They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Printable View
They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
[QUOTE=ZainDustin]They didn't. But it was enough that God HIMSELF told them NOT to. Even if they didn't know why.[/QUOTE]
Excellent!
So, just to refresh our memory
By your very own logic, if Adam and Eve did not understand, or know why, and were innocent and ignorant- then they should not be held accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Why would God hold adam and eve accountable for something they did not have an understanding of?
It was a test. And plus, the people who never hear the word, don't know anything about it. Adam and Eve KNEW that God said NOT to. So, disobeying him either way, was a sin.
Except they did not understand the consequences of their actions... not until after they had the ability to understand... which coincidentally that understanding was contained within the fruit of knowledge... nice catch 22.
BTW Roots of the tree... Jew, Branches ... Christian.
Do Jews go to hell even though they are the roots of the faith, love god and believe in Him?
God told Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate the fruit, so they knew the consequence, possibly not understand it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Anyone who does not accept Jesus as God's son goes to Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
How would they know the consequences? Is a dog not innocent of good and evil? Is a child not innocent? Is a not an ape not innocent?
They were as children, and as animals. I have no doubt that an event occurred that transformed the human mind. I would not say it was instantaneous.
I disgaree with the interpretation of that event. I think it was a good thing that God purposely intended and that the bible actually supports this with the bible's own statments. The torah, being one of the odelst maintained documents in human history, is actually nothing more than an interpreted history book. It is the story of man as has been passed on through verbal history until it was finally written down. We see the early history of humanity through the timid and confused minds of early humans.
Quote:
Anyone who does not accept Jesus as God's son goes to Hell.
This concept is one of the most evil in the entire history of the earth.
[quote=Divinus Arma]They didnt understand why they shouldnt eat the apple but they knew God told them not to. Its like your parents telling you not to touch the stove you may not understand but you dont becuase your pareants told you not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
@PAPE Jews are still waiting for the messiah but he already came and they rejected him. So they go :thumbsdown:
Is it now? Does it not make sense? Why would God let people that don't even believe in him into his sanctuary? Those who do not believe in him do not deserve it, although God still loves them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
It has nothing to do with God.
Jesus is the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
There is really something wrong with the whole idea of "worship this human as God or you will spend hell in eternity". The whole idea distracts from the one true God.
And again, Christainity is counter to human survival. I love my children so much that I would prefer not to have them rather than take a .00000000001% chance that they would go to hell. It just isn't worth the risk, so therefore humanity would die out of its own accord.
That would only happen if children wasn't looked at as innocent. Did you know that if a child dies, whether or not they were raised in a Christian family, they will go to Heaven? They are safe, as long as they don't know to make the decision.
Yes, Jesus was a human, but he was God as well. He was the Messiah, Son of God, born through a virgin chosen by God.
Phew, another Backroom thread like this...
Good thing I played a bit with it and :flybye: before it got to this...
Lol, nice Reenk Roink. I love a good debate. But it's not so fun like this, when the people I'm talking to don't even listen to a word I say, only selective hearing.
-ZainDustin
Not according to Paul...Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
¿So? Jews still believe the Messiah is coming, so they don't believe in Jesus, so they go :thumbsdown:
But they will not be children forever. And I love the idea of my adult children so much that I would rather not have them than risk them going to hell. Through my love of the, I will spare them this short life and thus spare them the possibility of going to hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
And if you are wrong then you have spent your entire life worshiping a human being instead of God. The difference between our views is that I do not think God will fault you for your ignorance.Quote:
Yes, Jesus was a human, but he was God as well.
Christianity is a Pagan religion, my friend. You worship a "father God", a "Son God", a "Holy ghost type of God-being". AND you also recognize the existence of an EVIL God- Satan. Catholicism, the original christianity, is even more pagan. Catholics recognize all sorts of heavenly supernatural creatures: Saints, demons, angles, etc.
So are you truly monotheistic? The Greeks had a "father God" too, as well as all kinds of minor lower Gods inferior to the "father God". In fact, every pagan religion shares this similarity. "Odin All-father", God of the vikings. "Brahman" is the hindu father-type God.
I am monotheistic. God is God. Jesus is his son. Through Jesus, we can talk to God, and get saved from our sins, and from Hell. If you are so afraid your children won't accept Jesus as God's son, and that God exists, teach them this, so they will go to Heaven. If you don't, you will go to Hell as well. So, if you believe that this decision changes your course of destiny, why not believe it? I'm not wrong, Jesus is God's son, God is God. I can feel this by the change in my life, and miracles I have seen that only God could have done.
-ZainDustin
Read Romans 10 and 11:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 10
I think your return phrase is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 11
"You sunk my battleship"
One thing that scripture does not mention is whether the people believe in Jesus or not. If you don't believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that.
-ZainDustin
Miracles, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
About three years ago, I was doing my routine police work during a particularly rainy season in Southern Cali. The outside lane of a busy highway had flooded and mud was falling from the nearby cliff into that lane. I set up my patrol car thirty or fourty feet back and was setting up a cone pattern to direct cars around the danger. I was kind of tired and not really paying attention.
I started walking across the highway, dropping one cone at a time. Well, when I got to the inside lane, I stopped. It was an awkard stop, as if forced. The funny thing is that I had no intention of stopping. I'm a pragmatic and logical fellow, but right at that very second when I was "forced" to stop, a 1-ton bread truck flew by at about 50 mph and not six inches from the tip of my nose. I did not see it coming. I had no wanring. I had no reason to stop. But I did, and because I stopped, I survived.
Because of this, I yield that I do not know everything. I admit that anything is possible and that anyone who claims to know the truth is an arrogant fool. I had always "believed" in God because it is far more logical to believe in God than not to. But I had never believed in "miracles" and considered them to be the perception of fools.
So I say that Christianity and miralces are a possibility. But then so is Hinduism, Islam, and anything else for that matter. It is also possible that my tiny brain, being far more powerful than we realize, detected that truck subconsciously and gave me an unnatural reflexive halt to ensure survival.
My lesson from that experience is that anything is possible and certainty in religion is the mindset of fools. In religion, we can only be certain of uncertainty.
Well, I am happy your life was saved. I am sorry you think of me as a fool, because I know that Jesus is God's son, and that God is the creator of everything, but I know that, without a doubt.
-ZainDustin
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat a wrong answer it is still wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Read Romans 10 and 11 and come back to the debate after that. :book:
Alright then, I'll take some time off and read this, and get back to you.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio, I looked at that scripture, and have come to some conclusions. In Romans 10, when it refers to "Lord" it is referring to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Also, in Romans 11, it is talking about Jesus, the Messiah, coming to Earth and teaching the word of God, so Israel might be saved.
Read this, it's pretty commonly used...
Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me."
-John 14-6 NIV
touche
Earlier in Romans it talks about Moses trying to pursuade the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.
So would you say you have faith that there is no God? BTW, there is no such thing as "use to be a Christian".Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
And in Romans it talks about despite being wayward the Israelites will be saved regardless...
Disagreed. I failed to mention that I, too, "used to be a christian".Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
I was about 18 or 19. I succumbed to the power of the modern christian message. I truly believed. And I was horrified by the billions that would perish in hell. It was heartbreaking... I can't express how painful that revelation was.
It was all so clear to me then.... The foolish pride of the saducees and pharisees, the pride of modern men, my own pride.
I remember walking for miles after "accepting Christ". I walked from 10am until 10pm that day. From one city to another, and on to a third. Just thinking. (I was a heavy backpacker as a teenager, so 12 hours of walking was nothing to me then). I felt enlightened. Like a burden had been lifted. I felt free. But I also felt enormous sadness from the price that humanity would pay.
So yes. I "used to be a Christian" too. And I wasn't even raised Christian at all.
Now my belief in a singular God is only stronger, and my resentment for arrogant religion has only grown. Any religion that affrims itself as the only way is a plague. An evil. A force for destruction. Despicable. Arrogant, self-serving, controlling, greedy, and power-mongering.
There is nothing wrong with organized worship in any religion. But there is everything wrong with organized evangelicalism- regardless of the religion.
Wise, wise words. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Zain, your arguments leave me cold. I don't propose to debate you, since reasoned debate is wasted on a zealot. Your arguments only drive me further away from your faith. Your god is one that I reject utterly, for the reason so eloquently expressed in 'The Brothers Karamazov' (which, by the way, is an excellent and thought-provoking read for any religious person):
"I cannot believe in a god that would permit the suffering of a single child."
As I wrote before, I would hate to spend eternity in the Heaven that you desire. It would be packed with insufferable people full of certainty and devoid of compassion. No doubt the madmen that blow themselves up along with women and children in the hope of heaven and innumerable virgins would be right alongside everyone else who believes so unshakeably that their way is the only way. Why you people think your revealed truth is the only one, when even your own Christianity is riven with different sects, let alone other myths and belief systems, is beyond me. :no:
The most sensible philosophy of heaven and hell (should such places exist) was expressed to me in a Chinese parable (paraphrased for the Christian paradigm):
A man died and went to Judgement. He was surprised to find that instead of a big courtroom with a vengeful God, he was met by Saint Peter. The saint smiled. 'Welcome to heaven, for you have been a kind and generous man.' He led the man to a wonderful place, full of birdsong and warm sun. Spread before him in the sunlit fields were great tables full of extraordinary foods, sweets, fruit and wines of every vintage. The many people sat around the tables were laughing and singing, the very eptiome of happiness.
'The only rule in Heaven is that you may only use the spoons to eat,' said Peter. The man noticed that these spoons were two metres in length, which was odd, but everyone was using them to feed each other, so it didn't matter.
The man thanked the saint, but was curious. 'I have always wondered why our loving God made Hell,' he said. 'May I see what it is like for the poor souls?'
Saint Peter smiled and nodded. They walked a way, until they came to another land, exactly the same as the first - warm and pleasant. The same tables groaned under good things. But the people there were emaciated and scabrous, their bones showing through shrunken flesh. They had miserable, glaring eyes, reddened with frustrated weeping. They could see the marvellous treats, but beyond their reach.
Seeing the man's furrowed brow, Peter pointed out the spoons, each held tightly in a person's hand. A few angry souls were still trying to lift food into their own mouths and failing because of the long handles. They glared and berated their neighbours. They swore and cursed God.
'The rule here,' said Peter sadly, 'is exactly the same as in Heaven.' The man nodded and they returned to the place where people helped each other, instead of themselves.
I like that story. Unfortunately, not all things in the world are two-metre spoons. You'd think someone would just jam their face in the food..
One might say that I'm missing the point, but I intend this answer to be as much a metaphor as the parabole.
No. Faith is a blind acceptance of the supernatural. I have a certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
Why can't I be an ex-christian?
Do you mean you're certain that there's no God? How?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I call myself agnostic because I don't belief but can't be certain about a nonexistence.
Which God do you suggest I can't be certain about?Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Baal.
Zeus.
Thor.
Yahweh.
Horus.
Saturn.
Need I go on?
A multitude of gods doesn't give me certainty about the nonexistence of any of them. Neither can I be sure that any of them exists. As far as I know all of them could exist at the same time.
I basically share your opinion, though. In the other thread about this topic I stated that: "I believe that humans created gods and not the other way round". Maybe some of those old gods died because people stopped to believe in them? :wink:
What I can't say is that I'm certain about any gods nonexistence.
I suspect that they don't exist, but how can we/you be certain?
The two-metre spoon is as arbitrary as anything else these gods have done and dozy rules seem to be the fare of organized religions. As is mankind's desire to get around the rules, so I would say you're making the point really well! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
If I am attracted to any religious notions, it is the pantheistic pagan 'spirits of nature' type approach - such as the Greek pantheon - where the gods take sides, shaft their favourites, gamble with people's hopes and lives, are as venial as their creation and seem to only be interested in sex with naiads and other people's husbands/wives.
Truly then, could men be said to be made in the gods' images and it fits the observed facts way better. ~:yin-yang:
well, you can't be certain of a negative. the only evidence can be lack of evidence.... etc.
But just as those who believe in god 'know with certainty' there is a god/s, i think those who don't believe must be allowed to say the same.
As long as neither says they can prove it! ~:cool:
so are you saying that it's impossible to prove the existence of god? (honest enquiry here, not trying to bait!)Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
As the old scientific axiom goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:saint:
:bow:
*tags Haruchai*
you're it...
so all we can do is advance on the continuing lack of evidence. It's an assumptions, and as my ginger bearded scottish teacher used to say (ad nauseam) assumptions make an ass of u and me. see what he did there?
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
I may have missed the post where a believer said that he knows "with certainty" that there is a god. I can't relate to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
I know that some people can believe so strongly that they believe it to be true. That doesn't make it true for me.
I would agree that it's not possible to prove any god's existence as well as it's not possible to prove their existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
I know of no way and philosophers have tried to prove/disprove god for centuries, to no avail.
But I'm making an absolute statement here, which is in itself problematic.
Zain said something about certainty earlier in the thread.
A agree with you about it being probably impossible to prove one way or the other. But for me, if it's impossible to prove the existence or not of god, then to all intents and purposes, God is entirely irrelevant. If he doesn't take an active role then he doesn't have any impact on any decision i make.
So i'm an atheist...
I basically agree.
I would say though, that God isn't entirely irrelevant to our life
because of the many people that believe very strongly in his existence.
Suicide bombers, for example can influence our life. They do so in the name of their god (or so they say). One could argue that this god affects us indirectly. But then again you could argue that it's only the terrorist.
Either way, we have to deal with religions and believers and therefore with god/ gods.
Absurd isn't it? :dizzy2:
i should have said irrelevant to me...
but yes, agreed. whether man made god or vice versa religion remains a powerful force in our world.
My interest is in fighting the attitudes i see as wrong while trying to find common ground the rest of the time
Let's have a beer on common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
That is if you drink with agnostics. :wink:
~:cheers:
i'll drink with anyone!
<-- alcoholic? nah...
But i really have trouble with the dogmatic who claim a monopoly on truth. Hence my respect for those who are willing to listen and change...
So tell me, how does your moral code work? what are your touchstones?
Well, I had to think a bit about this.(And I've to work between posts) :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
It's actually difficult to answer since moral codes are so complex. Plus, I don't like to label myself.
I grew up in a christian society (Germany) but my family is non-believing.
The christian values, or the moral code implicit in them, have formed me to a certain extense.
I view the bible as a piece of old literature that can nevertheless provide valuable insights into society and the way it works.
I even agree with a lot of Jesus' preachings but I don't take them as God's words.
I get allergic when someone tries to convert me or bothers me with their religion.
In my point of view Religion is a personal thing.
I follow Kant's imperative. I generally have respect for all life-forms on earth. I can see truth and wisdom in buddhist teachings.
Science is a strong touchstone for me. But I acknowledge that there are things that science can't explain (yet).
Does this even remotely answer your question?
yep, and thanks for taking the time!
and work... *sigh* shouldn't i be doing some of that? perils of 'working from home' ~:rolleyes:
and i think you and i have very similar attitudes on religion, which, as children of post WWII europe (i assume) isn't entirely surprising!
Certainly in the UK there is a recognisable seperation of the personal and the political.
For example, I have no problem with the archbishop of Canterbury. He is a good man, and i often think he speaks sense, and he is entitled to speak from a religious point of view because he represents the anglican community.
but i find Tony Blair's assertion that he answers to a higher power reprehensible, because as an elected official his higher power should be bloody us! not god.
[/rant] ~;)
a little while ago there was a survey of what the 1st secular commandment, and overwhelmingly it was 'do to others as you would be done to'.
Which is quite a good one, but unfortunately the inability of many people to properly empathise is a profound barrier to it's proper execution.
Personally i find myself in broad agreement with secular humanism, but since i mistrust organised dogma it's only useful as a skeleton to my ethics.
Regardless of what? Of whether they accept Jesus or not? No.. No.. this is saying that they CAN be saved, but only if they believe in Jesus Christ. The bible does not contradict itself, so John 14:6 should end this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
-ZainDustin
In other words, turn or burn:dizzy2:
Why are you so certain that your faith is the only true one? All you have is faith, so does the rest of the religous world. Logically, if it's mostly only a guess, then you have almost 0 chance of going to heaven, no matter how morally you live your life.
I am an ex-Christian and have now turned into a full-blown atheist. I was sick and tired of the story changing constantly, and people making up stories to the Christian faith to suit their beliefs. This God you believe in Zain is a very horrible being. To damn someone for eternity just because they don't believe in Him is not an example of an "all-loving God." Especially when they have all the reason in the world to not believe in Him because He has never given any evidence towards his existence.
Why should we believe what the Bible says anyway? Just because? How do we know it is not as relevant and truthful as a fairytale?
I would like Zain to answer this following argument: I definitely don't want to live forever, because eternity just seems too much for me. However, I would like to live longer than we are allowed. I believe that there is no afterlife, no God, no Heaven, no Hell, just complete oblivion after death. In fact, I also believe Heaven is no better than Hell. My reasoning is this: In life, you cannot experience the highs without the lows. Why does that shower at the end of the day feel so good, why do students love Summer Vacation, why does eating, sleeping, and drinking feel good to us? It is because of the negatives such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, homework, etc. Imagine a life where nothing ever bad happened to you, it would be awful. Eating, drinking, sleeping, friendships would be meaningless because you wouldn't feel hunger, thirst, fatigue, or sadness. There are many other examples of this of course. In Heaven, there is no low, no negatives, correct? In Hell, there is no high, no positives. They are the two extremes, and I would hate to be in either one. Heaven would be great at first, sure, but it would become incredibly dull, and without conflict and negatives to balance out the extreme positives, everything we would do for happiness would become utterly meaningless. However, if Heaven did have the proper balance of highs and lows, then it would cease to be Heaven because in a "paradise" you can't have anything bad happen to you. So in my view, Heaven would be a terrible place and I would rather have complete oblivion after death. What do you have to say about this?
PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap. This God seems like an egotistical, arrogant, heartless bastard to me, and I wish to be no part of Him.
Honestly, I'm very tired of talking about this now (after days and days) but I'll try my best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
I believe that you are interpreting Heaven to be utterly boring, correct? Well then, I'll have to agree with you that no lows would get boring. But, we really don't know how it's going to be, so I look forward to it.
That thing about the Catholics is nothing but misinterpretation. Don't believe it, that's utterly retarted, if you ask me.
Why should God let people that don't believe in him into his "house"?
-ZainDustin
You don't get into Heaven by works, only faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoose
What I believe is based on the Christian bible. If it's a bunch of made up stories (which I Highly doubt) then I do'nt know what will happen. I'll have to say that if God doesn't exist, then neither does Heaven. Do you agree?
Just for information, your teacher was utterly wrong, or as is often the case, antagonistic towars the Roman church. Catholics believe no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
Interestingly, the Catholic faith (which has a fairly powerful internal consistency having been interpreted by some of the finest philosophical minds of the mediaeval period) includes a much more palatable idea to the afterlife - Purgatory.
Catholics believe that very few people live lives that qualify them for Heaven - only the saints go direct. Equally, very few people live lives that deserve the horrors of Hell (Southern Baptists mainly :laugh4:). Almost everyone goes to Purgatory when they die, which is a place of cleansing - where the soul understands the clarity of every action they took in life and how it affected those around them. Unlike in life, the soul cannot lie to itself about its sin - every hurtful fact and its result is revealed in the light of God's truth.
Time of course, has no real meaning there, but the soul can then begin its journey of purgation, of reconciliation with God. Very serious sins take a very long 'time', whereas a decent but flawed person can achieve entry into Heaven quite quickly.
The Catholic position is that just being baptised does not guarantee Heaven. You have to earn it. Even the worst sinner can be redeemed, it just takes an awful long time. After 1500 years of this view, the Protestant churches decided on the idea of the Elect, ie believe and you are saved. One of the drawbacks of letting people read the Bible in their own language is they get all sorts of weird ideas! :oops:
Some theologians have postulated that Purgatory may be earth itself, in other words a second chance in the flawed world to do good - similar to reincarnation - and that the miseries we see are actually there to encourage us sinners to expiate our sins through good works - though this is by no means official doctrine which states that Purgatory is a separate spiritual realm.
Of course, one of the drivers for the Reformation was the Roman Catholic Church's very smart business decision that as prayer was said to help souls move through Purgatory, you could sell ready made 'indulgences' ie pre-paid tickets through the nastier bits. Kind of a first class trip through repentance.
Neat idea, very good for the patronage of the arts, but the purists decided this was ungodly and set up their own churches - and banned stuff like dancing and beer. :furious3:
But as an explanation for a loving God who also metes out punishments, Purgatory seems to me very consistent. I am drawn to the idea that one can pray for one's loved ones, as well as the friendless, and speed their journey towards happiness. The more people who think kindly of you, the quicker you achieve paradise, which is rather symmetrical and worthy of an omnipotent Being.
this is the same old argument used against christians, you were a christian once wern't you? surely you understand the concept of the holy trinity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
as for original sin Jesus died for our sins, the sins you and i have commited and will commit not just somethign our ancestors may or may not have done
as for whether you have to believe or not i can't say who will and who won't end up in heaven so i can't give a conclusive anser, however jesus taught to ask and it will be givem to you so if you don't ask (try and believe) you may not get.
Haruchai, I too, like the idea of purgatory and find it more in agreement with a loving God.
However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.
Which was the same old argument? I voiced many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
I do sin. And I do ask for forgiveness. And it is given. The messiah is each of us, within ourselves. Our savior is ourselves- to have a relationship with the Lord and continually seek to do his will. We can never be perfect, and Jesus was right when he said that all will fall short. But what differentiates one man from another is his continual individual development towards God's purpose. Man must continually strive to align his own purpose with God's purpose. This is neither action, nor thought, not attitude, not intentions alone. It is all of this, but under the recognition that one will never attain perfection, though one can certainly pursue it. And through this pursuit, one finds himself closer alligned to the will of God.
Jesus was unique because he recognized that he was his own pathway to God. It not "No one comes to the father but my me". It is "No one comes to the father but by you". He was "the way the truth and the light", but so can each of us be. We are each simultaneously our own worst enemy and own best friend. We can facilitate our realtionship with the Lord, or counter it and deny ourselves. But each is a Messiah. Our relationship with God is on an individual level, so each of us requires an indivudal saviour. Ourselves.
On St Patrick's Day, I should be limbering up the old shamrock to show you how the Trinity is actually three aspects of the same one God, just as the old fella did for the pagan Irish kings. :saint:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
But I'm about to go out and get blotto, so maybe tomorrow, as penance for the sins I am undoubtedly going to commit tonight ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
The whole trinity = polytheism argument,
It seems that you like me, were once a christian without understanding the religion properlly. Many years of being a christian and i did not understand so much about the trinity and forgiveness but just because the teachings of some christians are faulted does not mean that the whole religion as a whole is incorrect.
Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?
Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).
God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.
In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.
Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.
Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.
I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?
I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ".
The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.
No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.Quote:
Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?
I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.Quote:
Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).
God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.
In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.
Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.
I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.Quote:
Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.
Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.Quote:
I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?
Why should he send them to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in him? Why the two extremes?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.
I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.Quote:
sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.
Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".Quote:
no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.
I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.
of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying!:sweatdrop: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
well i don't remember threatening anyone with damnation, don't hold me or the christian faith as a whole, responsible for the unchristian (im sure you know that we are forbidden to judge) attutudes of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
every group has an eliment that ruins it for the restQuote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Well this is really the only portion of your comments in the discussion that actually matters at this point. The rest is pretty much moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
How do we atone for our sins? Simple. By recognizing them and asking for forgiveness. We know when we do wrong. Some are bigger sins (like checking out naked hotties on the web.:2thumbsup: ), and some are almost forgetable, like cutting someone off on the freeway then flipping 'em the bird. And some are just downright evil- murder, rape, molesting alter boys, etc.
How God forgives us and what we feel in that forgiveness is a little different depending on the sin. Do evil and you will know how long it stays with you, no matter how much you ask for forgiveness. Do a minor sin and you will be forgiven with relatively little difficulty.
More importantly tha even forgiveness, is life allignment. Namely, setting a course in your life that is alligned to the will of the Lord. Plan your day knowing that you will be challenged throughout. Seek strength, comfort, wisdom, and tenacity from the Lord. When you begin to falter, ask for assistance. When you still fail, ask for forgiveness. It is not a matter of "doing good deeds", it is a matter of living a life alligned with God's will. When this done, one no longer needs to think about doind good deeds for their own sake. It becomes automatic and ingrained within your spiritual self. And in this way, we pre-emptively act to prepare ourselves against sin and to do the will of God. The best "atonement" for sins is to not commit them in the first place. Through right allignment, we can actively pursue perfection, while planning for oursleves to evetual fail in some measures.
Then the Lord will know we are his servants. And when we ask forgiveness of him individually, he will not hesitate to forgive and continue his love for us.
BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?
If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).
Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?
It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.
It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.
Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)
This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!
What I'm saying is that if there are 100s of different stories, and all of them are obviuosly metaphor, then there's an equal chance of one being right VS anyother. Can you see why it's foolish to assume that you've found the true one and that everyone else is going to hell?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZainDustin
It would make the most sense to just ive as morally as you can and just hope that the real God will respect that.
I find it likely that if God exists, he's neither the God Christian nor any other of the the versions that humans have pulled out of the air.
i agree that no one can say who is going to heaven, Jesus himself said none but god knows, and remember that Jews, Muslims and Christian all worship the god of the old testamentQuote:
Originally Posted by Mongoose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
EXCELLENT!!! This was the best argument for non-intervention I have read yet. You have completely articulated my understanding of suffering in this world.
NOW, try this on for size: Buddhism teaches that all suffering is the result of desire and ignorance. Essentially, our ongoing want is the cause of suffering. We want many things: happiness, life without pain, comfort, food, etc.
Only by recognizing the impermanence of all things can we alleviate suffering. We must, as Christians say, Let go and Let God.
This does not mean that we should not work towards peace and prosperity, instead it means that we should recognize that everything is temporary. When we realize this, everything comes into perspective.
This works well with an ecletic religious perspective, because it recognizes the freedoms that God has given us (as explain by BM) while providing a way to cope with the pain that we experience in our short lives.
Our attempts to be eternal instead of worship, gratitude, and humility is the source of human pain. We should continually strive for perfection in right action while simultaneously recognizing the futility of all.
interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.
Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?
otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.
Hopefully I can answer this. Because we are the Lord's agents and it is our purpose to freely choose to do His will, the Lord answers prayers through the actions of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
What do people ask for when they pray? Money? Power? Health?
They should be praying for strength, for understanding, for patience, and for humility. Our prayers are ALWAYS answered, when our prayers are unselfishly motivated and fall within the Lord's design.
For example, let us assume you have a sick child. Do you pray for his health? Instead pray that your child will be filled with understanding and courage. Pray that you, too, will be understanding and accept our impermanence in this world. Of course you want your child to be well! But this is the cause of your suffering- desire for more than our fragile mortality offers. Thank the Lord that you were able to know your child and be grateful that he had a life to live at all.
When we pray for the external, our wishes will not be fullfilled. When we pray for the internal, our prayers are always answered. And because of this, we can do the good work of God and become agents of change. Through us, God will do external work and make our human experience a better one.
To answer the original question: I believe in a God's existence, and I believe that the existence of an objective reality is dependent on the existence of some version of God. However, I don't look to any texts as they were all written by other men and suseptible to many and various errors, if God -- whatever it may be -- would ever talk to us, IMO.
Divinus Arma...
thank you. that was damn near poetry! rather beautiful. I don't happen to agree with it, but there we go.
I would still maintain that was intervention, but that's a pov issue.
This is why i love discussing these things. every now and again someone says something you've not heard before!
cheers
:bow: Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
On the matter of intervention, just to clarify. First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is all things and all things are in Him. He does not "live" on a cloud in a bodily form sitting atop a throne, presiding over the dead. He is here. In our time and with us.
God does not intervene by causing us to be remotely controlled robots doing his bidding. Animals do this. Existence is God's "purpose"; He simply exists and was not created, He has chosen to enjoy that existence with His creation. Our purpose is to choose freely to align our will with that of God's will. This is morality. We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord. This is a collective experience of humanity, and we are drawing ever nearer to Him.
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. He has created existence using defined limitations on energy which act to make chaos predictable and consequently useful to Him in its ability to interact with itself. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble is this simple rule:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter its form. This is important because unpredictable chaos allows matter, or energy, to do anything, including double itself or cease existence without another force acting upon it.
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
More to come...
Mystic Brew, I promise this isn't complete rambling. It does come back around to the arguments surrounding divine intervention, or lack thereof.
So, the question was whether God is personal or inpersonal. Is he self-aware or is he simply a "will"? Is this "will" purposefully self-directed or does it act without purpose.
The question, my friend, is one of purpose. We must ask: what is God's purpose and is that purpose one chosen by God? A self-aware "will" designates its own purpose. A "will" without self-awareness does not assign its own purpose. What is God's purpose, if God Himself did not designate it? There is only one answer. God is chaos. He is a self-directed "will" without purpose. This is an impossibility, because, as was discussed early, chaos is self-defeating. Chaotic will could be self-destructive or self-replicating. Deicide. Or similarly, multiple and competing wills without purpose. Order would not exist because time is outside of this. A second is infinity and infinity is in a second.
That means that God is self-aware. A singular self-aware will that designates its own purpose in shaping the predictability of chaos, and thus of order. Consequently, It or He, may design.
Mystic Brew, Last portion.
Design and purpose are interrelated and a component of the discussion on intervention. From what I wrote, I believe it is difficult to refute the existence of God when debating within this frame work of chaos logic. I believe it is also difficult to refute that god is self-aware when using this logic.
But what about us? Why would God care about us?
It comes back to purpose. God's self-decided purpose is his design. His creation. To determine our own purpose within that design, we need to understand the purpose of everything within the design. This could get quite complex, but humanity has categorized and classified much of everything within our small sphere of influence. We know how our environment interacts withitself to remain self-sustaining. Our earth, this self-sustaining object acts in complete harmony with the will of God. It does everything it is "told" according to predictable chaos, exactly as God has designed. That's where we come in. We are unique in known existence in that we are the only being similar to God in a way that we can relate. We fullfill God's purpose by choosing to do his will. This validates his purpose for existence. We complete the circle.
"Divine Intervention" as you may call it, would be when we have a direct relationship with the Lord and our will is alligned with his. We pray for an internal embrace of him, nothing more. We are not asking for anything that is not naturally there. We reconnect the link and become a conduit for his will. Thus he acts through us, by our choice, and can directly influence his creation.
Yes, take your lumps and smile about it. This makes no sense to me; of course I want my child to be insightful and strong, but for now, it's more important for me that he is well. If he does not survive, then he does not live; that much is obvious. If I were to find the silver lining, fine, if that's what I need to do to cope, but no god is responsible for my forced perception or for the health of my child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I agree. We want our children to be healthy. But God does not externally intervene just as BM so eloquently explained. He only intervenes internally as I explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
"Chaos" and "order" are all in the eyes of the beholder- quite literally. We designate something as chaos because from our perspective, it is uncontrolled. However I hold a very deterministic and mechanical view of the world. Concepts like "chaos" and "chance that [event] will happen" hold meaning to us, because we are ignorant. But everything that has happened was always meant to happen. The Punic wars, the renaissance, etc were at the start of the universe BOUND to happen. If a hugely powerful entity would know all the current conditions and directions of matter and energy, he could both perfectly reconstruct what has happened before and also predict everything that is yet to be, reasoning by causality.
In the eyes of (the hypothetical) God, the being that knows all conditions, there is no chaos (or order, as both terms are meaningless). Just a bunch of matter and energy that flows logically from one point to another, the consequense of the conditions before, the prelude to the conditions thereafter. This, and no less, is omniscience.
Christianity teaches that God is all knowing. Satan rebelled against his creator. So did humanity. How did this get pass him? Or did he mean that to happen? Do we have the "power", the fundamental characteristic to do things God can't predict? In other words, do we have Free Will? Or is God omniscient? I think the two are mutually exclusive.
Divinus Arma,
*chuckles*
wasn't expecting this!
I will read and digest, but don't have the time right now!
Good Question :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
well, Jesus said when healing people that it was their faith that had healed them now, the placebo effect is a resonably accepted theory and would supply some of the method by which prayer can directly help (i believe that there must be a use to it as Jesus said to do it).
God is of course omnipotent and so knows what we want before we ask for it and so praying is not realy to inform god what you want him to do, as much as to clarify your thoughts, spend time thinking of others and hopefully get strength from the holy spirit. I am of the mind that god has given us the cures to our problems, we just need to look for them, use the gifts that we and others were given and sources like the bible and other christians for guidance, prayer is also to show support, many people even atheists apreciate it when people pray for them, it is a good way to show that you care about whats going on in their lives. :2thumbsup:
Essentially god intervened once, when he made the universe, in that intervention everything else was layed out in gods mind so for him the future would be pre-determined there is free wil its just he knows all the desisions that we will make!, so in a sence there is intervention, at the beggining that has decided the whole history of the world, and must have if god is omnipotent after all ''god does not play dice'':laugh4: .
no they are not, god knows what we will do, but gives us the freedom to do it, he gave Satan the freedom to rebel and he gave humans the freedom to rebel he knew it would happen but he allowed them the free will to rebel anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec