I'm not questioning the fact that you can make a moral judgment; I'm questiong whether your ideology justifies your choice of moral foundation. You do not have to care about the good of others. Indeed, you see that it is a good thing for people to be prosperous and happy; but your philosophy doesn't justify this - it doesn't say that this is valuable, because it's completely materialistic. On your other statement, I would recommend Jonathan Edwards' "The End for which God Created the world."
I am glad to be an Atheist as I feel truly liberated. I am not wasting my life on religous crap. I am enjoying this one life to the full. I do good things because "it's good to be good". The fact that this awesome universe and wonderful life has no guiding hand makes it all the more special and precious. I have no burden of sin, no guilt, and no pressure to "convert" others. In my world there is no Jehad, no Crusade.
@UrukEngineer You're not the only one! Get round to looking at some others: type in "ZOMGitsCriss atheist umbrella" and look at her other vids as well - and also Christopher Hitchens, he's the master - so articulate and full of logic (common sense, that is!)
Sorry, but you will NEVER enjoy this life to the full, until Jesus saves you. There will always be a void deep inside you, whether or not you know it yet. Some day you will know it.
I really hope you'll repent and believe the Gospel. Jesus Christ DIED so that EVERYONE who believes, will be saved. He's so precious, it's AMAZING!
Btw, neither Christians have burden of sin or guilt, because we've been washed by the blood of the Lamb!
There might be a short season where Holy Spirit convicts of our sin, but like the word of God says in Romans 8:28: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
Anyways, the "joy" that people have without Christ is NOTHING like the joy of the saints.
Man, just throw yourself upon Christ! There is nothing God has to do with you apart from Christ, except judgment.
There are thousands of gods, all of whom you believe are mythical. What reason do you have to believe that yours is diffferent?
As for being happy without Jesus. Muslims are SO happy about Allah they will kill themselves and non-believers. What evidence do you have that you are happier than them?
Jesus Christ is the only "expected" person. There are over 400 prophecies in the OT about the coming of the Messiah. And Jesus fulfilled all of them. If you call that a coincidence, makes it even more obvious that you're living in a denial.
He has risen indeed. The world has a Savior, the universe has a King!
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." --Jesus of Nazareth
Why do you think Muslims are happy when they kill themselves? I doubt they're not happy. They're just so full of hate and malice towards the people they're killing. They think that they're doing a favor for "God", but in reality they're simply used by Satan, the father of lies.
Christians who are willing to die for their beliefs, are happy. They're not suicidal, but they're at peace and have the joy of life, more than anyone without Christ. I would die for Christ. (cont)
Not to say that I'm a particularly bold, I am not, but if it costs my life, then so be it. After all, I actually wait for persecutions to start, because true revivals (at least many of them) happen during persecutions.
I know that if I die, I win. Death is no loss for me, but it's a victory. To be absent from body is to be with the Lord. Nothing can be against me or other believers, because God is at my side.
@GodIsGoodIAmNot You used 3 full comments boxes and still didn't say why god is christian not jewish, muslim etc.
The Jesus is the bible was written up to make it seem like he fulfilled JEWISH eschatology. Virgin birth, being born in Bethlehem etc were just added to make him seem the fullfilment of their prophesies. This cheapens the real story of Jesus, a man, it seems, somewhat ahead of his time.
You are happy to "die for Christ". Where do you stand on killing for Christ?
All you're trying to make me look bad. If I answer: "Yes, I would kill for Christ." Then you would call me a cruel person or something similar.
Now that I said that I wouldn't kill for Him, because he never told me to, you're claiming that preserving someone's life is more important to me than God's will.
@UrukEngineer What moral compass do you use? Seems to me that all law or any moral compass has its root in the Bible. Where do you get your "moral compass"? Most assuredly not anywhere near the 21st century.
@UrukEngineer This is an absurd argument. It's based on a hypothetical Christ. Christ commanded people to love one another as themselves. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." So He did not ban earthly warfare, but not in His name. It is wrong for people to go to war in the name of Christ. Yet, again, it is not wrong for a person to kill someone who is attempting to murder them. That's just common sense.
@JonathanMartinovici You say you get your moral code from the bible - but you don't. I can't see why you don't recognise the truth. In practice you use common sense to pick and chose the morals - examples of which to "read into" the bible.
Slavery, genocide, child abuse - of course you don't follow the bible's moral compass.
@JonathanMartinovici The issue is what would a christian do if they though god wanted them to do it.
Jesus also endorsed all the horrible punishments of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-20); stoning, beating, murder, genocide etc. The doctrine of modern christianity has evolved to air-brush this out, however it is still there. Therefore it remains a furtile ground for extremism and religiously inspired acts of aggression. Google "Bush God Iraq War" for example.
@UrukEngineer Yes, Jesus Christ not only endorsed thse destroying of those nations, but He commanded them; if we are going to believe (as the Bible teaches) that Christ is eternally the Son of God. But remember this - Israel was a theocracy that was actively governed by God; the other leaders being mere mediators. New Testament Christianity is not a theocracy. God sent Israel out to destroy nations because of their wickedness.
@UrukEngineer The new testament church has not been called upon to destroy those who do not believe; nor is the chruch called upon to destroy fornicators and idolaters. That is the role of the civil government of states, in which the church has no part, of itself. Israel was a civil power governed by God. The church is not. Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are wrong in the way that they assert that they (calling themselves the church of God) have the right to be a civil power.
Nonetheless, let it be known, that all people who are walking on the earth deserve death. Their own consciences (until their have suppressed them until they have no more feeling) testify this to them. If God should choose to wipe out a whole nation by the hand of a civil power, then He would be just in doing so. But this is not the job of the church, nor can such an authority be justly concluded to belong to the church from the Bible. The church is not Israel. Their roles are different.
@UrukEngineer You're taking my words out of context; or maybe you misunderstood me. I said that Christ, being God, commanded the Israelites to destroy those cities. Israel was merely a tool in the hand of God. Note that Babylon was used as a tool in God's hand to wipe out the city of Judah. So God cannot be said to command those kinds of things in the same way. The church is not, will not, be commanded to this - it hasn't been called for this purpose. Israel (once again) was a theocracy.
@UrukEngineer To me, it is a destructive claim for governments to say that women have the rights over the lives of the children in their womb, and may murder them if they choose. Murder, in this case, now has legal warrant, in the name of scientific justification. Science has no rule by which is can justly make moral laws - it is completely materialistic! It doesn't indicate anything! That is destruction. I meant to say that God's justice is shown forth in hell; not in earthly destruction.
@UrukEngineer Furthermore, would you say that it's destructive claim that murders, rapists, thieves, etc. should be punished? If you will apply your judgments to our civil government, you will say that everything is destructive that hurts people's feelings. But what if other people have been destroyed by these people whose feelings you seek to protect? It's absurd.
@UrukEngineer Let me just make it most clear - God has NOT called the church of the New Testament to the same work as Israel in the Old Testament. It is NOT the work of the church to destroy all in its path. This is why I am so distrurbed by your argument. But civil governments have, for the past century or so, used science to justify genocide. Far more lives have been taken in the name of secularism than have been taken by Christianity (see Hitler, Stalin, and others, and now abortions).
@UrukEngineer I refer you to Christianity, and not to other religions. You might say, "Many have died at the hands of Christians." I will say, 'yes.' But we must observe that these 'Christians' did not act according to the word of God - they took things out of context, like you did. The number of lives taken by them, nonetheless, is far less than have been taken by secularist plots. The deaths to 'christians' is in the thousands. The deaths to secuarists is in the millions. Who is destructive?
@JonathanMartinovici The god of the christian bible did command people to commit genocide (JS 6:21-27, DT 20:13-14, NU 31:17-18 etc). The evidence is there, in "the word of god". By modern standards these are considered war crimes
Please correct me if I misunderstand you, but I think you are saying that these and other barbaric acts are OK if god sanctions them. My point is that when it comes to doing what christians think god wants, the gospel is easily used to justify wicked acts.
@UrukEngineer If you want a good source of further info on this, a good page is:w w w . r a t i o n a l c h r i s t i a n i t y . n e t / g e n o c i d e . h t m l
@UrukEngineer The link I just posted will answer your question about justifying genocide. At the end of the page, there's a question something like, "Does the Bible justify Genocide?" or something like that. The answer is sound. You're looking at it very much from a humanistic perspective; so the answer probably won't satisfy you. But if you take some time to think about it, and think about the grossness of sin in God's eyes, you will begin to understand, by God's grace.
@JonathanMartinovici Thanks for the link. You were right, it just made me more nervous about the faulty moral compass that christianity provides. In the section "Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?" The answer is *Yes* but only if someone thinks that they have a "direct command from God to do so". There are many SANE people who think god talks to them and so it is possible they may think they have a direct order to kill - many have done just that.
@UrukEngineer If a Christian thinks he hears God commanding him to commit genocide, then he has to test that against the word of God, which does not leave New Testament Christians to do such a thing. The voice is not God's voice. Once again, Old Testament Israel was a civil nation; not an international dispersion (as New Testament Christians are). They have not acted according to what the Bible says, who have acted as you have said.
@JonathanMartinovici But the christian god DOES endorse genocide in the NT. Jesus said not one word of the law (OT) was to be changed.
When the jews wrote the OT they did not describe all the cities as wanton baby sacrificers. The only reason for their destruction was that they believed god had given them the land and the cities' women.
The OT remains a problem for christians as it is not recinded and you claim it remains the core of your morals. You have said killing for your god is OK.
@UrukEngineer In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says to Israel, "It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Whether you believe idolatry to be wicked is another issue. If God is God indeed, then idolatry is wicked.
@JonathanMartinovici The argument you have put forward is exactly the same as that used to motivate the 911 bombers. Why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
@UrukEngineer As to your comment on the 911 bombers, they do not believe the same theology. You cannot compare the two. The 911 bombers killed (as far as I know) because they believe that all who will not convert to Islam must die. All who follow Jesus, and say that Jesus is God in the flesh, are infidels and heretics, according to Islam. God did not send Israel to destroy nations because they would not convert to Judaism.
@UrukEngineer God send Israel to destroy nations, on the whole, who were sacrificing children in fires, who were living in open sexual immorality, in total defiance of their own consciences. Nonetheless, remember again, New Testament Christians are not called to this; they are not a civil authority, as Israel was, nor have Christians been called to be.
@UrukEngineer The word 'atheist' is not mentioned even once in the Bible. "The fool" not the atheist "has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'" (Psalm 14:1) But the Bible says all must die - not only those who deny God's existence. All deserve hell. The least sin deserves everlasting punishment. If you think that mere physical death is the desert of sin, then you're mistake as to what the Bible even says. God would be just to throw every living human being into hell because of their sins.
@JonathanMartinovici 2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" - I guess that includes Atheists.
Do you think this part of the bible was wrong to kill people for not believing in the christian god?
@UrukEngineer By the context, we learn that this is the people of Israel spoken of; not another nation. The nation had departed from the commandments of God to a great extent (verse 3). Amongst these commandments (which were given by God to the civil nation, as we have observed) was the one in Deuteronomy 17:2-5 (too lengthy to type here).
@UrukEngineer But the truth is that your morality, if not driven by a desire to obey God, must arise from the value of happiness. All things will be subservient to this. If you will say that the happiness of man is the aim of morality, then you will compromise all at the cost of this. An example of this is the 'white lie'. Why would someone tell a white lie? They would rather that someone beleives something false than that they know the truth. So even truth ends up less important than happiness.
However there is a difference between not telling your wife that her arse looks huge in ANY skirt she tries and only believing in things for which there is compelling evidence ie the Truth about reality evolution etc.
@UrukEngineer What is the difference between "not telling your wife that her arse looks huge in ANY skirt she tries" and any other kind of hiding of truth? At what point will you say that the truth is necessary to be told? At the point that it begins to affect the happiness of other people? So might it be about happiness being of higher value than truth? And if so, by what rule will you make such a judgment as ought to be valued by another, if we will be relativistic on the issue?
@JonathanMartinovici My fault, I took the conversation into too many topics, abortion is too complex an issue to run alongside a discussion on morals.
@UrukEngineer Sorry, I began with using abortion as an example. Whilst I see that as being relevant to a discussion on morality, it isn't the best to solve one controversy along side another, in this instance. However, do you see my other points?
@JonathanMartinovici "However, do you see my other points?" I read and understood them. However I don't agree. Morals are never absolute and objective. There is always a subjective element to them. However, if one accepts that happiness, health and well-being ARE the goals of a moral code, one has at least a benchmark against which SOME objective measurement is possible. Morals are a product of the society they serve and change over time through collective adherence.
@UrukEngineer "However, if one accepts that happiness, health and well-being ARE the goals of a moral code." This is still arbitrary. You're just picking one thing out of the air, in order to justify having some kind of moral code; because you know it needs to exist. You know that happiness is a valuable thing, and it is absolutely wrong to oppress the happiness of innocents (I use the term 'innocent' in worldly sense, not a Biblical sense - in which no-one is innocent).
@JonathanMartinovici "happiness, health and well-being" seem to have general acceptance across almost all human cultures as the basis of morality...they aren't arbitary.
However one COULD say that the basis of morality is to do what you think your god wants you to do. But if you do this, you cannot prove that your god is "good". It becomes a circular argument...god is good because he is god.
@JonathanMartinovici "If people disagree with your moral foundation, then you can't even say they're wrong" True.
"One person will think one carriage of justice is unjust." True
But look around, this is exactly what the real world is like.
"At the end of the day, it will come down to your own personal preference" Rarely. Christians used the bible to justify slavery 200 years ago. Today they say it is wicked. Now, our collectively established moral code is against it.
@UrukEngineer Yes, Christians used the Bible to justify slavery 200 years ago - they were wrong. The Bible doesn't advocate it. I could use the Bible to prove that it's a sin to wear jewellery; that doesn't make it true. Why do people say that slavery is wicked? Do you know that William Wilberforce was a Christian, and that that is what caused him to fight against slavery the way he did?
@UrukEngineer What makes the collective view of people right? If you're going to play the atheist, I will address you thus: what will you say of the times at which the collective view was that the Bible is true? Will you necessarily say that the view of atheists is true merely because it is more frequently held (which is debatable)? It certainly isn't necessarily more intelligent or informed - considering the fact that there are theists and atheists teaching science at universities.
@UrukEngineer Sorry, I lost my line of thought there for a moment. Going from "Why do people say that slavery is wicked? " How can you judge of that? What if the opinion of the majority remained that slavery is good and should be sustained? Would that mean we should continue? Furthermore, would you call those people immoral who understood the wickedness of it, and did not protest against it in some way? Why? Are they absolutely wrong in not so doing?
@JonathanMartinovici "Furthermore, would you call those people immoral who understood the wickedness of it, and did not protest against it in some way?" Yes
Some aspects of morality are readily agreed by almost all people (don't kill, steal etc). These are clearly breaches of the "Golden Rule". However, others are less clear and change as a society changes.
As an Atheist I think it is "right" to question religious beliefs. 100 years ago christians would have burned people like me.
@UrukEngineer "100 years ago christians would have burned people like me." I don't even think that's true; but even if it were so, 100 years ago is not an authority. You need to read early church history - read the book of Acts, and then other things. Don't make your judgments on the Christian faith based on what people who called themselves Christians have done. Read a good, Biblical systematic theology (Calvin's Institutes is a good place to start), and then judge.
@UrukEngineer Furthermore, that last phrase of yours is full of moral context and implication. "100 years ago christians would have burned people like me." You assume that you are good - which, I believe, I have shown you have no grounds for believing, any more than the rapist has grounds to think he is good. I do not condemn your critical way of thinking. But I don't believe your understanding of the Christian faith is even Biblcially informed in a systematic way so as to justify it.
@UrukEngineer It is not Biblical for Christians to burn those who disagree with them. It is Biblical that those who are opposed to God deserve to be punished eternally by Him. It is Biblical that if Christ's, the God-Man's righteousness were not imputed to Christians, they would deserve to be punished eternally by God. It is Biblical that Christians be subject to the governing authorities - if this means that preaching the gospel is punishable by death, then they die.
@JonathanMartinovici ...now (most) christians think the right response is to counter Atheists in debate. I think you and I both share this "moral standard". This is not the case in muslim countries, though in 100 years time it may become so.
We can judge what is "right" by the overall benefit it gives to society. But this must balance the needs of the one with the many and today with tomorrow. I didn't say it was easy.
@UrukEngineer I do not think that the chief response is to counter atheists in debate. I can only convince you to a certain point by mere reason. It is a common misconception that someone is a Christian if he believes that the Bible is true. Yet the Bible itself says that even "the devils believe, and tremble." (James 2:19) Yet, they are not Christians. A mere intellectual assent does not make anyone a Christian.
@UrukEngineer Yes, if one does not believe these things, he cannot be a Christian; but that is not the sum of Christianity. One cannot claim the name Christian if he has nothing more than this. It is a common misconception of atheists and many others, that that is all. No. The Bible says that no man can believe unless the Father grants it to him. If I only convinced you that the Bible is true, you would no more be a Christian than you were before.
@UrukEngineer You must be born from above; that is, your wicked and hard heart, which is prone to rebellion against God, must be removed. You are dead in your trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1); you must be made alive. You deserve hell because you have sinned. It is only God's grace, causing you to come to Christ through the gospel, that can save you. You think God is evil to punish sin - but this is because you do not see sin as being so bad...apart from people like hitler, and rapists...
@UrukEngineer But I dare not attempt to persuade you in such a way as to think your view as equal authority. I believe that the Bible, when rightly taught, is self-evidently true, and it ought to be preached as such. I can argue philosophically with you forever, and never convince you. You need to listen to the word of God being taught, and then inquire. Question your own beliefs. I believe I've probably scrutinized my own faith far more than you ever have scrutinized my faith.
@JonathanMartinovici Christians burnt "heretics" aka those that did not believe in and interpret their religion in the way that they wanted. I am sure you would not disagree with this historical fact.
Those christians really thought they were the true christians - they had as much conviction in their beliefs as you do. So why is YOUR definition right and theirs wrong?
@UrukEngineer The Roman Catholics (people who did not believe we should read the Scriptures apart from the Catholic Fathers) burnt protestants (people who believed in 'Sola Scriptura' [scripture alone]). It is not a mere case of interpreting the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism does not teach much of what the Bible teaches. It adds pergatory, indulgences, authority of fathers, Mary Mediatrix, prayers to Mary and other saints, relics...the list goes on. They are not found in the Bible.
@UrukEngineer Evolution has not ever been proven nor observed. You've been just trapped by our almost Fascistic society that wants you to think it's a proven fact. I would have you subscribe to the CMI (creation ministries international) newsletter, or, at least, read things from their 'Questioning Evolution' campaign.
I don't see how you can see much of these 'many aspects' that hold water.
@JonathanMartinovici "You've been just trapped by our almost Fascistic society that wants you to think it's a proven fact" LOL seriously?
Evolution by Natural Selection is one of the most thoroughly researched and proven scientific theories ever. Would you like me to point you to the evidence?
@UrukEngineer Macro-evolution has never been observed. Micro-evolution has been. But the former does not imply the occurrence of the other. If you look at that website, I'm sure the information there should be more than intellectually satifsying.
@JonathanMartinovici “Macro-evolution has never been observed” Sorry, that is utterly wrong.
Wiki *Macroevolution*: “macroevolution, i.e. speciation in a specific case has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature”
What I liked about the Wiki article was that it referenced several peer-reviewed studies. This would be a better place to start your research than a Creationist website.
@UrukEngineer This could open up a whole debate on evolution; which would probably just make this too lengthy. But I might as well play passive, and ask: If macro-evolution (that is, 'goo-to-you', as some like to call it) evolution were observed concretely, why would so many true scientists disagree? Cats always bing forth cats; dogs, dogs; snakes, snakes. You need more than mere inability to reproduce with previous species to substantiate a whole new kind.
@JonathanMartinovici "if...evolution were observed concretely, why would so many true scientists disagree?"
You are wrong almost all scientists agree in evolution by natural.
Here is some separate evidence to back up my statement: search " Wikipedia, Level of Support for Evolution" and "Project Steve, National Center for Science Education"
@UrukEngineer Nonetheless, my aim in entering this discussion was not to debate evolution, but to clear up your accusations against the justice of God in the past. You should go to more learned people on the Creationist side to learn more. That's why I recommended the website - you will see many things there that don't get said many other places. Evolutionists rarely fight fairly. They have intentionally blotted out the voice of Creationists, and desire that people regard speculation as fact.
@UrukEngineer I agree that every sin deserves eternal hell. That is moral. We have offended an infintely good God, who has dealt only kindly with us; and we somehow think that eternal punishment is too severe?
@UrukEngineer I do not wish to inflict punishment; nor to I wish hell on anyone. I am saying that I believe that all sin deserves hell. God is the one who executes that justice, and He is just to do so.
But let's think on your question:"How can ANY sane human wish to inflict punishment on a fellow human being?" Do you have any sense of justice? But, then, you defend the daily slaughter of innocent unborn children. Is anything worthy of punishment but children being conceived?
@JonathanMartinovici “…daily slaughter of innocent unborn children…” this takes us into abortion. I dispute that a collection of cells is a child. But I think this is a bigger issue that, for the sake of focus, we should avoid.
The question is whether god, in reality, lives up to human moral standards.
“…I (don’t) wish hell on anyone” and “…I believe that all sin deserves hell” are irreconsilable contradictions. You clearly endorse god’s vicious punishment; or is god wrong?
@UrukEngineer No matter how much you deny it, your definition of what is a child is completely arbitrary. You might as well say that the baby outside the womb is not viable because it is still relying on its mother...
I can say I do not wish hell on anyone - I wish that all should flee to Christ. God's wrath is terrible, and God's mercy is beautiful. But your problem is that you don't think that sin is bad. You just think that it's not so good. God's judgment is equal to the offense.
@UrukEngineer God is right to punish sin. And in a way, I sympathise with David in Psalm 139, when he says, "O that You would slay the wicked, O God!" This is not in contradiction to compassion. I love sinners who are on the way to Hell. And yet, I would believe God to be perfectly just in punishment. Would you not have compassion on a relative who has committed a crime punishable by death, and yet who obstinately continues in that crime? And, yet, would you consider the judge unjust?
I would say that Morally Right = something that promotes happiness, well-being or health OR minimises unnecessary harm or suffering OR both. It's not about personal gratification.
I also think that this forms the basic core morals of all humans. It is not a christian code, just an evolved, social primate trait.
@UrukEngineer Why do you say that? If the explanation is purely material, then why do you feel subjected to it? Why do you have a responsibility to anyone? Why do you even think that truth is important? You don't have to believe in any of these morals if you're a materialist. At the end of the day, it will come down to your own personal preference. After all, you began by saying, "I would say that morally right..." So what if other people disagree with you?
@UrukEngineer If people disagree with your moral foundation, then you can't even say they're wrong - if we're going to be a bit philosophical. Just because 'that's the way nature has always behaved' doesn't mean you have to obey it. "But it is obviously better than another set of moral values." According to who? You can't make a moral statement without thinking it is absolute. It's absurd. Where, then, is justice? One person will think one carriage of justice is unjust...etc.
@UrukEngineer Perhaps people lie to their parents for the sake of some other pleasure. So they believe that it is better for their parents to believe a lie than that their own pleasures be cut off. But, of course, honouring parents isn't really considered that important in today's culture anyway. But the person knows that the hand that reared him and provided for him has some right to know the truth from them and deserves to be trusted until proven untrustworthy.
@UrukEngineer To go further, women are now given the 'right' to take lives of the children in their womb. I know there are some difficult circumstances that sometimes surround this. But, at the end of the day, will you say the mother's life is more or less valuable than the life of the little one? Will we also decide whether it is right to take the life of one whose existence on earth might be quite miserable due to illnesses? I wouldn't want to be the one to make the decision.
@JonathanMartinovici The point you make about abortion makes an assumption about when a collection of cells becomes a human. Here the only reliable and practical line to take is one of viability. Until the feotus is viable it is not considered "alive". Otherwise, cutting out cancerous cells would be considered murder.
@UrukEngineer Children are not cancerous cells, they're human beings. One is a malady, the other is a human. If you will say that the viable point is when 'the child can survive outside the womb, then that's absurd. You remove a child from its mother's womb - it's only source of life and sustenance - and declare it not viable...it's ridiculous.
To all those who are brand new Christians & those who have been justified by faith please DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE! This is a religous spirit & has led many to doubt their salvation, exchange their faith which satan is greatly after for a lie, to "prove" your saved via Washer, Piper, Macarthur & the like. Keep your Armor on please!!! I have videos that challenge these heretical teachings of TULIP Calvinism, Armenianism & the like The wrath Washer is exhibiting is not of God but of the flesh
I hate christians. There isnt a God retard just like there isnt a zues or posidon. Jesus followers are acting like cannibals and have rejected reason and logic to be sheeple and raving lunatics like this guy. Fuck ALL Religion and esp. GOD
Because that was the only thing that COULD pay for our sin. We owed God perfect righteousness, but we don't have that to give. Jesus does. We deserve, for our debt, final, everlasting separation from God in death. Jesus took that penalty upon HIMSELF, instead of letting it fall on us. However, Jesus, being God, then defeated death by resurrecting, thereby opening the door of heaven to us, inviting us, beckoning us to do what would be IMPOSSIBLE without his death and resurrection: to know God.
@sanssleep sin could only be cleaned by blood sacrifice-that's why ppl used to sacrifice animals to God. That, and also to provide a good role model for us (to love and to serve others). That's why God sent Jesus to pay for our sin anyway.
I hope that helps. I wasn't trying to push my beliefs on you, I just wanted to answer your question. Sorry in advance if it sounds that way to you.
You don't win people to Christ by hitting them with mean-spirited threats. You will them over with the HOPE of salvation and showing them the soul-satisfying JOY that comes with Christ. Is conviction of sin part of it? Obviously. But basically what you just did is slam the door of heaven in this guys face. Just because Edwards chose to focus on God's wrath and justice in that particular sermon doesn't mean that God isn't merciful and forgiving. People really need to stop cherry picking.
@jes381990 I think that today an overemphasis on God being accepting and loving and "nice" is the greater problem than an overemphasis on judgement, most "churches" today don't even talk about judgement at all.
@jes381990 There is so much love and joy to be found in God setting forward Jesus as a propitiation by his blood. But why should I care about that if I do not feel the weight of my own condemnation before God? Jesus satisfying the wrath of God on the cross for me has no bearing on my soul if I don't first understand that the wrath of God will destroy me without him.
I agree there must be balance in what is preached. So preach sin hard, and preach God's love hard!
Does anybody know what scripture verse John Piper is referring to at the end of this video, you know the part where he says, 'then this verse will never make any sense to you.' which Bible verse is that
May God Bless you all and remember have faith in Jesus!!!!!
because his grammer and his language is very specific here, he is being very clear about what saving faith is, notice how many times he says satisfied, and how many adjectives he uses to describe the different attributes of Jesus, all of these are embraced and rejoiced in by the believer
Actually - believers aren't the brain dead ones. It's the world that has to deny truth, attacks truth and now says truth is merely relative. Why does the world say that? Because the world cannot handle Jesus! So they try and explain things away. However, Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life (John 14:6) and to the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're satisfied to be brain-dead sheeple for the rest of your pitiful lives believing in some manufactured bloodthirsty deity from the desert death cult of Abraham!
bufantes - why did Bono dress as a satanic figure in concert and U2 is known to perform "sympathy for the devil" live. Hardly a Christian band I would say! Try just reading the Bible and looking to Jesus.
As for small, hymn-singing, passionless churches, I go to one of those! And I thank God for putting this tiny light of true believers in the black darkness of Sweden, where most churches are empty or deny Christ (and where folks generally keep their passions to themselves).
Outward shows of passion don't necessarily show a humble heart or faith in Christ. Passionless outsides don't necessarily show empty hearts, devoid of the Spirit.
I was at SBTS for this sermon. It is just as beautiful now as it was then. I thank God for the words of this man. He is truly a remarkable individual.
Why arent you sitting there listening to the guy singing instead of listening to the way he is singing so you can know the notes? Im sorry its acoustic and im sorry that its God centered, but lets not worry about that, the people want to know the stupid notes of the song so they can go home and learn how to play it on guitar hero. Thats the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you dont know the song they are singing, then stop and listen. Dont complain about not have the notes.
Why arent you sitting there listening to the guy singing instead of listening to the way he is singing so you can know the notes? Im sorry its acoustic and im sorry that its God centered, but lets not worry about that, the people want to know the stupid notes of the song so they can go home and learn how to play it on guitar hero. Thats the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you dont know the song they are singing, then stop and listen. Dont complain about not have the notes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gosh I love what Piper says. I just wish the music wasn't so corny. Sounds like people is some semi-orgasmic state. Is all "praise" music so utterly blah?
Are you serious? Because it is soft spoken and acoustic its corny? Then you have no taste in music.
If you would find the song by itself and listen to it, you would understand that it is very God centered and beautifully written.
Again, you have no taste in music if you think that is corny or semi-orgasmic. To say a song is semi-orgasmic while talking about God? Pretty sure thats blasphemous in one way or another.
I just sicken of all this "praise" music that has no melodic structure. Piper's church sings few hymns---they sing this kind of stuff wherein nobody knows the tune and all you can do is mumble along. Then when you ask for the notes they tell you that if you are a Christian the Holy Spirit will lead you in song. Yeah. Right. But the instrumentalists? They all have the notes. Guess they aren't real Christians. Give me a hymnal and the honesty of tunes that are written in ink!
Why are you so worried about the music and not the context that you are singing or the words you hear from the pastor? Stop focusing on the music and focus on whats written in ink in the bible.
Good point! And that is what I do. When I go to Piper's church or a "praise" church I try to get there 30 minutes late so I don't have to put up with the malarky of not being able to even have the notes. See, they always make you stand up to give honor to the performers, and sometimes you have to stand for over 20 minutes so the "Praise Team" will have their egos stroked. That makes it hard to ignore the shallow "worship".
look if you want to be so narrow minded that you only want to look at a hymnal for the rest of your life go ahead and go to a 50 person with a pastor who has no passion.
Just because worship has gotten more contemporary and you cant see the notes on the page does not mean that God isnt in that worship too. You need to do some serious praying about this because your thought track is leading you to a life of having a hard heart to anything new.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it is worthwhile. Just because people "praise" and sound like they are collectively constipated doesn't indicate true worship. In Bible times the congregants sang. The Bible tells us to sing. It doesn't say to listen to a man-centered performance. When they ditched the hymns they ditched the ability of God's people to sing. Now, we mumble because we are not allowed to have the notes. That insures a performance/man centered service!
Whoe Whoe Whoe. That is kind of a gross generalization. I know you are reacting to Hoggdawns comments but I must contest the notion that Hymn singing Churches have no passion.
I agreee that some newer praise songs are great and God-centered but the great majority of them are completely void of the Gospel. They produce emotion not Truth.
What "newer praise songs" are you talking about? Show me which ones do not have the gospel in them? If you listen to the ones that I am listening too, then you are missing the entire song.
For instance. The Casting Crown's song "voice of Truth." By the way I like this song. There is no mention of Sin and repentence. The song sounds like it could be in a Rocky movie, it has the spiritual and intellectual content of a Joel Osteen sermon. I want to clarify that I am not rigidly against Praise songs many of them are God Glorifying, but a great deal of them are Man centered.
I agree with you, but from what I've heard, the music of Soverieign grace is God centered. But yeah your right in this comment and in the one above. Granted I like that song by Casting Crowns, but music by Soverighn Grace is gospel centered.
But you do bring up a good point. One of my reformed friends told me that back when he was a part of a rock band (before he got saved), he got goosebumps so ppl MOST DEFINATELY confuse the Holy Spirit with emotion.
Are you serious? Because it is soft spoken and acoustic its corny? Then you have no taste in music.
If you would find the song by itself and listen to it, you would understand that it is very God centered and beautifully written.
Again, you have no taste in music if you think that is corny or semi-orgasmic. To say a song is semi-orgasmic while talking about God? Pretty sure thats blasphemous in one way or another.
Back in the summer, my world got turned upside down when I was introduced to the basics of reformed theology. I was so depressed, because I had actually seen and read evidence in the Bible for God's sovereighnty. And I got introduced to the community of believers who believed in the five points, and as much as I wanted to disagree, I was forced to agree by these versus in the Bible.
And then I watched this video, and I just started balling.
I'm not questioning the fact that you can make a moral judgment; I'm questiong whether your ideology justifies your choice of moral foundation. You do not have to care about the good of others. Indeed, you see that it is a good thing for people to be prosperous and happy; but your philosophy doesn't justify this - it doesn't say that this is valuable, because it's completely materialistic. On your other statement, I would recommend Jonathan Edwards' "The End for which God Created the world."
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
thank you for this powerful video!
24Revelation 10 months ago
I am glad to be an Atheist as I feel truly liberated. I am not wasting my life on religous crap. I am enjoying this one life to the full. I do good things because "it's good to be good". The fact that this awesome universe and wonderful life has no guiding hand makes it all the more special and precious. I have no burden of sin, no guilt, and no pressure to "convert" others. In my world there is no Jehad, no Crusade.
Save yourself before it is too late. Peace
UrukEngineer 1 year ago 8
@UrukEngineer Well said!
It's hard to believe they all still believe in this Iron-Age mythology, isn't it?
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Thanks mate, sometimes I feel I am the only one who feels that way.
Peace
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer You're not the only one! Get round to looking at some others: type in "ZOMGitsCriss atheist umbrella" and look at her other vids as well - and also Christopher Hitchens, he's the master - so articulate and full of logic (common sense, that is!)
StrumstickJoe 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
Sorry, but you will NEVER enjoy this life to the full, until Jesus saves you. There will always be a void deep inside you, whether or not you know it yet. Some day you will know it.
I really hope you'll repent and believe the Gospel. Jesus Christ DIED so that EVERYONE who believes, will be saved. He's so precious, it's AMAZING!
Btw, neither Christians have burden of sin or guilt, because we've been washed by the blood of the Lamb!
(cont)
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
(cont)
There might be a short season where Holy Spirit convicts of our sin, but like the word of God says in Romans 8:28: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
Anyways, the "joy" that people have without Christ is NOTHING like the joy of the saints.
Man, just throw yourself upon Christ! There is nothing God has to do with you apart from Christ, except judgment.
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@GodIsGoodIAmNot Why can't you accept that other people are happier without your unfounded belief in a mythical god?
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
Because my God isn't a "mythical god" nor my beliefs unfounded. And for the fact that no one is truly happy without Christ.
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@GodIsGoodIAmNot Sorry mate.
There are thousands of gods, all of whom you believe are mythical. What reason do you have to believe that yours is diffferent?
As for being happy without Jesus. Muslims are SO happy about Allah they will kill themselves and non-believers. What evidence do you have that you are happier than them?
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
Jesus Christ is the only "expected" person. There are over 400 prophecies in the OT about the coming of the Messiah. And Jesus fulfilled all of them. If you call that a coincidence, makes it even more obvious that you're living in a denial.
He has risen indeed. The world has a Savior, the universe has a King!
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." --Jesus of Nazareth
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
Why do you think Muslims are happy when they kill themselves? I doubt they're not happy. They're just so full of hate and malice towards the people they're killing. They think that they're doing a favor for "God", but in reality they're simply used by Satan, the father of lies.
Christians who are willing to die for their beliefs, are happy. They're not suicidal, but they're at peace and have the joy of life, more than anyone without Christ. I would die for Christ. (cont)
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
(cont)
Not to say that I'm a particularly bold, I am not, but if it costs my life, then so be it. After all, I actually wait for persecutions to start, because true revivals (at least many of them) happen during persecutions.
I know that if I die, I win. Death is no loss for me, but it's a victory. To be absent from body is to be with the Lord. Nothing can be against me or other believers, because God is at my side.
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@GodIsGoodIAmNot You used 3 full comments boxes and still didn't say why god is christian not jewish, muslim etc.
The Jesus is the bible was written up to make it seem like he fulfilled JEWISH eschatology. Virgin birth, being born in Bethlehem etc were just added to make him seem the fullfilment of their prophesies. This cheapens the real story of Jesus, a man, it seems, somewhat ahead of his time.
You are happy to "die for Christ". Where do you stand on killing for Christ?
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
Why would I kill for Christ? He never told me to.
Except, of course, sin is what I need to kill daily by the power of the Holy Spirit, or it will get hold of me.
But to kill people? No.
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@GodIsGoodIAmNot Good, so we have established that preserving another's life is more important to you than doing Christ's will...if it came to it.
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer
All you're trying to make me look bad. If I answer: "Yes, I would kill for Christ." Then you would call me a cruel person or something similar.
Now that I said that I wouldn't kill for Him, because he never told me to, you're claiming that preserving someone's life is more important to me than God's will.
No, it's not.
GodIsGoodIAmNot 9 months ago
@GodIsGoodIAm Not I'm not trying to make you look bad. I'm trying to make you WAKE UP!
Can you not see how your religious views are exactly the same as those of the 9/11 bombers?
As a christian your blind devotion to god lacks any moral compass worthy of the 21st century.
UrukEngineer 9 months ago
@UrukEngineer What moral compass do you use? Seems to me that all law or any moral compass has its root in the Bible. Where do you get your "moral compass"? Most assuredly not anywhere near the 21st century.
TheIowaporter 4 months ago
@TheIowaporter There is no moral absolute. We must all first agree on what is "good/morally perfect". I have (borrow) a workable definition of:
Moral Right = something that promotes happiness, well-being or health OR minimises unnecessary harm or suffering OR both
Humans (excluding psychopaths) are born with empathy, this and their social environment shapes what we call a moral code.
UrukEngineer 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer This is an absurd argument. It's based on a hypothetical Christ. Christ commanded people to love one another as themselves. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." So He did not ban earthly warfare, but not in His name. It is wrong for people to go to war in the name of Christ. Yet, again, it is not wrong for a person to kill someone who is attempting to murder them. That's just common sense.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici You say you get your moral code from the bible - but you don't. I can't see why you don't recognise the truth. In practice you use common sense to pick and chose the morals - examples of which to "read into" the bible.
Slavery, genocide, child abuse - of course you don't follow the bible's moral compass.
UrukEngineer 4 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici The issue is what would a christian do if they though god wanted them to do it.
Jesus also endorsed all the horrible punishments of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-20); stoning, beating, murder, genocide etc. The doctrine of modern christianity has evolved to air-brush this out, however it is still there. Therefore it remains a furtile ground for extremism and religiously inspired acts of aggression. Google "Bush God Iraq War" for example.
UrukEngineer 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer Yes, Jesus Christ not only endorsed thse destroying of those nations, but He commanded them; if we are going to believe (as the Bible teaches) that Christ is eternally the Son of God. But remember this - Israel was a theocracy that was actively governed by God; the other leaders being mere mediators. New Testament Christianity is not a theocracy. God sent Israel out to destroy nations because of their wickedness.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer The new testament church has not been called upon to destroy those who do not believe; nor is the chruch called upon to destroy fornicators and idolaters. That is the role of the civil government of states, in which the church has no part, of itself. Israel was a civil power governed by God. The church is not. Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are wrong in the way that they assert that they (calling themselves the church of God) have the right to be a civil power.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
Nonetheless, let it be known, that all people who are walking on the earth deserve death. Their own consciences (until their have suppressed them until they have no more feeling) testify this to them. If God should choose to wipe out a whole nation by the hand of a civil power, then He would be just in doing so. But this is not the job of the church, nor can such an authority be justly concluded to belong to the church from the Bible. The church is not Israel. Their roles are different.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici You said
1. "Jesus Christ not only endorsed thse destroying of those nations, but He commanded them"
2. "...all people who are walking on the earth deserve death"
These are aggressive, destructive claims.
Then you say:
"If God should choose to wipe out a whole nation by the hand of a civil power, then He would be just in doing so"
But your church says that you MUST do god's work on Earth
Even if YOU are not a fanatic, can you see why religion is unhealthy?
UrukEngineer 4 months ago 7
@UrukEngineer You're taking my words out of context; or maybe you misunderstood me. I said that Christ, being God, commanded the Israelites to destroy those cities. Israel was merely a tool in the hand of God. Note that Babylon was used as a tool in God's hand to wipe out the city of Judah. So God cannot be said to command those kinds of things in the same way. The church is not, will not, be commanded to this - it hasn't been called for this purpose. Israel (once again) was a theocracy.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer To me, it is a destructive claim for governments to say that women have the rights over the lives of the children in their womb, and may murder them if they choose. Murder, in this case, now has legal warrant, in the name of scientific justification. Science has no rule by which is can justly make moral laws - it is completely materialistic! It doesn't indicate anything! That is destruction. I meant to say that God's justice is shown forth in hell; not in earthly destruction.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer Furthermore, would you say that it's destructive claim that murders, rapists, thieves, etc. should be punished? If you will apply your judgments to our civil government, you will say that everything is destructive that hurts people's feelings. But what if other people have been destroyed by these people whose feelings you seek to protect? It's absurd.
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer Let me just make it most clear - God has NOT called the church of the New Testament to the same work as Israel in the Old Testament. It is NOT the work of the church to destroy all in its path. This is why I am so distrurbed by your argument. But civil governments have, for the past century or so, used science to justify genocide. Far more lives have been taken in the name of secularism than have been taken by Christianity (see Hitler, Stalin, and others, and now abortions).
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@UrukEngineer I refer you to Christianity, and not to other religions. You might say, "Many have died at the hands of Christians." I will say, 'yes.' But we must observe that these 'Christians' did not act according to the word of God - they took things out of context, like you did. The number of lives taken by them, nonetheless, is far less than have been taken by secularist plots. The deaths to 'christians' is in the thousands. The deaths to secuarists is in the millions. Who is destructive?
JonathanMartinovici 4 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici The god of the christian bible did command people to commit genocide (JS 6:21-27, DT 20:13-14, NU 31:17-18 etc). The evidence is there, in "the word of god". By modern standards these are considered war crimes
Please correct me if I misunderstand you, but I think you are saying that these and other barbaric acts are OK if god sanctions them. My point is that when it comes to doing what christians think god wants, the gospel is easily used to justify wicked acts.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer If you want a good source of further info on this, a good page is:w w w . r a t i o n a l c h r i s t i a n i t y . n e t / g e n o c i d e . h t m l
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer The link I just posted will answer your question about justifying genocide. At the end of the page, there's a question something like, "Does the Bible justify Genocide?" or something like that. The answer is sound. You're looking at it very much from a humanistic perspective; so the answer probably won't satisfy you. But if you take some time to think about it, and think about the grossness of sin in God's eyes, you will begin to understand, by God's grace.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici Thanks for the link. You were right, it just made me more nervous about the faulty moral compass that christianity provides. In the section "Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?" The answer is *Yes* but only if someone thinks that they have a "direct command from God to do so". There are many SANE people who think god talks to them and so it is possible they may think they have a direct order to kill - many have done just that.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer If a Christian thinks he hears God commanding him to commit genocide, then he has to test that against the word of God, which does not leave New Testament Christians to do such a thing. The voice is not God's voice. Once again, Old Testament Israel was a civil nation; not an international dispersion (as New Testament Christians are). They have not acted according to what the Bible says, who have acted as you have said.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici But the christian god DOES endorse genocide in the NT. Jesus said not one word of the law (OT) was to be changed.
When the jews wrote the OT they did not describe all the cities as wanton baby sacrificers. The only reason for their destruction was that they believed god had given them the land and the cities' women.
The OT remains a problem for christians as it is not recinded and you claim it remains the core of your morals. You have said killing for your god is OK.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says to Israel, "It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Whether you believe idolatry to be wicked is another issue. If God is God indeed, then idolatry is wicked.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici The argument you have put forward is exactly the same as that used to motivate the 911 bombers. Why do you think you are right and they are wrong?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer As to your comment on the 911 bombers, they do not believe the same theology. You cannot compare the two. The 911 bombers killed (as far as I know) because they believe that all who will not convert to Islam must die. All who follow Jesus, and say that Jesus is God in the flesh, are infidels and heretics, according to Islam. God did not send Israel to destroy nations because they would not convert to Judaism.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer God send Israel to destroy nations, on the whole, who were sacrificing children in fires, who were living in open sexual immorality, in total defiance of their own consciences. Nonetheless, remember again, New Testament Christians are not called to this; they are not a civil authority, as Israel was, nor have Christians been called to be.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici God said that Atheists should be killed. Do you agree with him?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer The word 'atheist' is not mentioned even once in the Bible. "The fool" not the atheist "has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'" (Psalm 14:1) But the Bible says all must die - not only those who deny God's existence. All deserve hell. The least sin deserves everlasting punishment. If you think that mere physical death is the desert of sin, then you're mistake as to what the Bible even says. God would be just to throw every living human being into hell because of their sins.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici 2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" - I guess that includes Atheists.
Do you think this part of the bible was wrong to kill people for not believing in the christian god?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer By the context, we learn that this is the people of Israel spoken of; not another nation. The nation had departed from the commandments of God to a great extent (verse 3). Amongst these commandments (which were given by God to the civil nation, as we have observed) was the one in Deuteronomy 17:2-5 (too lengthy to type here).
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer But the truth is that your morality, if not driven by a desire to obey God, must arise from the value of happiness. All things will be subservient to this. If you will say that the happiness of man is the aim of morality, then you will compromise all at the cost of this. An example of this is the 'white lie'. Why would someone tell a white lie? They would rather that someone beleives something false than that they know the truth. So even truth ends up less important than happiness.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici Interesting argument you make about Truth v White Lie.
However there is a difference between not telling your wife that her arse looks huge in ANY skirt she tries and only believing in things for which there is compelling evidence ie the Truth about reality evolution etc.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer What is the difference between "not telling your wife that her arse looks huge in ANY skirt she tries" and any other kind of hiding of truth? At what point will you say that the truth is necessary to be told? At the point that it begins to affect the happiness of other people? So might it be about happiness being of higher value than truth? And if so, by what rule will you make such a judgment as ought to be valued by another, if we will be relativistic on the issue?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici My fault, I took the conversation into too many topics, abortion is too complex an issue to run alongside a discussion on morals.
Happy to stick to morals?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Sorry, I began with using abortion as an example. Whilst I see that as being relevant to a discussion on morality, it isn't the best to solve one controversy along side another, in this instance. However, do you see my other points?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "However, do you see my other points?" I read and understood them. However I don't agree. Morals are never absolute and objective. There is always a subjective element to them. However, if one accepts that happiness, health and well-being ARE the goals of a moral code, one has at least a benchmark against which SOME objective measurement is possible. Morals are a product of the society they serve and change over time through collective adherence.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer "However, if one accepts that happiness, health and well-being ARE the goals of a moral code." This is still arbitrary. You're just picking one thing out of the air, in order to justify having some kind of moral code; because you know it needs to exist. You know that happiness is a valuable thing, and it is absolutely wrong to oppress the happiness of innocents (I use the term 'innocent' in worldly sense, not a Biblical sense - in which no-one is innocent).
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "happiness, health and well-being" seem to have general acceptance across almost all human cultures as the basis of morality...they aren't arbitary.
However one COULD say that the basis of morality is to do what you think your god wants you to do. But if you do this, you cannot prove that your god is "good". It becomes a circular argument...god is good because he is god.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "If people disagree with your moral foundation, then you can't even say they're wrong" True.
"One person will think one carriage of justice is unjust." True
But look around, this is exactly what the real world is like.
"At the end of the day, it will come down to your own personal preference" Rarely. Christians used the bible to justify slavery 200 years ago. Today they say it is wicked. Now, our collectively established moral code is against it.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Yes, Christians used the Bible to justify slavery 200 years ago - they were wrong. The Bible doesn't advocate it. I could use the Bible to prove that it's a sin to wear jewellery; that doesn't make it true. Why do people say that slavery is wicked? Do you know that William Wilberforce was a Christian, and that that is what caused him to fight against slavery the way he did?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer What makes the collective view of people right? If you're going to play the atheist, I will address you thus: what will you say of the times at which the collective view was that the Bible is true? Will you necessarily say that the view of atheists is true merely because it is more frequently held (which is debatable)? It certainly isn't necessarily more intelligent or informed - considering the fact that there are theists and atheists teaching science at universities.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Sorry, I lost my line of thought there for a moment. Going from "Why do people say that slavery is wicked? " How can you judge of that? What if the opinion of the majority remained that slavery is good and should be sustained? Would that mean we should continue? Furthermore, would you call those people immoral who understood the wickedness of it, and did not protest against it in some way? Why? Are they absolutely wrong in not so doing?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "Furthermore, would you call those people immoral who understood the wickedness of it, and did not protest against it in some way?" Yes
Some aspects of morality are readily agreed by almost all people (don't kill, steal etc). These are clearly breaches of the "Golden Rule". However, others are less clear and change as a society changes.
As an Atheist I think it is "right" to question religious beliefs. 100 years ago christians would have burned people like me.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer "100 years ago christians would have burned people like me." I don't even think that's true; but even if it were so, 100 years ago is not an authority. You need to read early church history - read the book of Acts, and then other things. Don't make your judgments on the Christian faith based on what people who called themselves Christians have done. Read a good, Biblical systematic theology (Calvin's Institutes is a good place to start), and then judge.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Furthermore, that last phrase of yours is full of moral context and implication. "100 years ago christians would have burned people like me." You assume that you are good - which, I believe, I have shown you have no grounds for believing, any more than the rapist has grounds to think he is good. I do not condemn your critical way of thinking. But I don't believe your understanding of the Christian faith is even Biblcially informed in a systematic way so as to justify it.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer It is not Biblical for Christians to burn those who disagree with them. It is Biblical that those who are opposed to God deserve to be punished eternally by Him. It is Biblical that if Christ's, the God-Man's righteousness were not imputed to Christians, they would deserve to be punished eternally by God. It is Biblical that Christians be subject to the governing authorities - if this means that preaching the gospel is punishable by death, then they die.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici ...now (most) christians think the right response is to counter Atheists in debate. I think you and I both share this "moral standard". This is not the case in muslim countries, though in 100 years time it may become so.
We can judge what is "right" by the overall benefit it gives to society. But this must balance the needs of the one with the many and today with tomorrow. I didn't say it was easy.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer I do not think that the chief response is to counter atheists in debate. I can only convince you to a certain point by mere reason. It is a common misconception that someone is a Christian if he believes that the Bible is true. Yet the Bible itself says that even "the devils believe, and tremble." (James 2:19) Yet, they are not Christians. A mere intellectual assent does not make anyone a Christian.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Yes, if one does not believe these things, he cannot be a Christian; but that is not the sum of Christianity. One cannot claim the name Christian if he has nothing more than this. It is a common misconception of atheists and many others, that that is all. No. The Bible says that no man can believe unless the Father grants it to him. If I only convinced you that the Bible is true, you would no more be a Christian than you were before.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer You must be born from above; that is, your wicked and hard heart, which is prone to rebellion against God, must be removed. You are dead in your trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1); you must be made alive. You deserve hell because you have sinned. It is only God's grace, causing you to come to Christ through the gospel, that can save you. You think God is evil to punish sin - but this is because you do not see sin as being so bad...apart from people like hitler, and rapists...
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer But I dare not attempt to persuade you in such a way as to think your view as equal authority. I believe that the Bible, when rightly taught, is self-evidently true, and it ought to be preached as such. I can argue philosophically with you forever, and never convince you. You need to listen to the word of God being taught, and then inquire. Question your own beliefs. I believe I've probably scrutinized my own faith far more than you ever have scrutinized my faith.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici Christians burnt "heretics" aka those that did not believe in and interpret their religion in the way that they wanted. I am sure you would not disagree with this historical fact.
Those christians really thought they were the true christians - they had as much conviction in their beliefs as you do. So why is YOUR definition right and theirs wrong?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer The Roman Catholics (people who did not believe we should read the Scriptures apart from the Catholic Fathers) burnt protestants (people who believed in 'Sola Scriptura' [scripture alone]). It is not a mere case of interpreting the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism does not teach much of what the Bible teaches. It adds pergatory, indulgences, authority of fathers, Mary Mediatrix, prayers to Mary and other saints, relics...the list goes on. They are not found in the Bible.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici The bible is not "self-evidently true".
It has been repeated proven to be completely wrong on many aspects such as the evolution of life.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Evolution has not ever been proven nor observed. You've been just trapped by our almost Fascistic society that wants you to think it's a proven fact. I would have you subscribe to the CMI (creation ministries international) newsletter, or, at least, read things from their 'Questioning Evolution' campaign.
I don't see how you can see much of these 'many aspects' that hold water.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "You've been just trapped by our almost Fascistic society that wants you to think it's a proven fact" LOL seriously?
Evolution by Natural Selection is one of the most thoroughly researched and proven scientific theories ever. Would you like me to point you to the evidence?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Macro-evolution has never been observed. Micro-evolution has been. But the former does not imply the occurrence of the other. If you look at that website, I'm sure the information there should be more than intellectually satifsying.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici “Macro-evolution has never been observed” Sorry, that is utterly wrong.
Wiki *Macroevolution*: “macroevolution, i.e. speciation in a specific case has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature”
What I liked about the Wiki article was that it referenced several peer-reviewed studies. This would be a better place to start your research than a Creationist website.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer This could open up a whole debate on evolution; which would probably just make this too lengthy. But I might as well play passive, and ask: If macro-evolution (that is, 'goo-to-you', as some like to call it) evolution were observed concretely, why would so many true scientists disagree? Cats always bing forth cats; dogs, dogs; snakes, snakes. You need more than mere inability to reproduce with previous species to substantiate a whole new kind.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "if...evolution were observed concretely, why would so many true scientists disagree?"
You are wrong almost all scientists agree in evolution by natural.
Here is some separate evidence to back up my statement: search " Wikipedia, Level of Support for Evolution" and "Project Steve, National Center for Science Education"
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Nonetheless, my aim in entering this discussion was not to debate evolution, but to clear up your accusations against the justice of God in the past. You should go to more learned people on the Creationist side to learn more. That's why I recommended the website - you will see many things there that don't get said many other places. Evolutionists rarely fight fairly. They have intentionally blotted out the voice of Creationists, and desire that people regard speculation as fact.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici I don't take my morals from the bible - and - neither do you.
Be honest, do you agree with EVERY crime punishment in the bible?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer I agree that every sin deserves eternal hell. That is moral. We have offended an infintely good God, who has dealt only kindly with us; and we somehow think that eternal punishment is too severe?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici "I agree that every sin deserves eternal hell"
Do you know what hell is? Eternal agony and pain, despair with no chance for repreive for infinity.
How can ANY sane human wish to inflict punishment on a fellow human being? That is just sick!
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer I do not wish to inflict punishment; nor to I wish hell on anyone. I am saying that I believe that all sin deserves hell. God is the one who executes that justice, and He is just to do so.
But let's think on your question:"How can ANY sane human wish to inflict punishment on a fellow human being?" Do you have any sense of justice? But, then, you defend the daily slaughter of innocent unborn children. Is anything worthy of punishment but children being conceived?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici “…daily slaughter of innocent unborn children…” this takes us into abortion. I dispute that a collection of cells is a child. But I think this is a bigger issue that, for the sake of focus, we should avoid.
The question is whether god, in reality, lives up to human moral standards.
“…I (don’t) wish hell on anyone” and “…I believe that all sin deserves hell” are irreconsilable contradictions. You clearly endorse god’s vicious punishment; or is god wrong?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer No matter how much you deny it, your definition of what is a child is completely arbitrary. You might as well say that the baby outside the womb is not viable because it is still relying on its mother...
I can say I do not wish hell on anyone - I wish that all should flee to Christ. God's wrath is terrible, and God's mercy is beautiful. But your problem is that you don't think that sin is bad. You just think that it's not so good. God's judgment is equal to the offense.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonathanMartinovici "...your problem is that you don't think that sin is bad. You just think that it's not so good"
Not so. I do not think there is any such thing as sin.
There are only actions which run against the definition of good that I gave earlier. Those "bad" actions can be utterly deplorable.
BTW I do not think that ANY crime is punishable by death...ever.
I believe in punishment proportionate to crime. Do you?
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer God is right to punish sin. And in a way, I sympathise with David in Psalm 139, when he says, "O that You would slay the wicked, O God!" This is not in contradiction to compassion. I love sinners who are on the way to Hell. And yet, I would believe God to be perfectly just in punishment. Would you not have compassion on a relative who has committed a crime punishable by death, and yet who obstinately continues in that crime? And, yet, would you consider the judge unjust?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
I would say that Morally Right = something that promotes happiness, well-being or health OR minimises unnecessary harm or suffering OR both. It's not about personal gratification.
I also think that this forms the basic core morals of all humans. It is not a christian code, just an evolved, social primate trait.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Why do you say that? If the explanation is purely material, then why do you feel subjected to it? Why do you have a responsibility to anyone? Why do you even think that truth is important? You don't have to believe in any of these morals if you're a materialist. At the end of the day, it will come down to your own personal preference. After all, you began by saying, "I would say that morally right..." So what if other people disagree with you?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer If people disagree with your moral foundation, then you can't even say they're wrong - if we're going to be a bit philosophical. Just because 'that's the way nature has always behaved' doesn't mean you have to obey it. "But it is obviously better than another set of moral values." According to who? You can't make a moral statement without thinking it is absolute. It's absurd. Where, then, is justice? One person will think one carriage of justice is unjust...etc.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Perhaps people lie to their parents for the sake of some other pleasure. So they believe that it is better for their parents to believe a lie than that their own pleasures be cut off. But, of course, honouring parents isn't really considered that important in today's culture anyway. But the person knows that the hand that reared him and provided for him has some right to know the truth from them and deserves to be trusted until proven untrustworthy.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer To go further, women are now given the 'right' to take lives of the children in their womb. I know there are some difficult circumstances that sometimes surround this. But, at the end of the day, will you say the mother's life is more or less valuable than the life of the little one? Will we also decide whether it is right to take the life of one whose existence on earth might be quite miserable due to illnesses? I wouldn't want to be the one to make the decision.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@JonathanMartinovici The point you make about abortion makes an assumption about when a collection of cells becomes a human. Here the only reliable and practical line to take is one of viability. Until the feotus is viable it is not considered "alive". Otherwise, cutting out cancerous cells would be considered murder.
UrukEngineer 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer When do you say it is viable?
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
@UrukEngineer Children are not cancerous cells, they're human beings. One is a malady, the other is a human. If you will say that the viable point is when 'the child can survive outside the womb, then that's absurd. You remove a child from its mother's womb - it's only source of life and sustenance - and declare it not viable...it's ridiculous.
JonathanMartinovici 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all those who are brand new Christians & those who have been justified by faith please DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE! This is a religous spirit & has led many to doubt their salvation, exchange their faith which satan is greatly after for a lie, to "prove" your saved via Washer, Piper, Macarthur & the like. Keep your Armor on please!!! I have videos that challenge these heretical teachings of TULIP Calvinism, Armenianism & the like The wrath Washer is exhibiting is not of God but of the flesh
PureGraceEvangelism 1 year ago
what is this song in the background? thanks and God bless
meleeds 1 year ago
@meleeds the song is:ONLY JESUS Sovereign Grace VALLEY OF VISION ALBUM
anacieq 1 year ago
I pray that I may understand this sometime... it's hard submitting ur all to God sometimes.
lildragon 1 year ago
Boy, am I glad to be an atheist.
Slufa 1 year ago
@Slufa Why are you glad to be an atheist?
Rhuanjl 1 year ago
I hate christians. There isnt a God retard just like there isnt a zues or posidon. Jesus followers are acting like cannibals and have rejected reason and logic to be sheeple and raving lunatics like this guy. Fuck ALL Religion and esp. GOD
TotalRift 1 year ago
@TotalRift Why do you hate your creator so much?
Rhuanjl 1 year ago
I wonder why God decided that the death and suffering of an innocent was required to pay for sin
sanssleep 1 year ago
Because that was the only thing that COULD pay for our sin. We owed God perfect righteousness, but we don't have that to give. Jesus does. We deserve, for our debt, final, everlasting separation from God in death. Jesus took that penalty upon HIMSELF, instead of letting it fall on us. However, Jesus, being God, then defeated death by resurrecting, thereby opening the door of heaven to us, inviting us, beckoning us to do what would be IMPOSSIBLE without his death and resurrection: to know God.
dugw15 1 year ago 2
@sanssleep sin could only be cleaned by blood sacrifice-that's why ppl used to sacrifice animals to God. That, and also to provide a good role model for us (to love and to serve others). That's why God sent Jesus to pay for our sin anyway.
I hope that helps. I wasn't trying to push my beliefs on you, I just wanted to answer your question. Sorry in advance if it sounds that way to you.
lildragon 1 year ago
Great video !
krisv001 2 years ago 2
may the God of all grace grant you the gift of belief
TheStringbean20 2 years ago 2
ya thanks to your god
williampatrickwoods 2 years ago
This video doesn't have anything to do with grammar...
stealbugsy 2 years ago 2
great video :) all glory to God! :)))
slaveofChrist7 2 years ago
I don't get the title.
ScalarPhotonZ 2 years ago
This truly is grammar that exalts God!!!!
pbar1000 2 years ago
the voice is familiar.. he's like the one who preach in our church here in the philippines.. pentecostal church..
kram3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It didn't make any sense to me.
bucksmasher1 2 years ago
Heyy... Can someone tell me please what's the name of this background song :) ?
thanks...
Doodeh2 2 years ago
"only Jesus" by sovereign grace ministries
jmax2003 2 years ago
Comment removed
CharismaticCalvinist 2 years ago
does anyone know how can i get this sermon?
terry54545454 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The song is , " I am nuts " by John Piper
ilikezappa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmao!!! thats so funny =p there is no god =p
williampatrickwoods 2 years ago
Tell that to your conscience William, you are without excuse the day you die. 160,000 people die everyday
jaykarroll 2 years ago
you'll face Him and He'll send you to hell. Have you ever heaver this sermon by jonathan edwards: Sinners in the hand of an angry God.
jeanlenor 2 years ago
You don't win people to Christ by hitting them with mean-spirited threats. You will them over with the HOPE of salvation and showing them the soul-satisfying JOY that comes with Christ. Is conviction of sin part of it? Obviously. But basically what you just did is slam the door of heaven in this guys face. Just because Edwards chose to focus on God's wrath and justice in that particular sermon doesn't mean that God isn't merciful and forgiving. People really need to stop cherry picking.
jes381990 2 years ago 2
@jes381990 I think that today an overemphasis on God being accepting and loving and "nice" is the greater problem than an overemphasis on judgement, most "churches" today don't even talk about judgement at all.
Rhuanjl 1 year ago
@Rhuanjl I totally agree. But I also think that an overemphasis on judgment is just as bad as an overemphasis on love.
jes381990 1 year ago
@jes381990 There is so much love and joy to be found in God setting forward Jesus as a propitiation by his blood. But why should I care about that if I do not feel the weight of my own condemnation before God? Jesus satisfying the wrath of God on the cross for me has no bearing on my soul if I don't first understand that the wrath of God will destroy me without him.
I agree there must be balance in what is preached. So preach sin hard, and preach God's love hard!
yobosayo227 1 year ago
What song is being playing?
AustinD88 2 years ago
does anyone know what sermon this is?
terry54545454 2 years ago
wats this song in the background??
amazing video btw!!!!!!!!
solachristos2 2 years ago
Comment removed
LifeIsSoAwesome 2 years ago
Thanks for this awesome post!
shaunehw 2 years ago
WOO
WOOWOO
WOOWOOWOO
WOOWOOWOOWOO
WOOWOOWOOWOOWOO
WOOWOOWOOWOOWOOWOOT!
Thank you GOD for that man John Piper!
cdevidal 2 years ago 2
Thank you so much, may God richly bless you!
JESUSKINGOFKINGS2009 2 years ago
Does anybody know what scripture verse John Piper is referring to at the end of this video, you know the part where he says, 'then this verse will never make any sense to you.' which Bible verse is that
May God Bless you all and remember have faith in Jesus!!!!!
JESUSKINGOFKINGS2009 3 years ago
It is 2 Corinthians 1:24
3manator 2 years ago
what's the title have to do with the video?
Bogzy1989 3 years ago
because his grammer and his language is very specific here, he is being very clear about what saving faith is, notice how many times he says satisfied, and how many adjectives he uses to describe the different attributes of Jesus, all of these are embraced and rejoiced in by the believer
cougarsrule45 3 years ago 2
all for Jesus, all for Jesus...
Bogzy1989 3 years ago
Yeah, I love the way he uses the language so skillfully, especially as an English teacher. This is what you love to hear from the pulpit.
Angel1908 3 years ago
Actually - believers aren't the brain dead ones. It's the world that has to deny truth, attacks truth and now says truth is merely relative. Why does the world say that? Because the world cannot handle Jesus! So they try and explain things away. However, Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life (John 14:6) and to the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32
matt3i6 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're satisfied to be brain-dead sheeple for the rest of your pitiful lives believing in some manufactured bloodthirsty deity from the desert death cult of Abraham!
Its the 21-century sheeple; wake up!
wiskawind 3 years ago
Very God centered. Love it!
fishwithtrish 3 years ago
John Piper is the best!
vico100 3 years ago
I never heard of this man, but he surely impressed me a lot with his preaching here. Thank you very much for uploading !
God bless u my brother
Complex1989 3 years ago 2
He's a true man of God. The Lord has used him tremendously to bless my life and bring me more to Him and find my Joy solely in Him.
Sanctum85 3 years ago 2
bufantes - why did Bono dress as a satanic figure in concert and U2 is known to perform "sympathy for the devil" live. Hardly a Christian band I would say! Try just reading the Bible and looking to Jesus.
matt3i6 3 years ago
Wishing I had his boldness, intensity, and passion!
jciljciljcil 3 years ago 2
pray for it. God can give it to you brother.
Bhanna4d 3 years ago 2
Now, now, children, let's play nice, kk?
As for small, hymn-singing, passionless churches, I go to one of those! And I thank God for putting this tiny light of true believers in the black darkness of Sweden, where most churches are empty or deny Christ (and where folks generally keep their passions to themselves).
Outward shows of passion don't necessarily show a humble heart or faith in Christ. Passionless outsides don't necessarily show empty hearts, devoid of the Spirit.
talitha00cumi 3 years ago
I was at SBTS for this sermon. It is just as beautiful now as it was then. I thank God for the words of this man. He is truly a remarkable individual.
jpgahagan 3 years ago 2
Why arent you sitting there listening to the guy singing instead of listening to the way he is singing so you can know the notes? Im sorry its acoustic and im sorry that its God centered, but lets not worry about that, the people want to know the stupid notes of the song so they can go home and learn how to play it on guitar hero. Thats the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you dont know the song they are singing, then stop and listen. Dont complain about not have the notes.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
Why arent you sitting there listening to the guy singing instead of listening to the way he is singing so you can know the notes? Im sorry its acoustic and im sorry that its God centered, but lets not worry about that, the people want to know the stupid notes of the song so they can go home and learn how to play it on guitar hero. Thats the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you dont know the song they are singing, then stop and listen. Dont complain about not have the notes.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
Love it. So amazing. I pray for all the souls that haven't accepted Jesus yet.. cause.... wow. The joy you get is amazing.
ErikaTwin 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gosh I love what Piper says. I just wish the music wasn't so corny. Sounds like people is some semi-orgasmic state. Is all "praise" music so utterly blah?
hoggdawn 4 years ago
Are you serious? Because it is soft spoken and acoustic its corny? Then you have no taste in music.
If you would find the song by itself and listen to it, you would understand that it is very God centered and beautifully written.
Again, you have no taste in music if you think that is corny or semi-orgasmic. To say a song is semi-orgasmic while talking about God? Pretty sure thats blasphemous in one way or another.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
I just sicken of all this "praise" music that has no melodic structure. Piper's church sings few hymns---they sing this kind of stuff wherein nobody knows the tune and all you can do is mumble along. Then when you ask for the notes they tell you that if you are a Christian the Holy Spirit will lead you in song. Yeah. Right. But the instrumentalists? They all have the notes. Guess they aren't real Christians. Give me a hymnal and the honesty of tunes that are written in ink!
hoggdawn 3 years ago
Why are you so worried about the music and not the context that you are singing or the words you hear from the pastor? Stop focusing on the music and focus on whats written in ink in the bible.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
Good point! And that is what I do. When I go to Piper's church or a "praise" church I try to get there 30 minutes late so I don't have to put up with the malarky of not being able to even have the notes. See, they always make you stand up to give honor to the performers, and sometimes you have to stand for over 20 minutes so the "Praise Team" will have their egos stroked. That makes it hard to ignore the shallow "worship".
hoggdawn 3 years ago
look if you want to be so narrow minded that you only want to look at a hymnal for the rest of your life go ahead and go to a 50 person with a pastor who has no passion.
Just because worship has gotten more contemporary and you cant see the notes on the page does not mean that God isnt in that worship too. You need to do some serious praying about this because your thought track is leading you to a life of having a hard heart to anything new.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
Just because something is new doesn't mean it is worthwhile. Just because people "praise" and sound like they are collectively constipated doesn't indicate true worship. In Bible times the congregants sang. The Bible tells us to sing. It doesn't say to listen to a man-centered performance. When they ditched the hymns they ditched the ability of God's people to sing. Now, we mumble because we are not allowed to have the notes. That insures a performance/man centered service!
hoggdawn 3 years ago
Whoe Whoe Whoe. That is kind of a gross generalization. I know you are reacting to Hoggdawns comments but I must contest the notion that Hymn singing Churches have no passion.
I agreee that some newer praise songs are great and God-centered but the great majority of them are completely void of the Gospel. They produce emotion not Truth.
Bhanna4d 3 years ago 2
What "newer praise songs" are you talking about? Show me which ones do not have the gospel in them? If you listen to the ones that I am listening too, then you are missing the entire song.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
For instance. The Casting Crown's song "voice of Truth." By the way I like this song. There is no mention of Sin and repentence. The song sounds like it could be in a Rocky movie, it has the spiritual and intellectual content of a Joel Osteen sermon. I want to clarify that I am not rigidly against Praise songs many of them are God Glorifying, but a great deal of them are Man centered.
Bhanna4d 3 years ago
I agree with you, but from what I've heard, the music of Soverieign grace is God centered. But yeah your right in this comment and in the one above. Granted I like that song by Casting Crowns, but music by Soverighn Grace is gospel centered.
But you do bring up a good point. One of my reformed friends told me that back when he was a part of a rock band (before he got saved), he got goosebumps so ppl MOST DEFINATELY confuse the Holy Spirit with emotion.
cougarsrule45 3 years ago
Are you serious? Because it is soft spoken and acoustic its corny? Then you have no taste in music.
If you would find the song by itself and listen to it, you would understand that it is very God centered and beautifully written.
Again, you have no taste in music if you think that is corny or semi-orgasmic. To say a song is semi-orgasmic while talking about God? Pretty sure thats blasphemous in one way or another.
funnyman2424 3 years ago
I love this video.
Back in the summer, my world got turned upside down when I was introduced to the basics of reformed theology. I was so depressed, because I had actually seen and read evidence in the Bible for God's sovereighnty. And I got introduced to the community of believers who believed in the five points, and as much as I wanted to disagree, I was forced to agree by these versus in the Bible.
And then I watched this video, and I just started balling.
cougarsrule45 4 years ago 2