...Scratch your nose and you have just committed a veritable holocaust of baby death considering that all of our cells have the DNA blueprint for human life....so where do we draw the line?

Are we to consider all human body cells as babies? No, that would be utterly absurd. Living tissue is not a baby. There is NO proof a biological cell has 'consciousness'.

Also, a doctrinal problem with using the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment is that people forget that its not JUST 10 Commandments...it 614 Commandments.

If you read past the first 10, the bible immediately gets into condonements of not only TO kill, but WHO to kill, and even HOW to kill. So, how does one go from an assumed 'blanket statement' of saying 'thou shalt not kill' directly to 'thou MUST kill', and even tell who to kill and how?

So, I guess the question for Christians trying to understand these things would be....

Say you had a 5 year old child and that child struck you. Would you kill your child as God commands you to do in Exodus 21:15?

Or, would you spare your child's life, and offer them a second chance?

 

[Kit Carson]

Well, after some research it does certainly show that the bible does indeed condone killing children for what most reasonable people would consider 'petty' reasons and the justifications for these killings are weak at best. Meaning, it doesn't matter what 'time period' it was, it would still be unreasonable to kill a child for petty reasons, especially if that child had absolutely no crime or understanding of why their action would have been wrong. (ie. the age of understanding).

For example, Exodus 21:15 and 17 state a child should be killed (which the punishment was take large stones and smashing their head till their head splattered blood and they died), for simply striking or cussing a parent.

Exodus 21:<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-2093">15</sup> "Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death."
Exodus 21:<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-2095">17</sup> “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."


The 'cussing' or cursing a parent, when applied in context with the original Hebrew/Judaic texts meant cursing just as taking the Lord's name in vain. The 'striking' (or attacking) part is self explanatory, although I have seen MANY weak apologetic sources state it was if the child killed a parent, but the original Hebrew words do not match that translation. Also, a small child would not have the strength to kill a full grown adult, so this is clearly an action which most 'moral' and sane people would consider 'petty'.

There is also much contention over the questionable actions of Elijah in 2nd Kings 2:24 where he kills 42 children for simply calling him 'bald'. According to the bible, Elijah sent two 'she bears' to rip to shred these 42 children as they called him 'baldy' while he ascended a hillside. I must admit, even through the eyes of a Christian, I must question how a supposed 'holy man' could be so petty as to destroy 42 children for a superficial bit of name calling. You would think a supposedly 'moral' and 'holy' person would have more patience and at least offer a scolding, a lesson, rebuking, even a second chance etc....but no, all the children got was a violent, bloody death.

Now, could this story be metaphorical? I would think yes, highly likely. The possibility of just two bears being able to kill 42 children is simply not possible unless all these children were paraplegic, blind, or severely mentally challenged. I mean, how in the world does 42 bears catch 42 screaming, frantically running children? Did they all just huddle in a group while the bears just killed them one by one? Not likely.

The only problem with this particular story being metaphorical is that it would still be considered 'scare tactics for kids' to keep them in line, literally bordering on 'mental child abuse'...still very disturbing in my opinion.

I guess some things just do not make sense after hundreds of re-writings, hearsay, mistranslations, etc. of the bible.

None of us were there. But it all makes sense actually. I view it as all true and all justified.

It is raining today and I am piddling around so let me tell you a true story. If this child had done to my wife what this adopted child did to a relative, I would have killed him where he stood. You see the bible is not talking about little children, but a very evil teenage kid,and there are some out there that are totally evil. Talking to them and reason does not work. Death, jail, or confinement or in the modern way put into some institution which to me is not an answer but it is what we do today.

In any event this child was adopted by one of my Aunts. He was around 13 or so when they did so. As he grew he began to demand money to support his many sinful habits and grew out of control. Sure they went to this social some such and that one and this one and as usual mans rules are very liberal and do not much to resolve much of anything. As he turned age 19 he beat his foster parents and began to threaten them. This child eventually was killed in a gun fight with the police during a crime.

Had he been this evil and I was head of the house ,and he tried to beat me or did beat his adopted mother, I would have killed him as he stood in his shoes. There is a point when evil takes over. There is no resolution to it. One simply eliminates the evil.

So the bible story with the 42 children. They were not small young innocent children. Children from age ten or so are not so innocent in many situations and societies anyway. I can today take you to some places where a ten year old will kill you for you wallet. Or just kill you because you are on their turf.

So what we have here are a group of young teen age tuffs, arrogant, belligerent, evil and with no thought of their actions. This prophet is not their first victim. They are used to preying on those who come to this village.

Ever see a big bear up close in the wild? Ever faced one down that is intent on eating you? They are very quick and can run much faster than any person. One swat with a large paw and you are done. Did the village tuffs run in fear or did they in their arrogance think they could stand and overcome the bears also? In any event two very mad bears can and could kill as many as they wish, especially with the spirit of control within them. God does at times control an animal such as when he caused them to all come peacefully to the Ark. To travel on their own and come to Noah.

God is good, but he does not play games. There is a point he will not put up with things. Many refuse to even discuss these things, and try to avoid them. But I went to God and demanded to know, to understand and in all his answers to me, he acted only when it was totally a requirement.

He put into my spirit also, there is a point when evil has only one solution. And that is to destroy it. Being nice nice and trying all the kind ways is admirable and to be used first. But there is a point when that child is totally out of control, is beating the parent and is a threat to their lives and well being, that action is required. God tells us by these examples and by his word that the day will come when the full measure of sin and nonsense is reached. When the cup is full, he tells us in his word he will act. It is not going to be a fun time for the evil at this point either. They will suffer much. And with total justification.

In the old days they did not molly coddle them. There were no insane institutions, no rehabilitation institutions and you lived your life by Gods word or you gave it up. It is only today that they molly coddle them and create more evil out of it all. Some do and are changed, but at what cost?? And can they ever be trusted??

No some children when they enter mid to late teens, and are out of control, well I can take you to some places where a ten year old will kill you simply because you are on their turf. They have no value of life at all. They in turn will die young over some street situation. It is a way of life in some areas. They grow up in a situation that is sin from day one and it grows.

Today we see it happening on a large scale in our schools and in our children. We see how simple discipline is now considered abuse. A child has the right to speak up against a teacher and to overcome the teacher. Their parents support the child. The child learns that evil is allowed and rewarded. So instead of learning to face problems and to live side by side, they take a gun to school and kill many.

Read the bible, listen and learn, watch how we are becoming today and learn the lesson. There is a point when evil reaches its full measure and it is simply destroyed.

Kit

 

[MorningStar]

Sorry Kit, but the bible does not say 'teenager' or youngman/woman...but only 'child'. That would include preteen and younger, all ages of children. The Hebrew of the original bible is quite clear on this. Nor does it give the requirement of striking a parent to the point of death. Additionally, there are later commandments for murder that would cover that already.

I'm sorry, but it is physically impossible for 2 bears to kill 42 children unless those children stayed in one place. There was no mention of God keeping them in one place, or the bears being turned into some kind of 'Super Bears' by God. Therefore, your assumptions and justifications are completely illogical and non-scriptural.

There is no justification for killing a child, especially of a young age for simply calling someone bald, or simply hitting a parent when they are so young they could do no real damage aside from denting their pride.

If your child called you bald, or fat, or stupid....would that be justification for taking their life? Of course not. Killing a child for such pettiness would be MORE evil than about anything I can think of.

Unfortunately Jesus supported killing children for these petty actions as well, and even rebuked the Pharisees for not killing their disobedient children, and following their own morality instead of the old law/Mosaic Law.

So, I ask you, if you had a 5 year old child, and they hit you...would you kill that child (as the bible commands), offering a second chance, or a severe scolding?

 

[Kit Carson]

Sorry Kit, but the bible does not say 'teenager' or youngman/woman...but only 'child'. That would include preteen and younger, all ages of children. The Hebrew of the original bible is quite clear on this. Nor does it give the requirement of striking a parent to the point of death. Additionally, there are later commandments for murder that would cover that already.

I'm sorry, but it is physically impossible for 2 bears to kill 42 children unless those children stayed in one place. There was no mention of God keeping them in one place, or the bears being turned into some kind of 'Super Bears' by God. Therefore, your assumptions and justifications are completely illogical and non-scriptural.

There is no justification for killing a child, especially of a young age for simply calling someone bald, or simply hitting a parent when they are so young they could do no real damage aside from denting their pride.

If your child called you bald, or fat, or stupid....would that be justification for taking their life? Of course not. Killing a child for such pettiness would be MORE evil than about anything I can think of.

Unfortunately Jesus supported killing children for these petty actions as well, and even rebuked the Pharisees for not killing their disobedient children, and following their own morality instead of the old law/Mosaic Law.

So, I ask you, if you had a 5 year old child, and they hit you...would you kill that child (as the bible commands), offering a second chance, or a severe scolding?

No Sir and I will not fuss with your or argue. You also have the free will to accept or not accept. At this point the truth has been shown to you and to start a fuss to prove a point is pointless.

I am a realist. If my five year old child misbehaves I will blister his tail. I will also deny him or her something they want. I will teach them from day one to be good gets a reward, to be bad gets the wrath of Grandpa....Lol!

The commons sense of it all is that evil and bad acts bring the consequences of God directly or by use of others to bring about justice in any situation.

So you win, not gonna fuss, God will show you the truth of it all if you willingly look for it. We all have the choice to believe or not. I accept the word of God as the absolute truth and study it to learn the truth of life, and the consequences when simple moral laws, discipline and kindness are not followed. When a child is always right and never disciplined we obtain what we see on the news each day.

Take Care

Kit

 

[MorningStar]

No Sir and I will not fuss with your or argue. You also have the free will to accept or not accept. At this point the truth has been shown to you and to start a fuss to prove a point is pointless.

I am a realist. If my five year old child misbehaves I will blister his tail. I will also deny him or her something they want. I will teach them from day one to be good gets a reward, to be bad gets the wrath of Grandpa....Lol!

The commons sense of it all is that evil and bad acts bring the consequences of God directly or by use of others to bring about justice in any situation.

So you win, not gonna fuss, God will show you the truth of it all if you willingly look for it. We all have the choice to believe or not. I accept the word of God as the absolute truth and study it to learn the truth of life, and the consequences when simple moral laws, discipline and kindness are not followed. When a child is always right and never disciplined we obtain what we see on the news each day.

Take Care

Kit

Who said anything about fussing? LOL

As modern Christians, have we become so immature that we cannot even discuss such things about our bible and God's word? I certainly hope not lol.

Well, I for one am glad you would follow your own sense of morality instead of killing your child. I agree with what you said. Although the bible commands their death, I too would have to just ask for forgiveness as I could never kill my own child.

I think this type of question might determine the literal 'fundamentalist' from the modern Christian. (Or a realist in your terminology).

It also brings up a theological question of when do we pick and chose what parts of the bible to follow, and when do we chose our own sense of morality?

Some might call that cherry picking the bible, but I just see no sense in killing a child for such petty reasons. It's perhaps a bit of a quandary to the fundamentalist, but not me lol.

 

[will]

Trying to answer your original question, I am reminded of this recorded saying from The Lord:

Matthew 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will."

Maybe you and your cousin can read together the context surrounding this verse; which was recorded in a dire situation, really cannot be more serious than that.

Then have her answer what is meant by "this cup" in the above verse. So indeed, The Lord speak of the purpose of His dying to become an atonement for our sins.

Hope this helps.


Furthermore, for what it's worth, understanding and appreciating the Scriptures are not the results of one person convincing others. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.

We are never burdened with something that we cannot do, that is changing someone else's mind. Whether or not your cousin accepts that she is a sinner in need of salvation, depends on her choice *after* she heard about the gospel. You or someone around her have the duty to inform her about the gospel, and be there when she needs more explanation. But that is not the same as entertaining her expressions of deviance towards the gospel.

 

[MorningStar]

Trying to answer your original question, I am reminded of this recorded saying from The Lord:

Matthew 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will."

Maybe you and your cousin can read together the context surrounding this verse; which was recorded in a dire situation, really cannot be more serious than that.

Then have her answer what is meant by "this cup" in the above verse. So indeed, The Lord speak of the purpose of His dying to become an atonement for our sins.

Hope this helps.


Furthermore, for what it's worth, understanding and appreciating the Scriptures are not the results of one person convincing others. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.

We are never burdened with something that we cannot do, that is changing someone else's mind. Whether or not your cousin accepts that she is a sinner in need of salvation, depends on her choice *after* she heard about the gospel. You or someone around her have the duty to inform her about the gospel, and be there when she needs more explanation. But that is not the same as entertaining her expressions of deviance towards the gospel.

Then I suppose the entire branch of theological apologetics is completely useless, correct?

So, by your same logic, I suppose a pastor or other clergy trying to convince people in a sermon holds no validity over another person's interpretation, correct? (And let's be honest, that IS what they are doing in a sermon, even if it is just quoting directly.)

While there may be differing opinions and even translations of scripture, sometimes basic common sense and logic can be your best guide. I'm not trying to go beyond that brother. No one here is claiming to be God or the Holy Spirit, so you can drop the fearful accusations.

I'm sorry if I bring up topics that don't sit well with you, but as mentioned, I don't think we're too immature to not be able to discuss such things. (And if someone does happen to learn something new, or something they had never given any thought to before, then all the better.)

Per the 'cup' verse, there are many interpretations, but but being submissive to the Lord is the general concept most agreed upon.

Now, if you would like to give your personal interpretation, I'm sure many would be interested. (It doesn't mean we have to accept it BTW lol.)

 

[MorningStar]

Maybe you and your cousin can read together the context...

We are never burdened with something that we cannot do, that is changing someone else's mind. Whether or not your cousin accepts that she is a sinner in need of salvation, depends on her choice *after* she heard about the gospel. You or someone around her have the duty to inform her about the gospel, and be there when she needs more explanation. But that is not the same as entertaining her expressions of deviance towards the gospel.

You know, that might not be a bad idea to let her read with me some of the contextual interpretations.

The question is...how do we determine which interpretation is right?

Which one should I show her?

 

[will]

Then I suppose the entire branch of theological apologetics is completely useless, correct?

Brother,
The entire endeavor of Apologetics is completely useless if He who brings conviction into the heart of men do not do His part.

The success of even a single soul being saved has never hinges on the effectiveness of any man's effort. It is but God's saving Grace and that soul's choosing to accept Grace (in desperation, not authority).

So, by your same logic, I suppose a pastor or other clergy trying to convince people in a sermon holds no validity over another person's interpretation, correct? (And let's be honest, that IS what they are doing in a sermon, even if it is just quoting directly.)

People who bore the spiritual gift of teaching, have a way to impart their interpretation without trampling on the hearers' understanding of the Scriptures.

Problem is: 1) There are people who shouldn't teach that do for various reasons. 2) People who listened do not have the fervor to study the Scriptures themselves.

While there may be differing opinions and even translations of scripture, sometimes basic common sense and logic can be your best guide. I'm not trying to go beyond that brother. No one here is claiming to be God or the Holy Spirit, so you can drop the fearful accusations.

No accusations intended. Sorry if it sounded that way

I'm sorry if I bring up topics that don't sit well with you, but as mentioned, I don't think we're too immature to not be able to discuss such things. (And if someone does happen to learn something new, or something they had never given any thought to before, then all the better.)

You did no such thing.
This topic is one of my most favorite in fact.
A Christian's spiritual maturity totally depends on his study of the Scriptures and submission to the teaching from The Holy Spirit regarding the Scriptures that he read.

Per the 'cup' verse, there are many interpretations, but but being submissive to the Lord is the general concept most agreed upon.

Now, if you would like to give your personal interpretation, I'm sure many would be interested. (It doesn't mean we have to accept it BTW lol.)

I am not sure how else can "the cup" be interpreted other than representing The Lord's death on the cross and the spiritual suffering He had to endure even way before that day.

Cross reference another mention of the cup in John 18:11. "Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Again, there isn't a lot of room for a differing interpretation here.

 

[will]

You know, that might not be a bad idea to let her read with me some of the contextual interpretations.

The question is...how do we determine which interpretation is right?

Which one should I show her?

I would think that her own interpretation would be the most effective for her

 

[MorningStar]

Brother,
The entire endeavor of Apologetics is completely useless if He who brings conviction into the heart of men do not do His part.

I understand what you're saying, but I would certainly claim that apologetics do often help people who are trying to understand deeper meanings of certain passages.

The success of even a single soul being saved has never hinges on the effectiveness of any man's effort. It is but God's saving Grace and that soul's choosing to accept Grace (in desperation, not authority).

I also understand your meaning here, and I agree with your surface/traditional meaning that only the Holy Spirit can ultimately save people. However, once again, a persons 'superficial effort' in bringing God's word TO someone can make all the difference as opposed to no effort being made at all. Hence the reason and effectiveness of missionaries and evangelists. Many people are saved out of these 'efforts by men'....by bringing God's word to them...so the Holy Spirit can work in their hearts.

To illustrate this point, would you agree that missionary work or even reading God's word to the blind is helpful?

People who bore the spiritual gift of teaching, have a way to impart their interpretation without trampling on the hearers' understanding of the Scriptures.

Problem is: 1) There are people who shouldn't teach that do for various reasons. 2) People who listened do not have the fervor to study the Scriptures themselves.

I fully agree, and case in point, the way this bet actually came up in the first place was that my cousin and I were discussing Westboro Baptist Church and their bigoted, hateful antics. They outwardly promote the death of homosexuals and veterans and picket their funerals, etc. It was a case of fundamentalism gone haywire. I doubt anything else needs to be said there lol.

No accusations intended. Sorry if it sounded that way

No problem. I actually misread your original post and took it the wrong way, so I apologize back to you. It happens, no big deal. I just want us to remember that our discussions, (or even actual debate), should never be seen as 'conflict' and only a mutual learning/teaching or even just as simple as hearing each other's opinions....which can be a very helpful thing.

You did no such thing.
This topic is one of my most favorite in fact.
A Christian's spiritual maturity totally depends on his study of the Scriptures and submission to the teaching from The Holy Spirit regarding the Scriptures that he read.

I'm glad, as I also like looking into the more difficult passages. I like a good spiritual challenge, and enjoy hearing people's opinions, not matter what their skew.

I am not sure how else can "the cup" be interpreted other than representing The Lord's death on the cross and the spiritual suffering He had to endure even way before that day.

Cross reference another mention of the cup in John 18:11. "Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Again, there isn't a lot of room for a differing interpretation here.

I think we're actually using the same interpretation, although I just took it to its logical conclusion instead of the surface/traditional interpretation. Suffering = a result of submission to God's will.

 

[Peace Seeker]

That's really nice. No comment!

 

[MorningStar]

I would think that her own interpretation would be the most effective for her

I don't know....if you heard her interpretation, you might think differently LOL.

I will say that her interpretations ended up being scripturally correct on a few topics that I was not in agreement with until I researched it.