Intensity Discussion
103 
- Wyświetlenia: 42 739
- Utworzona grupa: November 2006
- bebo.gazeta.pl/IntensityDiscussion
- Oficjalna witryna:
- http://bebo.com/IntensityGroup
- Ja, o mnie i jeszcze raz ja
- Welcome to Intensity Discussion
Part of the Intensity pages -->
http://bebo.com/IntensityGroup
Add your own discussion topics
by uploading a photo to the
photostream or by adding a
new topic to the forum =)
zamknij Forum
-
Why Women Are Biblically Forbidden to Preach
przez
Kiwi Christian
There is a difference in roles of men and women. Always has been and always will be.0 odpowiedzi 1 tydzień
There is an equality in our relationship to God.
Galatians 3:28-29
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
Yet there is a difference in roles God ordained for men and women.
Two Reasons For Different Roles Are Given In 1 Timothy 2:8-15
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1. The First Reason Given: The Order Of Creation.
Paul does not go into detail, but enough is given to show that we must consider what is revealed in the first three chapters of Genesis. Male and female relationships are some of the greatest influences in human society and they are based on Creation. This is one of the reasons we must understand the Creation\Evolution controversy. If Evolution is true, we eliminate the foundation of everything the Bible reveals including the relationship men and women have with each other.
From the Creation account in Genesis, we know:
a.Both male and female are made in the image of God.
b.Both male and female have dominion over the earth
Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
In Genesis, Creation is described two times. In chapter one, there is a general account of the creation of everything. In Chapter two, there is more specific account of creation of men and women. The Holy Spirit revealed because of what happened at Creation, there is a difference in the roles of men and women today.
A. In The Creation Account, The Male Is Central In The Narrative
There is evidence of male headship from the fact that the male is the center and the subject of the entire narrative. All the action and events revolve around the man. He is the subject; all else is brought into the story in relation to him. He is the "star" of the story, he occupies center stage.
Everything else, including the woman, has a supporting role.
1.The male is the first to be created (2:7). (firstborn)
2.The garden is prepared for him, and he is placed within it (2:
.
3.The male, not the female, is given the name borne by the human race as a whole: "Man" (1:26-27, 5:2).
4.God speaks to the male (2:16); he is the first to receive divine revelation and instruction. (Just as a CEO or General uses a "chain of command")
5.The animals are brought for naming to the male, not the female (2:19-20).
6.The woman is made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22).
7.The woman is also made for the man and brought to him. the man was not made for the woman (2:18, 22).
8.It is the man who speaks and makes a theological comment upon the woman’s creation, not vice versa (2:23).
9.It is the male who names the female, not the woman naming the man (2:23).
The whole narrative in Genesis 2 is the story of how God created the man and provided in every way for his well-being. The man is the central character through the entire account of the creation of mankind.
When God created the human race, He placed the man squarely in the center o -
Basic Differences between Romanism and Bible Christianity
przez
Kiwi Christian
Basic Differences between Romanism and Bible Christianity0 odpowiedzi 1 tydzień
The History and Falsehoods of Romanism ( The Roman Catholic Church )
Professor CAM Noble
The basic difference between the Roman Catholic religion and Evangelical Christianity may be summed up in one word - authority. Evangelical Christians accept the Bible, and the Bible only, as the authority in all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. To add anything to - or subtract anything from - the revelation of the Bible is forbidden by the Bible itself under severe threat of penalty (Revelation 22:1 .
However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not the only inspired authority; in addition, it has placed on a plane of equal authority church traditions, revelations and visions, and, above all, the edicts of the popes when spoken ex-cathedra or officially as the so-called 'Vicar of Christ' on earth.
The edicts or interpretations or additional revelations receive equal authority with the Word of God, and in many instances above and contrary to the Word of God. When speaking from his throne as the 'Vicar of Christ', the Pope is said to be as much inspired as the writers of the Bible is deemed to be as infallible in his pronouncements as they were.
Moreover, the common people are not able (so Rome teaches), nor allowed, to interpret the Bible for themselves, but must accept whatever the Church says or teaches. The Church through its clergy is the only interpreter of the Word.
Here, then, is the difference: Evangelical Christianity accepts the Bible as the complete and adequate revelation of God, while the Roman Catholics are to believe not the Bible, but the Bible as interpreted by the Pope, the Church and the clergy. This accounts for the great mass of doctrines and dogmas and practices of the Roman Catholic Church which are nowhere to be found in the Bible. They are supposed to rest upon a higher authority than God's Word.
No member of the Roman Church may question the teachings and doctrines of the Church. Once they have been accepted by the hierarchy as Roman Catholic doctrine, everyone is expected to accept them without question or protest. In a sense this makes Romanism an easy religion. The Church interprets all, does all, and decides all. Just leave everything to a priest, and follow his orders, and he will take care of everything for you.
The differences between the Church of Rome and Bible Christianity are legion and are continually being added to by the Vatican. All these differences result from two basic errors. The two basic differences are the two questions of revelation and the nature of the Church. Both are a question of authority.
(1) Revelation
Evangelical Protestantism accepts the 66 books of the Bible as the sole and final revelation for salvation, faith and practice. It believes that supernatural revelation ended with the last verse of the Book of Revelation, and that anything added since then is false and contrary to the plain warning of Revelation 22:18.
The Church of Rome also claims to accept the Bible as God's revelation, but accepts it as only part of God's Word. Revelation according to Rome is the Bible plus the Apocryphal Books, plus tradition, plus the decisions of church councils, plus the decrees of the Pope when he speaks ex- cathedra from his throne as the Head of the church.
As a result, by far the majority of church doctrines cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, but are additions made centuries later by accepting traditions, actions of church councils, and the 'infallible' edicts and decisions of a mortal Pope. When the Church declares a new dogma by official action or papal bull, every Roman Catholic is commanded to believe it and accept it without question, upon pain of discipline.
From this it can be seen that the basic difference between Romanism and Protestantism is one of authority. Protestants accept only the Bible as the final authority. Rome interprets the Bible by the words of man.
(2) The N -
Are women allowed to talk in church?
przez
James Henry
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states that:13 odpowiedzi 37 tygodni
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
How many churches are there out there that allow women preachers?
I know the immediate response will be that I have taken the quotation completely out of context - how have I?
The heading for these versus is "Orderly Worship" and all the other versus around the above quoted all regard the same thing: behavior in Church and in front of God.
What else could this passage be meaning?
Some people will say that "times have changed", but isn't the Word of God suppose to be unchanging?
Others might say that Paul is only addressing a certain group of people, but the passage indicates otherwise:
"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
(1 Corinthians 1:10)
Could someone please enlighten me as why so many churches allow Women preachers?
zamknij Blog
-
A Message From The Heavens
Subjective and Objective Testimony
It is here that we lay the foundations for an always-pertinent realization, pertaining to both self and to us all objectively. This realization is not confined to one isolated entity however, rather it is a set of observations to be made in regards to the universally ensconced indications of a purpose behind the cosmos, of a supernaturally-derived motive for the travel-work of the stars. Yes, the support for belief in an omnipotent creator of the universe is found virtually everywhere. It would seem that God’s signature recapitulates infinitely in the natural realm in which we have arisen. The existence of God is quite literally, and quite suffusedly as some might say, predicated by a world that many of us not only underestimate the wonder of with a questionable impassiveness, but also allow a great deal of our lives to dwindle away in as we provide nothing more than obscurant velleities.
Regardless of how vociferously anyone is to voice a selfish disdainfulness toward the nature of the world due to self-apotheosizing, the obsolescent objurgating does nothing to disguise the remnants of a supernaturally-derived motive behind the world that we live in. In fact, it does more to present itself as a frivolous attempt at shrouding the nature of the very world that we live in.
God Speaks Through Gadget Girls
Can this kind of deceptive nature be trusted? Should it even be indulged with acknowledgement when the reality of God’s intent presents itself translucently, silhouetting practically every natural entity throughout the universe ubiquitously? I for one feel obligated to debunk such reasoning out of piety. After all, I have found that when I abandon my obsequious nature I fall into a deep state of obfuscation. This is because once you have eviscerated the catalyst of newfound tranquility you inevitably achieve consternation. I, as well as all Christians, have an obligation to propagate the glory of Jesus Christ. It is through Jesus Christ that I have felt an alluvion of security and benevolence surging within me. Having been guilty of falling from a life for Christ, I observed that security and benevolence became evanescent. The following verse comes to mind when I look back at my regrettable past: “Delight yourself in the Lord and he shall give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalms 37:4). It is for this very reason that I feel an obligation to disseminate the message of Christ and to reach out to others, trying to bring them to Christ, as that is how I was brought to Christ. God’s voice spoke to me through other people. It was Jesus Christ who said, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whosoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15). It is important to remember that the message of Christ is anything but esoteric.
Problem of Evil
“A man’s own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against the Lord.” (Proverbs 19:3)
Here, in regards to the previous section, the reciprocatory remark is expected to fall along the lines of a relative verbatim of the overall constructs of the Problem of Evil argument, presented most notoriously by the philosopher Epicurus. Though this particular argument is laced with subjectivity, which, ironically enough, is something that the adherents of this argument in particular tend to disputatiously disqualify Christianity for, this argument has, nevertheless, maintained its popularity. Suffice it to say, that is a double standard, but beyond this hypocrisy I feel that the "Problem of Evil" is worth addressing, and such is my intention.
Sporadically, many of us will stop to think about the world and the adversity that it bears, and more often than not, the person exercising such thoughts will wish to alleviate the world of its sorrow and of the intolerance generated in the minds of so many which leads to that unfortunate sorrow for other1 komentarz 246 dni
-
Response To Misapplication of Quantum Physics and A Proper Scientific Argument
“Based on quantum mechanics the probability of a sentient entity more complex than humans spontaneously coming into existence is essentially zero,”
This just shows your lack of knowledge in regards to Quantum Physics then, as well as its applications. You’ve committed a few fallacies here, which are like crimes in the world of rhetoric and debate.
For starters, this statement is, in its entirety, a non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn’t follow with the premise. To be honest, I don’t even know what to make the premise out to be. I was thinking that your premise is, in itself, another fallacy. A violation of the philosophy of science to be exact. You can’t subjugate a supernatural entity to a branch of science that exclusively applies to the natural world. You can apply that only to the universe and its products, and then, from there, you could make an attempt at deductive reasoning pertaining to God (possibly), but you have done nothing of the sort. You merely provided an unfounded statement.
“alternately the probability of a point mass like that which caused the big bang spontaneously coming into existence in the absence of space-time approaches one”
How so? If the universe, in its earliest state, was nothing but energy that would produce particles, how did the energy come into existence in the existent universe? How could it have come into existence by natural means when that would defy natural laws that state that energy cannot be created by natural means?
And consider the production of the earliest elements and the factors that they are contingent upon. Even in a time when stars weren’t even beginning to form it was being determined if the universe would be tuned for life. Just think about the early elements and how they formed. Think about Helium in particular. Now think atomically. The Helium atoms that make up that element are formed by smaller particles gathering. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, which are made up of quarks and gluons (fundamental particles). To make the nucleus of a helium atom it is required that two protons and two neutrons are to come together in a process known as a fusion.
This is obviously what we have gotten, as we have Helium. When this fusion takes place though, there is a 0.7% loss of mass. The energy escapes in fusion, and this directly relates to the Strong Nuclear Force that is behind this fusion. It may not seem like a significant loss of mass, but it’s actually nothing short of the thermonuclear force that powers the sun and provides the energy of a hydrogen bomb.
So, what if the loss of mass were 0.8% instead? Simply put, the force would be just enough stronger to allow fusion to occur more rapidly, but this is no good thing. The result would be several runaway fusion reactions that would drain the universe of its Hydrogen. In other words, in this scenario, there would be no stars like our sun, there would be no galaxies, there would be no Earth, there would be no water, and there would be no life.
So what if we lowered the strong nuclear force’s strength instead, to 0.6%? Well, the force wouldn’t be strong enough to allow fusion to occur at all, and we’d have a universe with nothing but Hydrogen atoms.
Now, this is actually science being applied, with no fallacies, to support the existence of God, on a philosophical basis.
Just remember, the important question isn’t ‘What is the probability’ of God existing?’. Instead, the important question is ‘What is the probability of human existence without God?’, and I have come to find that it is virtually impossible for human life to exist without God. It most plausible that there is a fine-tuner behind the clockwork of the tapestry of nature.2 komentarze 249 dni
-
Walking in a demographic winter wonderlandWalking in a demographic winter wonderland
Demographic Winter is an independently produced film describing the consequences of the population collapse of industrialized countries. I have been amazed at the response, or I should say, lack of response to this film. Many of the reviewers either dismissed the thesis of the film, or changed the subject. The lack of serious American attention is surprising, considering that Demographic Winter has been translated in several languages, most recently, Romanian. (Full disclosure: I was interviewed as one of the experts for Part II, as yet to be released.) Commentators Left and Right are wandering through a Demographic Winter Wonderland with their eyes glazed over.
The film argues that falling population will mean a diminished quality of life for the aging generation and for future generations. For instance, pensions, both private and public, have to be paid for. When the retired population is too high relative to the working population, paying the promised pensions becomes an enormous burden. Either the young pay crushing taxes, or the elderly will not get what they expected, or both.
Consumer spending keeps the economy humming and the stock market climbing. When population shrinks, the demand for goods and services of all kinds shrinks. Harry Dent, one of the experts interviewed on the film, is an investment advisor. He discovered the significance of population growth by accident. He had a chart showing birth rates over a hundred year period on his desk next to a chart showing the stock market over the same period. He laid them over each other and realized that the stock market tracks birth rates with about a 40 year lag. That is because people spend the most money in their 40s. They buy the biggest house they’ll ever have; they feed, clothe and educate their children; they buy cars and vacations.
I have been thinking about Harry Dent and his charts while I drive through my San Diego neighborhood. Out of 42 homes, we have 4 foreclosures. Yes, the housing prices ballooned up and people took on mortgages they couldn’t pay. But there is more to the story than the credit crunch: there simply are not enough people at the right age, with enough income, to afford these houses. Because the Baby Boomers didn’t replace themselves, there are not enough people to buy their homes. Falling demand translates into falling home prices.
The Chattering Classes can not bring themselves to take the Demographic Winter thesis seriously. The Left dismisses it as a hysterical racist rant. Kathryn Joyce, writing in the Nation magazine, reports on her conversation with Stephen Mosher. "Mosher, president of the Catholic anticontraception lobbyist group (cue scary music) Population Research Institute (PRI), describes his grim vision of Europe's future: fields will lie fallow and economies will wither. A great depression will sink over the continent as it undergoes ‘a decline that Europe hasn't experienced since the Black Death.’"
Joyce never refutes Mosher’s argument that population decline precedes economic decline. Instead, she changes the subject to something she wants to talk about: the alleged racism of pro-natalists. "The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring."
Oddly enough, the Demographic Winter film makes no mention of race or nationality. In fact, the film emphasizes that the problem of population decline is a worldwide problem. Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker notes that 70 countries now have fertility rates below replacement. The left-wing commentariat would like the film to be about race, so they can dismiss it as unworthy of attention.
Representing the Libertarian Right, we have Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine. He likewise makes no pretense of engaging the actual argument of the film: "I doubt that the "demographic winter" portends economic collapse or social0 komentarzy 313 dni
zamknij Blog wideo
 |
Intensity's 'BIG' Plans przez Matty |
| 97 tygodni temu | |
 | |
| |
| |
 |
Claires view on SAE.. and being herself! przez Matty |
| 98 tygodni temu | |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Changes + Happy Christmas. przez Jonathan Goodman |
| 101 tygodni temu | |
Also, I do have a sense of humor. I also have a sense of humility, in that I'm not one to belittle an entire group of Atheists by assuming mass ignorance among all of them. You, on the other hand, have no problem belittling Christians everywhere through a ridiculous set of claims concerning the Bible that aren't even accepted by several reasonable people who share your skepticism.
Since you obviously have nothing better to do than make random contemptuous statements belittling Christianity, I'll indulge your dependence on this 'hobby' of yours.
Your definition of 'theology' is pretty close-minded. It also brings me to question whether you even understand it.
Theology relates to developing a knowledge of God (you can consider it as an attempt to understand the concept of a potential God). I seriously doubt someone like you has taken into consideration the philosophical support behind the existence of God as well as supporting philosophical/scientific observations.
As for your objection to the history behind Christianity, again, very close-minded. Even Atheistic historians will concede that there is confirmed history in the Bible. It is regarded as a rich source of information regarding ANE culture, for example.
In so many different levels,spiritually and historicaly,the Bible and the Christian religion have no hard basis of any genuine evidence or premises.
Theology= a made up fairy-tale
haha at least i have a sense of humour
Not very mature.
Perhaps we could get some thought-provoking conversation going. You know, on theological issues.
sounds like a conversation two priests would have
stop wearing kids pants then
Help me please, my penis doesn't fit into my boxers.
New Christian Group
**lets share the good news
please join
Love & Godbless x
hahahaha lies
C.I scofield: Nothing is more dangerous than the divorce of truth from power. we may know lots of truth & posses great knowledge, but if these are not in the power of the Holy Spirit, we will have no light by which to show us our true condition & to guide our steps, In case we recive light from God we should keep what we have in the Holy Spirit that it may continuosly be the light for our path with out lossing it's power.
fuck your god
This is a group for christians not atheists or thiests. God is real and we didn't come from monkeys. God created us. He created you. in your mothers womb he knew that on the day that you said this that that is what you would be saying.
Don't diss my God unless you have tried him and know what you are talking about or dealing with,
So it does!!
Egad, it still exists.
Hey im looking for some moderators for my discussion group. I'm looking for people who have interesting things to discuss obviously and who can maybe open up peoples eyes to things they've never thought of before. If you intereted please leave me a message on our group Discuss it's page. Please make sure your profile isn't on private so i can reply back to you, thanks.x
Fell free to check out our group!
Matt, I'm already debating the atheism/belief/agnosticism thing with you on CvE
I wouldn't mind joining a 'morality of God' debate though if you're starting one. I'll let GBM have the first move though, and then assess your explanations.
"Perhaps, though, it would be wise, especially if you wish to think of yourself as a 'freethinker', to first judge and question the actions of your 'creator'. For instance, how do acts such as infanticide manage to fit in with your perception of a loving God?"
Ah, Miss Blue Monday, haven't you and I discussed the topic of the scripture's morality? Did you even concede defeat? It may have been someone else.
Oh well. How about you provide a verse. After all, believe it or not, socio-historical context tends to be very important. Take that into consideration.
"first off your wrong, atheist don t have to believe in evolution, the only thing an atheist does is not believe in god, when i say not believe then it is because they have evidence or have used rational or just plain old logic and decided to to accept aload of crap that has no evidence at all to prove it"
I will agree that Atheists are under no obligation to accept Evolution. Still, it would be a rarity to find one who didn't. I myself am a Theistic Evolutionist, and accept Evolution for the same reasons you do, no doubt.
Still, I would like to point out that rejecting Theism based on there being no evidence entitles you, justifiably so, to an Agnostic position. Having sound reason to outright say that God doesn't exist entitles you to proclaim yourself as an Atheist.
So, if you're an Atheist, what are your reasons for being one? If you're more of an Agnostic, mums the word.