I believe the world we in which live, with its many diverse religious views and even the diversity of views within particular religions, clearly manifests the need to think critically about what we believe.
Consider, for example, the many different Christian denominations and “Christian” beliefs.
Some Christian denominations believe similarly even though named differently, while other Christian beliefs or denominations differ significantly.
At this point, I suggest reading books that teach the rules of proper interpretation of literature, in a general sense but more specifically, in this case, biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
Sadly too many Christians don’t know when or how to identify the differences between literal usages and figures of speech!
Yeah, that’s right, all those big tax dollars thrown at public schools and still illiterates graduate every year—but that for another discussion. (Not faulting those victimized by public school incompetence)
But back on topic, I would like readers to consider a more literate approach to Bible study, which would involve the selection of a few well written study books on the topic
I believe the world we in which live, with its many diverse religious views and even the diversity of views within particular religions, clearly manifests the need to think critically about what we believe.
End quote
(Huge grins)
Quote:
But back on topic, I would like readers to consider a more literate approach to Bible study, which would involve the selection of a few well written study books on the topic
I HIGHLY recommend anything written by John MacArthur especially on how to understand and study the Bible. The MacArthur Study Bible is high on the list.
The Master’s Seminary is a huge HUGE
reservoir of resources written by highly qualified authors on doctrine, theology and systematic theology.
I cannot stress this enough: it’s very important to understand the Bible for what IT means by what IT says!
There seems to be an endless variety of theologies and sects these days!! I think that’s mostly because too many pastors ignore the proper rules of biblical interpretation and teach what >they think< the Bible says instead!!
But listeners aren’t off the hook either because the Bible is replete with warnings to avoid deception!!
This is why it’s so important to select study guides and resources that teach the correct method of biblical interpretation based on the content of the original languages, their grammars and their historical or original word meanings.
The Holy Spirit chose specific words to convey specific meanings and He chose and inspired specific holy men to write the words of scripture.
The religious leaders of Jesus’ day were Old Testament scholars, yet they completely missed the point of the Scriptures (John 5:37-39). As Christ asked Nicodemus, exposing the latter’s ignorance about the basic tenets of the gospel, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” (John 3:10).
Devoid of the Holy Spirit, unbelievers operate only in the realm of the natural man. To them, the wisdom of God seems foolish. Even after Jesus was raised from the dead, the Pharisees and Sadducees still refused to believe (Matthew 28:12-15).
End quote
Just make sure the religious leader...*ahem*..MacArthur understands the basic tenets also. I have some debatable arguments concerning him. Hugs brother.
So far you’ve been generally consistent by offering only your feelings or the feelings of those you’ve quoted on occasion about the various topics you’ve written about.
Remember, objective facts and your subjective feelings about things are not synonymous realities. Facts are objective truths that are indisputable and your subjective feelings are irrelevant to the actual state of being of a thing.
For example, the law of gravity is a fact and will remain a solid fact no matter how strongly you argue your feelings for or against it.
Since you brought up gravity . Riddle me this. Since Darwin, a known evolutionist "proved" that plants need gravity because of the "rooting sensors". Example: turn a pot on its side and the plants roots continue to grow normally but in space they show disoriented roots. Well, imagine that ! Think the plant is intelligent enough to know it is not on earth anymore? Of course it will try to find nutrients and water sources if they are not being met. How does that prove gravity? Because a plant acted different because it was not in it's natural environment? Oh but wait...we have a contradiction here! National geographic says that plants DO grow ok without gravity! so maybe the plant had other conditions it was exposed to? The plant is called Arabidopsis thaliana. The study findings appear in the latest issue of the journal BMC Plant Biology
From National Center for Science Education, I quote:
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal"
Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two — not one — high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, the fact that there are two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the Second Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin; positive charges–negative charges; north poles–south poles; good vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite's protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way,was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly elicits laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity,we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations". But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
Hugs brother. 
