Theophilous

I have a younger brother. He has only had three serious relationships in his life and none of them have turned out well for him. He recently found a young lady that promised to be very different. She and my brother shared many interests. They had only known each other for several months, but were in love and very happy.

Yesterday she was killed in an automobile accident while enroute to his house to celebrate Thanksgiving. He found out about it several hours later. In a FB posting he stated that, ”there is no god”.

I can understand his pain and anger. I have some experience of losing loved ones, not through death, but through divorce. As a family we are gathering to support him through this time of tragedy and grief.

My concern is this. I am a devout Christian. I know that in Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” While I trust that the Lord knows what he is doing, and that he is in charge, I am worried about my brother. I don’t have the answers of why this happened. I can’t give him any explanation that would make sense to us about fairness or the love of God in this. I am worried that the “there is no God” belief is something that he will carry with him to the grave, and the consequences beyond.

Besides asking for the Holy Spirit to enter into his life and give him the comfort he needs, what other advice can you offer me, as I try to help my brother?

demonstrated by his creation, and as referenced in Romans 1:19-20. The second by his special revelation as is revealed in scripture, given to us by god through his special relationship with the Jewish people.

Given that even people who have not received the special revelation, say an aboriginal tribesman in the Amazon jungle, will be held "without excuse" because of general revelation, can their faith in the creator, who's evidence of existence surrounds them, be counted as righteousness sufficient to be a saving grace?

I can see how Jesus, as second person of the trinity, and savior might allow this. And I can see how in so doing this might not contradict the biblical verse

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

and in the book of Acts, speaking of Jesus;

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

So, Are those who are held without excuse for not knowing the gospels, saved by the grace of Jesus in whom they have never heard? Or are they damned? And if possible, please back up your opinions with citations of biblical verses to demonstrate.

Did Jesus set aside his deity when he became a human? I originally thought that Jesus, being the second person of the trinity, would always possess all the attributes of God, including omniscience and omnipotence. In further study, this does not appear to be the case.

Jesus does not appear to be omniscient.

Luke 2:52 “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

If Jesus increased in wisdom, then he must have had less wisdom at one point than at a later point.

Jesus admits to having a lack of knowledge about a subject.

Mark 13:32 “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

Being omniscient means to know all things. Clearly if you already know all things you cannot learn anything more. Therefore, since Jesus grew in wisdom, he did not know all things. If he did not know the day and the hour, he did not know all things.

Jesus does not appear to be omnipotent.

John 8:28 “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.”

John 5:19 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 5:3- “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

Jesus repeatedly said that he does nothing of his own power. Even when threatened with death at the moment of his capture, he tells Peter something.

Matthew 26:53 “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”

Note that Jesus does not say that he can command the legions of angels directly, by his own power, but that he would have to pray to the Father in order to be given them.

When Jesus lived among us as a man, had he set aside his divine powers? When were those powers returned to him? If so, when? At his resurrection? When he was placed on his Father’s throne? Will it happen at the rapture or at his second coming?

If you can, please back up your thoughts with scriptural references.

According to the testimony at the trial of George Zimmerman..

Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached Zimmerman.

Martin threw the first punch, knocking Zimmerman to the ground.

Martin told Zimmereman "You are gonna die tonight."

Martin was stradling Zimmerman and punching his head into a concrete sidewalk.

Martin was crying out for help. (at least one eye witness 15 feet away said so)

Martin continued to beat Zimmerman even after being told by eye witnesses that the police were being called.

If George Zimmerman did not have a gun, he may have suffered a fractured skull and or crainial hemorages from the beating and died.

Martin laid in wait in the shadows for Zimmerman rather than proceeding to the house he was staying at. He did not use the four minutes between the 911 call and the shooting to travel the 65 yards to the house. He struck the first blow. The time allowed him to premeditate his actions. His "You are going to die tonight" comment indicated his intention to kill and his premeditation. His comment to the girlfriend of "creepy *** cracker" indicated a racial bias.

According to Florida law the statute for first degree murder states;

782.04 Murder.—(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

If Zimmerman had died at the hands of Trayvon Martin, would Martin have been guilty of first degree murder?

The second amendment states, in its entirety, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Who is the militia? At the time of writing the militia was those of military age, who were not criminal nor mentally enfeebled, and would provide their own weapons, for the purpose of training and defense.

Please note, not criminals, not convicted felons, not the mentally ill.

Today the definition of militia is spelled out clearly in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, subsection 311, which states;

“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "

Since the national guard has been converted into part of the the standing army of the United States, the rights of the militia have devolved on to the portion that remains, namely, the unorganized militia.

We ordinary citizens are that unorganized militia.

You might be able to make a case that the congress of the US has the power to control the regulations regarding the arming of the militia, under article 1, section 8 of the constitution, which grants to congress the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

However, since the second amendment was enacted after this provision, it would take precedence as a clarification of the limits of power to be exerted by the congress.

In short, the second amendment provides that the people, who are the unorganized militia, have a right to keep (read as own) and bear (read as carry) firearms, and those rights shall not be infringed by congress.

Given the above, and if you decide to challenge these presuppositions, please cite your evidence sustaining that challenge, case law if you will, not just asserting your opinions, the currently considered gun legislation could not be considered to be constitutional.

Why then haven't the proponents of such legislation proposed an amendment to change the constitution to remove the protections of the second amendment? It seems to me that this would be the proper procedure to follow if you really want to disarm the american people.

One of the attributes of being God is to be omniscient, to know all things, at all times.

Yet in the bible we have several passages that show that Jesus did not have certain knowledge.

Luke 2:39-40 "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."

If Jesus was "filled with wisdom" then he must have been lacking a state of fullness of wisdom at one point, and obtained more wisdom as he aged. The infant Jesus, must have known less than everything.

In speaking of his second coming Jesus is quoted as saying;

Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Mark 13:32 "But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

So Jesus states that only the Father knows the date and hour of Jesus' second coming. This means that there is some specific knowledge that Jesus did not know at that time and perhaps does not know even now. This is clearly what Jesus is saying.

When in the Garden before his arrest, Jesus prayed;

Matthew 26:39"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. "

If Jesus is God, then he would have known what was possible and what was not. He would not have had to ask the father if he could "let this cup pass from me." He would have known that was the only way of accomplishing the goal of redemption. The blood sacrifice of the lamb of god to take away the sins of the world.

Would you agree that any being that does not have the defining power of Deity of omniscience, no matter how exalted a being, cannot be God? Such a being must be less than God. If Jesus is God, would he lack any knowledge?

Background: I am a christian and accept as an article of faith the orthodox view of Jesus as the second person of the trinity. I believe that Jesus was and is God, the Logos. Yet I find it hard to reconcile that belief with these passages of scripture.

Would Jesus, during his life as a man on earth, set aside the attributes of omniscience? Would he not be less than God at that point? How then can he be both fully human and fully God at the same time?

According to Centers for Disease Control, a US government entity, black children conceived in the US are legally killed by abortion at the rate of 471 for every 1000 live births. This is a ratio of about 32% killed. Citation www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6015.pdf see table 12.

Any place that has a death rate of almost one in three occupants, would have to be considered a very dangerous place. Does this make a black womans womb, the most dangerous place for an American to be?

Quantum mechanics states that an electron can move from one energy state to another without passing through any intermediary state. This is known as the quantum leap. Kind of like the electron was in this shell, now it is in that one, and it never passed through a point in between.

This sounds an awful lot like magic. Yet physics tells us that it is undoubtedly true. If such things can happen on a sub atomic level, and be accepted as true, or at least possible by atheists who tout science as their religion, then why is something similar recorded on a macro scale judged to be impossible?

The denial of miracles is a common theme with atheists. I've seem more references than I care to about our believing in a "magic sky daddy" or a "magic old man that sees everything". It seems to me that you are more than willing to accept "magic" on a sub atomic level. You just deny it happening where you can see it.

Do you consider that to be logical? If so, please explain to me how you came to that conclusion.

One for Atheist/Agnostics, one for Wicca/Witchcraft, one for Christian/Protestant, one for Catholic, one for Orthodox tradition, one for LDS, one for Judaism, one for Islam, one for Buddhist, one for all others, and one for No Holds Barred debate/discussion.

I'd happily agree to stay out of the Atheist forum, if they would agree to stay out of mine.

How about it Y!A? Can we get some feedback from the admins on this? Perhaps if we can make this one of the more popular questions they will notice.

Assuming that there were a God, how could he prove his existence to you? What would you consider to be an adequate and sufficient proof? If he sent a message to mankind, how could we authenticate that it was from him, as opposed to messages from other men, posing as messengers of God?

Would you consider the ability to foretell future events accurately hundreds of years in advance as such a proof?

I'm curious as to what level of proof you would require to convince you of God's existence. Perhaps an example or two. Would he have to present himself to you personally? Or would you consider that just a delusion? Would he have to appear once a generation? Would you demand a daily briefing from him describing your tasks for the coming day?