Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[Oryonder]

I have layed out my history several times and you can find it in these threads if you want but in short I was once as opposed to Christianity as a person can get so I am hardly a product of indoctrination. Even if I was your point makes no sence. You saying that if I have adopted a religion I can't possibly know much about evolution. That's like saying I build helicopters for a living so I couldn't possibly be good at golf. Unless you are some kind of geneticist, biologist, or chemist then I probably know as much or more than you about it. I had at least 5 classes in college that dealt with it plus I have a math degree with a physics minor which is very applicable to evolution. Evolution should not have produced what we have as moral realities today.

1) just because you were once opposed to Christianity does not mean that you are not indoctrinated. Mind control can be very sophisticated and it does not require previous belief.

I have a degree in Chemistry and specialize in applied Microbiology. I have worked in the field of applied microbiology for over 20 years and am recognized/published expert. I have testified as an expert witness in court and I have been a guest lecturer and conducted seminars to Engineers and Scientists involved in my area of expertise.

Math and Physics have limited applicability to evolution. You guys always want to pretend to understand chemistry but you really do not.

At a very high level we can talk about favorable energy states in respect to likely chemical outcomes in various systems but this is way way over the average PH.D's head when it comes to an in depth understanding of the topic.

I could go on and on .. as some of my research relates directly to very small facets of the evolutionary questions but it should be enough to state that the study of evolution is not done from first principals (newtonian mechanics). It is studied using a Phenomenologica approach (you do the experiment first and let the results dicate the theory).

Thus .. your Math and Physics theory is pretty much useless. I will give you an example of a real world experiment.

I did a project once using electronkinetics to move ions through soil/clay in an attempt to stimulate bioremdiation. Of critical importance is trying to predict how fast the ions will move through the media under the influence of an electric current.

In my review of the literature I came across a study where they tried to predict ion mobility through six different soils using the theory (which is mindbendingly complex). If you are in the mood for a gut wrenching vomitous horror read through this dissertation giving some of the theory behind eletrokinetic transport. http://navier.stanford.edu/thermosciences/TSD-158.pdf

While you might be impressed by all the wild equations what is fact is that they do not help us to predict ion mobility in soil. Experimentation shows that the "real" ion mobility rate deviates from 1 to two orders of magnitude from predicted theory (10 times to 100 times). From a practical standpoint the theory was useless.

Ion transport across a membrane is critical to understanding early evolutionary processes. Unfortunately the thoery does not help us much because reality procuces all kinds of unexpected results. Various enzymes and catalysts for example can produce reactions which otherwise would not normally occur.

Extending the conversation to making any "matter of fact" claims related to "moral realities" based on evolution because of some knowledge of Math and Physics is patently absurd.

 

[1robin]

1) just because you were once opposed to Christianity does not mean that you are not indoctrinated. Mind control can be very sophisticated and it does not require previous belief.

Well please find some evidence to establish the fact that I am brainwashed or pleas stop asserting it. I find it mildly insulting. It suggests that I am incapable of making an intellectual decision. Many of the smartest people in history have been Christians so there is no correlation.I had some classes in the Navy on interrogation techniques and so am familiar with the principles.

I have a degree in Chemistry and specialize in applied Microbiology. I have worked in the field of applied microbiology for over 20 years and am recognized/published expert. I have testified as an expert witness in court and I have been a guest lecturer and conducted seminars to Engineers and Scientists involved in my area of expertise.

Well then I concede your greater grasp on the material aspects of evolution. I however assert that this does not mean you are more qualified to judge the moral implications of it. However you may be.

Math and Physics have limited applicability to evolution. You guys always want to pretend to understand chemistry but you really do not.

I agree to a certain extent. I thought you claimed it had virtually no application and so my statement.

At a very high level we can talk about favorable energy states in respect to likely chemical outcomes in various systems but this is way way over the average PH.D's head when it comes to an in depth understanding of the topic.

As I am no PhD by a long shot and have very little interest outside the governing dynamics of evolution then don't waste your brilliance on me. I find the minutia of evolution boring and based on a lot of conjecture especially when discussing very old events. Most of the bilogical details are over my head anyway. I have some very simple questions that no evolutionist has ever given a satasfactory response to if you would like to discuss them.

I could go on and on .. as some of my research relates directly to very small facets of the evolutionary questions but it should be enough to state that the study of evolution is not done from first principals (newtonian mechanics). It is studied using a Phenomenologica approach (you do the experiment first and let the results dicate the theory).

You definately sound like a competent microbiologist but I was commenting on the moral implecations of evolution not its mechanics.

Thus .. your Math and Physics theory is pretty much useless. I will give you an example of a real world experiment.

I did a project once using electronkinetics to move ions through soil/clay in an attempt to stimulate bioremdiation. Of critical importance is trying to predict how fast the ions will move through the media under the influence of an electric current.

In my review of the literature I came across a study where they tried to predict ion mobility through six different soils using the theory (which is mindbendingly complex). If you are in the mood for a gut wrenching vomitous horror read through this dissertation giving some of the theory behind eletrokinetic transport. http://navier.stanford.edu/thermosciences/TSD-158.pdf

While you might be impressed by all the wild equations what is fact is that they do not help us to predict ion mobility in soil. Experimentation shows that the "real" ion mobility rate deviates from 1 to two orders of magnitude from predicted theory (10 times to 100 times). From a practical standpoint the theory was useless.

Ion transport across a membrane is critical to understanding early evolutionary processes. Unfortunately the thoery does not help us much because reality procuces all kinds of unexpected results. Various enzymes and catalysts for example can produce reactions which otherwise would not normally occur.

Extending the conversation to making any "matter of fact" claims related to "moral realities" based on evolution because of some knowledge of Math and Physics is patently absurd.

It certainly would be obsurd that is why I did not suggest that. Since I considered your comments on evolution to be simplistic I assumed wrongly that you didn't know much about it. Math and Physics especially what little I remember of them have almost no bearing on the moral implications of evolution but then IMO neither does chemistry, biology, or maybe genetics. It is philosophy that applies more to this subject. Let me know if you want to answer a couple of my questions.

 

[Oryonder]

Well please find some evidence to establish the fact that I am brainwashed or pleas stop asserting it. I find it mildly insulting. It suggests that I am incapable of making an intellectual decision. Many of the smartest people in history have been Christians so there is no correlation.I had some classes in the Navy on interrogation techniques and so am familiar with the principles.

Indocrinated and "brainwashed" are similar but different. I will explain the difference later but first. I did not claim that you were indoctrinated or brainwashed in the previous post. What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control.

Intelligence does not make one immune either .. and interrogation techniques are also something different.

Indoctrination is a process by which we come to hold certain beliefs. Each one of us is indoctrinated to some degree from childbirth. Some people continue to hold on to these beliefs all their lives and some do not.

Indoctrination is not necessarily wrong nor is it necessarily done with "intent" ill or good.

Mind control is not necessarily bad either. Humans for example do not naturally kill. In the army they have to train soldiers to obey and act without question .. the repetative training is a form of mind control.

Destructive mind control has some distinguishing characteristics. First off it is done with intent and second it will involve dishonesty. The person doing it knows what they are doing and are doint it intentionally.

How cult mind control works (a very simplified version)

Fear is a large part of mind control. Adherents are taught that if they deviate from cult doctrine bad things will happen to them in the afterlife. Idea's of heaven and hell are invoked. Those that follow doctrine are on a path to heaven .. those that deviate will go to hell.

The cult leader convinces adherents that he/she has the ability to to speak for God or that somehow God speaks through them or that they have special knowledge that comes from God.

The cult leader creates a "black vs white", "Good vs Evil" "God vs Devil" senario.
Anything that is cult doctrine is Good .. anything conflicting with this doctrine is "evil"

The influence of such doctrine will "influence" the followers not to question the doctrine. This is seldom stated directly but the teachings will imply that deviation from the "true path" can lead to terrible consequences.

The fear combined with messianic message creates a very powerfull subconscious aversion to questioning any of the core cult beliefs.

Adherents will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid questioning cult doctrine. Those that do are demonized and ostracized.

Most religious belief systems contain at least some of the above mind control features however this does not necessarily make them destructive.

Steve Hassan (well known exit counciler .. has some very good books) classifies cults into two catagories .. destructive and non destructive.

Intent: Destructive cult leaders will intentinoally apply what are known as "throught stopping techniques"

Generally, if any of the tenets or doctrine the cult leader are found erroneous, the whole structure collapses. (How can God be wrong ?)

The adherents are taught to employ "thought stopping techniques". When the adherent comes across ideas that conflict with beliefs they will:

In the case of Hari Krishna .. start chanting .. La La La .. Ya Ya Ya .. Hari Hari, Krishna Krishna .. and so on.

The mind does not want to confront the fear instilled in the adherent of the possibility of Hell. This is done by continuous repetition of certain tenets of the belief.

If one of these tenets is questioned ... the adherent will usually seek to avoide or change the topic .. if that does not work denial and demonization will soon follow.

I had one case where a close friend of mine was indoctrinated into a destructive Christian cult.

His behavior started to change .. he refused to come to a friend of our's wedding because he did not hold certain religious beliefs. He would not go out to Pub's or Bars because "Satan is there"

We were sitting in a room having a discussion about his beliefs. I kept questioning one of his beliefs using the Bible and he kept getting backed further and further into a corner.

Then .. all of a sudden his face turned white. He closed the distance between us and went to his knees grasping my hand .. saying .. "Pray with me .. Pray with me now"

It was after this incident that I started to study cult mind control and realized his behaviour was actually a thought stopping technique and that it was intentionally implanted. He could not handle where the conversation was going and so his brain literally shut down/shut out the thought.

Cognitive dissonance theory is quite applicable. Put "thoughts, actions and beliefs" at the three points of a triangle. If you move any one of the points away from the other to the others will move to close the dissonance .. for example:

If you change someones beliefs .. their thoughts and actions will also change/ follow.

This can be a good thing but it can also be a bad thing.

 

[1robin]

Indocrinated and "brainwashed" are similar but different. I will explain the difference later but first. I did not claim that you were indoctrinated or brainwashed in the previous post. What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control.

Intelligence does not make one immune either .. and interrogation techniques are also something different.

Indoctrination is a process by which we come to hold certain beliefs. Each one of us is indoctrinated to some degree from childbirth. Some people continue to hold on to these beliefs all their lives and some do not.

Indoctrination is not necessarily wrong nor is it necessarily done with "intent" ill or good.

Mind control is not necessarily bad either. Humans for example do not naturally kill. In the army they have to train soldiers to obey and act without question .. the repetative training is a form of mind control.

Destructive mind control has some distinguishing characteristics. First off it is done with intent and second it will involve dishonesty. The person doing it knows what they are doing and are doint it intentionally.

How cult mind control works (a very simplified version)

Fear is a large part of mind control. Adherents are taught that if they deviate from cult doctrine bad things will happen to them in the afterlife. Idea's of heaven and hell are invoked. Those that follow doctrine are on a path to heaven .. those that deviate will go to hell.

The cult leader convinces adherents that he/she has the ability to to speak for God or that somehow God speaks through them or that they have special knowledge that comes from God.

The cult leader creates a "black vs white", "Good vs Evil" "God vs Devil" senario.
Anything that is cult doctrine is Good .. anything conflicting with this doctrine is "evil"

The influence of such doctrine will "influence" the followers not to question the doctrine. This is seldom stated directly but the teachings will imply that deviation from the "true path" can lead to terrible consequences.

The fear combined with messianic message creates a very powerfull subconscious aversion to questioning any of the core cult beliefs.

Adherents will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid questioning cult doctrine. Those that do are demonized and ostracized.

Most religious belief systems contain at least some of the above mind control features however this does not necessarily make them destructive.

Steve Hassan (well known exit counciler .. has some very good books) classifies cults into two catagories .. destructive and non destructive.

Intent: Destructive cult leaders will intentinoally apply what are known as "throught stopping techniques"

Generally, if any of the tenets or doctrine the cult leader are found erroneous, the whole structure collapses. (How can God be wrong ?)

The adherents are taught to employ "thought stopping techniques". When the adherent comes across ideas that conflict with beliefs they will:

In the case of Hari Krishna .. start chanting .. La La La .. Ya Ya Ya .. Hari Hari, Krishna Krishna .. and so on.

The mind does not want to confront the fear instilled in the adherent of the possibility of Hell. This is done by continuous repetition of certain tenets of the belief.

If one of these tenets is questioned ... the adherent will usually seek to avoide or change the topic .. if that does not work denial and demonization will soon follow.

I had one case where a close friend of mine was indoctrinated into a destructive Christian cult.

His behavior started to change .. he refused to come to a friend of our's wedding because he did not hold certain religious beliefs. He would not go out to Pub's or Bars because "Satan is there"

We were sitting in a room having a discussion about his beliefs. I kept questioning one of his beliefs using the Bible and he kept getting backed further and further into a corner.

Then .. all of a sudden his face turned white. He closed the distance between us and went to his knees grasping my hand .. saying .. "Pray with me .. Pray with me now"

It was after this incident that I started to study cult mind control and realized his behaviour was actually a thought stopping technique and that it was intentionally implanted. He could not handle where the conversation was going and so his brain literally shut down/shut out the thought.

Cognitive dissonance theory is quite applicable. Put "thoughts, actions and beliefs" at the three points of a triangle. If you move any one of the points away from the other to the others will move to close the dissonance .. for example:

If you change someones beliefs .. their thoughts and actions will also change/ follow.

This can be a good thing but it can also be a bad thing.

Stateing the definitions of certain terms does nothing to justify the application of those terms. Either show how you magically know my faith comes from an illegitamate method or quit saying things you can't possibly know are facts. When I came to believe I was neither in Church or under the influence of any Christian except for a person suggesting where in the bible certain answers were. Fail

 

[McBell]

quit saying things you can't possibly know are facts.

 

[waitasec]

Stateing the definitions of certain terms does nothing to justify the application of those terms.

exactly. just because a book presents unverifiable claims does nothing to justify the application to believe one is on gods side either...

 

[Oryonder]

Stateing the definitions of certain terms does nothing to justify the application of those terms. Either show how you magically know my faith comes from an illegitamate method or quit saying things you can't possibly know are facts. When I came to believe I was neither in Church or under the influence of any Christian except for a person suggesting where in the bible certain answers were. Fail

I never claimed that your faith did come from an illigitimate method .. you need to read closer.

I did not claim that you were indoctrinated or brainwashed in the previous post. What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control

 

[1robin]

exactly. just because a book presents unverifiable claims does nothing to justify the application to believe one is on gods side either...

What? I have never claimed or at least tried not to claim that the bible is a proveable objective fact. It however contains suffecient subjective evidence to justify adoption as truth by faith for an individual. I do not understand your point. Why don't you post the claim I made that is addressed by your statements so I have a better idea what it is you are referring to.

 

[1robin]

I never claimed that your faith did come from an illigitimate method .. you need to read closer. I did not claim that you were indoctrinated or brainwashed in the previous post. What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control

The last claim above has no relevance unless it is assumed that I am what you say. I regard these brainwashing or indoctrination claims while selectively valid concepts to be used to dismiss things that can't be countered with reason. Why don't you make a clear concise accusation or establish the issues relevance to me and I will agree or dissagree and then we can move on. I am getting bored with this specific issue.

 

[waitasec]

What? I have never claimed or at least tried not to claim that the bible is a proveable objective fact. It however contains suffecient subjective evidence to justify adoption as truth by faith for an individual. I do not understand your point. Why don't you post the claim I made that is addressed by your statements so I have a better idea what it is you are referring to.

right
it justifies parents killing their young in the name of faith healings and such...
excellent.

it also justifies the persecution of homosexuals...a wonderful and convenient disclaimer.

this subjective evidence is crap.

 

[Oryonder]

The last claim above has no relevance unless it is assumed that I am what you say. I regard these brainwashing or indoctrination claims while selectively valid concepts to be used to dismiss things that can't be countered with reason. Why don't you make a clear concise accusation or establish the issues relevance to me and I will agree or dissagree and then we can move on. I am getting bored with this specific issue.

I did make a clear and consise accusation.

What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control

What part of the above do you not understand ?

You were claiming that because you were not raised Christian you were immune to indoctrination ..

This simply not the case.

Me saying that you are not immune from indoctrination/mind control on the basis of not being raised Christian does not mean that I am claiming that you are "indoctrinated".

The claim is simply that folks who are not born Christian are not immune from indoctrination.

 

[1robin]

right
it justifies parents killing their young in the name of faith healings and such...
excellent.

it also justifies the persecution of homosexuals...a wonderful and convenient disclaimer.

this subjective evidence is crap.

Just because you invent some strange idea that exists only in an extremely few cases if at all, and claim that the bible is responsible doesn't acually make that true. There is no scripture I am aware of that requires what you claim. And I have only heard of the practice in less than a dozen instances in my whole life. No it does not justify persecution of homosexuals outside of ancient Israel for a cetrain period of time. It hasn't had any application whatsoever in two thousand years and never had any outside Israel. Your missrepresentation of biblical claims is what's crap. If you want the most clear and universal picture of God then look at Christ. How many homosexuals did he persecute, how many mothers did he tell it was wrong to see a doctor? If you have to warp and missrepresent a subject to have a chance at a rebuttal have you really done anything worth while?

 

[waitasec]

Just because you invent some strange idea that exists only in an extremely few cases if at all, and claim that the bible is responsible doesn't acually make that true. There is no scripture I am aware of that requires what you claim. And I have only heard of the practice in less than a dozen instances in my whole life.

mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

No it does not justify persecution of homosexuals outside of ancient Israel for a cetrain period of time. It hasn't had any application whatsoever in two thousand years and never had any outside Israel. Your missrepresentation of biblical claims is what's crap. If you want the most clear and universal picture of God then look at Christ. How many homosexuals did he persecute, how many mothers did he tell it was wrong to see a doctor? If you have to warp and missrepresent a subject to have a chance at a rebuttal have you really done anything worth while?

then you are also speaking to those who do follow the christian doctrine, those who do persecute the homosexual community and you are also giving license to very dangerous thinking...the same type of thinking that would influence some to fly into buildings.

the bible is not immune to being misinterpreted, so much for being the word of the almighty who happens to be mute and relies on subjective understanding of this fallible book to speak for it.

 

[1robin]

mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

You do realise the bible contains one or two allegorical references, Yes? , No?. Actually after carefull research these don't seem allegorical. It wil require some time to dig into this. I have to leave shortly. Regardles how many Christians do you think had read this and ran out and played with snakes and drank poison. It was a reasonable point however but I am running out of time. Try again tomorrow.

then you are also speaking to those who do follow the christian doctrine, those who do persecute the homosexual community and you are also giving license to very dangerous thinking...the same type of thinking that would influence some to fly into buildings.

There is no such thing as a Christian doctrine of persecuting a homosexual. I said it only applied to Hebrews for a specific time and purpose. However what was wrong is still wrong but so are another thousand things were are forbidden to persecute people who do them. This was not a resonable point.

the bible is not immune to being misinterpreted, so much for being the word of the almighty who happens to be mute and relies on subjective understanding of this fallible book to speak for it.

Never said it was. No he expects and guaranties truthfull understanding to the sincere person. Not what you said. See ya,
Have a good afternoon. If I forget your snakes and poison remind me.

 

[waitasec]

You do realise the bible contains one or two allegorical references, Yes? , No?. Actually after carefull research these don't seem allegorical. It wil require some time to dig into this. I have to leave shortly. Regardles how many Christians do you think had read this and ran out and played with snakes and drank poison. It was a reasonable point however but I am running out of time. Try again tomorrow.



There is no such thing as a Christian doctrine of persecuting a homosexual. I said it only applied to Hebrews for a specific time and purpose. However what was wrong is still wrong but so are another thousand things were are forbidden to persecute people who do them. This was not a resonable point.

Never said it was. No he expects and guaranties truthfull understanding to the sincere person. Not what you said. See ya,
Have a good afternoon. If I forget your snakes and poison remind me.

are you unaware of how christianity influences our culture?
that is, if you live in the states.

 

[1robin]

are you unaware of how christianity influences our culture?
that is, if you live in the states.

Yes I am aware. What is the point?

 

[waitasec]

Yes I am aware. What is the point?

can you give me examples of how it has?

 

[1robin]

I did make a clear and consise accusation.

Fine I am growing bored.

Here is your claim:

What I claimed was that previous opposition to Christianity does not make one immune to indoctrination or mind control What part of the above do you not understand ?

Stateing what something is not has no explanitory power to explain what something is as far as this issue is concerned.

You were claiming that because you were not raised Christian you were immune to indoctrination ..

I am claiming that whatever the truth is you have no access to it and there fore no way to judge in my case. So the issue is moot for this discussion.

This simply not the case.

Me saying that you are not immune from indoctrination/mind control on the basis of not being raised Christian does not mean that I am claiming that you are "indoctrinated".

The claim is simply that folks who are not born Christian are not immune from indoctrination.

If this is what you meant, then what is the point in saying it at all. It's like me saying it is possible for someone not to believe something because they want to in spite of the overwhelming evidence. That is perfectly true as well as perfectly pointless unless it can be proven to be the case when made in referrence to a specific person. Every word you have spent discussing this issue has not advanced this discussion one but. Of course people can be indoctrinated, I was in the Navy and was trained in this subject. Unless proven applicable it is irrelevant. In my case I happen to know it isn't possible I was indoctrinated or brain washed by anyone else because of some unique circumstances. Case closed can we move on?

 

[1robin]

mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Are you trying to assert that these scriptures are commanding every Christian to do every one of these things? For example the bible also says that the gift of healing, tongues, prophecy, and interpretation may be given to some individuals but it is not the universal possesion of every Christian. So it is not talking about the attributes and actions of every individual Christian. It is saying that among Christians there will be these things going on. That is exactly what you see in reality. The poison and snake issue is not a literal commandment for all Christians. It means that there will be instances where a Christian will live through what should have killed him. There is also another application concerning Paul specifically I think but I don't know much about it. Why do you get the idea this verse is commanding Christians to go wrestle snakes and drink drano. Thats a very silly position. It is no wonder you don't Believe in God. I wouldn't believe in the God you cobbled up either. He sounds like a lunatic.

then you are also speaking to those who do follow the christian doctrine, those who do persecute the homosexual community and you are also giving license to very dangerous thinking...the same type of thinking that would influence some to fly into buildings.

What in the world are you talking about this time? The new testament forbids persecution of any one. That is the covenant we live in. One given to the Hebrews for a specific reason 2500 years ago has no bearing on anyones behavior in 2000yrs. If someone can't seem to understand that then that is a reflection on them not God. Treat others as you wish to be treated is pretty clear. So is turn the other cheek.

the bible is not immune to being misinterpreted, so much for being the word of the almighty who happens to be mute and relies on subjective understanding of this fallible book to speak for it.

Just because people are so screwed up they can't understand what is written in the most tested and cherished book in history has nothing to do with God or it. He provided suffecient clarity and information for any sincere person to arrive at all necessary conclusions. We give some nations food money and they use it to buy RPGs to shoot at our choppers. We send others food money and they buy food. A concept or being is not responsible for their missuse. Any nation of people so stupid as to make a hero out of Kim Cardashion and Oprah is obviously not going to invest the time to understand the word of God. How in the wide world of stupid ideas is that God's fault. Why is it that you get all confused when you read a section of the bible, tell me about it, I look into it and find it very clear and simple. I think God may have already stated the reason for this:
New Living Translation (©2007)
But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means
New Living Translation (©2007)
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
That clearly and accurately describes the situation wouldn't you say?

 

[1robin]

can you give me examples of how it has?

Answer my question and then I will answer yours.