»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Critical States
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Critical States |
|
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Critical States I recently posted a reply to a piece written. In my response, I made a reference to the 144,000, who are spoken of in the Book of Revelations. A person responding to my response, (and not the poetry), gave the impression that they had no ideal what, or who, the 144,000 was, so I posted a scripture from the bible. And sure enough, they returned to post a reply to my second reply, but this time, it was a scholarly answer. But how could that be, from a person, which earlier, had no ideal of the 144,000? Maybe I was harsh in next reply, instructing the responder to “save it” but was I wrong? People pour their hearts out on paper, and at these sites, often working their way through some awful trying times, to express their deepest emotions, only to have their renderings torn apart by someone who wants to give the impression that know what they are talking about! I am all to familiar with this tactic. Most of my life I sought social acceptance by pretending to know something that I really didn’t, so I sought answers from others, and made believe that they was my own answers! Was I wrong, in responding as if I now knew something, about something, that I really knew nothing about? Social acceptance is a hard thing, trying to give the world the appearance of being someone we’re not, and this, I do know about. "Sometimes when you admire others, or their deeds, more than you admire your own, we will do foolish things for their acceptance!" Anyway, after my harsh reply, the responder edited their expert response, leaving my harsh reply standing alone as if I was some crazed maniac or something! And you know what, I left my response unedited! Why? Because it keep the dishonest criticizers away from my poetry and my responses! As for my harsh response, I’m sorry. I could have been more constructive then that, there is no accuse! But what happens to all the onlookers, who can see my response? Well, I can only say this, “every thing that I write, is from my soul, and I'll back it up with truth!” So if you are going to be critical of what I write, please be aware of the truth and honesty, in my words, and my responses back to you. And if I’m wrong, if I have wronged anyone, in any way, I’ll be man enough to say I’m sorry! But you can rest assure, that I will never try to make myself look bigger than who I am, by trying make someone else look foolish, just so I can fit in! Originally Yours, |
||
| © Copyright 2002 The Napkin Writer - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"But what happens to all the onlookers, who can see my response? Well, I can only say this, “every thing that I write, is from my soul, and I'll back it up with truth!” ~ Maybe with your truth, but certainly not mine. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
The truth is the truth, regardless to who we are! It doesn’t belong to you, me or anyone else to decide what truth is! God made truth, and none of us can change that! No matter how big and tuff we think we are! Originally Yours, |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Whose God? Yours? Theirs? There is a God? |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
There is only one! Or do you know of another? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I know of none. However, I know of people who hold many beliefs of what they know to be God. In fact, many of them are Christians who each speak of different Gods than the other Christian. Others that I know believe in a God that is not the Christian/s God. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: That’s interesting, are you saying that you believe that all religions worship the same God or that there is only one true God and only one true religion and if so which is the correct one? And how do you know? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I'm certainly glad you tagged that honesty part there but what you've just said is that you write the 'truth'. Only later do you start talking about God's being the only truth -- a point that doesn't answer the question, it just keeps referring to a higher form of authority: "It's not me, you see, who knows the truth, it's God. I just follow God." This of course only changes your original statement slightly: Be aware that I know the truth through God and I will be honest. That's a big problem and it usually sets alarm bells going off in this forum.  Essentially, you're saying that you know the truth and your going to tell the truth so the rest of you better be careful. But that statement alone isn't the truth, it's only about the truth. To say 'The truth' is to evaluate a descriptive statement about a proposition; it doesn't in itself say anything, it's an assertion. Nevertheless, I'm interested in a little more information on why you're upset, care to elaborate a bit? Perhaps by e-mail? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I'm not going to get into yet another "God/truth by whose standards" debate.... it's not worth my energy right now, it's an endless tug-o-war... but... Not exactly sure if I'm playing devil's advocate or speaking from my own point of view yet, but... Is there necessarily virtue in asserting truth as that, pure truth in an undisputable form? I think the trade of ideas is much more productive... saying we back things up with "truth" is really irrelevant, when the person you are talking to doesn't accept your perception of truth... I said recently in another thread that successful debates must be held on a common ground, and I stand by that. Let's say Person A is coming from a Christian's point of view, Person B from that of an Atheist. Presuming the debate is not explicitly about religion or spirituality... let's say it's about corporal punishment for children... Persons A and B are both intelligent, and both make good points. but if Person A uses biblical reinforcement for his argument, Person B may automatically consider the point invalid because he doesn't believe in biblical events and doctrines. I don't even know that I know how this relates to the original topic. Sorry for rambling, if I've wasted anyone's time. Who is John Galt? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Having been born and raised a Catholic, attending Catholic school through High School graduation...entering the navy at the age 19...living in Florida in 1983, when a born-again Christian told me that every person in my family is going to hell because they were not "born again" (Catholics are not born again)...catapulted the beginning of my "truth" seeking journey. Was his truth the truth? Was his God the same as my God? |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
In the beginning, there is only one God, but man separated God by creating religions titles! Paul, who was one of the followers of Christ, went about Rome teaching the teachings of Christ in the years following the resurrection of Christ. As the population around Rome grew, the fathers of that time grew fearful of the number of people who now choose to follow the teachings of Christ. Most of the people in these days were referred to simply as Christ followers. “The Roman government to quite the masses of the Roman citizenship who were now converting to the teachings of Christ created Christianity.” Before Christ came into the world, a lot Romans worshiped idols! God had covenants with Abraham, Muhammad, and their generations, way before the birth of Christ; “and I’m not even sure if anyone can tell you the true religion of either of them!” We can tell you what we believe them to be, because of the land they dwelled in, but I don’t believe anyone would be willing to stake their life on their religion! It was only after the birth and resurrection of Christ that many started to jump on some sort of religious bandwagon. I mean, what religion was Christ anyway? He didn’t say this religion, or that religion will not get into Heaven, He said, no individual, will get into Heaven, unless they come through him! The key word being “individual.” Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “see that you do not do that!” I am your fellow servant, and your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. WORSHIP GOD! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. In chapter 19:9 of The Book of Revelation, the Angel has just told John how blessed those are, who are called to the great supper. I’m no Biblical scholar, but this whole scenario tells me that as an individual, I must seek God on my own! And for what’s happening right now in the Catholic Church, I would be careful of whom I let led me straight into hell! Also you must remember is that even in those days, Romans lived in a democratic society, much like we live today; minus of course the technological advances. In other words, people voted for their governmental leadership. And just like today, a politician cannot isolate an entire race, cultural, or religious group, and hope to be elected to office. I question rather the Roman government had good intention of really incorporating God in their culture, or was this “initially” a way to satisfy the growing masses of followers of Christ, who threaten particular political advancer! When you’re dealing with a democratic society, where nations are governed by the vote, or the will of the people, political correctness can blind you from the truth. For instance, I was born in “57,” and I was always taught that the Civil War was enacted to free slaves. But later on as an adult, I learned that slaves were being tallied to use as political devises to swing elections toward southern politicians, and that the north, would rage war, before they would give another inch to these political tactics. Since I know now that a lot of truth was hidden by the Christianity of that time, and blacks, who malnipulated the situation further, by omitting other truths. What am I suppose to do now, keep on believing the lies that were integrated in our lives from the beginning, or do I seek out the truth for myself? As for me saying that I write the truth; what is meant there is that, my writings are real-life extensions of my experiences in my life. They are centered around events of my personal history. They themselves are true stories that I try to tell in poetic form. "I'm not above anyone, but nither will I allow myself to be place below anyone, based on what I know is lies." I'm not out to offend anyone, but the truth is the truth, and that's all there is to it! Added: I must say that you are right Opeth. There are a lot of different religions worshiping, but if you look close, you will find that regardless of the culture, you will find they all have three things in common; 1). Ever culture mentions a superior God, regardless of how many other lesser gods may be mentioned 2). That there was a great flood event somewhere in their creation history 3). The mentioning of a son of their respective God, or an representative held as one might regard a son Originally Yours, The Napkin Writer [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (07-26-2002 03:50 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No. All religions don't believe in a superior being. Geez, where's Stephanopolous (Stepan) when you need him. Mohammed came after Christ, not before. Rome was not a democracy -- ever, it was a republic at the time of Christ. Not much like us at all. Brad PS Sorry for the spelling. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'2). That there was a great flood event somewhere in their creation history' Yes, of course... and I've heard (ach, I know, hearsay... not good base for making a point) that there is physical evidence on the Earth of a flood too... and why wouldn't there be? Here's my problem... people seem to always tell me how the Bible's events and events as measured by historians coincide, so that makes the Bible true. Well, if people were writing a religion book they wanted people to believe, wouldn't they include natural phenomena/disasters, and attempt to explain them... i.e., God created a flood, but here's how Noah saved all the animals and propogated the human race while the sinners all drowned, etc. What I'm saying is that I don't believe the Bible dictates reality- reality dictates the Bible. Who is John Galt? |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Religous discussions never cease to both amaze me and draw me in, particularly when it comes to individual perceptions of "GOD". If by defintion one means "the creator" etc... then one can't argue against the one "God" side, which by inference would lend credence to different ways (religons) to worship the same "God". Then it becomes a matter of each religion saying it is worshiping "God" the way "God" dictated the world to do so and all the others are misguided and bound for that particular religion's version of hell. I believe most people's concept of "God" is as an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, all everything being, and going on that belief system there could only be one such "God", if one believes at all. After all, Zeus is dead isn't he? JThere is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Zowee, Lots of interesting talk here. First let me say I do respect everyone's beliefs whether I agree with or am against them. Christianity or belief in the current God is such a new thing in perspective with other ancient beliefs that well surpass Christianity in age. There are too many beliefs throughout the ages to count, this is due to the constant but slow evolution of religions in conjunction with political and societal change. What will be the belief a thousand years from now when we as a society in whole have more or less information to base our beliefs on? What will be the new God? There maybe one truth , one binding truth about existence(that truth might even be that there is no truth), whether it be god or science or both that explains it, unfortunately I can say with resounding conviction that none of us know it and if someone does, they haven't shared it. Or if one of the numerous theories are correct, no one has found a way to prove it. To even try to sum up billions upon billions of years, or even an eternity or a timeless thing, in small simple books or manipulated evidence written by people who, at the time, believed heavily in superstitions is utterly and hopelessly impossible. Unless of course a unification theory ends up being a three letter equation. To even think IF there is a God, we could have an understanding of what he/she/they think and what their purpose is seems ludicrous. That's like dust from a pebble describing the actions of a mountain. Just because it is written does not make it so. I mean some people use the arguement of scrolls, that the most scrolls found in that era were based upon God and what is now the modern bible. However, if fictionalized law stories or Stephen King stories were published in the nineties more than any other book, will our predecessors believe that is how we conducted our system of law or that we fought ghosts and demons? Damn, how many of us believed in Santa Claus as kids....well in comparative terms of knowing about existence we have yet to be concieved. But in my opinion what it really boils down to is everyone's struggle with their existence and the end of such. We want to believe that there is something better to look forward to other than simply death. And why not, its a good hopeful story. But the irony is, people get sooo worked up about it that they are willing to kill, destroy and maim each other to show how right they are, its an extreme but also a reality. Really, I don't know the purpose of my response other than me venting. Regardless what I say about God it won't change a damn thing. People will believe or not believe, some more when pressed with different ideas, some less. Maybe that's because individuals are just that, individuals. We all base our thoughts and feelings upon what we percieve. Maybe I haven't experienced the right things, or then again maybe others haven't and I have. Hell, I may even be the truly ignorant one and the 80 -90 percent of the world population who believe in some sort of organized religion may be right. Who knows? Why worry about that which we have no control over....And I shouldn't care but I can't stop from wondering what is this all about. Thanks, Trevor |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yanno... being an agnostic and all... sometimes I'm not exactly sure which God it is that we can't be sure exists.... |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
In the beginning, there is only one God, but man separated God by creating religions titles! The only thing I regard as being cast in stone, is what is written in the bible. In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God. Not Jesus in the flesh, as a man. Jesus Christ the man was born in what we called date “0000.” I just can't get rather it was Dec 25, 0000, or Dec 25, 0001. Rome was a democracy, no matter how you play with the words. Do you know how one of our well respected scientist describe the turning of a few loaves of bread and fish into enough to feed 5000 men and their families? He says, that when a child pulled his lunch from under his cloak, it triggered mass physiological hunger, and at that point over 5000 people remembered that they themselves, had a lunch under their cloaks as well! And there is another, that says, that the water levels would have been at a low point in Egypt because of the droughts, and that a strong hurricane like wind came and lifted these waters back, and as such Moses was able to lead thousands through its passage. But it only lasted long enough to let Moses through. “Oh boy, talk about timing” Even after all the miracles Thomas had witnessed with his own sight, he still disbelieved Christ had risen from the dead. John 21:29 And Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou has seen me, thou believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Some of these stories of creation are so, so far fetched, that, well okay Zeus! Greek Mythology – Creation, the birth and generation of Zeus, up to the first man and woman First there was confusion, then appeared (Erebus), the place of death, and night, (Nyx), and somehow love, (Eros) was born. From love came light and day. Once there was light and day, the earth (Gaea) appeared. Gaea gave birth to Uranus. Then Gaea and Uranus produced three Cyclopes, three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans. Uranus (the father) hated the Hecatoncheires, so he hid them in the earth, Gaea Womb. Gaea became angry, and plotted with the youngest Titan, Cronus, to overthrow the father, Uranus. Gaea and Cronus ambushed Uranus, cut off his genitals, and threw them into the ocean. The myth is not clear what happen to Uranus, but it is believed that he went to Italy, where the blood of his split became Giants, the Ash Tree Nymphs, and Erinyes. The sea foam, where his genitals had landed, became Aphrdite. Cronus became the next ruler. He imprisoned the Cyclopes and Hecatoncheires in Tartaus. Cronus married his sister Rhea, and had six kids. Gaea and Uranus prophesied that a son would overthrow Cronus, so Cronus ate his born at their birth. Rhea became angry, and plotted to save their sixth child. When it came time for the birth of the sixth child, she took the child to Crete, and then wrapped a stone in a swaddling cloth, and Cronus ate the stone. Of course this child was Zeus. The story goes on to tell of a great war on Mount Olympus, where the Cyclopes gave Zeus Lighten Bolts. Zeus used these bolts to win this war. Atlas was punished to hold the world on his shoulders for going against Zeus. Zeus learned how to control thunder and lighten, and struck down Typhoeus and buried his body under Mount Etna in Sicily. The Giants was pilling mountain upon mountain, to reach Mount Olympus, but was defeated with the aide of Hercules, thus clearing the world of all monsters. Zeus took Prometheus and Epimetheus, and charged them to create man. Epimetheus was given the task of giving the creatures of the earth their qualities, but by time he got to man, all the good qualities were gone. He turned to Prometheus for help, and Prometheus made man walk upright, and he gave man fire. Because Prometheus loved man so, Zeus created Woman, but because of issues surrounding man’s sacrifices to the Gods of Olympus, Zeus took fire from man, but Prometheus gave back. This enraged Zeus, so he had Hephaestus create Pandora, giving her many gifts, the final gift being a jar, which she was forbidden to open. of course she opened the jar, and unleashed out flew plagues, sorrow and mischief, however, in the bottom of the jar was hope. After that, the rest is history, and many people believe this story for centuries. So people will believe whatever they choose, I guess, according to Greeks mythology or any other mytholgy. By the way, Prometheus was regarded as the first rebel. This is not the weirdest story of creation I ever had to do a paper on over the years, but it was one that I knew up with as a child, but I never knew it went this far. I think every ones belief has credibility, as long as it serves the purpose of the individual. With that being said, God Bless! Not Gods Originally Yours, |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"In the beginning, there is only one God, but man separated God by creating religions titles!" ~ So if there is only one God, how could anyone believe that God is more than one? A trinity? The bible doesn't even have the word "trinity" in it. That was a manmade conception, evidently a newer version of ancient Egyptian religion's Rah and the Bah, of which Moses was quite familiar with, as he was raised an Egyptian. "The only thing I regard as being cast in stone, is what is written in the bible." ~ The bible of course was written by men and in the Hebrew, Chaldean, and of course Greek text, in which much of it has been "slanted" by those who translated the original test into English. Many examples, I could expound on. "In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God." ~ An excellent example can be found in your above quote, I believe found in the beginning of the Gospel according to John...paraphrasing: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, it was the Word and God in the beginning...Where is the Trinity? If one reads this with an open mind it would appear the the "Godhead" is "twofold" in nature = The word and God. "Not Jesus in the flesh, as a man. Jesus Christ the man was born in what we called date “0000.” I just can't get rather it was Dec 25, 0000, or Dec 25, 0001." ~ Come on man, haven't you read any history? The person, Jesus Christ, was not born anywhere near the 25 of December. If so, the Bible would prove to be fallible, as the shepards in the month of December, in Israel, are not tending their sheep at that time. It is widely known that Christ was born much closer to October to early November. The December 25th celebration of his birthday came about during Constantine's rule...if you want to know more about this matter, read up on it or ask about it...funny how "Christmas" isn't in the bible? |
||
|
Munda Member Elite
since 1999-10-08
Posts 3544The Hague, The Netherlands |
Ahhhhh... exactly what I needed today... how I love discussions like these! Thanks guys - all of you - for making my day. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
I am sorry... but though as serious as this is... I find it absolutely hilarious... this whole topic about God and so on, that has been haunting Passions and also so many others in different degrees.... and about 144000 ... well looks like a nice number... guess what the numerologist have to say about this... There is a theory that goes around like this "God is a man-made concept to bring about control in lives, but since God alone wans't enough, there had to be religion as a way of life to support the concept. Those who devised these systems also became the most powerful men in their times, and the documents of these systems are books like the Bible, originally written in the language then spoken and translated and mutilated over the years to each one's own perception.... and the same goes for other religious texts/scriptures/etc and so on"... Well, more on that theory in about 30-40 years... till then, I will do myself a favour and spread a smile... Regards to all of you, Sudhir [This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (07-30-2002 06:45 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Having the studied the bible and comparing the English translations with the original Hebrew & Greek, I came to the justifiable conclusion that those who translate, translate with subjectiveness, therefore twisting and changing the so-called truths of the original scriptures. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Now you come on! You know dog-gone-well I was not the one who originally said Christ was born on Dec. 25th, but that’s what I were taught, just like most everyone one else! I know better than that, and so do you! So just how do you propose changing what has drilled in so many of our heads from the beginning? I mean who then become the liars? Our parents, our church, our community, society, or do we stand back and say, wait–a-minute, they have been taught the same things, so what else did they have to teach, but what they themselves had been taught? Anyone can find flews in anyone else statements! But, when you find those flews, you support what I’m trying to say! My whole point is; "we don't know what to believe half the time!” Unless we weight our perception of what we believe to be the truth, and form our own individual truth, we will keep sucking up whatever anybody tells us! That is one thing I can say about the people here at PIP, you don’t just settle for what others say, you question, and if need be, line by line; and that in itself is a good thing. The issues of faith are not proving someone, or a religion is wrong, it is about coming into your own, and forming your own God belief system! A lot of replies here have touched on that, and we must not lose focus, that in the end we stand in judgment of our own accounts in life. Thanks everyone for some interesting replies, I think every statement made here is relevant, whether I agree with that statement or not! At least we can think for ourselves..... Originally Yours, |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
So then, do you believe in lies? If something so simple as the birth of a Saviour is lied about, how many more lies do you think are hidden below the surface? I searched for the truth, but found mostly lies. But not only lies, for many are simply misinformed or naive or easily duped or misguided, and so on, however many of these people are sincere in thought and deed. [This message has been edited by Opeth (07-30-2002 10:31 AM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
"I’ve been lied to just like anyone else." I’m no one special, that I should know something the rest of the world don’t! And how do we come to know that we even been lied to in first place, unless that subject concerning that lie, comes into question? I’m just like everyone else, trying to find some sort of reasoning in my existence. One of the hardest things I have done in my lifetime is to admit that some of the things I come to learn in life have been based on lies. And I’ve suffered through that a long time, trying to attach new meaning to a life I am just starting to live, to a person I’m just starting to know. Will I be lied to tomorrow, the next day, next year, or ten years from now? Maybe, I’m sure I will! But I know I can’t discount everything i going to hear, and I must keep on searching, even if it takes me the rest my life. Yes, I’ve been lied to over and again, but I’m proud to be able to stand here today and say that, because a few years ago I couldn’t say that, I wouldn’t say that! I would have fought you to the bitter end, over lies, but today, I know better than that, we all know better than that, at least I hope we all know better. Originally Yours, |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I believe each person may or may not ever begin the journey of truth seeking. Those who do begin that journey do so in their own time and may or may not ever finish the journey. I began the journey while I was a teenager, however I stopped frequently and hardly made any ground until I turned 24. At that age, I picked-up the pace tremendously and now at the age of 40, I am almost at finish line, I can see it in the distance, for sure. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
There really is a lot of truth, honor and love in these pages, you know, I think I'll stay for a while! Peace, The Napkin Writer |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You mean Santa wasn't born on December 25th? WHat next??? What NExt???? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I missed that reply ~ lol! And the Easter Bunny wasn't born on Easter either. When searching for truth, I was amazed at how much of what I was taught was a mix of "biblical" and "pagan" beliefs. It shouldn't surprise anyone, I mean, if anyone ever partook in "The Haley's Comet" experiment, one would easily understand how such mixes occur. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's interesting how everyone seems ready to agree about lies, but no one can agree on truth. Is that even possible? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, some say that the birth of Christ happened on December 25, some say January 6, some say most likely September calculating by when Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, and now I see some say October or November. To my way of thinking the actual date doesn't matter, or we would have been given an actual date. Regarding the accuracy of translations of the Bible, one can either learn Hebrew and Greek and/or use a literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek such as Young's Literal Translation. No translation will be as accurate as the original language but most of us won't be learning Hebrew or Greek anytime soon! Ron, possible? I suppose. Probable. Nope! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I have found that to my way of thinking, I usually deal with things in a process of elimination. It is much easier to sort out that which is not possible than all the things that are possible... There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea the Christ's birthday was set at December 25th to coincide with the pagan celebration of Saturnalia- a traditional Roman holiday. When Constantine decided to convert Rome to Christianity, he had to find replacement holidays. Which, to me, is a logical explanation. Who is John Galt? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh GOD!!! (who, like Einstien, I am not convinced is particularly obsessed with humanity) NOT the EASTER bunny !!! Just tell me there's a Tooth Fairy...pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? leprechauns? Great Pumpkin? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Hush ~ You are correct. In fact, Christianity is chockful of pagan rituals, beliefs, etc taken from other religions and customs. As for the comments about the translation of the Bible from its original language.... A concordance, such as Young's, is also slanted. The best concordance to use would be one that is nuetral of any branch of Christianity...that would lead Strong's concordance of the Bible as the best tool for truly understanding the Bible without subjective slanting of the text. Examples are too numerous to count, but I will provide two good ones... 1. Easter, this English word is not in the Bible, however, there are many Bible's in which the translators have blatantly mistranslated the Greek word "pascha" as the pagan word Easter. Why? Because "passover" was too Jewish, a Jewish custom ordained from God to keep forever ~ all His people, so certain so-called the Christians, in order to separate themselves from Jewish LAWS, changed the word to Easter, which originally meant the God of Eastern = a pagan God of Fertility, henceforth the EASTER BUNNY! 2. Punctuation marks. There was no punctuation marks in the original scrolls, but in order to slant a belief of an immediate hellfire or soul existence upon death, one passage stands out... "Verily, verily, I say unto you {COMMA} Today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Many doctors of theology will point to this passage as proof of an immediate existence upon death, however, if one changes the placement of the comma, it would read this way... "Verily, verily, I say unto you today, [emphesis on the time of the promise] thou shalt be with me in paradise." The Bible has been translated by men with the intention of making it conform to their beliefs. |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
*whew* i'm all worked up now, but thankfully i'm too tired and lazy to type it all down and then read all the ensuing replies... (i'll prolly read em anyways...) but about the taking pagan rituals and twisting of pagan faiths to make christianity into the good guy (even though they were slaughtering hundreds of people during the inquisition and european witch hunts)... there's a lot there i could say. i wrote an 8 page paper on it... but y'all are right on that point. i mean, for another example (besides the Dec. 25th thing) is the devil. ever wonder why he's got horns and hooved feet...part goat? maybe because the pagan god, the popular religion of the people in europe at the time, has horns an hooved feet... i mean why not turn your enemies' god into your devil? kinda like political mudslinging on a cosmic scale.... but beyond that was the bible stuff... now i won't lie. i was raised Catholic until the age of reason (meant jokingly, don't slam me just yet), and then i started branching out in my studies of faith. i try to get along with the churc i left, i really do... but there's an emnity there that still make me shudder when christians come out of the woodwork spouting bible verses... i don't wanna offend everyone or anyone, but i do want you to know where i'm coming from.... so there it is. hope ya ain't too hurt. "The only thing I regard as being cast in stone, is what is written in the bible. In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God." have you read this book cover to cover? there are some creepy stories in there. taking the bible literally (ANYTHING literally) is dangerous. i mean, when Lott fled Sodom and Gemorrah with his family... you know that story i'm sure. his wife looked back after god said not to and turned to salt... well then Lott commits incest with his two daughters to populate...i think the moabs..but that story's in there. it even says in the bible that a woman may not speak in Church without the permission of her father, including singing in choir and teaching Sunday School. But i mean, i'm not gonna sit here and point out all the contradictions of the faith. why not? one it would take too long.  two, faith is an important thing. not pursuing a certain faith, but just having faith. Like said in the movie "Dogma": no religion's got it down yet. all i'm saying is don't let your bible dictate your life...cause there's a lotta "Good Books" out there. and as for the truth ? you'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. *gets off the soapbox* PS: for more intricaies of the bible, read "Rescuing the Scriptures from Funamentalism" by J. Shelby Spong (an episcopalian archbishop). he's got a lotta books, but a lot of what i jut spouted is from there. it's even got the chapters and verses so you can go be apalled for yourself. it's our struggle for identity that leaves us all unknown [This message has been edited by MidnightSon (07-31-2002 04:43 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Opeth, I was referring to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, not the concordance. The YLT Bible is a word for word literal translation from the original languages. Regarding concordances, I have also heard that Strong's is one of the best available. As far as the word Easter goes, it is not found in most translations and most certainly not in any of the literal translations, including the Young's. That it appears in some translations, or that we use the word today when speaking of the day of Christ's resurrection is probably due to the melding of Christianity with the pagan cultures in times past. The same could be said, and has been, about the celebration of Christmas. That these 'traditions' have been passed down through the centuries in our chritianized societies does not negate that there is still the reality of God and His truth that can be found in the Bible. Man's traditions, compromising with pagan cultures, etc., does not change that. We don't throw out the baby with the bath water. To me, it doesn't matter what you call the birth day or resurrection day of Christ. What's in a name, after all? What really matters to me is that there was a birth, a substitutionary death and a resurrection. To me, that's the crux of God's message to man down through the ages. Everything else is either a peripheral issue or a non-issue. MidnightSon, Religion has certainly twisted mens minds. No good has or ever will come from it. There is a great deal of difference between religion and God though. I believe that the Bible is His word to us and that it is inerrant, non-contradictory when read in context, and definitely to be taken literally except when it is obviously using figures of speech. The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself. A good reliable translation from the original languages and a good concordance are worth more than a million commentaries by a million archbishops. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Well said, Midnitesun. Denise, "I was referring to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, not the concordance. The YLT Bible is a word for word literal translation from the original languages." ~ Interesting...So does this version of the Bible state that the "wages of sin is death" or that the wages of sin is eternal separation from God? Big difference. "As far as the word Easter goes, it is not found in most translations and most certainly not in any of the literal translations, including the Young's." ~ Hmmm, a very popular version of the Bible is The Good News Bible, widely read, especially in the SouthEast, it states, "Easter" instead of "Passover." "That it appears in some translations, or that we use the word today when speaking of the day of Christ's resurrection is probably due to the melding of Christianity with the pagan cultures in times past." ~ Yes, of course. So why celebrate Easter, which is of pagan origins, instead of celebrating Passover, just like Christ and his disciples did? (his apostles did, even after His death) "That these 'traditions' have been passed down through the centuries in our chritianized societies..." ~ Your own Bible states not to believe in and avoid "traditions of men" yet Christians do? "...does not negate that there is still the reality of God and His truth that can be found in the Bible." ~ Cannot His truth also be found in the Koran and other religous literature? "Man's traditions, compromising with pagan cultures, etc., does not change that. We don't throw out the baby with the bath water." ~ Again, Christ warns the people not to believe in another Christ, the one founded on the traditions of men. "To me, it doesn't matter what you call the birth day or resurrection day of Christ. What's in a name, after all?" ~ Excellent question for a Jehovah's Witness...they believe there is MUCH in God's name. "What really matters to me is that there was a birth, a substitutionary death and a resurrection. To me, that's the crux of God's message to man down through the ages. Everything else is either a peripheral issue or a non-issue." ~ If one studies the Bible carefully and without any subjectiveness for a particular denomination, or for the sake of not becoming a piriah in one's own community, I would disagree with that statement. However, with that being said, believe what you want, but just remember, your belief is just that yours and that doesn't make it the truth for all. [This message has been edited by Opeth (08-01-2002 11:00 AM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey Brad, Here I am! How did I get here so late on this one? My computer was in the hospital. Probably a good thing ... judging from the controversy here. This is just another example to me of taking all the controversy surrounding God, and Jesus Christ, and making it an excuse not to believe. Human minds can chop these things into a hundred thousand splintered doctrines and controversies and scandals. But I know that the Gospel as was delivered to those fishermen in Palestine, the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ is true. Regardless of what is said, the men who spent much of their lives with Jesus himself, record that he said things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the father except by me". Should I trust men who live centuries later, or the men who were right there with him ... and who had nothing to gain by proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the grave? When he was crucified, those men were afraid, disillusioned, depressed, and heart-weary. Would a man who denied Christ in front of a young girl during his arrest, turn around and waylay Roman guards in order to steal the body so he could save face and preach the "good news" of another dead religious icon? I don't see it. If the Romans had the body, all they had to do was show it publically, and Christianity would have disappeared off of the face of the Earth. As mere ethical religion, Christianity has nothing to offer much more than what's already around. There are historical facts to back it up. Can you doubt the veracity of the records, of scripture, of the character of the men who proclaimed these things? Of course you can. There is always freedom to disbelieve. If God made the truth so evident that we could not deny it if we wished, that would not be faith, but forced. So what can I say. I believe it. And far from it being just the word of men of long ago, Christ himself has confirmed it in my heart. Once you meet him and know that you know, nothing can take it from you. It's hard to argue with deity in person, especially when the scars in his hands and side tell of his eternal love for us. My prayer is that many of you also would come to believe the good news. Because this I know, life is hopeless without him. No philosophy, worldview, motive, sources of happiness and wellbeing, or anything that humanity has, has anything without him. We all are under the sentence of death, because of a fallen world, and because of our sin. The valley of the shadow of death we are walking now, not just when we get old. We are born dying in a sense. In the face of death, only Christ has the answer. The scriptures say he has the keys to hell and death. He overcame that we might overcome in him. Without whatever he has, we are lost and eternally so. We are like branches broken off from the tree, able to boast of a few green leaves and maybe a little fruit, but time is moving. One life destined to face the Judge of all, no giving of multiple lifetimes to work out the cosmic Karma, just one Savior given to take care of all of our sin and griefs forever. If you haven't prayed to Christ and asked him, I would encourage you to. Also, don't be satisfied with others conception of scriptures in the Bible. Read it for yourself. It's WORTH the time. Start with the gospel of John and judge for yourself if this teaching is of God or of man. Paraphrases aren't enough. Sometimes a long look may change things. What if it were true? Stephen ... (phew ... thanks guys for enduring that one) [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-01-2002 06:15 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Excellent, Stephen. My heart longs for everyone to come to know His wonderful salvation. A wise man (you know who you are!) recently told me that "a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." (thank you, wise man!) All that we can do is present the truth, encourage others to check it out for themselves and leave the rest to God. Those who are truly seeking Him and His truth will find it. He can even work in the hearts of those exhibiting positive disbelief, those who embroil themselves in controversy and pointless wrangling, while at the same time avoiding the central issue, the issue of utmost importance, Christ...who He claimed to be and what He claimed to provide for us. He is a God of miracles. I will only make a couple of comments to your responses that I feel are of significance as I have no desire to engage in pointless controversy, Opeth. First, Christ is the believer's Passover. We don't celebrate what was a forshadowing of Christ, we celebrate Christ, and not only on the day of His birth and resurrection, but everyday as well. Second, Christians do not celebrate a holiday of pagan origin. They celebrate the resurrection of Christ. That the name of the day of celebration may have had pagan influences is an entirely different matter. Third, Truth is truth. It is objective. My believing something doesn't make it true. If something is true, it is true whether I believe it or not. My not believing something does not make a truth untrue. My prayer is that many will discover and embrace His Truth as their very own. Love, Denise |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
agree to disagree.... or rather, agree to religious ecumenism. perhaps we all see different facets of the same diamond? |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
My only problem with the whole religion thing is that man stands at the gates of religion. Jesus speaks of seven churches in Revelation. Be careful how you choose, and why! 2:1 The Loveless Church 2:8 The Persecuted Church 2:12 The Compromising Church 2:18 The Corrupt Church 3:1 The Dead Church 3:7 The Faithful Church 3:14 The Lukewarm Church People want miracles in order to believe the nose on their face. Some want to wake up to having their wishing fulfilled, and then they’ll believe. And then there are those whom would never believe, not even in the end, before the casting of lakes. The best interpreter of the Bible I ever found was in my own heart. Nothing, no one has ever said to me over the years has had more significance than my reading a single passage in the bible, and finding that it is already in me, waiting, for my heart to know what was placed in each passage just for me to find when the time was right. I can just open the book, and my heart burst. But it is more than that, it’s what my life has been, to what it is becoming, that holds the greatest amount of significant. I no longer need to be convinced; I’m my own witness to what the love of Christ can do to a man. God Bless [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (08-16-2002 06:14 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I was about to write concerning my own beliefs (or disbelief’s) when I recalled the words of an American whose life and works I’ve been reading about recently. "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." Thomas Paine From The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine,(Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY) I doubt that I could have presented my opinion or belief in a clearer manner, which leads very nicely back to the original thread which seems to have been detoured onto the roundabout of religious debate. quote: Perhaps the person in question took the time to investigate the subject he/she knew nothing about, either by using the Internet or library, and then came back with a post that was ‘scholarly” in nature. Quite frankly I don’t see anything wrong in what this person did, unless you are suggesting that he/she plagiarised an existing text or used material verbatim. Using another persons text or quote which explains clearly or more succinctly your own views is acceptable in certain circumstances as long as the author is given credit (as above). quote: In my opinion, yes you were harsh and yes you were wrong, telling someone to “save it” who has taken time to reply and show at least some interest in the topic seems to me to be less than respectful. As the original post in question has been deleted my opinion can only be based largely on supposition, which isn’t the sturdiest foundation on which to build but on the information supplied is the best I can manage. Please feel free to disregard it if you feel I have misinterpreted the information supplied. Thank you for the chance to read and reply. |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
fair enough. my only prob with christanity (i only point it out by name because of i have experienec with that faith and i don't wanna step on any toes i don't have to... ) and a few other religions is having the concept of being helpless without "god". no one has faith in themselves anymore and everyone seems to be waiting to be saved... it's our struggle for identity that leaves us all unknown |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Yo Rebel...yep there's a tooth fairy...and he's a prick too....When I was a kid I used to save all my money for a rainy day...I'd keep it under my pillow...I woke up one morning and all my money was gone and there was a tooth there!.... |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
MULL EPISCOPAL CHOICE (MARK 1) God is love. God is thought. God is God. God is paught. God is faith. God is you. God is all. God is blue. None of Thee Above? |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Yes, that issue took on a life of its own and evolved into this! But any issue, including those were disccusing on the death penalty, a judge, jury or critic, should have all the imformation, unless those conclusions become one-sided. I admitted to being wrong for my hurshness, should I what now, hang myself from the nearest tree? I said I'm sorry to the one person that it should have counted for, whether that person forgives me is up "that" person. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Napkin Writer I’m presuming this was in reply to my earlier post: quote: Having all the information isn’t always possible, sometimes you have to form an opinion on what little you have or have been given. Normally I believe it’s best to keep them to yourself in such cases but when asked in an open post, as in this case, I see no reason to give anything but an honest opinion. As to hanging yourself from the nearest tree, I wouldn’t recommend it, but then again I’m neither your judge nor your keeper, that decision rests entirely with yourself, it would seem however to be overly excessive in the circumstances. Thank you for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I'm very late jumping into this thread, and I certainly understand the indignation ol' Napkin is feeling regarding the other's post. I do have to agree with Ron's post when he mentioned that we often have little difficulty agreeing on what is error, but have great difficulty agreeing on what is truth. The statement seems very simple, but actually very complex. I agree ... we often find little difficulty in agreeing on what is erroneous. But I would qualify that by saying that we often reach our conclusions of what is error from different directions, some valid and some invalid, but, invariably, our conclusions are shaped by our biases. Regarding "truth", I will have to reiterate the old Pontius Pilate cop out, "What is truth?" This thread quickly degerated into a mediocre theological thread and I think the word "truth" was thrown around rather carelessly. In my opinion, anyone who assumes "truth" in their understanding of Christian eschatology is committing a serious error (e.g., the prevailing Evangelical view today of Christian eschatology - pre-tribulationism and pre-milleniumism - was denounced by the Reformers as error ... I happen to agree with the Reformers ... for now). This takes me back to my highschool "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" days when the answer to the universal question what know, but nobody could agree on what, in fact, the question was. So, essentially, what I am offering is some advice to those who posted apologies to Christian truth: avoid obscure texts when defending your faith and, rather than resorting to the pop-Christian tendency toward "Christian existentialism", root your argument in evidentially supportable fact. Granted, because the Bible was written in history, most of those supportable "facts" are ascertained inductively ... the deductive arguments are far more complex and, often, abstract. As far as the original post is concerned, the replier's comments will mean nothing to you in ten years, so why fret? As this thread illustrates, as human beings, our thoughts and opinions are bound to rub somebody the wrong way at one time or another, but if the perceived sleight is ultimately inconsequential, I would simply respond in the immortal words of Alfred E. Newman: "What, me worry?" Enjoyed the thread. El Jimbo [This message has been edited by jbouder (08-21-2002 07:25 AM).] |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed. Adolf Hitler ===================== While I am not saying that the bible is lies, and the speaker of this quote is hardly the most reputable speaker, the point is that everything has to be taken with a grain of truth. Why is the Christian Bible seen as the truth, what of Orthodox or protestant. As an Irish person (southern so I was not directly affected by the troubles) I am well aware of how religion leads to bloodshed. Before the Christian God was recognised there were other gods. We can’t possibly resolve this debate and it appear in some other shape or form here or somewhere else. Until then I suggest that we all try to live our lives to its full, be happy and spread that happiness to others. Maybe that is where we will find God. The sum of the angles of that rectangle is too monstrous to contemplate! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brian: quote: Some few Christians might answer you by stating that they believe the Bible is God's written revelation of Himself in time and space, and that this revelation of Himself is verifiable by applying well established rules of legal-historical inquiry. What about the Orthodox or Protestant? What about them? I do not see how identifying differences in biblical interpretation and religious practice cast doubt on verifiable fact. This, I would argue, is part of being human. For example, it is not uncommon for US Supreme Court Justices to reach different (and often contrasting) opinions on undisputed facts and somewhat straightforward law. Does this mean that the facts and law are unclear? Not necessarily. It simply means that Supreme Court Justices bring something to the table that is not ascertainable in the facts and law: their own humanity (together with their philosophical biases). I think the point you make here is very weak. quote: This is what I would call a post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy. Violence and bloodshed are part of human history nomatter where you look. The Assyrians were perhaps the most violent early human culture and they were deeply religious. Is it safe to say that their religion shaped their brutality, or is it possible that their brutality shaped their religious practice? Many cultures seek domination of those they see as competitors. Religion is often the vehicle used to convey the will to power to the masses. Are you then suggesting that Islam is responsible for the September 11th attacks? Most would dismiss such a claim as bull flatulence ... except maybe a few who believe their leaders' pseudo-pious rhetoric and are willing to fly jumbo jets into buildings. quote: I agree to some extent. If Christians (or any other religous practicioner for that matter) ground their religious apology on "You ask me How I know He lives, He lives within my heart", then absolutely not ground will be made in the debate. In such a case, religion is no more verifiable to you or to me than a bad case of heartburn. This change will only occur if thinking about religious faith supplants our pop-culture tendency to avoid thinking in favor of remaining in a state of irrational, pseudo-spiritial bliss. quote: I don't see where this gets us anywhere. Humanism is a philosphical failure and amounts to little more than sophistry. What I would prefer to see is a free-flow of ideas in the marketplace at the same time we resist our barbarian urges to crush those who disagree with us while honestly consider the possibilities brought to us by sound argumentation. Endeavoring to find God in happiness alone is a shallow pipe-dream. Epicurean happiness is just as aversive to me as Christian existentialism. In neither place is there room for reason. After all, finding God in the midst of adversity and great trial is what builds religious character and a greater appreciation for those small things that do, from time to time, make us happy. That's and end to my rant (for now). Jim |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Jim Just a couple of points. quote: Yes, inasmuch as without Islam (or Christianity for that matter) the event probably wouldn’t have taken place, of course that’s also true of the invention of jumbo jets and high rise buildings. Islam and its interactivity with Christianity was definitely a factor in the event, dismissing it as irrelevant or “bull flatulence” would be to remove one small piece of a very complicated jigsaw. The removal of which detracts from the overall picture and fails to take into consideration the fact that the perpetrators of the attack along with a large proportion of the Muslim world fervently believed that Islam was a factor if not THE main factor that guided their actions. quote: Whatever happened after this must have happened because of this may be fallacious, but so is the view that whatever happened after this didn’t happen because of this. While I agree that religion can unjustly be used to explain violent events as if religion was the only factor involved, the Irish conflict being a prime example, that does not mean that religion has not been the primary, and sometimes only, instigator of such events, the Spanish Inquisition springs to mind. Thank you for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Toad: The difference is that a post hoc ergo procter hoc assumes causation. Granted, religion is often used to rally people to the cause of a despot, but it isn't the only vehicle. You could also say that the 9/11 attack would never occurred if a Jewish state wasn't established in the Middle East after WWII. I'm convinced that this was a political, and not a religious, move by Western powers. More than likely, in my opinion, the 9/11 attack was politically motivated and the attackers would have probably carried the act out whether they were Moslem extremists or not. To argue that religion is a primary cause here is a gross over-simplification. The fight is over dirt, not over whose God is supreme. The same is true in Northern Ireland (and has been since the Elizabethan and Cromwellian Settlements). Your other example, the Spanish Inquisition, at its root was not over religion either. It was politically motivated response to a threat to the power of Rome over the Western world. Sure, Luther's reformation was theological in nature, but the German monarchs who supported Luther thirsted for political independence from Rome. Henry VIII's Reformation of the English church was certainly not theologically motivated (the man wanted a divorce). Religion may have been the vehicle to stoke the zeal of the simpler folk into joining in the cause, but make no mistake about it: the Pope at the time, as well as his Cardinals and Inquisitors were just as much, if not moreso, political activists than religious zealots. Jim |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Jim: quote: And a strict adherence denies attribution of cause regardless of whether it was in truth the actual cause. Using this maxim as a reference if I dance round in a circle dressed in feathers and animal skins and it starts to rain it would be wrong to assume that my dancing caused the rain, regardless of whether my dancing actually did cause it to rain. quote: Perhaps it was politically motivated but to deny out of hand that Islam was a factor would seem to be foolhardy given that the instigators promoted it as such. quote: Does that mean that if they were Christian the outcome would have been the same? quote: Religion may not be a primary cause but it can’t be denied as a factor. quote: But without religion would they have been in a position to instigate the events? Thank you for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
Jim, my point of asking that question regarding the divisions in the church is that it is impossible to say who is right and who is wrong, the Christian church has suppressed, eradicated or assimilated pagan beliefs and customs. My point is that just because it is documented in the bible does not necessarily mean that every word is truth. None of us of truly know how much the bible has been altered or changed down through the centuries. “Violence and bloodshed are part of human history no matter where you look” My point there was that religious debate has through history often led to bloodshed. I am just using my country’s circumstance as an instance where murders have been committed because a person is catholic or protestant. Obviously the problem extends deeper than a disagreement over beliefs but often that disagreement lays the foundation for such conflict. “Are you then suggesting that Islam is responsible for the September 11th attacks“ No I am suggesting that distortion of religious beliefs can lead to such events, if the person is fanatical enough. I always have a certain wariness of a person, who puts forward solely religious text as their thoughts in an argument. And how devote is this person if they ignore certain parts of the bible in favour or others, what of the “evils” of homosexuality mentioned in Leviticus? I have no problem with religion, but we should not allow our morality to be defined purely by religious text. “Endeavoring to find God in happiness alone is a shallow pipe-dream”. Yes I am aware of that point, though I believe that people do need something to believe in, a spiritual centre whether it be church, family, nature etc… I also think that “God “ (whatever the definition is to a particular person) is an important part of society, we all need or at least at some point need an answer to the question of “why do we exist” “what is our purpose in life?” the answer to this our acceptance or reaction against that God figure. “After all, finding God in the midst of adversity and great trial is what builds religious character and a greater appreciation for those small things that do, from time to time, make us happy” . But are they looking for God in the wider spiritual sense or simply a comfort zone in distress? Is such an act true religious devotion? To Toad, I understand what started the troubles, but religion has played a large part in troubles over the 20-30 years. The sum of the angles of that rectangle is too monstrous to contemplate! |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Brian I’d go even further, over the past twenty or thirty years religion has been the only reason for some people. Catholics have killed Protestants and vice versa because they were Catholics and Protestants, the original reason has been forgotten by most or superseded by a sectarian agenda. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I disagree. Or, rather, I think attributing hate to religious differences is too simplistic an answer. Sure, an "us versus them" mentality can and very often has centered around religion. Or skin color. Or social stratum. Shoot, I've seen riots erupt at high school football games when "competitive spirit" between two rivals crossed the line from healthy to destructive. Hate doesn't need a justification. It just needs an excuse. Pointing the finger at religion is dangerous, I think, because any possible solution is then addressing just the symptoms and not the true cause. Agreements, accords, and compromises over the issues don't work because the issues are largely just excuses. There is a group dynamic underlying the hate, a mass psychology that seems to pave the way for violence. The "us versus them" mentality is invariably based on differences, whether religious or racial or something else, but differences alone don't seem to be enough to incite it. Avarice is usually part of the recipe, and ironically, I think misplaced trust in authority also plays a role. Mix all the different parts, in just the right amounts, and the results can be explosive. If we are to avert the kind of hate we've seen throughout human history, we need to better understand that recipe. I believe the first step in that direction is to recognize that differences are only a single ingredient, and probably the ONLY ingredient that we can't better control. p.s. Though I know my welcome-back is belated, it's good to see you again, Jim. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
I can imagine that a thousand and one (mass population-type) crimes have been committed in the name of some form of religion or another. Not just the crimes where innocent individuals lost their lives, but also their dignity, culture, history, personal freedoms, or just freedom of a voice and choice. Someone said to me earlier in this thread, that my truth just might not be his or her truth, (or something to that nature, I didn’t go back and check), but here is some more of what I believe to be truth, my truth. When I hear people start talking about people like Hitler, I stop and ask myself of the happenings of those times. The United States has always been a powerful nation, so what, “to me” do I believe that Hitler may have assumed to accomplish? Or whom or what nations he may have assumed would align themselves with his causes. Remember at the time the United States was entrenched in bigotry, and hate crimes it self. This is nineteen thirty-nine, not even a hundred years out of slavery, and a lot of these individuals who went along with this chaos called themselves God-fearing Christians! No matter how, or what you may think about Hitler, he had an ingenious plan, and the United States could have easily gone along with it. There was enough ignorance in the United States at the time for whites to start killing Blacks, Indians, Spanish, Chinese, or any other non-white immigrant. If certain men would have had their way, America could have entered WW II from an opposite perspective. Europe was already established in Africa, they had been for years. The British had colonized there hundreds of years before Hitler was even born. There is no telling which way the Soviet Union would have turned. The Soviets had been killing the Polish for decades. The Japanese rule and torture of the Chinese had been going on for centuries. Hitler was crazy, but he was also no fool. He knew that the racism, which existed in the world at the time, could and would have brought this whole world to its knees of this neo-nazi/Aryan dictatorship. How easy is it for mankind to kill, and then say it’s in the name of some sort of religion, or just cause? Germany was under strict sanctions from WW I. They had no true leader at the time, and they were not only looking for a leader, but also someone to blame and or maybe even punish for their situation. Not to play down the Holocaust, but any other non-white culture could have been in place of the Jews. Remember Hitler called for the elimination of all non-white, non-pure races, not just the Jews. You had racial slaughter going on all over the world in the early decades of last century. As far as 911 is concerned, “I” don’t believe that, that had anything at all to do with religion at all. I believe that the same group of individuals that just screwed a quarter of a million Americans, out of their homes, retirements, education for their children, careers, cars, and just plain accustoms of life, are to blame! These “oil wars” has been going on for years, and corporations based here in the United States has been one of the prime players. Some may still want to believe that we, in all of are Christian goodness went over to the Mid-east to help save a destitute people, but I don’t, not now, not after the way these corporations just did our own people. When you stop and think of the terrorist targets, there was only one real target, to cripple what they believed was the financial structure of this country; never believing that it truly is the people, and not corporations. The White House was a target because most overseas deals involving major corporations must be approved through some form of politics; and the Pentagon because intelligence of any source involving a retaliatory strike, would have more than likely initiated in those walls. So, to me 911 had two meanings, the first being retaliation for what U. S. corporations have done to those Middle Easterners for years, and the other was to cripple our politicians, and slow any military response. I believe this was a military action under retaliatory bases, and the only relationship religion played in this was the fact that the perpetrators were of Islamic backgrounds. The sad part in this is; since 911 destroyed many middle eastern oil trades, how were many of these corporations who were involved, to recover financially? Now many of these deals may date back before 911, but after 911, there was widespread panic of major losses in the corporate boardroom. There have been other major investments of American corporations throughout our history that have lead to wars. Vietnam is probably the most notable era the United States could have made in trying to protect investments of American corporations. In the first half of last century, Vietnam, like Cuba, was considered two of the worlds pleasure resort countries. Vietnam resorts were mainly control by the French and American enterprises, and Cuba’s resorts were mainly control by gangsters and American enterprises. These two countries were drenched in casinos, hotels, planned housing developments, and corporate interest groups influencing government officials on all sides, (including the American politician). In both cases, the Soviets aided these countries in ousting the United States. And this is one of the reasons we stayed on our heels during the cold war. None of this had anything to do with religion, a country being under-developed, and two centuries out of date with modernization or technologies. It had to do with GREED! I like to make one more point before I stop rattling! Do you know how convicted rapists are let back in the community? Their crimes are listed. Details of their offenses are listed. Their faces are posted. A town meeting is called, and anyone whom, may or may not have any objections to a man/woman who has served their time, could live in a particular neighborhood. Now what about these priest? They hid behind the Holy Bible and the cloth of the church. And if that wasn’t enough, their superiors hid more truth and details of their gruesome sexual exploitations boys, children! How can any American find the shameless-nerve to stand up and cry foul of any religion, when they have stood by and allowed these poor excuses of men get away with raping hundreds children over the past sixty years, that we know about? There are the stories of how women who are raped are treated by defense attorneys, now there is a portion of male rape victims who understand why some women never even report their rapes. To make matters worst, our cowardly judicial system allows these rapist and their protectors, to go to Dallas, and decide their own fate, what! There is only one other incident that comes to mind of this sort of sorry excuse of a judicial system, was when Pablo Escabar was allowed to build his own prison in Columbia. If that isn’t a double standard, tell me what is? Now if other religious groups from all around the world are watching this, they are laughing in our face, every time one of us cries about some else’s religion. And there are those diplomats, and foreign interest groups who would rather do business with those countries in the Middle East, than to chance being screwed by one of our corporations here in America. On a national level it may not mean much to a lot of people, but on a global level, it could mean what honesty we may or may not bring to global bargaining tables. What these priest and corporate leaders did give supporters of terrorism more ammunition and reasons to despise us, (not that they already didn’t). Now if anyone is still confused as to why we are so hated around the world, they should try opening his or her eyes. If we don’t know what’s going on in our own back yard, or willing to deal with it, or even tell ourselves the truth about what’s going on in our own back yard, then it’s us who has the problem, not Islamic religion, or the rest of the world. Jesus spoke about men with tree limbs and two by fours poking out their eyes, pointing out everyone with a toothpick in theirs. In saying this I do also recognize the thousands who give their lives that all who lived in this country was able to live as free men, women and children. This is why I believe that so much importance was and has been placed on the athlete of non-white decent of those times, particularly Jim Thorpe, Jesse Owens, Wilma Rudolph, Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis. They prove that any one man woman or religious belief was not superior over another, but rather any man or woman, could rise above what they were believe to be, if given the opportunity, and it took a lot of “great white Americans” to help this happen. For that I am very grateful of those whom have sought the truth in Christianity! As a matter of fact, every American citizen should be proud of how far we have come as one nation “under God, indivisible!” “Justice for all, we’ve still got a way to go!” I don’t think that it would be that easy for someone to tell me or convince me to take up arms against my next door neighbor, simply because he’s white, or a Christian, or a Jew, and even Islamic! And in the long run it proves to me that “the individual,” regardless of their race, creed, or color, or religious preference, but rather what’s in the individual heart, that is the “final solution” to what brings us closer to being truly “God-like” creatures. I know this entry might bring a lot of heat, but the history of it has already been written. And I try to keep weighing out what I’ve been told over the years with what I see with my own two eyes, and I keep coming up with the same answers. So blast away, and God Bless! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I agree with Ron. Correctly determining causation is an important ingredient in preventing a reoccurrance of an unpleasant happening. I suppose if this isn't something a person does well, they can always get a job with the UN. Jim P.S. Ron ... I'm glad to be able to be back. Had to set matters straight on the homefront, you understand. Thanks for the welcome. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
It's a sad truth that professing churchmen have not always followed the commandments of Christ. ie... "Love one another", "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword". I think that the disowning of Jesus in the form of actions against his revealed heart and teachings is the source of skepticism for most ... moreso than the disagreement of doctrinal issues. So you don't have to believe that the teachings and body of truth that Jesus set forth has been corrupted and dissolved through the centuries (in the form of textual variants) in order to explian why so much turmoil has occurred. As someone has pointed out before, turmoil is a part of humanity on Earth. Scholarship shows that though changes have happened, the existing manuscripts of the New Testament are very close to the original in years, and great in number and conformity to one another... we have more evidence for the accuracy of the gospels than we do for Shakespeare's works. The idea that "we just don't know how much has been changed and lost" fails for two reasons. One, it's not true, historically. Two, it reflects a skepticism that is based more on what is seen in reaction to the texts than the texts itself, or even who the text was primarily about. Isn't it interesting that true followers of Christ (in the sense of obeying his words and piety of life) never commit murder or bloodshed? And this is regardless of the organization of men that they are associated with ... ie Catholic, or protestant religious institutions. His holy people are scattered throughout the Earth not concentrated in one sect. And this characterizes them... LOVE for one another and Love for Jesus Christ. It's really that simple. You can blame apostate churchmen all your life, and even use them as your excuse for not understanding, or wanting to understand the clear teachings of Jesus, but will it really get you anywhere or justify you? Take an honest look at the life of Jesus in the gospels, then take a look at the few in history who have truly followed him, you will see lives that reflect truth. His body of teaching is as full and intact as it ever was... but little lived. Peter has raised his sword and so the world has lost the ear with which to hear the gospel truth. But Christ may yet put it back and heal everything. . . and restore Peter as well. Stephen. |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
What an intriguing thread!!! Interesting read. You know, one of the biblical ten commandments are: "thou shall not kill" and then every other page before and after is awash with blood shed.. which makes me wonder, maybe pre-translation it said: "thou shall not kill ... sometimes." or maybe even : "thou shalt kill"....???? "It's interesting how everyone seems ready to agree about lies, but no one can agree on truth. Is that even possible?" Truth is subjective. religious beliefs are subjective. everything is subjective. One of my teachers said something that has always stayed with me: Objectivity is a farce. "you cannot be neutral on a moving train." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Red, I rather think that total subjectivity is a farce. Otherwise, nothing could be cogently argued. And no one could even agree on lies (as you mentioned). To agree on lies is at least to recognize the difference between a lie and the truth. Much objectivity extends to the realm of religion as well. Either a claim is true or not. Either there is a God or there is not. Either Buddhism is the path of enlightenment or it is not. Either Christ rose from the dead or he didn't. Either there is a Heaven and a Hell or there isn't. But if you reject all religious ideas as man's mythology... then you must grapple with the final outcome of atheistic thinking... skepticism and ultimately nihilism. Funny isn't it, that mutually exclusive claims, by nature, can't all be true? [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-11-2002 02:39 AM).] |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
"But if you reject all religious ideas as man's mythology... then you must grapple with the final outcome of atheistic thinking... skepticism and ultimately nihilism. Funny isn't it, that mutually exclusive claims, by nature, can't all be true?" Is skepticism and nihilism so wrong??? You know, I had a rigorous protestant upbringing (got candy bars for memorizing bibile versus, said grace, went to church every sunday and all that fun stuff.lol) but as I got older, too many things happened in my life for me to accept religious tenets so blindly anymore. I now envy my mother's beliefs as well as anybody else who is religous because they have all the answers, but I'm just not at a point in my life where they work for me. I've found that school has pretty much shattered any belief that I thought I had and as soon as I start leaning towards a new one, something contradicting comes along which makes me question myself all over again. I don't know that it's as as simple as "Either a claim is true or not."... or maybe it just isn't for me. How to explain myself.. hmmmm, while I don't think that total objectivity or total subjectivity are possible, I believe that things are subjective more than anything else and would have to disagree with you there. What's true for one, isn't necessarily true for another and 'true or not true' ceases to work. Unless of course there's an absolute truth, and if there is, show it to me!!! I don't know, I guess I just feel that I'm at a point in my life where I've realized that everything I thought I knew, I knew because I was conditioned to believe it and I really I don't know anything, but I'm searching! Part of the reason why I like this forum, so many opposing views for me to sit and think about! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Skepticism gets people to question something. Nihilism basically says that there's no point, because no beliefs are real anyway. That's my understanding, at least. I don't think people can properly function thinking that there is no point whatsoever to what they do. But I don't think that Atheistic thinking necessarily lead to nihilism in that sense. To me, nihilism is a pretty broad term anyway, and if by nihilism you mean rejection of meaning beyond earthly existense, then yeah, that's true. But to me, nihilism negates entirely any meaning in any action. It is nothingness, implying that it does not matter what we do on earth. Being an Atheist does not mean you cease to consider what you believe to be right and wrong, and it doesn't mean that actions become meaningless. From my understanding, life on Earth becomes very important to an Atheist, because that's all there is. Life is meaning in and of itself. Since there is no eternal afterlife to lend (mythical?) consequence to Earthly actions, and Atheist must judge an action as right/wrong based solely on Earthly consequences. In some cases, yeah, I'm sure there's a "hah hah hah, I can't go to hell, so why not do whatever I want?" attitude. But since Atheists hold Earthly experience above all others, they are more likely to relate strongly with the suffering that people endure on Earth, and take steps to either actively oppose it by protest, or at least to avoid putting other people into pain. To me, this is akin to liberation theology in the sense that it places emphasis on Earthly release from suffering, rather than meekly accepting suffering in hopes for heavenly salvation. The only important difference (to me) is that one group believes in an afterlife, one doesn't. Both refute the use of the model of Jesus Christ by opressive peoples in teaching oppressed peoples to 'turn the other cheek' in accepting their plights. This is based on observations in my own life- so no, I really can't back up my argument that Atheists are just as concerned with the morality of actions as others are with facts. I don't know of organized groups of atheists that are out to save the world. (I'm sure there are groups, if only on small scales- I just don't know of them.) But I do know people who don't believe in God/a higher power(s) that are concerned about things, and I think to call them nihilists is truly a disservice. [This message has been edited by hush (11-11-2002 03:29 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Red, You wrote: " I now envy my mother's beliefs as well as anybody else who is religous because they have all the answers, but I'm just not at a point in my life where they work for me." Doesn't this "envy" arise from something within you that knows very well that there are answers? If you really believed that "truth is subjective" as you stated in your earlier reply, then why the pining feelings? This is the same knowledge that I could never shake before I became a Christian... that there is a truth, an answer to the deep questions of life. Making up my own never fully satisfied me, because I could never find the assurance that I would be right. My question to you is, is the answer, "There are no answers" working for you now? God put a deep void in each one of us that only he can fill. I can relate to your searching. I was seeking much in the same way until I found Christ for myself ... He turned out to be more than the idyllic religious routines I had participated in as a child, He turned out to be the revelation of God that I always knew, yet was supressing deep inside. I encourage you to keep searching. You don't have to envy what is available to you. Another thought...Have you ever considered viewing just as critically the "conditioning" of naturalism that takes place in various forms of education and all around you and in society? How is it different than your "protestant upbringing"? Both are taught. The question is, which of two mutally exclusive claims are really true? I know you, as many have, have seen some hard times. Things have happened in your life bringing great confusion and pain. The "problem of evil" is not just a metaphysical pondering of philosophers, it is where the rubber meets the road in our lives. It is real. And it is a problem. But not giving way to self pity in myself or in others, I assert that rough times are no cogent reasons not to believe God. I am tempted often in the same area. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "It is always assumed that the difficulties of Faith are intellectual difficulties, that a man who has once accepted a certain proposition will automatically go on believing it till real grounds for disbelief occur. Nothing could be more superficial . . . If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth." - from "Religion: reality or substitute" Nihilism is a philosophy that will guarantee your searching to never have an end. In fact, it's unsatisfying answer claims to be that very end. It is also contrary to the innate knowledge that God has placed in each one of us about himself. His fingerprint is in our souls. We can avoid it only for so long. Keep searching Red, you will find the truth. I'll pray for you as well. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Hush ~ Excellent response, indeed. There is no "hell" as taught by mainstream Christianity. Has not anyone researched how this idea and belief of hell began? As an agnostic, and one who does not believe in any afterlife, my actions are based on my upbringing. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'As an agnostic, and one who does not believe in any afterlife, my actions are based on my upbringing.' Doesn't that make you an Atheist? Or by 'does not believe' do you mean you don't believe, but don't disbelieve? Because, from all of your other posts, I had thought you are pretty straight-up Atheist... Agnosticism, to me, is a hesitancy to make claims about the after life, an unwillingness to declare that religious afterlife does or does not exist. It is "I don't know" transformed into ideaology. You make claims, with an air of confidence, that the afterlife (or, at least, the Christian afterlife) does not exist. To me, this goes beyond agnosticism... |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
An agnostic does not necessarily challenge the existence of an afterlife, but the existence of a Creator. I believe that a Creator may indeed exist. However, if there is a Creator, it definitely isn't the Christian, Muslim, (add any man-made religion here), God. As for an afterlife, I don't believe in one. This, is all there is...and the majority of people just can't accept that reality, which is why the popularity of an afterlife is so entrenched as a truth in practically every society on this planet. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, you wrote, "I don't think people can properly function thinking that there is no point whatsoever to what they do. But I don't think that Atheistic thinking necessarily lead to nihilism in that sense" Consider a quote by Bertrand Russell ... "Brief and powerless is man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way." I think that athiests like Bertrand Russell and Freidrich Nietzche are exemplary of the end of atheistic thought. They are men who (at least at times) fully saw the logical conclusion of their world view. I at least admire their honesty in expressing the results of their chosen unbelief. They were compelled to admit that meaningless in a Godless universe is now, not just when we die, or when the sun is snuffed out. One configuration of matter has no advantage over another. There are many atheists who are not so bleak in their description of reality as Mr. Russell. But their worldview lends no support for such feelings, hopes, or aspirations. If the universe sprang from impersonal and irrational forces, meaningfulness is just a pleasant illusion. In fact any semblance of order in nature is just a mirage on a cosmic sea of nothingness, awaiting destruction. Feelings that we are accomplishing “good” are absurd in a universe where there is no standard of what is good and bad. Atrocities will never be punished, and good deeds will never be rewarded in such a world. Not only the after-life, but life now serves no meaning. I can honestly say that if atheism were true, hedonism is the only philosophy which comports. “Eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.” But what is there to be “merry” about? you also wrote: “Being an Atheist does not mean you cease to consider what you believe to be right and wrong, and it doesn't mean that actions become meaningless” Of course atheists cannot live day to day in the full implications of their unbelief, they would live in despair and insanity. Their lives pragmatically would not work. Atheists do have purpose and meaning working in their lives, I agree. But this only comes by virtue that they are made in the image of God. It is because of his grace that we can reason, work, smile, feel good about the sun shining, have hope for the day and for life, love our children,... etc. This is the “knowledge of God” that is given to everyone, not just believers, spoken of in Romans Chapter one. All of those atheists which aspire to lead good lives, filled with meaningful and purposive action, are taking this from another worldview ... God’s ... the one that is real and that they were born into. You don’t have to go to Sunday school to get God’s general truth. There is no escaping it. The unbeliever is presupposing God’s knowledge at all times. “In him we live and move and have our being”. But the fact that we are given such knowledge even while we don’t consciously acknowledge where it comes from, should not make us proud. The Bible seems to suggest that the mindset of unbelief, if left to its own course, will eventually lead to its full conclusion. Right now atheists say, “There is no God”, and God says “Yes there is, and I’m not leaving you despite yourself”. But how long will this blessing be extended to those who continue to resist the truth? To ask God to continue forever this way, while choosing not to believe, would be really to ask him not to respect our choice. I say these things not to make people angry, but to warn them. Because Hell is real. It is the final outcome of a worldview devoid of God. Mr. Russell’s quote above, strangely sounds reminiscent of the Biblical portrayal of Hell. I think those who persist in atheism long enough will see Hell more and more, even if they don’t call it that. They will simply think it is the nihilistic state of mind that they have been forced into by what they have believed. Hush, I know you are not a nihilist. You are bright, and intelligent, and thoughtful. You seem to enjoy life and know that there’s something to it all, even though you don’t believe in God. I just say these things in hope that you will continue to critically examine the worldview you hold, and find out if it really has the capacity for your belief that “there’s something to it”. In grade school, erroneous beliefs about certain things are tolerated moreso than in high-school or college. Likewise, agnostic or atheistic thought allows for the concepts of “purpose” and “hope” up to a certain point. “When I was a child I spoke as a child ... but when I became an adult I put away childish things”. I believe that the logical conclusions of the worldview that you hold will someday ask you to discard the “childish” concepts of hope and purpose and don the heavy armour of a war without victory, to establish your life on “a firm foundation of unshakeable despair” as Bertrand Russell calls it. Hope and elative feelings of purpose are not childish, but child-like, and reflect the truth of God. And Jesus even said that we must become (remain?) as little children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. There is a time for warfare, just let it be for a cause. Death without a cause is heart-sickening. I mean no disservice to atheists by calling them nihilists. I just want them to look to their “fathers”, the masters of their philosophy and the bravest of their own and see what they really believe. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-12-2002 11:20 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Does any one else find her/himself unable to stay in a permanance of a religious perspective? I admit it I am a theist one day, atheist the next, then nihilist another, and other things mingled here and there. Thus I don't know what to call my religion--confusion? chaos? Is there a remedy to to declear the soul from disease like this? All I know is no matter what I feel or think, and no matter what is the actual truth about these smokey subjects, our world needs health and peace. I am going do the right thing in life within this sense of direction. This is a law to me, an inner government and perhaps the only real religion--respect. Isn't it what all religions say in one way or another? It is one word and so many truths can come to be understood from it. I will say it directly without adding all this religious complexion of thought--Respect! When you are consistant and truest to respect, you are saint to the world, no matter what your religious ways are. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-12-2002 12:22 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, you wrote, "I believe that a Creator may indeed exist. However, if there is a Creator, it definitely isn't the Christian, Muslim, (add any man-made religion here), God. and... "As for an afterlife, I don't believe in one." You believe a creator may exist, but deny every proposed "revelation" of his character and will to mankind. You are logically forced to believe then that either God has chosen not to reveal himself to his creatures, or that we are incapable of knowing God. This is an agnostic line of thinking... unless you have found a revelation of God yourself... in which case I would like to hear it. But you have stated a definite belief that there is no afterlife. If God has not revealed himself adequately or we cannot know, as agnosticism asserts, then even your belief here has no foundation. There may be an afterlife and you don't know it. What is your disbelief in an afterlife based on? Certainly not on your concept of God who has not adequately revealed himself to you or anyone else (according to you). The best agnosticism can say is "I don't know". A "god" who creates and then cuts himself off by virtue of not allowing positive knowledge of himself is rather evil and sadistic in nature. Not to mention if he also created us with hopes, aspirations, dreams, the desire for life, only to snuff it out into oblivion ... a demon maybe, an all wise and benevolent God no. If God is like this, then we are universe of play-things, dispensable and unimportant ... my heart says "No way". However as I mentioned above with Hush, I deny the concept that God has failed to reveal himself to us. We all have a sufficient knowledge of God to lead us to the truth. This is where agnosticism fails. It is a self-deception to say that God is unknowable, for "In him we live, and move and have our being". We couldn't even think without his virtue. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, Before I answer your reply, if you don't already know, I was once where you are now (the born again stage of my life). "You believe a creator may exist, but deny every proposed "revelation" of his character and will to mankind." ~ Whose proposed revelation? Men? Whose character and will, Hers or His? ~ What gives man any right to label a Creator as being a male? Or what His/Her/Other will and character is? I will answer it for you, none. "You are logically forced..." ~ Logic never forces...it only dictates. "...to believe then that either God has chosen not to reveal himself to his creatures, or that we are incapable of knowing God." ~ I am not saying that. If there is a Creator, it is not the Creator that any man-made religion calls upon. And if there is a Creator, He/She/Other may personally reveal Himself/Herself/Other to each of us in a myriad of ways or this Creator may not want to reveal themself at all for reasons unbekownist to us. "This is an agnostic line of thinking... unless you have found a revelation of God yourself... in which case I would like to hear it." ~ My revelations came to me through my studies and through common sense, rationality, and logic. "But you have stated a definite belief that there is no afterlife." ~ Yes. There is no afterlife. I have not met anyone who has died. Now, don't mistake popular opinion for fact. For example, if Solipsism ever became popular, we would all be all a part of another's personal world...and then whom would be the only true person? Here is another one. If I started a religion that believed flying pink elephants ruled this world, but they only revealed themselves to their true believers, most people would say I was crazy, but if it caught on and over the centuries became popular, it would be "stamped" valid. "If God has not revealed himself adequately or we cannot know, as agnosticism asserts, then even your belief here has no foundation. There may be an afterlife and you don't know it." ~ I already explained to Hush how I separate the two: Creator and afterlife. There is a foundation and it is strong. "What is your disbelief in an afterlife based on?" ~ Most importantly it is based on this...We are phsysical bodies, and we need oxygen to breathe, which then pumps the blood to our vital organs. Our brains are the control center of everything we see, hear, smell, etc. Once one dies, the process of breathing stops. Once that occurs, our blood no longer flows. The control center then no longer exists. We die and decompose. Now, unless you have actually seen and could prove that people have died and still live. I rest my case. Otherwise, I have some pink flying elephants to talk with you about. "A "god" who creates and then cuts himself off by virtue of not allowing positive knowledge of himself is rather evil and sadistic in nature." ~ People who say that their God is the only true God and that if you don't accept this God, you will suffer forever in a hellfire is quite evil and rather sadistic in nature. "Not to mention if he also created us with hopes, aspirations, dreams, the desire for life, only to snuff it out into oblivion ... a demon maybe, an all wise and benevolent God no." ~ A demon would make one believe that they possess an immortal soul, which cannot die, therefore is equivalent to a Creator. "If God is like this, then we are universe of play-things, dispensable and unimportant ... my heart says "No way"." ~ You may consider yourself to be dispensable or unimportant if a Creator does not exist, but please don't speak for me when you say "we." My life is productive, fun, interesting, etc...and important to me and to my family. "We all have a sufficient knowledge of God to lead us to the truth." ~ Why can't people make "I" statements and speak for themselves (rhetorical)? So says you. "This is where agnosticism fails." ~ No, this is where it succeeds. It never attempts to pigeon-hole a Creator, if One exists. "It is a self-deception to say that God is unknowable, for "In him we live, and move and have our being"." ~ I am sure that I am not deceiving myself. "We couldn't even think without his virtue." ~ I beg to differ. We couldn't even think without oxygen. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-12-2002 12:30 PM).] |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
You make a compelling arguement Stephanos, as does Opeth!!!!! When Essorant said :"All I know is no matter what I feel or think, and no matter what is the actual truth about these smokey subjects, our world needs health and peace." I think she hit on the one thing that I tend to believe in constantly; a greater good. Be it God, Buddha, Coyote or who/whatever.. I think there has to be something good that's beyond us. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, you wrote, "My revelations came to me through my studies and through common sense, rationality, and logic." There are those who believe that a belief in God is "common" sense also. That is exactly my claim that God has placed within you and I a certain general knowledge of himself. In denying this, I believe, you are contradicting your God given common sense. Why? Because God has adequately shown himself in his creation, even in the very fact that you are created in his image. Your very face in the mirror is a witness against your assertion that there is no God, or that he is unknowable. As to "rationality" and "logic", I have heard men of rational minds and with logical force declare why a belief in God is true. You set your ideas of rationality and logic over and against them. So I must judge between the two, as everyone else must. But I would ask you, in your own world view of naturalism/ materialism, what is the basis for laws of logic, or rationality? Would you argue that these are material or immaterial in nature? If they are material, then there is no use saying that rationality really means anything. It would be merely part of the mechanistic motion of the universe, the same as "irrational" thoughts would. In fact, in such a universe we would not be able to choose between them. According to naturalism, every thought, every occurence is just a resultant phenomenon in a great chain of events. My thoughts, and your thoughts just ARE, in a naturalistic universe. Correct, incorrect, right, wrong, logical and illogical are meaningless terms if naturalism is thoroughly believed. Naturalism is believed, but never fully practiced. That's why our lives can be useful and have meaning, despite our false presuppositions. How can you set logic and rationality as the judge of these blindly led events, if they are merely additional events along the chain? Are the laws of logic absolute or conventional in nature? If they are conventional, then the power of argument is lost. Because my conventions may not be the same as yours, and there is no standard to judge between the two. The universe began with no rational mind right? How did we get "rational" thoughts? How can molecular configurations be rational or irrational? Another contradiction of naturalism is that it cannot account for logic or rationality without calling them conventional... and something conventional is not absolutely true. It is a preference, as one might prefer coffee over tea. The theistic world view is the only one that cogently allows for debate to have any real purpose. Why are you working so hard to change the configuration of atomic particles from one pattern to another? Is there a standard that says one is preferred, other than your druthers? Atheism cannot account for the laws of logic in a convincing way, yet uses them to defend it's presuppositions. Sawing the limb you're standing on works for a while, but only for a while. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-12-2002 01:53 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, "There are those who believe that a belief in God is "common" sense also." ~ There is more to it than just common sense. "That is exactly my claim that God has placed within you and I a certain general knowledge of himself. In denying this, I believe, you are contradicting your God given common sense." ~ This statement is chock-full of subjective assumptions. "Why? Because God has adequately shown himself in his creation, even in the very fact that you are created in his image." ~ Since when is the creation of a universe a known fact? And if the universe was created, since when is it a known fact that we are created in Her image? "Your very face in the mirror is a witness against your assertion that there is no God, or that he is unknowable." ~ It is a worldy ethnocentricity to believe the above statement. Maybe the whales were created in the creator's image. "As to "rationality" and "logic", I have heard men of rational minds and with logical force..." ~ I believe the "force" part. Christianity has been forced on hundreds of thousands of people. "...declare why a belief in God is true." ~ Yes, through their subjective minds, they came to that logical conclusion. "You set your ideas of rationality and logic over and against them. So I must judge between the two, as everyone else must." ~ Of course. Let everyone decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. I am all for that. Now, if only those church people would quit coming to my door and trying to save me from myself, I would be okay. I mean, I don't go around knocking on their doors telling them not to believe. "But I would ask you, in your own world view of naturalism/ materialism, what is the basis for laws of logic, or rationality?" ~ Logic is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. After reviewing the history, assumptions, known facts, etc. with regards to man-made religions, esp Christianity, I came to my own conclusions. Of course, this was accomplishded without any fear of becoming a pirah, or without any presumptious beliefs, nor without any subjectiveness on my part whatsoever. Yes, it can be done! Do you actually think that a religious giant like Billy Graham would change his beliefs if a person of an unknown status or a layman in stature would show him a truth...a truth that would "rock his world" by proving that what the Reverend believed in was wrong? "Are they absolute or conventional in nature? If they are conventional, then the power of argument is lost. Because my conventions may not be the same as yours, and there is no standard to judge between the two. The universe began with no rational mind right? How did we get "rational" thoughts? How can molecular configurations be rational or irrational? Another contradiction of naturalism is that it cannot account for logic or rationality without calling them conventional... and something conventional is not absolutely true. It is a preference, as one might prefer coffee over tea. The theistic world view is the only one that cogently allows for debate to have any real purpose. Why are you working so hard to change the configuration of atomic particles from one pattern to another? Is there a standard that says one is preferred, other than your druthers?" ~ This last part of your reply sounds like something that is taught to Christians at a Christian University or an other Christian school, in order to argue their point against another's beliefs. It blends so many issues with smoke and mirror through half-truths, logic twisting, etc. I am not trying to convince you to change your beliefs. You jumped in on this after I replied to Hush. If you think you are going to change my mind, forget about it. I have been where you are now. I don't believe in your Christian God. I don't believe that people will suffer in a hellfire or play harps at the feet of Jesus. I find no evidence in an existence outside of the body and there isn't any either. Man created God in the image of the majority of those men doing the creation, which is why there are many man-made versions of God because there are many majorities throughout time. There may be a Creator, and if there is, She does not need you or anyone else to praise Her name. She is comfortable and secure in Her power and authority. And She certainly would not cast anyone in hellfire for eternity because they didn't believe in a particular idealogy. I believe in myself, now that is logical. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-12-2002 02:40 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, you wrote, "This last part of your reply sounds like something that is taught to Christians at a Christian University or an other Christian school, in order to argue their point against another's beliefs." I have never been to a "Christian University". But even if I had, or if I plucked my reasoning straight from a book taught at a university, the question remains, why should I disbelieve it? The opinion of what it "sounds" like has no bearing on if it is true or not, or logical or not. If it is illogical, then show it to be. I don't reject instructions on how to fix a car just because it was taught in automotive school ... I reject it or recieve it on the basis of how true it proves to be in relation to the science of cars. In the same way, if Ralph the "oak-tree mechanic" offers advice, I don't reject or recieve it on the basis that he doesn't speak in the same terminology as the schooled technician. I've seen some unschooled guys do some pretty amazing things with car repair! The point I'm trying to make is that what is said, is what needs to be examined. I was just challenging your claim to logical arrival at atheism. I was attempting to refute from that standpoint... logic. If you want to leave it at "I just believe this way", that's fine. I don't want to debate when you don't want to. I respect you as a person. And really I don't think I am able to change anyone's mind at all. Believing Christianity to be the truth, I also believe that God must enlighten to that conclusion. I enjoy the interchange. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-12-2002 02:49 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I have never been to a "Christian University". But even if I had, or if I plucked my reasoning straight from a book taught at a university, the question remains, why should I disbelieve it?" ~ The relation to a Christian University and the portion of your reply was in regards to the mixing of various issues and the use of predicated false assumptions. For me to untangle that specific portion, would take much more time than I would want to give it, and it would also be fruitless because I won't change your mind, nor do I want to, so it becomes pointless to do so. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"If you want to leave it at " I just believe this way", that's fine." ~ Hee, hee. One could assume by this statement that I am going to believe in something that can be disproven by you, just because I am stubborn and want to believe that way. I am not leaving this at "I just believe this way." |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth and Stephan: Excellent exchange. Opeth: One thing I am trying to figure out is what flavor of agnostic you are. When you say "I find no evidence ..." are you suggesting that, if the evidence presents itself to you, you are willing to change your thinking? Or is the matter closed to your consideration regardless of the evidence? I think hard agnostisticism is a tenuous position to hold. It suggests that a person cannot know whether or not God exists and cannot ascertain His/Her/Its nature. If you are a fan of logic, then you know the impossibilities of proving a universal negative. If you are more of a soft agnostic, that is to say you simply state that you do not know rather than cannot know that a personal Creator exists, then I think your mind is free to consider evidence for or against His/Her/Its existence with some measure of objectivity. If you are open to the possiblity that a creator exists, then I think an important next step is to try to establish some criteria for measuring what is true or likely and what is not. Professor Simon Greenleaf, for example, was a 19th century Harvard Law professor who wrote a three part treatise on evidence that served as a primary legal authority on the subject through the turn of century (19th to 20th, that is). A lesser know work of Greenleaf's is "The Testimony of the Evangelists" wherein Greenleaf applies the accepted laws of evidence to "cross-examine" the writers of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) in an attempt to break down their "testimony" of what they claimed to have witnessed regarding the life, death, resurrection and ascention of Jesus. What he found was that there was no discernable deception or fatal inconsistency in the testimony of the "evangelists" that would raise question as to the truth of their statements in a court of law. This was enough to satisfy Greenleaf. Your standards may be higher than his. That is one example of a criteria for measuring evidence. Others, far more capable than anyone here, have been convinced of, at least, the possibility that God exists and that He interacts with His creation. Greenleaf's is a good example because he applies principles of law that are still widely relied upon today to determine the reliability of witnesses. Don't get me wrong ... doubt can be extremely healthy as long as it prompts us to delve deeper to root out as much meaning as we possibly can in the short time we have to do so. Doubt becomes dangerous when it no longer allows us to believe that anything is true or verifiable. That kind of doubt leads to nihilism and profits no one. In my opinion, of course. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Jim, "When you say "I find no evidence ..." are you suggesting that, if the evidence presents itself to you, you are willing to change your thinking?" ~ Yes and no. I am always willing to listen to evidence and with an open and unbiased mind and then come to a logical and rational conclusion. However, I have already ran that gamut. For years, I studied the Bible in relation to the doctrines of Christianity and its credibility. The more I investigated, the more I found Christianity to be nonsensical. "If you are open to the possiblity that a creator exists, then I think an important next step is to try to establish some criteria for measuring what is true or likely and what is not." ~ Yes. I have done so. "Professor Simon Greenleaf, for example, was a 19th century Harvard Law professor who wrote a three part treatise on evidence that served as a primary legal authority on the subject through the turn of century (19th to 20th, that is). A lesser know work of Greenleaf's is "The Testimony of the Evangelists" wherein Greenleaf applies the accepted laws of evidence to "cross-examine" the writers of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) in an attempt to break down their "testimony" of what they claimed to have witnessed regarding the life, death, resurrection and ascention of Jesus." ~ For every Greenleaf there is another scholar who has found the opposite to be true with regards to this particular matter. Being that he is from Harvard makes no difference to me. In fact, Christ, in the same sense was not a Harvard graduate, yet the scribes and pharisees of his day were Harvard graduates - in context of your example of Greenleaf compared to an unknown, that is. "What he found was that there was no discernable deception or fatal inconsistency in the testimony of the "evangelists" that would raise question as to the truth of their statements in a court of law. This was enough to satisfy Greenleaf. Your standards may be higher than his." ~ I don't know exactly what Greenleaf found to be true or not. Nor how he arrived at his conclusions, but I know this, I proved to myself that Christianity is not the true religion. And I did this with a completely objective and unbiased mind. "That is one example of a criteria for measuring evidence. Others, far more capable than anyone here, have been convinced of, at least, the possibility that God exists and that He interacts with His creation." ~ Who is to say that no one here is less capable than Greenleaf? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jim, quote: No wonder you think the way you do! Historically, "practical" Christianity has divorced itself from its roots more often than I dare to count. If your standard for the sensibility of Christianity is ensuing Christian doctrine, then God help you (whomever He, She or It may be)! Just curious ... whose doctrines did you study? quote: Out of curiousity, what is your preferred standard? quote: True. But Greenleaf's accomplishments were not measured by the height of his credentials, but by the quality of his work. Harvard or no, the man knew evidence and could write on it authoritatively. That HE, once an agnostic like yourself, would reach the conclusion he reach after examining the historical evidence (NOTE: without the burden of 2000 years of theologians to muddle it up) is compelling to me. It challenged me enough to read Greenleaf, anyway. It took me a little longer to agree with him. quote: My bets would be on the Son of God ... even against a nation of Harvard graduates. Son of God aside, history offers plenty of examples of "normal" people who, either through natural genius or tenacity and will, accomplished much WITHOUT a formal education. My intentions were not to offer a "best in field" argument. My intentions were to demonstrate that there are well established means of discerning truth and error that others have used to reach different conclusions than you have. I don't think it is fair to dismiss their methodology as irrelevent without investigating it for yourself. I don't care who developed the method. I only care about the method. I think Greenleaf's book is available on Amazon.com, by the way. Its worth the read. Even if you have already made up your mind. quote: You're assuming here that your investigation was comprehensive. For me, for now, Greenleaf's arguments are more compelling than those of others I have read. Being interested in method as I am, I would very much like to know how you arrived at this proof. "Who is to say that no one here is less capable than Greenleaf?" Trying to lure me into that universal negative, huh. I can safely say that there are very few here who would rival Greenleaf ... certainly none in his field (unless there happens to be an expert in the legal rules of evidence lingering out there). Jim |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan: Based on that quote, Bertrand Russell's full of it. Okay... I read a reader's digest article maybe a year or so ago, which I only remember vaguely, that pertains to this discussion. It was about recent scientific evidence supporting the idea that humans are actually physically predisposed to a belief in a higher power- that the makeup of our brains leads us to belief. Now, your argument that God made humans with the "knowledge of God" is supported by this. But I think it also supports the idea that we invented the idea of a creator because belief in a higher power was necessitated by our human nature/physical makeup. Earlier in this thread, I think I said something about the similarity of events in the Bible when compared to historical events/doctrines of other religions. When people use this as proof that the Bible is true, I usually bring up the point that, yeah, of course they'd write a flood into the Bible. The religious explanation is, in my opinion, different in no way whatsoever from the Indian stories I read in Jr. High that explain things like how the seasons change, or how nature works, etc. We consider those stories myths... but, hey- tigers do eat other animals... and While we learned the story of Persephone and Hades and Ceres as make-believe... y'know... there is the season of winter... I said that the Bible doesn't dictate reality; rather, reality dictates the Bible (and all toher religious texts). I still stand by that. To take that one step further: Do a little role reversal. God didn't make man in His image; Man made God in his (man's) image. What better way to create a God we can relate to? The Greeks did the same thing- their Olympian gods and goddesses were very human, and interracted in very human ways. Christianity consolidates polytheism into one all-powerful God. I don't know... it's just that I know a lot of Christians who claim that religions (like the polytheist Greek/Roman myths) are ridiculous... and I don't see what makes Christian myth any more compelling or believable. I was raised in a very secular household. I was not assailed with dogmas and beliefs. So when I learn about Christianity and the Bible, it is with the same mindset with which I learned Greek and Roman myths. The only difference is that everyone around me believes in these myths. What should make me think this is anything more than a social conditioning, the same type that led Greeks and Romans to believe in their Gods? Mahatma Gandhi said he believed that there is inherent truth in any religion. This implies a value in anyone's quest for god. I'm kind of in the 'soft agnostic' category Jim was talking about. I don;t know if any higher power exists. If it does, I think Gandhi's probably right. I think that that places inherent value on all quests for information about God and the afterlife. It places value on Opeths denial thereof, and my "I don't know but I'm still looking" mindset. And if Gandhi's wrong, and you're right- if Heaven is an exclusive club for people who do the right stuff- then I'm probably out, because I don't feel a strong enough need to belong to any club that it would cause me to compromise my ideals, quite a few of which run in opposition (or along the same lines but with a different flavor) to Christian belief. Because, y'know... when I was in about 4th grade, my desire to fit in with other kids led to misbehavior, dressing in uncomfortable clothes that were "cool," and pretending I wasn't as smart as I am because smart kids aren't popular. And while I know it isn't the same thing, it smacks of grade school to me, and I'm not going there again. I think that there is "something" to life- whether that something is an outside element of God, or an inner element of "soul," I don't know. But I feel that the only way to get to it is to follow what you feel ,think, and believe. I don't feel a connection to jesus Christ or a Christian God that pulls me, and to act as a Christian and try to adhere to codes and express beliefs I don't truly believe would be a terribly selfless act- in the sense that I'd be betraying myself and what I truly wanted. If what I want/feel changes and ends up in accordance to Christian belief, I'd be more than happy to act on that. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
An unbiased mind, logical conclusion and rational thinking does not work with the bible, it never did! If it did work, there would be no confusion as to what is written in the bible and this conversation would not be taking place! Rather we like it or not, Gods people have been chosen, everyone else is just here with an opportunity. I wouldn’t blow my opportunity by riding to hell on someone else’s coattail. At least, I would come and go and think and believe or disbelieve on my own accord with my own heart and mind. And if it came to a question of who, what and why I should believe a certain way or choice, I would be asking myself questions like; Who paid the thirty pieces of silver for Jesus to be betrayed? And if I know who paid the money, then why would I follow those men in any century? And why don’t I have my own opinion? And if I did, why isn’t that opinion strong enough to stand on its own? The Napkin Writer |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
If one is to search for a truth, one must be able to do so without prejudice; free from all biases and with a completely opened and objective mind. At this point, the majority of those who seek a truth will fail. They will fail before they even begin their search. Not even a Harvard degree, nor the highest IQ will do those searchers any good. I take pride that I was not one of them, and was able to begin my search without the automatic failure. In fact, if I had any biases, it would of been slanted towards the Christian side, for I was at that time a "born-again" Christian. So, Greenleaf began his search as an agnostic, I began mine as a Christian. The criterion With regards to fundamental Christian beliefs... 1. The nature of man 2. Heaven & Hell 3. Bible Infallibility 4. The nature of the Christian God 5. Other religion influences 6. Origins of beliefs (encompassing) There may be more, but I am going from the top of me noggin. But even if I missed any, these are the critical ones. Now, using sound reasoning and logic in studying historical facts and the Bible itself, I determined 2 possibilities... 1. Christianity is not the true religion, just as all the others. 2. God showed me the truth, and only me, the same truth that Christ taught. To believe that God has shown only me the truth...well, there would be an opening for me in the New Bedlam Hospital. So, logically, it had to be possibility numero uno. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-13-2002 07:48 AM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: quote: This sounds a little idealistic to me. How we respond to information is very often determined by our past experiences. This is how human beings are wired. A bad religious experience will tend to instantly evoke negative thoughts and feelings when the subject arises again. quote: You've just given me a couple examples of a bias. (1) that freedom from automatic failure requires complete objectivity (I would argue that, if complete objectivity is a prerequisite to success, then we are all doomed to automatic failure); (2) the assumption that we are capable of complete objectivity. quote: Herein lies part of the problem. If your criticism of Christian truth-claims rises from your understanding of statements of belief by various Christian factions, then I think you are looking in the wrong places for answers to your questions. Theology is a fine tool in developing your worldview, but it is often a tool that offers insight into the possible understandings of various Biblical texts. Acknowledging the historicity of the Resurrection, for example, is one thing. Discovering what the resurrection of a Palestinian Jew 2000 years ago means to us in the 21st century is another matter. If you are discounting the former because of inadequacies of the explanations of the latter, then I submit that you haven't completed your logical exercise or your investigative work. Doctrines that deal with the nature of man, details of Heaven and Hell, Biblical infallibility, the nature of the Christian god, other religious influences, and the origins of faith are often very speculative. They can serve to guide us toward a systematized understanding of our faith, but they do not always deal directly with the historical events that serve as the focal piece of orthodox Christianity ... namely the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. As you know, the writers of the Bible said themselves that, if there was no resurrection, their faith was valueless. If you are truly concerned with knowing whether or not the claims of Christianity have merit, I think the matter of the Resurrection is of utmost importance. Authors have written books on both sides of the argument. In my opinion "Testimony of the Evangelists" is more convincing than "The Passover Plot", but if I had not read them both, I don't think I would hold my position as firmly as I do. quote: I'm still interested in seeing the reasoning. I can get a vague idea of your processes from your conclusions, but if you are interested in my comments on your methods, it would be much easier for me to respond accurately to your circumstance. How about this one: 1. After a careful review of the Biblical texts, non-Biblical historical texts, documentary evidence, and generally accepted scholarly resources arguing for and against the resurrection, I have determined that there is a strong likelihood that the Resurrection occurred in history. quote: I disagree. I don't think you've stated all of the possibilities ... or at least you haven't convinced me that you have. Jim P.S. Is Bedlam nicer than Harrisburg? [This message has been edited by jbouder (11-13-2002 01:58 PM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
____________________________________________ If one is to search for a truth, one must be able to do so without prejudice; free from all biases and with a completely opened and objective mind. ____________________________________________ When one goes searching, one does the search with prejudice and/or bias to prove or disprove a fact or event. It is also generally later that the investigators mind is open to objectivity whether than before. And, it is also generally because of the prejudice and/or bias that the search is taking place. The only other instance is where an individual may have no prior knowledge of the subject being researched, such a class assignment or wonderment of knowledge of a subject, but even in these cases, it is a search for the opinion which often encase the prejudice and/or bias. The Napkin Writer |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"This sounds a little idealistic to me. How we respond to information is very often determined by our past experiences. This is how human beings are wired." ~ The only person that knows how I am wired is me. You may not believe it, but I possess that ability. "You've just given me a couple examples of a bias. (1) that freedom from automatic failure requires complete objectivity (I would argue that, if complete objectivity is a prerequisite to success, then we are all doomed to automatic failure);" ~ That is your opinion. In my opinion, complete objectivity is possible. "the assumption that we are capable of complete objectivity." ~ I know that I am capable of it, so it is not an assumption. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I wouldn't say I don't believe it. I would say that I remain unconvinced. Regarding the wiring thing, if you ever have the opportunity to read Skinner, I think you'd be amazed at how similar our wiring actually is. quote: Fair enough. But I alluded to a behaviorist example that many (if not most) patterns of behavior we exhibit today were shaped by past events. I don't know what complete objectivity looks like, having never seen it for myself so, if it exists, I want to understand it. So enlighten me. quote: And I know you THINK you are capable of it. But I won't know you actually are capable of this unless you give me good reason to believe so. Until you explain it, all of us here will be forced to assume it true in order to agree with you. Give me some substance to chew on. I don't want you to tell me you can do it again. I want you to give me a glimpse of what your talent looks like. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush you wrote: "Based on that quote, Bertrand Russell's full of it. " You know that I agree with you here. But my question remains as to why, supposing that his worldview of atheism is true, should I not believe also his logical conclusion of nihilism? Given an impersonal / irrational origin of the universe, everything is necessarily matter in motion. This unavoidably issues in meaninglessness, in the sense that all real purpose is arbitrarily invented just to make us feel better while we await annihilation. Even our debate here in this forum is reduced to the exchange of molecular "white noise". And even someone's choice to become an axe murderer, or a philanthropist (and such choices are really made, both ways) becomes trivial. One just happens to be an outplay of atoms that we "hate", and the other, one that we "admire". But don't you see that even "hate" and "admire" become mere outplays of atomic energy in the cranium, with each really having nothing by which to commend itself over the other?I happen to feel very strongly that the nihilists are examples of the most logically coherent and honest of the atheist mindsets, concerning their worldview. I don't feel, however, the same adherence to honesty and logic were followed in their choice of worldviews. For they use universal standards and uniformities which their creed cannot account for, in order to defend it. Borrowing from one worldview (Theism) in order to refute it. No offense here but you'll have to do more than just say that Bertrand Russell was "full of it." Given atheism, why is his nihilism an unreasonable conclusion? "I said that the Bible doesn't dictate reality; rather, reality dictates the Bible (and all toher religious texts). I still stand by that." No disagreement here. It is not the Bible which Christians believe dictate reality, but the God whom the Bible is about. It is his revelation, and the circumstances of reality and history which dictated the writing of biblical texts. Nor have I found sufficient evidence that reality itself, in a historical, psychological, or spiritual way, contradicts what is written in the Bible. Rather, it confirms the Bible. An example of this is Greenleaf's book mentioned by Jim, among many others. I admit I do not base my faith on these works soley, but upon my own relationship with God, and his revelation to me. I never liked imaginary friends, especially ones which pursued me and made me aware of their omnipotence ... My salvation experience with God was not a desire for religion, or self-improvement, I literally could not shake his persistence in my life to show me that he is the Lord. It is nice however that these works and those like them show that what I know to be true comports with reality ... historically and philosophically. In contrast, reality contradicts atheism at every turn. The way we think, reason, argue, and live, are counterpoised with the atheistic worldview. Because we don't and can't live life in the full implications of what atheists like Bertrand Russell so eloquently and frightfully express. The reason we can't now (even in unbelief) is because of the restraining grace of God to everyone. But even grace has a limit. "I was raised in a very secular household. I was not assailed with dogmas and beliefs. So when I learn about Christianity and the Bible, it is with the same mindset with which I learned Greek and Roman myths. The only difference is that everyone around me believes in these myths. What should make me think this is anything more than a social conditioning, the same type that led Greeks and Romans to believe in their Gods? " Secular, meaning without a belief in God? I think, then you were constantly though perhaps subtley "assailed" with positive dogma and belief, though few will call it that. We cannot escape presuppositions no matter which view we hold. The atheist worldview, which I am assuming your parents held before you, holds naturalism in an a priori fashion. It is firmly established that ANY cause beyond nature herself cannot be used as an explanation for nature. Isn't it interesting though that this "dogma" was not aquired through any empirical means? Who said that a cause beyond nature must be ruled out and why? What if there IS a cause beyond nature which is the cause of all things? Then this a priori assumption will always lead to the wrong answer. It will always lead to the acceptance of conclusions based on the fact that the others are not even allowed. A prime example in my opinion is the teaching of macro-evolution, where gaping holes are slurred over because after all it "has to be true". If naturalism is presupposed, there is simply no other explanation on the shelf. Certain things must be believed despite apparent absurdities or inconsistencies, because naturalism cries "Foul" if we seek outside of an autonomous nature for answers. So no, I don't believe that your secular upbringing was free of dogma and belief. Sure it wasn't taught in sunday school, but it was taught. Is this not also social conditioning? Admittedly a belief (or a tendency for belief) in God involves presuppositions also. The Judeo-Christian worldview is founded upon, "In the beginning, God..." And the whole teaching of Bible is that it is correct and proper to assume the existence of God. It is actually presented in such a way that suggests it is normalcy to believe this. Anything else must bear the burden of proof. That's why scripture says things like, "A fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'". This isn't base name calling. It's the assertion that any world view that is not founded upon the reality of God himself leads to absurdity and futility of thinking. (remember Russell?) Views that reject the foundation stone of the existence and rule of God, end up either plauged with internal inconsistencies (as in the hopeful humanistic view), or fallen into distasteful pessimism and nihilism. The former holding on to the "goodies" of theistic reality while denying their source, the latter abandoning these to the logical conclusions of atheism. So there is no question of presuppositions... They are unavoidably on both sides of the argument. No one can really in this sense prove anything. I cannot prove God. He is presupposed for me. He is the glass through which I view reality. My assertion is that God proves himself incessantly everyday and cannot fail to do so. This is evident to the atheist whether he or she accepts it or not. He will prove himself further in the consummation, the second coming of Christ. So the question is not which view is presupposed, but which presupposition, if accepted, will give a coherent view of reality. "And if Gandhi's wrong, and you're right- if Heaven is an exclusive club for people who do the right stuff- then I'm probably out" Take some time to study apostolic Christian doctrine concerning Heaven and salvation and you will see that it is not a "club" for those who do the right stuff. It is a matter of being, not merely doing. In fact salvation is for those who are humbled to know that they can't do enough of the right stuff to make it. Those who trust in Christ recieve his free gift and then his nature through being sanctified internally. It is hardly a works club. Heaven is more comparable to those who love the outdoors. Where will you usually find them? In the mountains, on the rivers, in the forests, in God's world. Heaven is just God's renewed world. It sounds like you have ethical problems with the narrowness of certain religious situations and don't want to be a cookie cutter christian. I think this is a noble view. I want to avoid the same myself. But everyone is different and beautiful in God's Kingdom. I think ultimately this is no reason not to trust Christ. What he creates you to be will be more thrilling and more acceptable to even you, than what you now are... the same goes for me and for us all. "I think that there is "something" to life- whether that something is an outside element of God, or an inner element of "soul," I don't know. But I feel that the only way to get to it is to follow what you feel ,think, and believe." You are right that there is "something" to life. But does the atheistic worldview really have the capacity for such an ideal "something"? Does it allow in philosophic sense any real ideals? If someone says "yes", it rings hollow next to the yawning abyss of naturalism. As to your assertion that you don't feel compelled to live like a Christian. This is commendable if you are not yet a Christian. It would be hypocritical to play the part without the heart. I believe that all people follow a general morality based upon God's revelation in the heart. And I see very well that you have moral values and follow them. But I agree, how could you live as a Christian if you are not one? I am not even suggesting that. I vehemently opposed this when I was not yet a Christian. That would be mere religious conformity. And like you, I never did have the stomach for it. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-13-2002 03:53 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I wouldn't say I don't believe it. I would say that I remain unconvinced. Regarding the wiring thing, if you ever have the opportunity to read Skinner, I think you'd be amazed at how similar our wiring actually is." ~ I am sure we are similar in our wiring, but without a doubt our wiring is not exact. As for reading Skinner, I have too many textbooks to read...maybe after I finish grad school, I'll have some extra time to read his work. "Fair enough. But I alluded to a behaviorist example that many (if not most) patterns of behavior we exhibit today were shaped by past events. I don't know what complete objectivity looks like, having never seen it for myself so, if it exists, I want to understand it. So enlighten me." ~ That puts every aspect of life into one "pot." You are already getting "in too deep." The issue at hand is whether Christianity touts the true God. With regards to this issue, I can remain objective regardless of the past events of my life. True objectivity on every single issue is something one must constantly work on, if they desire to, but we are talking about one issue here, let's keep it to that one issue. "And I know you THINK you are capable of it. But I won't know you actually are capable of this unless you give me good reason to believe so. Until you explain it, all of us here will be forced to assume it true in order to agree with you." ~ "Us?" I guess we have an audience. "Give me some substance to chew on. I don't want you to tell me you can do it again. I want you to give me a glimpse of what your talent looks like." ~ You want a glimpse of my talent? That will cost you (lol) Plus, I don't think my wife would like that very much. But seriously, what do you want me to do to prove to you that I can remain objective on this subject matter. To me, it is rather simple. I look at both sides of an issue without caring if either one is correct, because I have no reason to want one side to win. Every single Christian that I have met, accept a very few, maybe one or two out of hundreds of whom I discussed religion, did not want to change their ways, even when proof was right in front of them. Where would you like me start? The bible is even inconsistent on the ressurection of its own saviour. It can't even get the day correct. This came to me with such ease, that I could not believe it. I had to read and reread it over and over, but still could not believe what I was reading. But that example is merely one small piece of the giant puzzle, looking at that piece alone, most Christians would quickly dismiss it. Why? Because they don't want their "world rocked." They don't want some Interent Opeth showing them that their religion is based on pagan philosophy, older religions, charismatic authrors, and pompous nationalists. Their subjective minds would quickly dismiss me. They would seek shelter from a learned person of their religious beliefs, so they can sigh and say see, we are correct after all. So many people cling to the belief that their loved ones are in heaven after death. And that there is a reward for you upon death. Are they going to listen to someone like me? Give me a break Jim. Subjectiveness will prevail. It has through all out history. This is what I am talking about. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-13-2002 04:32 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, you wrote to Jim, "Us?" I guess there is more than one reader reading this." This is a forum right? There are many readers following this thread. And all of us to some degree are required to qualify what we say, not just say it. I think Jim is within fair grounds here in stating that the claim to objectivity needs more than "It is so". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-13-2002 04:36 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Logic 101 This is a forum with many participants, but that statement alone does not mean that many are reading this, yes? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, would it take a show of hands to convince you? Is it illogical to assume that at least a few readers are likely perusing this thread? Hardly. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Utilizing logic, the "us" statement would mean that Jim actually knows that members of this forum are following these replies. Not only that, that those who are following these replies are of the same in belief. I would not assume this, myself. Jim may indeed know, but I don't know that. However, if he doesn't know, it would of been much more grammatically correct to replace the "us" for an "I." Agreed? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
You are talking of those reading who are concerned about being convinced one way or another - the contextual usage of "us." Now, Stephan, if you know this, fine. I don't. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Semantics. Geeze. Truth be told, I assumed hush, Napkin Writer, and Stephan were also following the thread because of their recent replies. quote: As they should, while they consider weightier issues that lead the inquisitive mind to believe (e.g., the empty tomb, eye-witness accounts, willingness for all surviving disciples to suffer and die for what they witnessed, etc.). quote: Some, maybe. I'd like to think that the direct and circumstancial evidence supporting the resurrection far outweighs the doubt created by an apparent inconsistency. Stephan is probably a better authority on this than I am, but I believe the inconsistency had something to do with the differences the respective audiences of the Gospels had in measuring days. quote: It is well established that, in the attempt to "Christianize" early pagan culture, pagan festivals were adopted as Christian holy days. Still a celebration ... yet with a different object of worship. quote: Or they will say with me that Opeth has continuously refused to make substantive statements ... that he states opinions without supporting them and claims a special gnosis when divining the truth and falsity of Christianity. quote: I'm not going to avoid listening to you because I fear eternal punishment. Eventually, I will avoid listening to you if you continue to avoid being specific. So ... just curious ... what brand of evangelicalism led you to disallusionment? Pentacostalism by any chance? Jim |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth- I'm reading. And I have to agree with Jim on the semantics thing- you devote several posts to arguing about whether or not people are reading this thread... and avoid getting specific with how you think- rather, touting 'logic' without explaining it. I'm not going to get into the arguement of subjective vs. objective... but I will say that you aren't convincing me of objectivity by nitpicking. Stephan: On atheism, I'm really not armed well enough to argue what is or is not the realistic conclusion to their worldview. I'm not an atheist. Not a theist, either... but in any case, I'm really not qualified toget into that, because I haven't read much on the subject. 'Given atheism, why is his nihilism an unreasonable conclusion?' Because, I think that the world is a reason in and of itself to give weight to our decisions. The issue of God aside- I think people recognize that there are things in the world that appeal to them, and things that don't. By 'things,' I mean ideals, actions, feelings, knowledge, physical/material things, pretty much anything... and in order to acheive/gain these things, people will act accordingly. Back to that pleasure principle that we argue about so much- I think people will act in a way that best benefits them. Whether the motivation is extrinsic (money) or intrinsic (personal dedication to a cause) is secondary. People do this regardless of their beliefs about God. 'Secular, meaning without a belief in God?' No. Secular, meaning God was a non-issue. My mom (who I lived with) never brought it up, being a Catholic who, as my father put it, "turned her back on her religion." More appropriately, my mother, raised Catholic, was (still is) very disillusioned with that institution, its teachings, and the way they were taught to her. So I never really went to church as a child, I wasn't taught anything about God- either his existence or non-existence. Think about it this way: My mom never felt the need to tell me about geometry when I was growing up. It just wasn't seen as practical to her lifestyle, and since, as her child, I was inevtiably patterned into her lifestyle, it wasn't important to me. I didn't learn how to cook or put on makeup either- because those things aren't important to my mom. Neither was religion. Neither was 'naturalism' or any other explanation for the way things are. So, no, in my household, there truly was no dogma, no emperical techings. On the flip side of this, though- my mother always told me I could go to church if I wanted- that she would take me, that what I did with my faith was my business. But, to me, why bother? I was happy just accepting that, hey, the sky is blue and grass is green and the world is good... I didn't have to ask why, because if it's not broke, then don't fix it. Obviously, the difference now is that my worldview has extended to encompass quite a few things in the world that are broken. I don't think a belief in God is necessary to provoke my compassion on these issues- but both interconnection between different religions, and between religion and politics, probably are pretty vital to a world understanding and (maybe?) solution for problems like poverty, violence, and oppression. That's why I think it's important to understand other points of view, even if I don't believe them. That's why I'm even replying to this thread- because aside from that, why should I care what you think- and conversely, why would you care what I think? 'And the whole teaching of Bible is that it is correct and proper to assume the existence of God. It is actually presented in such a way that suggests it is normalcy to believe this.' But, see, it's not normal to me. You know, most Christian missionaries failed unless a.) the local religion was poorly established or corrupted, or b.) force was employed to 'convert' peoples. My point here isn't the flaws of Christianity, but rather to say that there's obviously something very fulfilling to toher religions and faiths since so many are flourishing in the world. I don't think faith is exclusive. I understand that 'do the right stuff' was a very oversimplified way of making my point- but you clarified it for me. It's not so much a matter of works, but of faith- and I can't will my faith over to something that just doesn't call to me. And as much as you felt God calling to you... I don't feel that. Same thing with people who feel the call of other faiths... I feel that if there is a God and an afterlife, Jesus Christ is not the only means of getting there. It's not something I think, it's something I feel- simply because I feel that it is ineherently wrong to condemn people who live good lives by most standards just because they believed in the wrong form of God. I feel that it's wrong to have so many choices available to confuse people, and expect them to know which faith to choose. It's an eeny-meeny-miny-moe, and I refute that as cruel and ridiculous. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Opeth- I'm reading. And I have to agree with Jim on the semantics thing- you devote several posts to arguing about whether or not people are reading this thread... and avoid getting specific with how you think- rather, touting 'logic' without explaining it. I'm not going to get into the arguement of subjective vs. objective... but I will say that you aren't convincing me of objectivity by nitpicking." ~ My comment about "us" was taken out of context, but then the Internet is a new way of communicating, and is certainly not my best medium. I prefer "I" statements when communicating with a specific person. For sure, I was not clear, but I was working on many different things at the same time, and my train of thought was derailed. About not explaining...think of what I wrote as a preface to a book. I haven't reached the first chapter yet. That is why I have not been convincing. However, after reading the latest replies, I really don't think it would do me or anyone else here any good to expound upon my findings. I would like to answer one retort. No brand of evangelicalism led me to disallusionment. When I went on my truth finding mission. I did so with a completely opened-mind and heart, asking God for guidance. I had no negative feelings for any denomination, nor for any other religion, or belief. Objectivity prevailed. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
SIDEBAR "I feel that it's wrong to have so many choices available to confuse people, and expect them to know which faith to choose. It's an eeny-meeny-miny-moe, and I refute that as cruel and ridiculous." This is a tangent of the topic...An acquaintance of mine wrote this and I found it to be funny and sensical. "God is insanely egocentric and creates people for the primary purpose of kissing its a*s, even christians acknowledge this fact, it's one of the most basic tennants of the religion. However if god were truly "god", why would it give a sh*t if these little mortal humans, most of whom have the intelligence of peanutbutter, spend their lives licking it's holy butt crack? It doesn't make any sense. Also, if the intent of humanity is to act as a self-replicating a*s-kissing machine for the dictator, why did god make humans so damn defiant and logical? That completely defeats the primary a*s-kissing purpose. If I wanted a dog to sit with me and be still I'd get a golden lab, I wouldn't get a jack russell terrier. Apparently this logic is lost on the almighty dictator." lol, but think about it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush you wrote, "it is ineherently wrong to condemn people who live good lives by most standards just because they believed in the wrong form of God. I feel that it's wrong to have so many choices available to confuse people, and expect them to know which faith to choose. It's an eeny-meeny-miny-moe, and I refute that as cruel and ridiculous." I hate the eeny-meeny-miny thing as much as you do. However, I don't think we can really blame God for it. He is the only God there is, the source of all being for everything. Scripture tells us (and in our more honest moments we agree) that we have lived at enmity with God. We are separated from his life because of sin. We are in trouble and are fallen into judgement and death. Scripture also tells us that he provided a solution, a salvation from our disease. But he didn't just give a treatise on human behavior, or send someone to expound on morals. He came himself, incarnate as a man, and died a cruel death on the cross in order to save us, and rose again from the dead. He himself showed up! Now, out of all the doctrines of religion and spirituality, ways to be right, and self improvement programs, here is the only thing in History where God actually showed up as a man. It is well documented, historically. It could have easily been disproven from the start if it weren't true. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. And as C.S. Lewis asserted, we must either call him a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. A mere good moral teacher, he was not. A man who said the things he said, would be worse than immoral if they weren't true... a megalomanic. Now in the final analysis, I am sorry for all of the false solutions that people have contrived to solve the problem of sin, but God is the only one who actually did. So the maze of beliefs stands as a dim homogeneous blur, next to Jesus Christ. It is not God's fault that there are so many choices. We created the choices! Jesus said the road was broad that leads to destruction. However, we all need to do a little homework and find out who is telling the truth. I think God is just, and if there are those in the world who sincerely think their relgion is the right way to seek God, they will be given oportunity to know the truth. I'm not worried about all of the sincere seekers in other religions because I trust that God is just. But that doesn't mean we stop telling the truth. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, Jesus Christ, innocent, and yet willingly crucified for our rebellion and sin, to save us and share with us eternal life, makes absurd the claim that God is egocentric. Tell that to a man who died for you, if you can look him in the eyes. If that's our reason for not loving God, we'll have to tell him that one day. Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: To say that you have only been submitting your "Preface" so far and have not yet reached "Chapter 1", then to say ... quote: ... suggests to me that you cannot expound on your finding. If it exists, I want to know what your "finding" is. If the information is useful to you then perhaps one day it will be useful to someone else as well. How are any of us to know whether your "finding" is meritorious if you refuse to share it? Jim P.S. It is okay to say that your "finding" still requires work. I am the first to admit that that my worldview is incomplete and subject to frequent change and adjustment. I EVEN VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT FOR GOVERNOR THIS YEAR, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, What you quoted from your friend, though said in crude and tasteless fashion, is 'the problem of evil' from another angle. Here it is in a nutshell: If God wants people to submit to and worship him, then why did he create mankind with the ability to rebell? I have thought about this, as have many. There are answers to this question. Whether we accept it or not is up to us. In oversimplified terms, here are some answers that can be gathered.... 1) if God created a race of men who were "forced" to serve him without any will of their own, then where is the possibility of genuine "Love"? God's purpose was to have creatures who freely love him. Where there is no choice, there is no love. Automata was not what God was after. A planet of robots did not make his heart leap ... he had another plan. 2) The glory that he planned to bestow upon those redeemed from sin, is greater than an unfallen glory. The darker the night, the more brightly the star of redemption shines. And God deemed this glory (for us) worth all the darkness and turmoil that sin would cause. A newborn baby held in a mother's arms makes her former labor pains insignificant, and to a large degree forgotten. 3) God has a purpose in revealing his wrath, some of which may be known to us. Some of which perhaps not yet. Scripture tells us, for example, that God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of demonstrating his justice and holiness and wrath against sin. (Romans chapter 9, v 14-22). Like it or not, it is his prerogative to punish sin and unrighteousness. But he also makes a way out for those who will recieve it. One thing for sure, God's wrath, and sin, demonstrates the futility of rebellion. I know this is speculation, but in light of eternity, how many rebellions may be averted (by future creations) by the virtue of remembering our fall? 4) God wanted to demonstrate his ability to take even the wickedness of rebellion in the angelic realm (Satan) and in humanity, and work all things for ultimate good... his power to transform the works of evil into a glorious end. Stephen. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
OMG, Jim voted for a democrat? I don't think I would have told that one  BTW Opeth, I am listening too. And I would also like to hear your proof or evidence. So far all you have given is your opinion and attempted to couch it as irrefutable fact. I don't think that will work here. Pete Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (11-14-2002 01:19 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, "What you quoted from your friend, though said in crude and tasteless fashion..." The sword is doubled-edged. You may find that reply crude, but to an agnostic and non-christian, such as myself, a reply asserting that Jesus died for meis rather crude to me, touche. The issue of the sidebar was "Why would a christian god need to be praised by those whom he created?" The provided quote dealt with that issue, and that issue alone. "Here it is in a nutshell: If God wants people to submit to and worship him, then why did he create mankind with the ability to rebell?" ~ Excellent question. Blame it on Satan and our "free-will." But God created Satan, and gave us free-will, and knew that both would be used against us. Yes, he knew damn well that Lucifer would rebel. God also knew that mankind would rebel, for sure. Yet, sin and everything bad in the world is mankind's fault, of course manipulated by good ol' Beezlebub himself. So, god needed to create Satan to test our free-will in order for us to make a choice? Ridiculous. God could of created us with a free-will and we still would not necessarily accept him as our saviour, even without Satan. A free-will doesn't need evil. And not only that, god expects thinking and intelligent human beings to decide on ONE particular faith? Even though this faith called christianity is full of holes, pagan philosophy, biblical contradictions, soaked with the blood of many human lives, etc? Example, I read the Bible. To me, it is a false document. That is my understanding of it. I didn't want to understand it that way. It is how it just came to be. In my mind Jesus did not die for me and is not god. How did I come to this conclusion, through Satan? If so, I didn't ask Satan for his dissuasion. So now, I am to be blamed and suffer forever in a hellfire because I didn't believe in the bible and the hypocritical preachers who preach it? LOL! Or, maybe I was predestined to suffer in hellfire. If that is the case, why would god even create me ~ A sadistic bastard at that. To believe this, defies logic, entirely. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
With all due respect, Not A Poet, neither has the christian side provided any fact at all. Which then predicates the christian belief to be factual until disproven. This is backwards reasoning. The burden of proof is on christianity. The bible is not a factual document. So, with regards to the counting of facts, we are even. And even if I provided this forum with facts, they would not be considered facts, because minds are already made-up. "So far all you have given is your opinion and attempted to couch it as irrefutable fact." Your bias works against you already. Not once, have I attempted to couch opinion as fact. Shame, shame. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-14-2002 01:44 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, you wrote "And not only that, god expects thinking and intelligent human beings to decide on ONE particular faith? Even though this faith called christianity is full of holes, pagan philosophy, biblical contradictions, soaked with the blood of many human lives, etc?" Thinking and intelligence would rather dictate that only one of many mutually exclusive claims can be right. The law of non-contradiction applies. The gospel message is to believe on the person of Christ for salvation ... not on what man has done with religion. It is Christ himself and his Spirit whom you (and we all) are required to recieve. Don't fall for the smokescreen that there are too many confusing "faiths"... there is one Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen. I know it's not easy grappling with religion, but the truth is still available, in the person of Jesus. Why should it be "crude" to suggest that Jesus died to save you? This is an act that would be comparable to a Father or mother dying for their son ... an act of unbelievable honor on you. There is no greater love than this. I only ask that you reconsider. Let go of all your offences about religion. Pray and ask for Christ himself to help you. If you reject him, you reject life, and he doesn't want that to happen to you. He still loves you, as he does us all. I mean no offense, and am only saying what I know to be true. But if this gets to be argumentative we can cool it for a while. My purpose is not to argue. respectfully, Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"The gospel message is to believe on the person of Christ for salvation..." ~ (Sidenote: I read that the true Gospel was that the Kingdom of God is at hand, Christ said this himself when asked what is the good news.) I don't believe it. So, I am doomed, even though in my mind, I have found this assertion to be false? Answer that, please do. "It is Christ himself and his Spirit whom you (and we all) are required to recieve." ~ I don't believe that and never will, again. What do you suggest should be done? I am doomed for believing without a doubt that your statement provided above is false? "Don't fall for the smokescreen that there are too many confusing "faiths"... there is one Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen." ~ Even your own bible disagrees with you, Stephan. In fact, I am surprised that you don't know this fact. The bible clearly states that in our times, there will be more than one Jesus being preached. How do you know you are worshipping the correct one? "I know it's not easy grappling with religion, but the truth is still available, in the person of Jesus." ~ I had to lol at this statement. Stephan, I am not grappling over religion. I used to, but not anymore. Someone who is grappling is not sure of where they are in their mind (spiritually for some), but I am without a doubt confident in my beliefs. After all, in my mid-twenties, I went on my truth-finding mission and crossed the finish line. "Why should it be "crude" to suggest that Jesus died to save you?" ~ For the same reason you found the given quote to be crude. You know, there are two sides to the spectrum. "This is an act that would be comparable to a Father or mother dying for their son ... an act of unbelievable honor on you." ~ Absurd! To you this may be comparable, to me is it ridiculous. "I only ask that you reconsider. Let go of all your offences about religion. Pray and ask for Christ himself to help you." ~ Okay, I now ask you to reconsider. Let go of your offences about the fact that their is no god to worship, and if there were one, she would not need your praises. No one can help you but yourself. "If you reject him, you reject life, and he doesn't want that to happen to you." ~ No. I reject nothing but a manmade god who never existed as a god, but only as a man. By doing so, I embrace life to its fullest, for I don't care about an afterlife...this is it. I mean no offense, and am only saying what I know to be true. But if this gets to be argumentative we can cool it for a while. My purpose is not to argue. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
" Even your own bible disagrees with you, Stephan. In fact, I am surprised that you don't know this fact. The bible clearly states that in our times, there will be more than one Jesus being preached. How do you know you are worshipping the correct one?" Do you think the writers of the bible meant that there are really more than one "Jesus", or rather that there will be many imposters? I am not denying that there is more than one "Jesus" being preached. I am asserting as does the Bible, that there is only one Christ... Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen. It is enough for you to say that you disbelieve the Bible. But you cannot accurately say that what I am saying is contrary to what the Bible says. How can you come against the Bible's assertion that "There is one name given among men whereby we must be saved", by using the Bible's assertion that there will be counterfeits? These two concepts are not incompatible at all. In fact if Christ is, as the bible says, a "pearl of great price", then it is no wonder that counterfeits abound. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-14-2002 11:19 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: I cannot prove that God exists any more than you can prove that he does not. There is enough historical and archealogical evidence to convince me of the veracity of the bible. So that is my opinion, just as yours is an opinion. Opinions are not necessarily factual. quote: You haven't? What is this then? quote: Don't you mean you think it to be true? That would be more in the form of an opinion instead of stating it as fact. I think this is the style of statement Jim referred to earlier. These don't make convincing arguments any more than they make facts. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, sorry if I picked up on another issue in that quote. your question, "Why would a christian god need to be praised by those whom he created?" I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase it? I will comment as to what I think you may be saying... The biblical answer is that God who created all things will be praised by all he created, by virtue of his own goodness and power and demonstration. It's not a need, as you put it, as if God were lacking. In the same way that fire causes light and heat, so God by his own virtue is praised. The fact that men for a season are allowed to exist in rebellion, does not suggest to me that God is miffed or is having a self-esteem problem. It rather suggests to me that humanity has a sin problem ... a blindness that refuses to see the ultimately undeniable praise and virtue and goodness of God. If God was insecure like we are so often, I think he would not have borne with this situation as long as he has. The bible talks about the patience and longsuffering of God because he doesn't want anyone to perish. This situation with humankind is a disease that causes them to imagine that they are autonomous, and that they are the judge rather than God. God is really not in the dock, but man is. It's not that God needs man's praise as a man might need water to live. God's nature is such that he will be praised by all... freely... of their will and not his arbitrary decree. How could a God who created the galaxies all the way down to the atom and beyond not be praised? God's need is not that man should praise him. Rather man's need is to praise God. What a gift that God is willing to share with us this priviledge. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-14-2002 03:36 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth- go listen to the song 'Gloria' by Patti Smith if you haven't already. You can access the lyrics here: http://www.oceanstar.com/patti/lyrics/gloria.htm Your offense at the idea of Jesus dying for your sins immediately reminded me of this song. It also reminds me of a post someone (I forget who) made a while ago regarding women who can't act like 'ladies'- one example was that when he tried to pull out women's chairs, some copped an "I don't ne a MAN to pull out my chair for me!!!" attitude. They could just have easily said "Oh, I can get it. Thanks anyway." I am not ready to accept that Jesus died for my sins, but I am not offended by it, either. It's certainly not meant as an offense, and I think it's downright disrespectful to spit in the face of a concept that so many hold such value to. You can argue it respectfully, you can say "No, thanks," but turning this offer (perceived or real) into an insult aimed at you is terribly out of context, and it turns Christianity and Christians into the enemy. This is hardly objective. It sounds to me like you have quite the case of literalism. Like I said, I'm not exactly ready to accept Christian faith as my salvation- but railing against it and claiming it has no value whatsoever is a very subjective point of view, if you ask me. I've never heard you argue so ardently against any other religion. How do you feel about other religions? In any case- Noticing that there are contradictions and that Christian holidays are based on pagan holidays and that some biblical practices are out-of-date is one thing. Applying them to contemporary life is quite another. You have to go beyond the literal meaning of the stories and find meaning in our everyday lives. I have never been a Christian. I used to share a similarly negative outlook at the religion. I've found that tolerance is much more conducive to learning about it than intolerance is. Even if I don't ever intend to become a Christian, walking around with a big "Christianity is a LIE" banner isn't going to benefit myself or anyone around me. It's only going to close me off from relating to the 80-some % of Americans who are Christian. That, I think, is silly. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't understand why some people point ridicule or call false some of the content of religions for the imagination that shows through to fill in the difficulties of answering lifes profound questions of creation and condition--we didn't and still don't, have the superior facts for so many things and we might never, therefore what could and can we do but Imagine? It is not detestable to me even if the biggest bulk of these things were borne of the Human mind to fill in blank spaces--God, Heaven, Hell, etc. that some people still earnestly believe in hope for or fear. It shows that these things are what we make of them in ourselves, that we are as Gods of our own religions. If we treat them as non-existant, than they will be as non-existant--and we will have nothing of them. But if we treat them existant, than they will do something for us--something that will fulfill, I believe. We imagined them and it was believing in what we imagined that created inner goverment and a higher state from which to feel more certain. But now mid the deterioration of this government I think it is very much a more uncertain state with people being more disposed to not to believe than believe. It is as if everything is supposed to be physical and material, and scientifically available. But I don't believe this is the way religion should ever be--relgion must imagine, it is not religion with without imagination--imagination sees more potential to everything, that is because there is always more potential than just what is here and now. The Universe is the potential--it is hard to say that it can not accomodate all of this and more. I'm sorry for blabbing, but I just don't see that imagination in these things is doing anything wrong. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, You said, "It is not detestable to me even if the biggest bulk of these things were borne of the Human mind to fill in blank spaces--God, Heaven, Hell, etc. that some people still earnestly believe in hope for or fear. It shows that these things are what we make of them in ourselves, that we are as Gods of our own religions" You are a thoughtful person and I appreciate you defending the need to respect others, no matter where one stands on these issues. However, I must differ with you on a point. Respecting someone's person and someone's doctrine are two different things. It's the difference between respecting a test-taker and respecting wrong answers on a test. I for one believe that these questions of religious belief do have answers. If Christianity were some kind of legendary tale to make us feel better somehow, and yet wasn't objectively true, then I would refute it. For the claims of Jesus are pretty sickening if they are not really the truth. We don't doubt the authenticity of Homer's "Illiad" with some 640 surviving manuscripts and the first completely preserved texts dating from the 13th century. Yet the New Testament has some 24,000 complete and partial manuscripts, which date from the 2nd century. Being authentic documents, and accurate renderings of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles ... and no doubt written with intent of others taking it as the truth, makes these claims more to be despised if they are not true. I would wholeheartedly agree with Opeth, if I deemed Christianity to be false, that Jesus was an egomaniac. I deem C.S. Lewis as being right when he says that Jesus Christ is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. He is either someone to be taken for who he claimed to be, or despised. He didn't leave a whole lot of room to take a middle stance and didn't intend to. "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" -- 2Peter 1:16 I see a crossover from tolerance (which I agree in) into a relativistic view of truth (which I don't agree in). It says "what is true for you may not be true for me, and what is true for me may not be true for you." This is impossible just like the square circle! This absoluteness does not involve every detail in life, as there is a lot of flexability and freedom in the nature of things. But what I am talking about is mutually exclusive claims, historical, philosophical, scientific, etc... involving two opposing statements that cannot be both true. This stark insistence of logic extends into religious questions as well. As I stated earlier, there either is a Heaven and Hell or there is no Heaven and Hell. Christ either bodily rose from the dead, or he did not. Either God exists or he does not. I would encourage you to look for yourself to see if Biblical Christianity is true. I'll be glad to help you if want to know where to start. But know this... it cannot be true and not true. Opeth is more right than you think (though he's a little rough at times) if Christ was a liar and a deciever. He wasn't a liar and a deciever, I still assert. Opeth is wrong in his conclusions. But I respect his feelings more than patronizing ones. Don't get me wrong. I agree with your plea for respect and tolerance. You are always chivalrous in your responses and a kind person. I appreciate that because that quality in itself is lacking more and more among people .... especially in debate. But I guess I draw a line which you do not yet draw. I will respect people, but not all beliefs, in the same sense that I will not respect wrong math when it comes to my bank account. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-14-2002 11:13 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, there's a big difference between math and religion. When your checks start bouncing, you know the math is wrong. At what point do you know when another person's religious choices are wrong? I believe that when it comes to God, knowing what is right doesn't necessarily reveal what is wrong. Certainly, God has revealed many Truths, important Truths, but is anyone foolish enough to think He has revealed ALL of his Truths? The human mind does not exist than can even remotely comprehend the mind of God. He is not bound by your law of non-contradiction, nor does he recognize the law of exclusion. I have absolutely no problem believing that God can simultaneously be many different things to many different people. Maybe God has backup plans? Or what's good for the goose may not work for the gander? I don't know. If a man tells me that two plus two equals five, I have no problem telling him he's wrong. But when he makes religious choices, I'll let a higher authority decide right and wrong. Like Ghandi, I believe most religions worship the same God I do. I don't pretend to understand how that seeming contradiction can be true, but then, I still struggle with one God simultaneously being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If three, why not three hundred? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. And the only absolute I can trust is that no one else does either. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
I discovered about three weeks ago that I’m an atheist, it came as a bit of a shock because I’ve always considered myself agnostic and viewed atheism as a radical and perhaps even adversarial counter balance to religion. In reality it’s none of those things, atheism is simply a description of a person who disbelieves or has doubts that God exists. Stephan has at least one thing right in this respect, there is no middle ground, you are either convinced that God in some form exists and are religious in that belief or you have doubts that such a being can exist and consequently fall squarely into the category of atheist. In my opinion the supposed agnostics who claim they neither believe nor disbelieve are attempting to straddle a fence that quite frankly does not exist you can’t be a little bit religious in the same way you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you are not. Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
To me, agnosticism doesn't mean "being a little bit religious"- it means not being sure either way. I don't believe in God, but I don't have the conviction to claim that God does not exist. Not knowing about something doesn't mean having your cake and eating it too. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Hush, Advocacy of a middle ground isn’t possible if the available categories of choice are belief or doubt, anyone that believes there is a God is religious by default, anyone that doubts that fact in any degree is an atheist, including those that say they are agnostic. Religion is not available in degrees it centres and is founded on one thing – belief – if you doubt that God exists you do not believe and are not religious. The agnostic as you describe him claims doubt that a God exists and yet doubts that he does not. Anyone familiar with paradoxes will at this point be calling foul at the fact that the agnostic is occupying the excluded middle by claiming that something can be both true and false at the same time. In any case I believe that the fact that he doubts describes him as an atheist despite his lack of conviction. An atheist is someone who doubts. Adherents of religions believe. An Agnostic doubts that God exists and yet doubts that he does not. The agnostic, looked at in this way, has more claims to doubt and less to belief than the atheist has, if an atheist is someone who doubts the agnostic fits the bill perfectly. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-15-2002 05:03 PM).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Atheist - 'A-the-ist noun : one who denies the existence of God This does not indicate doubt but denial. Agnostic - ag-nas-tik noun : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god. This implies doubt rather than denial. So Phaedrus, I think you can safely go back to being an agnostic. [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (11-15-2002 05:20 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Not A Poet I’m afraid not. quote: Denial is non-acceptance or disagreement to an assertion, in this case the assertion is that God Exists, my disagreement or non-acceptance is based upon my doubt that such a being exists. Which indicates that doubt is the instigator of my denial. quote: Doubt is, as I pointed out earlier, the exact opposite of belief, if I believe God exists I am religious, if I doubt that he exists I am an atheist. If I’m not committed to belief I cannot be religious however if I doubt Gods existence I must be an atheist albeit a possibly uncommitted one. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-15-2002 05:47 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The exact opposite of belief is disbelief. The most faithful zealots in history, including most of the disciples, have felt doubt. And I rather suspect that's true of most atheists as well. Conviction is a continuum, and I question whether it's even possible for the human mind to reach one extreme or the other for longer than the space of a heartbeat. To think is to doubt. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: While I agree with you that there is considerable difference between math and religion, I submit to you that it is possible to be reasonably certain that events surrounding religious origins were likely or unlikely. For different reasons than your mathematic example, I can say with certainty that General George Washington defeated General Cornwalis at Yorktown. I do not know this by applying the scientific method or utilizing a tested and accepted mathematic formula, but rather because I am able to gather historical data and, inductively, reach the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the event took place. So when someone tells me "Cornwalis crushed the Continental Army at Yorktown," I can say with equal certainty, "You are wrong." I suppose the value of such an exercise as it relates to religious belief depends on the individual, but for those who value the role of evidence in making decisions about what they believe, the historical claims of Jesus' resurrection are far easier to proove than the enlightenment experience of Sidhartha or the visions of Muhammed. Sure ... there is a difference between "knowing" and "believing," but as you pointed out about the possibility that square circles could exist somewhere or "somewhen," much of what we "know" in science is just as much belief as Stephan's belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Regarding the atheist/agnostic issue, I think we are slipping back into semantics. The definitions are intended to describe different stages of belief (or disbelief) with some precision. Someone who says, "There is no god" is not saying the same thing as a person who says, "There may be a god, but I don't/can't know." Hush: I appreciate your transparency. Were it not for the clear and convincing evidence I've discovered that led me to determine the likelihood of Jesus' historical resurrection is great, I probably would haved ended up being either an agnostic or an atheist. I wish I could say it gets easier after you acknowledge God's existence ... if you think philosophy is a mess, try trudging through the theological mire. Jim |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Slipping back into semantics for the moment. “I doubt that God exists and believe that agnostics also doubt that assertion.” Can be changed to “ I disbelieve that God exists and believe that agnostics also disbelieve that assertion.” I agree that both the religious zealot and the atheist can have momentary doubts about their belief (or disbelief) moving slightly away from the extremities towards a central point between the religious and non-religious. My argument is that the central point is clearly defined by belief, on one side lie the religious and on the other side lie the non-religious, an agnostic by definition does not believe that God exists and so is clearly non-religious. If both atheists and agnostics believe that God does not exist they must surely belong to the same group which by definition must be labelled atheist. There is a counter argument to this, that an agnostic believes that there could be a God while the atheist maintains that God could not exist, a difference that seemingly allows a separation or distinction between the two groups. I believe that no such separation is possible, that you either do or do not believe in God and that extreme views exist on both sides. Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Slipping out of semantics. quote: Jim, I don’t believe either claim but I’m willing to listen to any independent and impartial evidence that proves that Jesus rose from the dead. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephen "Either God exists or he does not" I agree with "God exists" but not "or he does not" If God has always been, he exists! If God created himself, he exists! If the Universe created him, he exists, and, if we created him, he exists! There is no mode I can find through which he can not exist...unless God is in your bedroom and then leaves or is somehow taken out, but that makes him only non-existant in your bedroom, and you only know he is non-existant there because he was there, but is somewhere else now--exists! We are not referring to nothings when we say God, therefore whatsoever that body/thing is, no matter how we refer to it, its being a thing at all confirms existance! [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-15-2002 09:24 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Phaedrus- 'I disbelieve that God exists and believe that agnostics also disbelieve that assertion.' I disagree with you here. Speaking from an agnostic standpoint, I'd say I don't believe that assertion. However, to disbelieve it is sometheing else entirely. Have you ever had the experience where a friend or acquaintance lies to you to see whether or not you'll believe something? You can usually tell when somebody's doing it. (personally, even as a joke, I absolutely abhor it when someone does this to me...) Anyway, you don't believe what this person is saying, but you have no proof that they are lying to you. You can call them on it, but if they deny the lie, you have nothing to back you up besides having a 'feeling' that they are not telling the truth. Considering that lack of proof, it's also possible that you are being overly suspicious, and that they are telling the truth. So, you don't call them on it. Obviously, this isn't a perfect parallel, because religious people are not lying. They believe what they say to be the truth. Not believing what a person or institution says/preaches is just (as you said) a matter of doubt. Disbelieving, on the other hand, is the confident assertion that a belief is not true. 'I believe that no such separation is possible, that you either do or do not believe in God and that extreme views exist on both sides.' But the thing is, I can plainly tell you this is not true in my case. How could you prove otherwise? Is my belief/disbelief hidden somewhere in my unconscious? You really have no choice but to accept that I am telling you the truth: I do not believe or disbelieve in God, rather I leave the issue open for further investigation, discussion, and (even) revelation. I currently do not have sufficient information (yet) to decide whether or not I think God exists, just as I don't have sufficient information (yet) to write an extra-credit paper on the work of John Nash. If and when I collect enough information, or a believer is persuasive enough to convince me that their beliefs are true, or God personally speaks to me, I will decide whether or not I believe God exists. You can't refute that. It runs against reality to say that I cannot think a certain way, when I am plainly stating that I do. The only argument I could see you using against this is that I'm deceiving myself, and that I truly am one way or the other and just don't know which I am yet. What, by the way, caused you to come to this conclusion? Just curious. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, you wrote, "Certainly, God has revealed many Truths, important Truths, but is anyone foolish enough to think He has revealed ALL of his Truths?" My claim that there are knowable right and wrong answers to spiritual questions does not mean that I claim to know all of God's truths. Knowing "who" is the right way does not mean necessarily knowing every "what" and "why". Take the twelve disciples of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels for example. How many times did they "not get it", missing the meaning of what Jesus said or did? How many moments were there when Jesus seemed to say "How long must I bear with you?". How many times would we have abandoned these witless followers if we had been the Christ? And yet these witless followers are just like you and me Ron. But one thing I see the disciples/ apostles had, and that was a firm confession of Jesus as the only Savior of humanity. They never claimed that they knew all that God had to say. This infinite, eternal, unfathomable mind which is God's, they seemed to say, could never be figured out and boxed in. In fact the Kingdom of Heaven was for those like Children who basically could admit "I don't know a whole lot." But that always was a matter of "what", not "who". They never balked at stating with certainty the revelation God had given them and all of mankind. In fact they were the ones who preached that it was the only means of salvation. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12 I am no great mind. My claims misunderstood can be taken as arrogance. But they are only a reiteration of what I believe is indispensable to cardinal Christian belief... the exclusivity of Jesus to eternal life. Jesus himself taught it ... his apostles after him taught it. I find it a less-than-Christian expression to honor Jesus with compliments of one kind or another, while not seeing the necessity of his uniqueness in the scheme of redemption. I'm not saying people can't dwell here for a season, safely. But it is the difference between a disciple saying at the probing of Jesus, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God", and the masses saying "He is Elijah, or John the Baptist, or one of the prophets". Men don't have to be smart or wise in their own conceits to profess what Peter did, they just have to be utterly convinced. Just wondering if you could, as speaking to someone who is only interested in Scriptural authority in matters of faith, point to something in scripture that might suggest that the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is not indispensable to saving faith... or that it should be believed for oneself but not proclaimed as truth to others. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess this thread has confirmed to me what I've known for awhile, that generally speaking, people cannot be convinced either of the existence of God or persuaded into trusting Christ by means of logical arguments until/if they are open and receptive. This doesn't come as a surprise to me. It just confirms to me that God, who possesses all wisdom, is not to be found in or through the wisdom of men. That's stated in the bible also. God will convince those who are open to being convinced. All we can do is help to shed a little light on the path. Whenever I have seen "religious" discussions, by far the most reviled of "religions" has been Christianity, hands down, while others are handled with care, ranging from common respect to PC tolerance. That doesn't come as a surprise either. The bible states that this world will hate us as it hated Him. It's something that we can gladly endure, knowing that it helps to conform us more into His image. It is refreshing though at times to read level-headed statements such as yours, Hush. You are definitely in the minority, at least in my experiences so far. I suppose that Christianity can be viewed as exclusionary. It is, only to the extent that it is through Christ, and Christ alone, that we can come to God for forgiveness because Christ was the only one who was sacrificed for us to pay the price for us. But it is something that God makes available to the entire human race (all-inclusive)through faith in Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice. Christ is the Truth. This can also be found in the bible. Now, although it is true, Ron, that none of us can presume to claim to know the totality of the mind of God, we can surely know what He has declared of Himself, and He clearly states that Christ is the only way to Him. The idea that there are various paths, or truths, contradicts what is plainly stated througout the bible. I'm not a theologian or an apologist or an eschatologist, Jim (it's great to see you here again!). I'll gladly leave those fields to the more learned. I just share what I have come to know and believe to be the truth when the opportunity presents itself. For those who wish to further explore the evidence, it's certainly there to be found. I can't say it any better than Stephen has already. Phaedrus, to me an agnostic is one who says that he doesn't know and cannot know whether God exists or not and an atheist is one who firmly believes that there is no God. Does it really matter whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist, whether you say you doubt or disbelieve, what meaning you attribute to each respective word? Either way, the bottom line is still that you currently lack faith, no matter how you decide to describe it. It's just playing with semantics and not an argument of substance, wouldn't you say? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jim, if I were to run across a religion that was based on the victory of Cornwalis at Yorktown, like you, I might be inclined to doubt its validity. So far, that hasn't happened yet. And, no, I'm not being facetious. Well, not entirely. Every religion I have studied is based on faith, not on events or provable facts. Every religion is based on revelation in one form or another. My point is simply that if God speaks to you and says something entirely different from, even contradictory to, what he tells me, I'm not going to call you a liar. The differences or contradictions could (and I believe do) exist only because we don't know the whole story. Indeed, we can't know the whole story. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise, Glad to hear your voice! ... well, sort of. (see your voice???) Anway, I want to reiterate the point you brought out. I did mean by the "exclusivity of Jesus", the excluding of any other means of salvation, not the excluding of people. Jesus died for the fullness of the world, all nations, all people who will come will be saved. That's good news! Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-16-2002 12:04 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What would you do if God appeared in your living room tonight and told you that Jesus was not His Son? I'm talking no doubt about it being God and no ambiguity to his statement. You would KNOW it was God, just as Abraham did, and you would feel His truth, just as Moses did. Were that to happen to me, I don't think it would change anything about what I believe. I wouldn't call the Bible a lie, and I wouldn't suddenly think Jesus was a fraud. I would, instead, realize that God was revealing a truth that was beyond my understanding. That it seemed to directly contradict everything I previously understood is not a reflection on God, Jesus, or the Bible. It is a reflection only of my understanding. That Jesus is the son of God, and one with God, would not be disproved by something so simple as a contradiction. Every miracle ever performed was, by definition, a contradiction. God is not bound by human limitations or human understanding. God denouncing Jesus is an extreme example, and no, I certainly don't expect it to happen, but it's really no different than if God told me a stone was white and told you it was black. It doesn't mean He lied to one of us. It simply means neither you nor I can ever see a stone the same way He does. Stephen, Denise, like you I believe in the words of Jesus. Does that mean I understand everything He has said to me? Not by a long shot. Does it mean I haven't misunderstood at least some of what He's said to me? I think that's pretty much a given. But all I can do is go with the understanding I feel I have, live my life accordingly, and have faith that my faith will be enough. How can I find fault with another for doing the same? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
If he did do that though, Ron, wouldn't that lead you to doubt the other perceptions you had surrounding your faith? Wouldn't you have to then question your perception of any event that was drawn from Christ being God's son? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, you wrote, "What would you do if God appeared in your living room tonight and told you that Jesus was not His Son? I'm talking no doubt about it being God and no ambiguity to his statement. You would KNOW it was God, just as Abraham did, and you would feel His truth, just as Moses did. " This is a dangerous line of thinking in at least one way. In scripture we are told that Satan appears as "an angel of light". There are many experiences in history where people felt that God spoke to them. Mohammed.... Joseph Smith.... David Koresh... all had their "angels of light". But feeling is no guarantee, if bedrock revelation has been given and something counters it. Remember when Paul said to the Galatians, "If we, or an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel to you than that which you recieved, let him be accursed" Interesting scripture to think about. There is a difference between truth "felt" and truth "known". And by the way, sonship seems to be an irreversible union ... you'll never not be your son's Father. Why and how could God trick us that way? Why would he be so emphatic that it was his Son who was the way, and then relent and say "well, he died for all, but you really don't have to believe that dogmatically ... religious rituals will work for some" Why the commission to "Preach the Gospel"? What "gospel"? That anything will work? I think there's truth in what you are saying though, and may be expressed in the life of Abraham... God told him to sacrifice Isaac, the son through which God had promised would come Abraham's posterity. A seeming contradiction. The scripture tells us that Abraham exercised complete trust and obedience and did so... "reasoning that God could raise the dead". But God never denied or reversed what he promised to Abraham. He never said "Your seed shall not come through Isaac". This is called lying. The bible even says that "It is impossible for God to lie". Is this some kind of cosmic lying that God is referring too that is different from our lying? Can he lie and then just say he's telling the truth? I don't think so. I think when we understand lying, we have his understanding, as we were created in his image. God often does or says one thing that challenges us as to what he has previously revealed, but never flat out denies it. If someone of great power and majesty appeared to me, professing to be God, and said "Jesus is not my son". I would have to conclude he is not God, no matter how impressive the light show. There are some scriptures Ron to which God has bound himself to forever. One of many examples is Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." I see your point that we cannot know everything God is or does. But a god who contradicts himself at every point would be the problematic god of the existentialist, not the God of the Bible. It is not arrogance or presumption to believe that the Bible teaches absolutes. It is rather humility. Do I know all truth? Ha! I am pitifully in the dark about soooooo much. But I know God has nailed down some things as surety. As the beloved Physician Luke wrote, "...that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-16-2002 01:38 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:The Bible is just a book. You're not taking the word of God that it is, in fact, His word, but rather the word of fallible men, men who likely would understand God as little as you or anyone else. Besides, I wouldn't be the first in line to try and hold a major deity to a contract written by men and based on my faulty understanding. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I searched for the truth with an open and willing heart, Denise. You are only reading my words after the fact. When I went on my truth seeking mission, I prayed on my knees to God, asking that He would give me His wisdom, not men's wisdom. I wanted to live the correct way. The way He would want me to. I searched for the true church and humbly searched the truth. So, if you were referring to me, you couldn't be more wrong about me. Let's see if your hearts and minds are willing to be opened with no or little bias and subjectivism...okay? If Christianity were the only way of salvation. If the Christian God, which included Christ in the Godhead, is the only and true God, the critical proof would be found in His Holy words: The bible. Can we agree on this? If yes, let's continue. Do the writer's of His Holy word claim infallibility? Yes. This is not my opinion, this is from the bible. II Tim 3:16 states that all scriptures are God's inspiration. Of course, this meant only the OT (at that time), but we could logically assume it included the NT. Other scriptures support the claim of the Bible's infallibility, in that they were Holy Spirit inspired (cannot be broken): John 10:35, IIPeter 1:20-21. Can we agree on this (that the bible's writers claim infallibility)? Since the claim that Jesus is God and that He ressurected from the dead is found in the Bible, and if the Bible were indeed infallible, Christianity would have an excellent case to prove that their saviour is the true God. Agreed? If yes, let's continue... But the bible is not infallible. Many fallibilities are to be foun. I would like to start with a crucial one. Maybe one you Christians out there can explain this FACT that I found regarding Christ's death. Bible Fallibility 1 Luke 23:53-54 The day before the Sabbath Jesus, having died was taken down from the cross and laid in a tomb Agreed? Before the Sabbath. Luke 23:56 The day before the Sabbath The ladies prepare the spices and rest on the Sabbath. Agreed? The ladies prepared the spices before the Sabbath. Mark 16:1 The day after the Sabbath They purchased spices, that they might anoint Jesus. Agreed? The ladies purchases the spices AFTER the Sabbath. BUT...how could that be if they prepared the spices before the Sabbath? These authors should of gotten their story straight before writing. Cops do this to witnesses all the time, you know. This is just one fallibility. Unless, I made a mistake? I will wait for replies and then we could move on, if anyone cares to. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-17-2002 10:08 AM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Hush If you mean the conclusion that I’m an atheist and not an agnostic the answers pretty simple, I read a line in an article by Michael Martin published in The Philosophers Magazine: “For atheism to be rationally justified it is only necessary that it be more probable than theism. Certainty is no more required in the case of atheism than it is in the case of scientific theories.” I had up until that time described myself as an agnostic believing that atheism was too severe a stance and equated to a total rejection of the possibility that God exists. Yet I found myself arguing against such an existence at every turn, I doubted that God could exist but doubted that he could not but after measuring one doubt against the other I concluded that it was more probable that he did not. quote: The important part of your example is this: quote: You say that a lack of belief is not the same as disbelieving based upon the evidence that you have not voiced your disbelief. I’m saying that your lack of belief is sufficient evidence, at least for me, to believe that you do not believe, whether you voice that disbelief or not. (I also believe I’ve just invented a tongue twister )quote: No, in most people religious disbelief is in plain sight and written bold in their actions and words, if I truly believed that God exists I would worship him regardless of the fact that I could not prove his existence. If I truly believed he did not exist I would not, you can not be “a little bit religious”, a person who believes in the existence of one God is a theist and worships that God, a person that disbelieves is an atheist and does not worship that God. I’m willing to set semantics aside if you like and label anyone that does not believe in God as an agnostic, my argument is that three separate categories do not exist, you either believe or you do not it’s all a matter of faith (see below). Denise You said: quote: I disagree with some points and agree with others. quote: I agree in fact that is my whole point, it doesn’t matter if I call myself a pixie, regardless of the label I do not believe God exists, the normal classification for a person that holds those beliefs is an atheist. Your description of an agnostic and an atheist describe the same thing whatever label you assign to them. quote: I don’t lack faith, on the contrary I have an abundance of faith in my conviction that God does not exist, I have to it’s what I believe. You may be mixing me up with those people who doubt that God exists but have no faith in their conviction, they exist but they are not theists either. quote: No, it’s an argument of deduction although as I said earlier I’m quite willing to enter into a discussion of substance if by substance you mean facts, evidence and bodies of proof from independent and impartial sources. Thanks for the chance to read and reply. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-16-2002 08:40 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hi Stephen, it's always good to hear you as well! Yes, I knew what you meant. I was merely reiterating the point that you were making, not trying to clarify it. You did that quite well. Ron, again, like Stephen, I wouldn't believe that God would come and flat out contradict something that He has already declared to be His truth. I would attribute the appearance and declaration to be of an origin other than God. Don't you find it peculiar that most of the supposed "revelation" subsequent to Christ by various folks who started their own religions were preceded by visitations and revelations from angels of light? I'd say that they were either delusional or were actually influenced by a deceiving entity. God states that He has spoken to us (the world) in these last days through His Son. Christ is God's final message and answer to us, not messages from angels or messengers subsequent to Christ. Chris, I believe that there is enough evidence, both within and without the bible to convince someone that it is the revealed will of God and not just a book. For anyone who wishes to research the issue there are many apologetic books on the subject. Opeth, no, I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the world in general. I have no doubt that you did what you said you did. That you have currently arrived at the conclusions that you have in no way precludes the possibility that you will one day change your views as your search continues. Those who are open and receptive will arrive at the truth eventually. Not everyone's journey toward the moment of belief will be identical. I don't doubt that some need more convincing than others, simply due to differing backgrounds and psychological makeups. As to the seeming contradictions that you pointed out, Mark mentions particular women by name, Luke mentions a group of women from Galilee. I see it as referring to different women purchasing spices at different times, not as an inconsistency or as a proof that the bible is fallible. Unfortunately I don't have the time to take numerous such issues that you would present here and research them. What I would suggest is that you take your list of such seeming contradictions and prayerfully re-study them in context and see if you can't reconcile them to your own satisfaction. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Phaedrus, my mistake, I didn't finish my thought. You still currently lack faith in Christ as saviour. In my opinion it takes more faith for an atheist to believe that there is no God, than for someone to believe that there is a God. But belief in God's mere existence isn't even the bottom line. The bottom line is coming to a point where one places their faith/trust in the finished work of Christ on one's behalf. [This message has been edited by Denise (11-16-2002 09:19 AM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
No problem Denise, I understand the difficulty of coalescing thoughts into words without losing at least some of the meaning or intention along the way. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Denise, that is not a good use of common sense. Of course all four gospels speak of the same group of women. That one gospel doesn't particularly name them, doesn't mean it isn't the same group. Utilizing common sense and rationality, they are the same group of women. If we are to throw out common sense in order to try to prove and sway the truth of a matter to make it fit one's beliefs, then we can do that with the entire bible - This is the same group of women, unless we want to take it out of context for our own purposes. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-16-2002 09:46 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Not only what I just stated above, but if the spices were purchased after the Sabbath, when did they have time to prepare them and annoint the body when the body was also gone after the Sabbath - early morning upon visiting the tomb, Christ is already gone. Also read that the women who prepared the spices were the women from Galilee, and these same women include the women from the so-called other group ~ they were the same group. It is like 1+1=2. Please people, if you are following this, don't be subjective or biased. I will wait for another explanation, Denise's, with all due respect, fails to disprove this fallibility. And I am only on the first of many falliblities. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-16-2002 09:57 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth- Honestly, if your disbelief is based on something so trifling, I don't get it. The Gospels were written by different people, at different time periods. Like I said, you seem to have this problem with literalism. That contradiction withstanding, that is not what gives me doubt about the truth of Jesus' resurrection. Contradictions in small things, in my opinion, are easy to overlook, considering the nature of the four Gospels. My problem with believing this is that it seems highly unlikely to me that he was resurrected. I have trouble swallowing that just because a book (that I don't view as undeniable truth) tells me so. Do I have to do more research regarding the historical surrounding of the event? Of course. A theory that I've heard is that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross. Since Pilate didn't actually want to crucify him, he had him taken down- hence his death occurring in a relatively short time. Now, people seeing Jesus walking around alive and well with puncture wounds in his hands and feet are pretty likely to believe that he has been risen from the dead. Do I believe this? No, but I think it's a possibility. Like I said, before I commit to believing anything, I need more historical documentation and proff supporting either side. Stephan- 'Just wondering if you could, as speaking to someone who is only interested in Scriptural authority in matters of faith, point to something in scripture that might suggest that the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is not indispensable to saving faith... or that it should be believed for oneself but not proclaimed as truth to others.' I was just reading (last night, in fact) a theory of pluralist theologians that the exclusive phrasing in the Bible about Jesus reflects the disciples intense love of him, just as a husband/wife will tell their spouse they are the 'only' one for them. It was not meant to portray Jesus as the exclusive means to forgiveness and salvation, but rather, to express their belief that he is the only on for them. Personally, I think this is twisting the context of the Bible a little too much, and that people are trying to reconcile (what I see as) a terribly unfair tenet of Christianity with what they think is right. I don't think you can have it both ways, according to Christian belief, but the fact that people want to have it both ways indicates to me a sense of injustice surrounding that very basic creed of the religion. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Hush, One has to look at the "entire picture." This is just the first of many Bible fallibilities, however, it is important. Follow... If it is the Bible that states Jesus is God. and... If the writer's of the Bible claim (as does Christian leaders today) that the Bible is infallible because it was actually written THROUGH the Holy Spirit. and... If the Bible can be proven to be fallible then... How can one claim that Jesus is the only God or THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH? God would then be a fallible god. Not only that, there is much more, I am only providing the beginning strokes of the entire picture, how could one come to a judgement so quickly? It is an important matter, this detail of the preparation and annoiting of the spices...as important as a topic of Jesus' ressurection is, I would hope to think (and would be common sense to do think so) that the Holy Spirit inspired, infallible, ubreakable Word of God would not contain such a crucial error with regards to the saviour's death, burial and ressurection. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-16-2002 11:04 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I hope courts of law do not have problems with literalism, if they did, then here would be a likely scenario... "Mr. Mike, you stated to the police that you killed your wife...now you are changing your testimony?" "No I am not, I didn't meant that I actually killed her, it was only a figure of speech, I meant that I killed her mentally, by destroying her self-esteem." Jury member: "Oh, I understand now, you never said that you physically killed your wife. Agreed. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I do that any way. To think is to doubt. Complete and utter conviction (which is probably impossible for anyone except God) denotes the absence of thought. quote: When I was about three or four years old, after watching a particularly disturbing news cast I think, my mother told me that bad men were put in jail where they couldn't bother little boys. A few years later, shortly after I started school, I remember her warning me to stay away from a specific neighbor because he was a bad man. To my young mind, those two statements were contradictions. If he was a bad man, he should be in jail? Neither statement was a lie, because my mother would never do that to me, but years later, I now realize that neither statement was the whole story either. My mother told me what I needed to know, without ever lying about it, but also refrained from confusing me with things I couldn't possibly understand at the time. When my mother contradicted herself, I didn't lose my trust in her. I asked questions, she answered them, but even when I couldn't quite understand her explanation, I never lost my trust in her. That would have been unthinkable to me, and even then, I knew my confusion was MY problem and not proof of Mother's fallibility. People who believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God have to be willing to accept the consequences of that belief. For us, time moves in only one direction, we can never travel faster than the speed of light, and sonship seems to be an irreversible union. But those are obviously human limitations, and the moment you assign ANY limitation to God, you have artfully circumscribed His omnipotence. There can be no lies from God, and no contradictions from God, because His power both defines and redefines our reality. Truth exists within, and can only be measured by, His acts of creation. When you explore the ramifications of true omnipotence, it becomes clear that consistency isn't just the hobgoblin of little minds. It's a gift from God. That deterministic science exists at all is an indication that God shields us from inconsistency. From that evidence and the very constant state of the Universe, I really don't think for a moment that God is going to directly contradict something He has already said to me. But I also realize that every miracle Jesus ever performed was inconsistent with deterministic science, so I know God's gift of consistency was never meant to be absolute. God "could," under the very definition of omnipotence, say something completely at odds with what he has said before. It would be no less true, because He is the definition of truth. And, just as with my mother, I still wouldn't lose my trust in Him. My confusion would be MY problem and not proof of God's fallibility. Inconsistency and seeming contradictions are an inevitable result of omnipotence. Without them, omnipotence is limited and thus is no longer omnipotence. I believe God purposely shields us from inconsistency and contradictions, and - like my mother - lets us see only what we need to know and what we can understand. The only real question in my mind is whether God shields humanity as a whole or treats each of us as individuals. If it is the former, than I know that my Bible, and my Jesus, and my convictions are true for the entire world. All other religions are false. But if God is a personal god and deals with each of us as individuals, I can no longer be quite so certain. It is within His power, as defined by omnipotence, to give one set of consistencies to me and give another very different set to, say, Mohammed. Both sets could be equally true, because God defines our truths, and any contradictions would be a result of our imperfect understanding. " If he was a bad man, he should be in jail?" Now, I'll be the first to admit that I could be barking up the wrong tree entirely. Maybe I am simply justifying my own difficulty with admitting I know next to nothing and then immediately trying to force-feed my limited understanding to another human being. Should someone ask, I will share. But I cannot tell someone they are wrong when my own knowledge is less than complete. I am convinced my own conviction are right, but if I accept the omnipotence of God, that doesn't necessary mean everyone else has to be wrong. I don't know that because I can't know that. But that's okay, because I trust that God DOES know. quote: Those who read the Old Testament with a clear understanding of the New are often dumbfounded by the web of intricacies woven into the words of God. Things that made perfect sense in that old worldview take on much deeper meaning in the context of the new. The old meaning was and is still true, but the greater truth was often revealed only through the life and death of Jesus. I've often wondered how much of the New Testament is still waiting to be revealed by the promised return of Christ? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jesus is the one true path to salvation and happiness. I am considerably less certain that I fully understand exactly what that means. When you and I use a personal pronoun there is little room for ambiguity. When a monotheistic God who is defined by His plurality uses the pronoun, my mind tends to run around in little circles. I doubt my confusion is an accident, and I think there is meaning in there we are not yet ready to see. The one thing I don't doubt, however, is that when the final truth is known the seeming injustice of Christianity will be profoundly just. |
||
|
Wind
since 2002-10-12
Posts 2981 |
I don't want to get involved in any argument, but I am an adeist. Not an Atheist, they are very different. I simply do not agree with many of the things that the bible, or any other religion tells you, so I decided to do it by my own standards of what relion should be. This is not because I do not believe, but because there are so many different versions, so many lies and people streatching the truth, that I don't want to believe something just because someone tells me. I was quite unfairly thrust at religion as a child, and I was not allowed to develop my own beliefs. Allthough I am not thankfull of this, I do think that if this never happened, I would not be the strong and indepenant person I am today. After that, I learned not to believe someone just because they say it is true. Allthough this may have been a little indirect, I felt it nessicery to say that I don't believe in arguments over religion. Please do not try to tell me that my beiliefs are wrong, because I don't believe that anyone can have incorrect beliefs. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, |
||
|
Wind
since 2002-10-12
Posts 2981 |
I also have a story that goes allong with this: "A girl who was in about the forth grade had behavior problems. The councilers wanted to find out what was wrong, but because she was so young, she had trouble telling them. They asked her to draw pictures. The only things she drew were birds: big, evil looking birds with spikey feathers. They did an investigation, and It turned out that her parents were involved in a devil worship group, and were making her go with them. There were animal sacrifices where people would slaughter inoccent birds, and this had deeply disturbed the child." Now what I am trying to bring about with this story is that we cannot truely say that her parents were doing the wrong thing. It is exactly the same as parents forcing their children to go to church. As for the killing of inoccent creatures, christians used to kill old ladies that kept cats. Not just black ones, but any cats at all. So forcing any religion is wrong. Well, just my opinyon, you cant think what you want. Sorry for changing the subject... "Sticks and stones will break my bones, |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: I don't agree, Opeth. If one gospel names them and another doesn't, yet the time frames indicated are different, I don't see that common sense and rationality dictate that they are the same group. To me, common sense and rationality would dictate that they are indeed a different group being spoken of by different authors. To me it seems that the ones who are specifically mentioned by name were actually a smaller circle from within the larger group of women from Galilee mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps the smaller group for some reason didn't get to market along with the others and went later? Couldn't you see that as a possibility? I don't see why one has to presume that the group is the same in order not to violate common sense. I think that most supposed inconsistencies are seen as inconsistencies precisely because people come to them with presuppositions in mind. When one is open enough to discard presuppositions when approaching these texts, the "inconsistencies" fall by the wayside. And then again, I'm sure there are some people who don't want to reconcile supposed inconsistencies because they would then have to admit to themselves that maybe, just maybe, the bible is the infallible word of God, and they would much rather content themselves to majoring in finding as many of these perceived inconsistencies as they possibly could to try to insulate themselves as much as possible from ever coming to that eventual conclusion. As to your other point: quote: Common sense and rationality would suggest to me that they were not yet aware when they purchased and prepared the spices after sundown, when the Sabbath ended, that Christ would not be in the tomb when they arrived to annoint the body. And of course they didn't actually annoint Him, since He wasn't in the tomb when they arrived. I agree, 1+1=2, and it all adds up to me. I'm not twisting the truth to try to fit preconceived ideas. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth- I don't believe that Bible to be infallibe. Maybe that's why I have less of a problem with the concept of reapplying ancient meanings to modern life. Think of it this way- maybe it wasn't a matter of Matt and Luke (or one or the other) being wrong, but they could have just interpreted the events differently? You know how eyewitnesses are bad in court because their perceptions don't exactly match reality? Same thing here- and I think that's why four gospels are provided, so that we can read the perceptions of more than one person, and, from that, decide which parts we believe to be accurate and which aren't. I find that fundamentalist approaches to religion are usually dangerous- i.e., a white slaveowner telling his salves that Jesus preached to turn the other cheek, and so should he (the slave). Taken more symbolically, slaves could relate to Jesus as a fellow sufferer, and apply his message of salvation to their own lives. Taken out of context and literally, people can justify anything with the Bible. I think it's important to see what is really meant by certain codes and stories- just as it's important to think about the symbolism in Jesus' parables. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Think of it this way- maybe it wasn't a matter of Matt and Luke (or one or the other) being wrong, but they could have just interpreted the events differently? ~ Interpreting differently and fallibility are not the same. Describing an event in various ways would not lead to fallibility, as my example clearly shows. With regards to those court witnesses, for a mere mortal witness, yes, there will be mistakes, however, the Bible is supposed to be infallible and unbreakable, from the Holy Spirit Himself, so I expect infallibility, unlike I would expect from those witnesses in your example. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-17-2002 09:51 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Fallibility 2 The Bible states, God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34). God desires all to be saved (1Tim 2:4). ~ Therefore God gives everyone a chance to become saved. This could also be looked upon as there is no such thing as predestination. Agreed? However... Acts 2:39 ~ "...as many as the Lord our God will call." ~ If God is going to give everyone a chance to be saved, why would Peter make it like God may not call someone? But that is just one example, if that were the only one, it wouldn't be enough proof, so let's continue... John 6:44 ~ basically says the same thing, that God has to call someone, meaning he is not going to call everyone. If it meant that, then why would Jesus even state this? John 6:45 states that all will be taught by God...but has everyone? No. Being taught by man, meaning a preacher, is not being taught by God. I will talk about that later. John 6:65 Jesus says that no one can come unto him unless the father calls that person. Meaning? An individual cannot just decide to become saved, they must be called. So far any errors? 2Cor 4:4 (weird passage, indeed) So people are blinded to the truth? Why? Why would a God who wants all to be saved and does not respect any one person blind these people? Read it again. It says that GOD has blinded them. Not Satan. Not themselves, but GOD. Mark 4:10-12 ~ Jesus says to the apostles that he speaks in parables for what purpose? SO THAT THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE!!! Read it again. There are other biblical examples, but I will stop here and move on to the saving part. If God desires all to be saved, but then does not give everyone a chance, then the Bible is again proved fallible and not only that, it shows that this God is an unjust God. Millions upon millions of people have lived and died without ever hearing the name Jesus. According to the Bible, they cannot be saved. Read the above examples for one reason, but I submit to you this...The bible explicitly states that in order to become saved one MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Now, in order to be born again, one must do these things 1. Repent 2. Be baptized 3. Most importantly, receive the Holy Spirit. If one does not receive the Holy Spirit, one CANNOT be saved. Now, I have already heard the argument of people are only accountable for what they know, and will be judged accordingly, but that does not mean they are saved. It can't mean it. The bible clearly states HOW one is to be saved. It gives no other way. So everyone has not been taught by God. Therefore, this is yet another fallibility. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-17-2002 10:52 AM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: No, not agreed. You are doing something called "proof texting". You yank a sentence or part of a sentence out of the text and then claim that the meaning of the text, in isolation, contradicts another verse you've quoted similarly. Acts 10:34 describes the conversion of Cornelius, a gentile. Jesus' atoning death was just as much for the gentile as it was for the Jew. In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul is instructing the young pastor Timothy to pray for all men. Neither verse should be construed as a didactic passage concerning election or reprobation. That was not their intent. quote: This is not a difficult passage at all. It is half a line from 28 verses describing Peter's sermon in the day of Pentecost following Jesus' ascention into Heaven. He is testifying to the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies, that God would send a savior. quote: So far, I would argue it isn't even part of a proof. quote: Considering other scriptures, I believe Jesus is saying, because of man's total depravity and separation from God, he is incapable on his own to make even the smallest step toward God. quote: Your hermeneutic is jumbled. This isn't what the passage is saying at all. In fact, the context of the verse hasn't changed from 6:44 yet. Also, I'm not sure what translation you are using, but the passage clearly indicates Jesus' intent. Read the passage again. Read 6:22-65 to get the big picture you're missing. quote: You got the gist of this verse. quote: No, no, no, no, no. The "god of this world" is common verbage to indicate Satan or the deceiver. Even if it was God who blinded them, why is it so offensive that a sovereign God has the authority to use any part of his creation to fulfill his purpose. Moses in Exodus writes repeatedly that God "hardened Pharoah's heart" ... why? ... so that his plan would be fulfilled. Namely the release of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. quote: If you read the parallel verses of Matthew 13 describing the event, I think you will understand why he was doing this. quote: This presupposes man is deserving of salvation ... that, beyond God's desire to save mankind, man has qualities that are meritorious and deserving of God's grace. What is interesting to me is that the vast majority of your quotations were from narrative portions of the New Testament. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, you avoided the didactic passages of the New Testament. Didactic passages often deal directly with doctrines. Romans and Galatians clearly state man's condition and the nature of God's grace. Theologians shy away from developing doctrine from biblical narratives if didactic teachings exist that address the issue. quote: Again, you presuppose even one person is deserving of grace. This may sound harsh, but if God's standard is blamelessness and perfection, then all men fall short of the mark. The righteousness of Christians is forensic righteousness ... that is, Christ's righteousness applied, in a legal sense, to the Christian by faith. quote: I let this one go for now. quote: See Romans 1:18 through 2:16. quote: No, I'm afraid not. The Bible does not say that every single person on this big blue marble will be taught by God in the way you assert. You've created quite the straw-man here. The "All persons" passage you've referred to twice is a quotation from Isaiah's prophesy (Ch. 54). Read it, and I think you'll understand where you've gone wrong. Verses in the Bible should not be interpreted independent of previous lines and paragraphs, just as any other piece of literature. In addition, many passages have a more narrow meaning and audience than others, some deal with events unique in history that are not intended to be construed as relevent for today, some have didactic purposes, others poetic, and others are narratives describing historical events. Two are apocolyptic that are far more difficult to interpret. My recommendation, before you toss Christianity out the window, is that you get a good, beginner's book on biblical interpretation. Here is a link I think you may find helpful to begin with. http://www.modernreformation.org/mr96/mayjun/mr9603interperet.html Hope it is useful to you. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Your defense was one that I have heard of so many times. It is a typical defense utilized by those who refuse to believe what they read. Nothing was taken out of context. If Timothy writes that God desires all to be saved, and if Peter is talking about a particular event and states that God is no respector of persons, then logically and rationally, 1. God desires all to be saved. 2. God is no respector of persons. As for the rest of your defense of the Bible's fallibilities. I'll be back later to discuss them. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: I look forward to your answer. A few points, however: quote: I would argue that it is a typical objection to what you assert by people who go to great lengths to understand what literature written 2000 years ago meant in its cultural context. quote: Maybe not, but you also failed to present anything in its context (isn't that the same?). You quoted isolated verses without considering audience, culture, original language, literary type, translational difficulties, grammatical devises, allusion to other Scripture, or parallel verses. quote: No, you are not getting it. First, Paul wrote the Epistles to Timothy. Timothy was the recipient, not the author of the Epistles. How can I believe you researched this thoroughly if you've already confused authorship? Second, you cannot simply take isolated verses from the New Testament and apply them universally if the context does not call for it. Peter's statement, as recorded by Luke in Acts, and Paul had specific purposes. To expand the meaning of their statements beyond the original intent is imputing meanings into the verses that were not originally there. To the contrary of what you've suggested, logic and rationality require that your interpretation of translations of centuries old texts be careful and methodical. Third, I am not suggesting that the Bible, as it has been handed down to us over many generations, is infallable, but I think it is fair to suggest that the Bible we have today is without significant, material error based upon the abundance of documentary evidence we have at our disposal. Certainly you have failed to expose any material errors. Lastly, I think you have revealed enough about your position to discount your previous arguments that you are able to look at Christianity without bias or prejudice. You've already made up your mind, based on an obvious lack of sound exegesis and apparently you refuse to examine your position even when, by your own admission, you have heard this defense many times. Did you ever consider that those who offered these defenses may have been on to something? Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (11-18-2002 12:35 PM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Quote: Opeth Where would you like me start? The bible is even inconsistent on the ressurection of its own saviour. It can't even get the day correct. This came to me with such ease, that I could not believe it. I had to read and reread it over and over, but still could not believe what I was reading. But that example is merely one small piece of the giant puzzle, looking at that piece alone, most Christians would quickly dismiss it. Why? Because they don't want their "world rocked." They don't want some Interent Opeth showing them that their religion is based on pagan philosophy, older religions, charismatic authrors, and pompous nationalists. Their subjective minds would quickly dismiss me. They would seek shelter from a learned person of their religious beliefs, so they can sigh and say see, we are correct after all. ---------------------------------------------------- “This is correct Opeth, many people are afraid that someone will come along and burst their bubble and not just their religious bubble either, but for those of us whom do not fear anymore or anyone, for those of us whom has suffered in sin over and again until the very thought of life became unbearable, we did not find our comfort in words, world views or religions, but in the profoundness of answers found only within our very own being!” Stephanos answered your question: ---------------------------------------------------- Quote: Stephanos My salvation experience with God was not a desire for religion, or self-improvement, I literally could not shake his persistence in my life to show me that he is the Lord. ---------------------------------------------------- “One of the better-said lines I’ve read since this thread started,” this is it! If ever there was a greater reason to believe in anything, it is under this premise, (persistence in my life). And this term, (persistence in my life), is probably more profound than I am giving it right now. If we search the mare reasoning’s as to why one wanders and adventure in any aspect, that (persistence in my life), would probably be the very thing that drives every human being. And yes, even the Bible could be wrong; after all, it was translated, written and re-written by man over a thousand times. Everything little thing that we argue, fuss, lie and die for could be wrong, but one thing that is never wrong is that, persistence in our lives! I believe people that argue for and against a subject like religion are burden with the worlds problems burning deep within the pits of their inner being. The argument is to find satisfaction to the persistence, in order clam that or those nagging questions. I.e., if there is a God, then why is there so much suffering? Could you see God trying to answer each of our petty little questions, why? why?, why?, why?,why? We sound like a little two-year-old that makes our eyes roll up in the back our heads with all the questioning. Excuse me God but you have ten billion, nine hundred and forty seven thousand, six hundred and thirty three questions to answer this morning, LOL. God gave each of us our own heart to feel with, our own mind to think with and our own soul to be accountable for. In return, we’ve given Him hearts of stone, minds that conceive with the seven deadly sins, and souls we care no more about then a piece of trash blowing in the wind. We have seen His works, we have seen His wonders and we have heard His word all around us. Yet, we have eyes and cannot see, we have ears and cannot hear. Not one bad thing in the history of this world can be attributed to God. The reason why there is so much suffering in this world is because of mans greed, and hatred of each other! In fact, every monstrosity committed on the face of this earth, was done so by humans lack of faith in God and love of each other. My persistence drove me to these conclusions. There really isn’t that many categories that mankind fit into when it comes to God. I came up with only three: 1. True believers – The children of the Shepard 2. Fence straddlers - a. I believe, but some things don’t add up - Doubting Thomas b. I don’t know what to believe - Neither hot nor cold c. I don’t believe in God, but I agree with some of the teachings of Christ – Heal Thyself physician 3. The non-believers – The children of the lake of fire These were some of my answers to my own questions. And as you can see, I am not alone in my thoughts. All these things that we argue about today have been argued about before, all throughout history, yet as each human finds their own answer, another finds their question. Each of us has this persistence inside of us, driving us for answers to our questions of life, education, love and anything else. And that persistence could very well be the presence of God Himself in each of us. Over the weekend I was watching a religious show on television. The segment of the show I caught was a sermon on the presence of God, in relationship with Cane going out of the presence of God when he left the Garden of Eden. The pastor went on to explain that Cane was still actually in Gods presence since God is everywhere simultaneously, but that God have left Canes’ spiritual presence. Another sample that he used was Sampson, and how the presence of God was with him when he slew guards with the jawbone of a donkey, but that God had left the presence of Sampson when Delilah was to cut his hair. Now this is where my confusion begins with listening to religious leaders whom would lead nations of people, without knowing in my own heart, my relationship with God. “I do not believe that God leaves anyones presence, but it is us that leave His presence!” If I may expound on my own feelings concerning the presence of God, I would say that it was Cane who left the presence of God and not the other way around. I say this because after cane slew Able, he still could have found redemption with God at God coming to him in the Garden asking him of Able. When Cane lied, he removed himself from Gods presence. If I may expound more of Cane, in whom, and what Cane represent. Cane was the first man born of man and woman, he was the first murderer, he told the first lie and he is the father of many nations that followed in his footsteps. This is the blood that flows through the bloodlines of the children of the lake of fire. Now to show you that God is a forgiving God, God gave us Seth, whom is the father of all those great prophets that God set before us to carry the truth of His word to all the nations. Now Adam and Eve had more children but Seth was the one chosen to father a great nation of prophets, because “he” never left the presence of God. There were other children born in the Garden of Adam and Eve, and those other children could very well represent Sampson. They are the fence straddlers I mentioned. Sampson knew the presence of God but chose to leave God presence in search of his lust for Delilah. So God was not with Sampson on that day or any other day that Sampson was in pursuit his own lustful pleasures. God had plans for Sampson but Sampson chose to chase around a piece of tail. In the end, Sampson had to have his eyes plucked from his head before he could see his way back to God. Hence the expression, it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven blinded, and limbless than to go to hell whole. You see there were Doubting Thomases long before that day when Thomas sought to poke his finger through the hole in Jesus hand. Plus, we seek too much proof of Gods existence from the people who put him to His death. While Job is probably the greatest example of man holding on to the presence of God if you choose to believe it, Noah is probably our greatest example of fence straddling by humans, because all while denying the existence of God some of these noted professors, scientist, make-believers and non-believers alike spend billions of dollars searching for Noah’s Ark for proof. Even with all these unexplainable things right in front of us, we still bring in all these noted professors and scientist to tell us if what’s right in front of our faces believable. And you know what, they won’t give you a straight answer because most of them don’t really know the truth or believe it themselves, and some others are too afraid of staking their reputations on what they believe the truth is. But believe me, there are some that will give it to you straight from the hip in plain everyday English. The bottom line is this, no one can tell you or convince of God existence. If you can’t see it around you in our lakes and land, in our love for each other, or in the eyes of a child, then you probably won’t see it until something drastic happens in your life and there’s no where else to turn just like a lot of us had to experience. Unfortunate for many others, and myself it still might be too late, because some of us have sinned far beyond what Cane ever did! I can expound further into this but I just wanted you to know that I’m always present, LOL. I really enjoyed some of these last few entries, some really good reads here, thanks for sharing them, everyone..... The Napkin Writer [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (11-18-2002 03:32 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Napkin Writer quote: You’re going to have to explain this I’m afraid, it sounds like a scene from dungeons and dragons, I’m a non-believer and I’ve never even seen a lake of fire let alone call myself a child of one. I may be wrong but we children of the lake fire (the name’s growing on me now) seem to be getting the sharp end of a very pointed religious stick here. |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"1. True believers – The children of the Shepard (sic)" "3. The non-believers – The children of the lake of fire" "And yes, even the Bible could be wrong; after all, it was translated, written and re-written by man over a thousand times." So is it a logical, or even a remotely tenable, position to interpret it as literally as you appear to? [This message has been edited by furlong (11-19-2002 06:14 AM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Sorry I don’t do dungeons and dragons, but I can get off on some Madden football. You may be missing the point here. The point is having your own thoughts and beliefs regardless to rather those thoughts and beliefs are shared by many or none. Words are interchangeable. Words have multiple meanings. And, those meanings of words can change from culture to culture, race-to-race, region-to-region, or click-to-click. What words do you find comfort in, in satisfying your own questions your existence. It’s like this, what sense would it make to know all of someone else’s twelve-letter words, or to have read the most profound statements or books of all those who are note worthy, and still not be able to form two paragraphs of your own thoughts and beliefs in regards to God? No my friend, this thing is much deeper than words can express. _____________________________________________ Quote: …we did not find our comfort in words, world views or religions, but in the profoundness of answers found only within our very own being!” _____________________________________________ If you need to interchange the words to fit your beliefs, then by all means change the words. I can guarantee one thing. If you change the words to fit your understanding of what your beliefs are, you can find better understanding of the passages you read. But now, if it isn’t for you to get it, changing the words won’t help much. So please, don’t waste too much of your time playing on words here, there is a much larger picture here to be viewed. In relation to the seven-page thread, and the conversation at hand, most would probably contend that believers and non-believers mean saints and sinners. furlong Yes and no. And remember, perception can be as dangerous as it is good, so be careful. The words lake of fire appears in the Bible in reference hell. But there are other names also used to reference hell. It like saying or knowing how many different names are God called by man, there’s many, right? So again, it’s not the words being used, it’s the understanding you find in the passages. Once you are satisfied that you have understanding in any passage, you start to internalize the passage. The depth, to which these passages achieve within ones being, depends on the commitment one has invested in those passages. The Napkin Writer |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"And yes, even the Bible could be wrong; after all, it was translated, written and re-written by man over a thousand times." The bible is a more verifiable text than any ancient literature around... more manuscripts exist for it than for Homer's Illiad. No one doubts that as being genuine however. And by the way, the "rewritten bible" that you criticize can be compared with the plethora of manuscripts that exist. "The-bible-has-been-so-corrupted-it-is-unreliable" fallacy has to be backed up by more than words. You can say you think the men were lying who wrote it, but you cannot say convincingly that the form we have today does not represent what these men wrote. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I found a link to where Simon Greenleaf's "Testimony of the Evangelists" can be read online, if anyone is interested. http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm Thanks Jim for the recommendation. I haven't read it yet, but plan to. Stephen. |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
Stephen Not sure who you were addressing just then, still, just a couple of comments: “The bible is a more verifiable text than any ancient literature around... more manuscripts exist for it than for Homer's Illiad.” Maybe so, but then Homer’s Illiad isn’t being used, or, more appropriately imo “misused”, to bolster up the pillars of “mainstream” religions (definition complex) to the, admittedly arguable, detriment of a large slice of the population. And two further comments on your points about biblical authenticity: Personally I wouldn’t disagree that the King James version of the bible is about as unpolluted a text as you could expect in the circumstances. By unpolluted I simply mean that the work of the original authors has probably been preserved to the extent that it bears a reasonable resemblance in terms of textual accuracy. This would however not necessarily guarantee a commensurate degree of interpretative accuracy. Furthermore I understand (from a bible scholar friend) that some originating authorships are themselves open to doubt. Additionally of course, although I wasn’t aware that anyone in this thread accused the apostles or any of the other sources of “lying” as you suggest, we are nevertheless all too cognisant these days of the fallibilities of human reportage. These men were presumably the CNN reporters of their day, doing their stuff as they knew it, and no doubt part of the time putting their own spin on events (not lying exactly), and no doubt part of the time getting it wrong unintentionally. My larger reservation however relates to the use to which the “original” material has been put by the subsequent leaders of various religious movements. As you know it was a while before “common man” even had access to the text itself, and when it finally was presented to him, it was done so in such a way that the likes of you and me had very little option as to how we would have viewed scripture. And yes, as you may have guessed imo many so called religious leaders, in the crucial days when manuscript became more freely available and readable, were learned, clever, unscrupulous, greedy, self interested and perfectly capable of presenting raw material in a manner which exclusively served their own ends and which regrettably still shapes the religious outlook of many people who remain befuddled, dazzled, overawed or plainly terrified by historically and humanly distorted doctrines and theologies. I look for example at aspects of the Protestant and Catholic churches of today and pretty much despair. And on Greenleaf’s essay (of which I read about 50%) all I’d say is that it seems to me that in setting out the environment in which the supposedly unbiased analysis was to be performed he betrayed a certain leaning (perhaps inevitable in that century): “It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed” !! F |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Napkin Writer Now I seem to be a child of the lake of fire AND a sinner, and people have always told me I’m such a nice person, oh me of little faith. I’ve always been a firm believer that everybody has a right to his or her own beliefs and as long as those beliefs don’t impinge or disrupt the lives and beliefs of others they can believe whatever they like. I don’t happen to believe in God but I don’t think I’ve got any right to criticise or attempt to belittle anyone who doesn’t share that belief and vice versa. I do however have to admit a slight wariness towards any doctrine that attempts to promote itself as the “right way” or the “one truth” using a subtle form of zealous supremacy to denigrate non-members. Calling non-believers “Children of the lake” and “sinners” seems to me to be one step down the path of the “them and us” ideology that gave us the inquisition and burning at the stake. You don’t even know me yet you claim I’m a sinner because of my belief, I’m fairly sure it’s not a term of endearment so I’d be interested to hear what sins I’ve committed, (dates and times would be useful. ) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think we often make stretchings of knowledge to using things and terms we're simply more fond to think in for that raw reality and nature are too coarse and subject to imperfections for such high intents as trying to platform, compile and declare the origins of realities and natures in a text to try to feed the minds colourful appetites with!! Whose minds can be pleased with just knowledge and reality??? I know mine can't! We go beyond reality and nature to give an extra ghostpower to the operation! This is a beauty of it, A higher way of discourse, which trancends just being feeling or thought, for when most wellwilled, it becomes a higher if not the highest government of those nature and realities. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-20-2002 11:30 AM).] |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
Essorant Reading some of your posts here in 101 I get the feeling that you are groping with an open mind (which is refreshing ) towards “something”. And to my mind you are doing a pretty good job . I was particularly interested to read your assertion in the other thread where you said:“But I truly believe we ourselves and all creatures are divine ..” But you rather lost me when you went on to speculate that: “... there may exist no perfect Gods but we may be the closest shapes to these,” My own understanding is that “god” is strictly a synonym for “perfection”, and many other absolutes. Furthermore I think Stephen was correct to pull you up when you diluted the your hypothetical divinity of all creatures by simultaneously suggesting their partial imperfection. On the face of it there appears to be an irreconcilable illogicality or is there? When Stephen says: “Excuse me, I don't mean to come off abrasive. But I think people should believe in God or not... If you think God is a construct of humanity, then say "I don't believe". Because to me, another construct of humanity is just more of the same ... nothing to deliver us, nothing to give us hope, no insight above what our often muddled reasonings can attain. But if God is really God. .. then there is a sure hope.” he talks about a god with an upper-case “G” and I know that he would probably accept that he is wedded to a particular view of “God”. Not knowing Stephen I am not quite sure exactly what this view is, but it seems likely from what I’ve read that the image is likely to be just that, an “image”, perhaps even a quasi-personification (i.e. attribution of material human qualities). Perhaps I am being simplistic but, although I have the greatest respect for this type of faith and belief, it does seems to me to be verging on doing exactly what Stephen implies we should not do i.e. construct our own gods. Is there not a danger (and I put it no higher than that) that 2000 years of human interpretation of the raw material coupled with a generous overlay of church-specific doctrine might have “created” a “god” who bears little or no resemblance to the divine presence the ancients might have recognised? So can we work toward reconciling that apparent illogicality mentioned above by cutting free from the constructs of “mainstream religions” to think afresh for ourselves (as you appear to be doing Essorant ) and consider intelligently the possibility of a spiritual (and real?) dimension to man, and indeed all life, which reflects the divinity and perfection of a divine presence? The “real” man as perfect and immortal rather than a miserable sinner! Now there’s a thought. F |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Phaedrus The Bible says we all are sinners in the eyes of the Lord and come short of His glory. "All Humans; myself included." _____________________________________________ Quote: Unfortunate for many others, and myself it still might be too late, because some of us have sinned far beyond what Cane ever did! _____________________________________________ So you see I include myself in this. I’m no better than anyone else. I’ve committed crimes against man in the physical sense, and crimes in my mind and heart in the spiritual sense, which is where we sin against God. I’m just now in my life starting to understand things that’s been right in front of my face from the very beginning but chose to ignore. The reason the Sampson story in particular was so interesting when I was listening to that show is that it was my story. These things I talk about today, and that person I would like to be tomorrow, all depends on what I do with the truth from now on. I’m surely no Saint; in fact, my past makes me the worst example of what a saint should be like. The only satisfying factor in my life today is knowing, that I can finally and proudly stand up and say I know the truth, and tell it like I should have been doing a long time ago. The Saints are all dead, there’s nothing left here on this earth but sinners. But, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we can all be Saints one day and live in the glory of God. Stephanos I really don’t have an answer for you but to tell you this, “this may be my last chance to get it right, and I do not and will not trust my salvation in the hands of another human being.” Just a little story; One day in Heaven, at the great judgment of souls, there came two men before Gods’ throne. Man 1 walked through the gates happy and ready for his new life in Heaven, greeting everyone as he went along. Man 2 walked a slow dismal pace, and because of his sins on earth, he tampered with ideals of what to say. Man 1: Good morning Jesus Jesus: Well, I see you have committed many sins Man 1: Yes, but pastor Blake preyed for me, and resolved me of my sins Jesus: Can someone find a pastor Blake for me? Angel: Sorry lord, he’s in hell Man 1: Well I read all the translated text of the King James Bible. Here I have a copy of it here with me Jesus: Can someone tell King James I need to see him? King James: Well Lord, it looks like my translation, but some of the scripture has been changed. You know they did that in his days to fit the ever changing societies. Jesus: And just whom, or who are they? King James: Well it has it listed here; Rev. Tony, Pros. Swanson and Pope Leon Jesus: Find me Rev. Tony, Pros. Swanson and Pope Leon Angel: Sorry lord, their all in hell Man 1: Well my mother died, and she can verify that I was raised a Christian, and… Jesus: Stop! Just go sit over there until I decide what to do with you; next Man 2: Good morning Lord Jesus: Well, I see you have committed many sins Man 2: Yes Lord, and everyday I preyed that you would find it your heart to forgive me Jesus: I left my Word for all mankind that they would know the truth of my forgiveness Man2: I picked up reading the Bible Lord but found that some things were too hard for me to understand Jesus: Why didn’t you find someone to help you translate its meanings? Man2: When I couldn’t translate some of its passages I sought help, but some of the people who were there to help me turned out to be liars, rapist and thieves, and I became discourage of believing mankind Jesus: What did you do then? Man 2: I gave up on religion and sought the answers to my questions in my own heart Jesus: And what did you find? Man 2: That I would carry my sins until the day that I die; and that only you could resolve me of my sins Jesus: Okay, go sit over there until I decide what to do with you; next Which man do you think may have made it into heaven that day, neither, man 1, man 2, or both? It’s just a simple story with a simple question, but the answer can be all to revealing. I’ve seen the passages in Bible change too many times. If you still don’t believe it, go out and look at some of these different variation of these new Bibles that are being massed produced. I’m mean for the life of me; I never thought I would ever see a “condensed Bible” either! They call it the pocket edition. There is even a Bible so small that it can fit in your wallet, if you can’t afford the price of Gods Word in larger text. Now I do agree with you about the foundation of the text and its origin, that, there is no disputing. The Napkin Writer [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (11-20-2002 11:55 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
"These are for you," he said as soon as she opened the door to his hesitant knock. "Flowers?" she asked. "I wanted you to understand how very sorry I am," he answered, nodding. "And?" "And I love you?" She sighed. "I called and left a message on your machine," she said slowly, as if to a child. "I told you what you needed to do for us to make this work." "The tape was old," he explained, shrugging. "Too much static. So, I gave up trying to understand your message and sought the answers in my own heart. Do you like the flowers?" |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"These are for you," he said as soon as she opened the door to his hesitant knock. "Flowers,”she smiled opening her arms. “And Christmas roses ... my favorite!” "I wanted you to understand how very sorry I am about the mix ups," he answered grinning in relief. She pulled wry face. "I called and left a message on your machine," she said. "I thought I explained what you needed to do so that it wouldn’t take a few thousand years for you to show up here.” "The tape was old," he explained, shrugging. "Too much static. So, rather than take a wild leap of faith I picked up the few words I could and thought back to when we first met. Reasoned it out; started over I guess.” She beamed, kissing him lightly on the forehead, “Well you sure got them right, come in for a drink while I put them in water.” |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
furlong, you wrote, "Personally I wouldn’t disagree that the King James version of the bible is about as unpolluted a text as you could expect in the circumstances" Yes, the King James version is very accurate. But there are other translations that are as accurate or moreso. Plus, the archaic language of 17th century English is hard to understand at times. But my point is, there are a great number of translations, all dependable in representing the originals. Interlinear bibles allow us to go and read the Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek, and Aramaic for ourselves. In short, it is not overly difficult to check these things out, so the allegation that the Bible today is diluted and polluted is a farce. "This would however not necessarily guarantee a commensurate degree of interpretative accuracy" I agree. And the only way someone could refute someone elses interpretation is to read the texts for themselves in context. There are some shadowy things in scripture that are difficult to interpret. But I maintain that the central truths of Christianity are clearly and emphatically taught in scripture. For someone to say that everyone has interpreted this stuff wrong would have to be willing to go to the Bible to support their own view. It's not enough to point out that several math equations are wrong based on the rules of math. One must be able to point out why, and demonstrate the right answer. The Bible (remember we are presupposing this text here), says some pretty definite things that cannot be refuted cogently from it's own text. The Lordship of Christ, his death & resurrection, his uniqueness and exclusivity in the realm of redemption, the sin problem of mankind, the return of Christ, the deity of Christ.... etc... If anyone is willing to say that cardinal Christian dogma is misinterpreted, they must show how it is misinterpreted. And they must be well read in the Bible to be convincing. It's not hard to cast doubt on a doctrine by using an isolated scripture here and there. But a good defense of any given interpretation of the Bible, must have the support of many particular scriptures. I agree with you that many have interpreted the Bible wrongly and differently than each other. But this does not necessitate that the Bible doesn't really say anything definite. "I look for example at aspects of the Protestant and Catholic churches of today and pretty much despair." I share your agitation here, but just short of despair. When man's failure can destroy the purpose of God, then I may say it's hopeless. I have a belief that this is part of the glory of God, to allow the distortion of truth in religion to grow to a point where it is beyond man to correct (in practice), and then restore all things by his own power. Remember how Jesus prayed that the Church would be one? I think it will, by the might and power of God alone, not by mere ecumenism. However you can be assured that he has not left us without an embodiment of truth in the Bible, in his Holy Spirit, and in those who have simple faith and trust in Christ. "And on Greenleaf’s essay (of which I read about 50%) all I’d say is that it seems to me that in setting out the environment in which the supposedly unbiased analysis was to be performed he betrayed a certain leaning (perhaps inevitable in that century): 'It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed'" Everyone has presuppositions of somekind. Leanings are unavoidable, but unfair treatment and dishonesty used in addressing the question at hand is not. Greenleaf by necessity was either a believer or an unbeliever when he looked at this. If he were an unbeliever and came to the opposite conclusion, I could not justifiably say that his treatment of the question was slanted without demonstrating how and where it actually was. Assuming an unfair dealing especially in an expert of Law holds no weight with me, until you show me where. Presuppositions do not make us incapable of arriving at truth. If you could bring an honest rebuttal of what Greenleaf is saying, I would be more than willing to listen. However I must read the article first. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-20-2002 02:07 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
furlong, you wrote, "Perhaps I am being simplistic but, although I have the greatest respect for this type of faith and belief, it does seems to me to be verging on doing exactly what Stephen implies we should not do i.e. construct our own gods." This only applies if the God of the Bible is in actuality only legendary. If there is a God independent of humanity, that humanity totally depends upon for their being, and he has revealed himself in the texts of the Bible and in the historical events that are related in it's pages, then logic dictates that this is not humanity constructing a god, but the other way around. What you are doing is asserting that the God of the bible is a human construct. This is simply a declaration of your disbelief. My assertion is diametrically opposed. However logic dictates that one of these is correct and one is not. There is no other possibility. Either God is God, or "God" is made by man. Actually there is only one possibility....that God is God. (smile). But that's begging the question I know. I have my presuppositions here, as do you. They are unavoidable. I rather like to ask which presupposition comports better with intelligible life... the theistic, or the atheistic. "So can we work toward reconciling that apparent illogicality mentioned above by cutting free from the constructs of “mainstream religions” to think afresh for ourselves (as you appear to be doing Essorant ) and consider intelligently the possibility of a spiritual (and real?) dimension to man, and indeed all life, which reflects the divinity and perfection of a divine presence?" So when man gets tired of creating gods, he decides to become one eh? Again, there are only two real possibilites... naturalism or theism. I admit, there are attempted mixtures, but like oil and water, these elements must eventually separate. If you don't believe in God, but are uncomfortable with the nihilism that is imposed there, you can "spiritualize" nature in some way. This can be done in a couple of different ways. 1) We are Gods, 2) Everything is God (pantheism). These are expressed in different modalities, but they are basically naturalistic belief spiritualized. Naturalism has inherent problems, whether you want to despair on account of it, or worship it. It's "Nature" is the same. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-20-2002 02:29 PM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
That's about what I thought I'd get |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The christian god who is all loving and all knowing creates man with a free-will, yet this god creates man knowing that man will succumb to evil because also created evil in order to test man's free-will. Therefore, the christian god created many men for the pleasure of torturing them forever in a lake of fire. He must receive pleasure from this because he also created the lake of fire. To say that he is sad that many millions upon millions of human beings are going to suffer would be ludicrous. Now... back to my last, yet still disproven fallacy, to say that the bible does not teach that jesus died for ALL mankind is to take the entire NT out of context. So far, not one of you have shown the 2 fallacies that I posted can be refuted. The ressurection events about the spices is a biblical mistake and jesus did die for all to be saved, yet that was not nor is possible because one must be born again to be saved. Not one of you have even taken that biblical fact on...yet. So millions have died without knowing the ONLY saviour, the ONLY true god, now their fate is to suffer forever in the lake of fire...laughable. Bible fallacy 3 The Trinity. Before I get into the "nuts and bolts" of this fallacy, I want to ask this question. Two gods in the christian god-head are given names... 1. God the son = jesus 2. God the father = jehovah or elohim What about the holy spirit? 3. God the holy spirit = ? comforter or dove you may say, but that is not a name. Jesus was also called the saviour, messiah, among other descriptions, but his name/title was Jesus. one more question... Also, whom impregnated Mary with the jesus child. Was it god the father or god the holy spirit? It has to matter because if one says either, then jesus could of impregnated his mother with himself, yes? no? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Opeth, I did refute your assertion that the passages on the spices/resurrection contained error, page 6-post 145. I also think that Jim made some excellent points and offered a good suggestion to study the Scriptures in context to be able to correctly interpret them. In that you seem unwilling to consider doing that, you simply appear to have an axe to grind against Christianity and your contention that error exists carries no weight in any serious discussion of the issue. [This message has been edited by Denise (11-20-2002 04:05 PM).] |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
Stephen In the bones of what you say there is a lot I concur with, but I suspect I end up with an entirely different body . More on that at a later date (short of time). I’m sorry I might have appeared to dismiss Greenleaf, I didn’t mean it to sound like that. I was simply trying to make a somewhat wry observation. To put it another way; what he was doing seems to me analogous to the poor clerk to the Supreme Court with 15 dependant children and a wife being asked to give a public assessment of his masters. But then of course that doesn’t make him wrong I guess. “Everything is God (pantheism)” Pantheism has always seemed to me inherently absurd as it effectively proposes the mixing of the spiritual with the material - two entirely opposite “forces”. Try: “everything is a reflection of a divine entity” that would be nearer the mark I think. Btw - the jury in my head is still out on all this and will probably remain so for an indefinite period - unless of course Damascus comes to Dunsinane in the near future And thanks for spending time on your replies Stephen .Are you ok Napkin Writer? F |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Furlong: If you take a quick look at Greenleaf's work again, take note of the preface: his piety followed his investigation ... it did not prompt it. Not that this is necessarily relevant, but I think it is interesting nonetheless. quote: That is what I like to hear. Damascus road experiences are not unheard of, you know. At least, once this thread winds down, you will have an inkling that the faith you adopt will not require a complete escape from reason. Skepticism can be good. It often serves to shield us from error as often as it keep us from accepting the truth. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. BTW ... I agree that pantheism is untenable. Napkin Writer: I appreciate your and, while I think we approach the subject of salvation from different theological perspectives, I think we agree on several points. Namely, that no human being is deserving of grace on his or her merits alone and, against a standard of perfect goodness, all human beings fall short. Even if we only commit the smallest of sins during our lifetime. Opeth: I will try to address your alleged fallacies tomorrow. Addressing the problem of evil, the doctrine of the Trinity will take a little time. I will make sure I eat a good breakfast. As for the Holy Spirit, I think the answer to your objections is quite simple. The Holy Spirit has been regarded as "the shy sovereign". His role is to direct believers to the Son, the "clothed God", who is the mediator between man and the Father. He is assigned by Scripture the same divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence as the Father and Son, but serves a specific purpose ... which does not include drawing attention to Himself ... hence, the lack of a "name" as you point out. The "names" of God make for an interesting study, but are not of primary relevance. Translated from the Hebrew, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah) simply means "I am". "Jesus" or "Yeshua" means "YHWH saves". "YHWH" was the name revealed to Moses, by the way. I'm willing to continue answering your questions and objections as long as you are still interested in hearing them. I am interested in your response to my previous rebuttal, by the way. Jim |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
I’m fine, thanks for asking I just had to step back and take another look, then I stopped and laughed for a while. It does sound like a double-edged sword type of question, but the question was a serious question. I’ve weighted all four scenarios and found that my heart was heavy with any one I took, except one. When I condemned one and not the other, it made me look at things from a perspective that sounds horrible. When I let neither man in, I thought why even go through the whole sin, lake of fire, Heaven and hell and forgiveness thing? So I really do understand why some people choose not to believe. I don’t think it’s a relevant excuse not to believe in God, but I understand it. Then I thought that since no man knows Gods ultimate purpose for us in the end, we’ll just have to wait and see on that one. Anyway, man 2 saw his sins and tried to do something about them. And, couldn’t help but feel pity for man 1 because he believed and trusted the people who had taught him what he believed to be the truth. They both tried the only way they knew to come to God for forgiveness, and whether those teachers or passages was screwed up was not their fault. I found that in each case each man did his best to find his way to the Lord. So, my choice was to forgive them and let them both in! That’s what I think a just and forgiving God would do, but that’s only my opinion. On a personal note, “I started to take serious measure of Philosophy and thought, there must be two kinds of Philosophers, the ones that uses other people quotes, and the ones that write their own.” And by the way, I’m a man, so if you give me flowers, "DUCK!" The Napkin Writer Jim [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (11-20-2002 11:06 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim & Opeth, I think I addressed at least some aspect of the "problem of evil" on page 5 post 598... though I was dealing with "rebellion", it is closely linked and the direct origin of evil. Some of the same principles apply. Hope this is helpful. Let me add, that the understanding that God created evil is not quite accurate. Evil is the result of a turning from God, a moving away from his central position. In the same way coldness is merely a lack of any heat. Move away from the sun in space and temperature and light decreases. Evil is the necessary result of moving away from the will of God, who alone is the source of all goodness, virtue and life. Evil is not a positive thing that can even be "created", it is always a perversion of what is good. Evil has no originals to offer, only bad copies. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Let's see...God created the angels, yes. God, therefore created Lucifer, yes. Lucifer became satan, yes. Therefore, God, whom is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, must of known that the final result of his creation of Lucifer would be satan = evil. Therefore, God knew good and well, that he was creating evil. God created evil. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I'm willing to continue answering your questions and objections as long as you are still interested in hearing them. I am interested in your response to my previous rebuttal, by the way." ~ I believed I replied to that rebuttal, Jim. If not, rephrase or point to me which rebuttal you are talking about. Overall, I thought that maybe I would have received new and refreshing rebuttals from what I have posted so far, but instead, every counterpoint that I have received so far, I have already heard by many others. This may be one reason why I seem so unwilling to listen. Each of your rebuttals I have already heard and have taken time to review before I eventually dismissed them for what they were = subjective biased reasoning from people who refuse to change their views on Christianity. I am not saying that, in itself is wrong, but only expected. Again, why should one become a piriah in his or her families and communities when one can reason away logic, facts and common sense? [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-21-2002 07:19 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Opeth, even if that were possible, why would someone want to reason away logic, facts and common sense? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
So many studies have been conducted regarding your question, Denise. One example was a study in which the controlled group were to purposely select the wrong line in a line matching test, even though it was obvious to tell which two lines were of equal length. Now there was more to this experiment, but in a nutshell, over 50% of the experimental group picked the same wrong line in order to fit in with the group. And even after being shown that this line was not the same length by one of those conducting the experiment, over 35% of the experimental group still believed in their minds that the wrong line was the correct answer, their minds influenced by wanting to be a part of the majority (controlled group). I may have not explained this experiment well, but I believe you get the jist of it. If it were that easy for people to believe in an untruth regarding a simple line matching experiment, how much more can one be swayed to believe in a particular religion/god? Your question has been answered. Indeed, it was difficult for me at first. I read these fallacies, heard the counterarguments, and even though I still wanted to believe in my religion, with an open mind, and without fear of becoming a piriah in my community, I could not ignore the common sense and logic of my findings. I chose the correct line, even though I have been told by the majority that the wrong line is indeed the match. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-21-2002 10:25 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, Your beef with God is that he "created" evil. First off, you are presupposing enough of the Christian worldview to admit evil exists ... at least to be able to argue against the veracity of God from that point, right? Well, the Christian concept of "evil" is that of a perversion. Remember the Genesis account? Everything God made was followed by the epithet "very good". So Christianity presupposes that God created everything good. Now we know that everything is not good in reality. So I admit we have a problem. The simplistic answer is that God must have created things bad, or evil. But it is not necessary to say so. He could have created good things with an inherent quality that would render them spoiled under certain conditions. What are these conditions? Well they are relational in nature. They are like spatial relationships, only spiritual rather than physical. Things retain their "goodness" only in proper relationship to their Creator. Autonomous and severed from him, they become "evil". So your real problem with God is that he created us with an inherent dependence upon himself, and designed the nature of things in such a way, that if we willfully turn from him evil ensues. This is not creating evil. It is creating us, or angels, or whatever, with the potential to become evil and cause evil. It is also creating physical things with the potential to be spoiled. I'm just trying to clarify here. Because I think your insistence that God created evil, is a blame thing for you. You are not arguing from metaphysics, logic, or even how God created, but from ethics. You are saying that ethically God was wrong to create, if he knew beforehand his creatures would choose the wrong way. You seem angry that there is evil and want to blame it on God. But what I am trying to show you and others is that this is not logically necessary. Yours is an emotional reaction and not a purely logical one. I sympathize with this, because I too am disgusted with the existence of evil. Who likes it? Who likes pain? Now presupposing all of this as you are... the Christian concept of evil. (Naturalism cannot say evil really exists, BTW). You are opening yourself to consider at least the cardinal Christian explanations of the problem of evil. I am not real familiar with the formal arguments. But I can think of some things myself to answer the problem of evil. 1) God created, knowing that evil would ensue from the fall, but chose to do so anyway... But the glory he has promised through redemption is to be greater than that of an unfallen creation. In short, he saw the triumph as well worth the tragedy. 2) God can use evil for good, and takes opportunity to demonstrate his ultimate mastery over "evil" even in the lives of people. One example is how a person facing great pain, can emerge with improved character and graces. The world is full of books that describe such... by believers and unbelievers alike. Other examples include, how the death of Christ (the ultimate tragedy it seems) was turned to our very salvation, or how the Jewish rejection of the Gospel was turned into the opportunity for salvation for the Gentiles. 3) God has a purpose in showing his wrath against evil and sin. One reason that I can think of right off hand, is to turn people away from sin and the pain it causes. Another is to demonstrate that he is a God of Justice as well as mercy... which is something people too soon forget. 4) God uses evil in the world to demonstrate his great love for us. The very fact that mankind (and creation along with them) fell, gave God opportunity to demonstrate his awesome love for us through the incarnation. Think about it. As evil as the world became, God was willing to suffer in the person of Christ right along with us. God can hardly be blamed, seeing he was willing to suffer the consequences of evil that he did not himself cause. These are just a few ideas. But if you are going to argue logically from the problem of evil (as defined by the Christian concept) then these presuppositions must be kept in mind... 1) God created all things good. But this goodness was and is conditional. 2) Evil in Christian Theology is not a positive entity, only a perversion of what was originally good. Evil has no original building blocks to work with. It represents usurped power and giftings used contrary to the nature of God. 3) Christ innocently suffered the evil of this world in a superlative degree. 4) God's promise is restoration beyond a status quo of pre-fallen creation. These things must be taken into account when using your logic. If you don't, for example, accept the Christian concept of evil, then you must present your own and describe why it is more reflective of true "evil". Or if you are a naturalist as you claim, you must show how evil can really exist in a naturalistic universe. Unless you do this you will have to argue and reason from the revelatory knowledge that the Judeo-Christian heritage provides. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-21-2002 07:11 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Your beef with God is that he "created" evil." ~ No, you are missing my point. I don't believe in god, so I can't have a "beef" with him. I am merely demonstrating one of the many glaring inconsistencies in christianity. "First off, you are presupposing enough of the Christian worldview to admit evil exists" ~ No, I don't believe that evil exists. I am arguing the point of a belief that evil exists along with the belief of an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving christian god. "Well, the Christian concept of "evil" is that of a perversion. Remember the Genesis account?" ~ Yes, I do. god created the heaven and earth in 6 days, then he created his day, the 7th day, the sabbath, and he put two naked teenagers into a garden, and having created sex, because god did create sex having created man and woman, expected them to live without sin...even though he gave them both a free-will to boot and allowed satan to tempt them. Of course, seeing each other's naked bodies and being sexual in nature they decided to romp, but hey, teens will be teens, especially when they don't have parents to provide them with any moral guidance...well, these two teens did have a snake to give them direction. Btw...the Adam and Eve story is another biblical fallacy. There was never just two people on this entire earth. "Everything God made was followed by the epithet "very good". So Christianity presupposes that God created everything good." ~ Okay. So far, so good. "Now we know that everything is not good in reality. So I admit we have a problem." ~ For sure. "The simplistic answer is that God must have created things bad, or evil. But it is not necessary to say so. He could have created good things with an inherent quality that would render them spoiled under certain conditions." ~ True, but he must of knew that these things would indeed spoil, yet he allowed them to. Therefore, he created things evil. Example: If I created a Frankenstein, and although this Franky was created with good intentions, and Franky was good, at first, but if I knew prior to creating Franky, that he would wreak havoc on the masses, and created him anyway, I am guilty of created an evil Frankenstein monster. "Because I think your insistence that God created evil, is a blame thing for you." ~ The christian god created evil. He knew that people would turn away from him and then he also knew that satan would turn away from him, yet he created people and satan anyway. It is illogical and completely irrational to suggest otherwise. How simple can this be. From the top... 1. God knows all. God is all powerful. 2. God created angels and humans. 3. God knew they would turn away from him before he created them. he knew evil would be brought into his universe by creating angels and humans, yet he created them anyway. 4. Therefore god created evil. "Yours is an emotional reaction and not a purely logical one." ~ I couldn't be more logical in my ascertations. "I sympathize with this, because I too am disgusted with the existence of evil. Who likes it? Who likes pain?" ~ I don't believe in evil. It is an illogical concept. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-22-2002 08:34 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"...whom impregnated Mary with the jesus child. Was it god the father or god the holy spirit? It has to matter because if one says either, then jesus could of impregnated his mother with himself, yes? no?" Any logical explanations out there? What does the bible say? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: So, if when you were a child, your father bought you a chemistry set, and you grew up to be a maker of illegal drugs, would that make your father a narcotics manufacturer? Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (11-22-2002 03:23 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"So, if when you were a child, your father bought you a chemistry set, and you grew up to be a maker of illegal drugs, would that make you a narcotics manufacturer?" ~ For an analogy to be successful, each player in the analogy has to have a direct representation to the question/argument at hand. So, with that being said, before I answer your question, explain to me the following... Who does the father, son, the chemistry set, which includes the act of giving, illegal drugs, drug manufacturer, and "you," all represent in our discussion/argument? [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-22-2002 12:44 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
So, if God is an actual Trinity: 3 Godheads equaling one God. All the same, yet all distinctively different (a mystery): 1. Which Godhead impregnated Mary? 2. Why is the Holy Spirit without name? 3. Why in the oldest ancient scrolls found, a certain verse in the bible was absent, yet this verse found its way into the bible during the middle ages and was later to be an embarassment to the Christian community. And this verse is, "...and these three are one." 4. Why in the beginning of the Gospel of John, only 2 Godheads are mentioned. "The Word (Jesus) was with God (The Father) and the Word was God (Jesus and the Father are one)." If the Holy Spirit is indeed an equal or even more-deserving Godhead, how come He is not mentioned in this passage? 5. How come in all of these passages, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, which one would logically and common sensically include if the HS was indeed a part of a Trinity Rom 8:17, ICor 11:3, Eph 5:5, Rev 7:10. 6. Col 3:1, Christ is with God, but where is the Holy Spirit? After reading and studying the bible with an open-mind, I came to the conclusion that the Trinity is bogus. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-22-2002 01:03 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: 1. Father = God 2. Child/You = Mankind 3. Chemistry Set = Instrumentality (i.e., "Free-will") 4. Illegal Drugs = Use of chemistry knowledge to create something harmful and illegal Analogies are imperfect arguments, I know. But what you are suggesting is that God is responsible for secondary causes. There ... I explained it. Now maybe you'll consider explaining your hermeneutic processes in the biblical verses you misinterpreted earlier? Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
1. Father = God 2. Child/You = Mankind 3. Chemistry Set = Instrumentality (i.e., "Free-will") 4. Illegal Drugs = Use of chemistry knowledge to create something harmful and illegal ~ However, your analogy still doesn't work. Important elemets are misssing. 1. After the illegal drugs are created, they become a separate entity, much like the father? This entity then is allowed to by the father to sway the child into creating more drugs? or 2. Did god create the angels and these angels were in the same room with the child and the angels rebelled, not the child's fault, eh? And Satan the leader of the rebelled angels taunted and twisted truths around to confuse the lad and his chemistry set, of which he then created the drugs, where was the father when this child never heard the father's name or knew how to be saved, or was visited by the father's other children who confused the child even more, and lied to him, because Satan was behind it all, this satan, whom god knew would come into being, yet allowed him to exist and confuse the boy. Now the father is going to take away the child's chemistry set and hang is ass over some hot fiery coals forever, just because the poor child did not understand and was duped by demons created by the father. Completely preposterous. But let me answer your q... "So, if when you were a child, your father bought you a chemistry set, and you grew up to be a maker of illegal drugs, would that make you a narcotics manufacturer? Yes, it does. Because being an all-knowing father, I would of known that when I created the child giving him free-will, that I also created angels, of which evil was derived, separate from the child and his free-will, yes? Of course. Therefore, I should either not created the angels or not created the child or not have given the child free will, if I were not be blamed for the illegal drugs created by the child, unless I did not blame the child for what he has done. "God is responsible for secondary causes." ~ Read my above reply. Your god knew good and well that the angels would rebel and evil would then be created. That is not a secondary cause, period. "There ... I explained it." ~ Like the Hertz commercial, "not exactly." "Now maybe you'll consider explaining your hermeneutic processes in the biblical verses you misinterpreted earlier?" ~ What is there to explain. Be more specific. At least answer the first question, of which I have now asked 3 times and still have not received one valid and logical explanation. Who impregnated Mary, Jesus? [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-22-2002 01:41 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- The idea of evil is probably my biggest problem with organized religions. It's a pretty universal theme throughout religions- necessarily splitting actions into two factions: good and evil. I find this is ridiculous. From my point of view (I know, I know, we're head-to-head here) that human beings will always act in a way that most benefits them, evil isn't an option. Or, to clarify, willful evil isn't an option. Evil does not have positive connotations, any way you put it. Nobody wants to be evil. When people do something, anything, they believe they are doing the right thing, or, at the very least, the least wrong thing. I don't believe that fundamentalist, militant Muslims who suicide bomb populated places are evil. They believe that, by the (to us) twisted application of their religious texts, they are doing something righteous. Of course, one can always offer the 'wide is the road to destruction' argument... I think that one major example of people who on this road to destruction, to apply Biblical connotations to real life, are those who call other people evil. You know, my dad can't stand anybody who even looks Arabic. He seems to think they naturally gravitate toward 'evil.' In fact, he flipped out when I told him I talked to someone from Israel through e-mail. That's how dangerous he thinks it is... and a lot of people are like this. In fact, just after 9/11, at Thanksgiving, my family was having a pretty heated Osama Bin Laden-bashing session. Finally, disgusted, I spoke up and said that he wasn't evil. After hearing my defense, they looked at me like I was somehow "with" him, like I supported the attacks or something... My point is that some people adopt the fundamentalist "good" vs. "evil" tripe (or, as G.W. puts it, if you're not with us, you're against us) that if I even dare to step outside their standard moral highground, I attain enemy status. They distrust me for extending understanding and mercy to another human being. How much more can you misconstrue Jesus' message than that? Because regardless of the pain and suffering his plots have caused- Osama Bin Laden is an underdog in the U.S. And didn't Jesus specifically teach reaching out to the marginalized? To heal those who are in need of a physician, not those who are okay as it is? I mean, I think that if, instead of trying o smash this "evil" under our American big stick, we tried to understand and remedy it, we'd be far better off, and much less reviled worldwide. My defense to the concept of evil is this: Recognizing universally "evil" and "good" acts makes it pretty easy to label someone "evil" or "good" by their actions alone. This type of literal legalism leads to people discriminating on the basis of good and evil. A certain group becomes associated with evil, and there you go. They aren't people, they're terrorists. German soldiers, weren't people, they were Krauts. Speaking of Germans makes me think of All Quiet on the Western Front. This book exemplifies the point I am trying to make much better than I ever could. The protagonist, Paul(?) finds himself stuck in a crater out in no-man's land (WWI trench warfare) with a French soldier he has fatally injured. Language barrier aside, he finds himself touched (and terrified) by the humanity of the 'enemy.' He realizes that he has mortally injured a man, not just a (disdainful tone) Frenchman. The enemy is no less human, no more evil, than we, ourselves are. I am convinced that "evil", much like "insane", is a term that we use as a comfort device. It tells me that I could never be so "evil" as to take another human being's life. But we justify it too- because our military is out there killing people so as to defeat Bush's (Anybody else notice the World War lingo?) Axis of Evil. I guess I just went on a rant that's as political as it is religious- but when a simplistic right-winger is heading the oval office and "putting America to sleep with warm milk and cliches" (Ani DiFranco) of finding all "evil" that threatens our "good" American imperialistic tradition of stomping all over the globe like we own the entire thing... well, I guess then I see the idea of evil as far more dangerous than the actual "evil" itself- because we can use it to justify any atrocity, any new McCarthyism masquerading around as a "Patriot Act." Rant winding down... I know I haven't made an entirely (or even mostly?) convincing argument against the reality of evil... because I can't answer the question "Why is there suffering in the world?" any more satisfactorily. I just find that the concept runs counter to my common sense perception of reality, and that it seems to be at the root of just as much wrongdoing as it tries to condemn. BTW- I think the absence of God argument is... unsettling. Not because I think I am evil, for my lack of God in my life- but do other people? I'm not one for worrying too much what other people think about me- but that's a troubling thought. thanks for the provocation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, "Yes, I do. god created the heaven and earth in 6 days, then he created his day, the 7th day, the sabbath, and he put two naked teenagers into a garden, and having created sex, because god did create sex having created man and woman, expected them to live without sin...even though he gave them both a free-will to boot and allowed satan to tempt them. Of course, seeing each other's naked bodies and being sexual in nature they decided to romp, but hey, teens will be teens, especially when they don't have parents to provide them with any moral guidance...well, these two teens did have a snake to give them direction." Is this really what you think the Genesis account states? When did you read it last? I truly suggest that you go back and revisit this. Your suggestion that God forbade Adam and Eve to have sex is not even hinted at in the text! Genesis 1:28 relates that "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be Fruitful and multiply'" This was before they took the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was forbidden. Your belief that the 'fruit' represented sexual pleasure is simply wrong if you read the text. Perhaps you are assuming that because they realized that they were naked after they ate, that this must mean the sin was sexual. Biblically and traditionally this was a graphic picture of shame. Before they ate they were naked too, but "not ashamed" (Gen 2:25). Their sin was rebellion against God by eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had forbidden this, and the serpent lied and said that they would "be like God" if they took autonomy and ate. Their rebellion was the same as Lucifer's, in making themselves out to be "Gods". God created sex as a good gift to humanity. Were you seriously entertaining this as an interpretation of Genesis, or just mocking? "he must of knew that these things would indeed spoil, yet he allowed them to. Therefore, he created things evil." No, Jim's right here also. This merely means he created things with the capacity to become evil. You are insisting that this evil, in the sense of blame, connects back to the maker of what became evil. Only if God were directly the cause of created things becoming evil, can he be said to have "created evil". What makes it more fallacious is the understanding that evil is merely a moving away from the perfect standard of what is good. It's like blaming drinking glasses for spills, when in actuality a spill is defined by that which did not remain in the glass. The glass which is actually anti-spillish (neat word eh?) in nature, is blamed for spills. God who is anti-evil in nature is blamed for it's existence. Logically this is fallacious. An atheist whose argumentation is much better developed, Michael Martin, admits that "The Problem of Evil" is not a logical problem. For if God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then it is not contradictory to his nature of goodness. I'll let you counter his argument first... In the final analysis, I maintain that "The problem of evil" is actually proof for God. Without an unmoving standard of what is evil or not, atrocities and the like can only be judged from the tribunal of human preference. To explain that things are evil merely because they cause displeasure, is to make them too subjective and arbitrary. The very fact that atheists admit that evil is a "problem" of universal scope, requires the standard of good and evil that is only found in a personal God. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-23-2002 01:02 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, in your view of things, why do people feel remorse and guilt. Is guilt pathological, or a proper emotion at times? And what of the testimony of countless who do wrong things... "I Knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway". . . "I went against my better judgement". Does this not suggest a kind of knowledge of good and evil? You would have to counter a person's own testimony to support your view. Your assertion is that a person cannot wilfully violate his or her own moral knowledge. I have a testimony myself that counters your view. I have done wrong things with full knowledge that they were wrong. How can we keep the cruelest acts from being justified, with such an amoral view? Stephen. (here we go again?.... )[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-23-2002 12:36 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, My previous response was off the cuff, and we've already covered most of that some time before. I wanted to say something new here perhaps to get it flowing from a different direction. "They distrust me for extending understanding and mercy to another human being. How much more can you misconstrue Jesus' message than that? Because regardless of the pain and suffering his plots have caused- Osama Bin Laden is an underdog in the U.S. And didn't Jesus specifically teach reaching out to the marginalized? To heal those who are in need of a physician, not those who are okay as it is? I mean, I think that if, instead of trying o smash this "evil" under our American big stick, we tried to understand and remedy it, we'd be far better off, and much less reviled worldwide." I share so much of your viewpoint here that you would be surprised if you only knew. People bashing someone else because they percieve them as evil disturbs me, especially when Jesus said things like "Pray for your enemies". How many Americans are praying for Bin Laden, or the nation of Islam, or Arabs? Even churches get into this nationalistic "Jesus" sometimes. But I don't run into even many professed followers of Christ who pray for the enemies of the U.S. This is what you would picture Jesus actually doing though isn't it? I'm saying that you are absolutely right... The only point of difference I have here is that I would actually call evil deeds evil. I don't think this necessitates hatred at all. Most people can't separate seeing evil, and hating those who do it. Jesus was able to separate these two. The woman caught in adultry? All of the religious wanted to stone her according to Mosaic law. Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", and they all left at his gaze. But interestingly he didn't just wipe her tears and say "there, there". He said rather, "Go and sin no more". In all the compassion and mercy, there was still a calling of evil evil. This is where I believe it is the best to stand... the most misunderstood place to stand. Those like you run the risk of misunderstanding my recognition of sin as self-righteousness, while those who are self righteous may misunderstand my compassion as compromise. So be it. I think this is where Jesus stands. It is where, by the grace of God, I will try to stand... always loving truth, always loving people. How often I still fail. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-23-2002 12:56 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, is this the longest thread in PIP yet?  Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Of course you agree with Jim. I wouldn't expect anything different. It would be illogical for me to expect you two not to agree. With the garden of eden story of mine. My intention was to show that when two "green" teens are together, alone with a snake, and the snake is much more wiser, it seems only natural to me, that these two would partake in the forbidden fruit. What else would god of expected? He must of known they would of sinned? So, why put the snake in the garden in the first place? Because of their free will? That defense is full of holes. For free-will to exist is not predicated on the existence of evil. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Stephan, quote: Guilt is based upon historical knowledge and falls into the category of hindsight “I went against my better judgement,” is a statement looking back on a decision with the benefit of additional knowledge made at a later date with time to reflect. People do not consciously decide to do something that they believe is anything other than the best choice given the situation and time allowed. A little scenario might explain what I mean: At 10:55 I give you all the information about the strengths and weaknesses of two horses about to run in a race, the 11:00 at Sometown, based upon that information you decide to bet on horse A. If I ask you at that time if you want to change your mind and you say no then I have to conclude that you believe that to be the correct choice. If you change your mind and select horse B instead my conclusion must be that you believe that to be the correct choice. The object after all is to select the winning horse, attempting to select anything other than the winning horse isn’t an option. Let’s say you choose horse A and bet on it but horse B romps home two lengths clear, you study the form of the two horses for an hour and confidently assert “ I knew it was wrong but I did it anyway,” or “I went against my better judgement,” sound familiar? If that isn’t convincing try this: Your friend has been bitten by a snake, you aren’t sure but you think the snake is poisonous and your friend will die unless he gets to the hospital for an injection of anti-venom within 15 minutes. Luckily you have your car nearby and know it only takes you 10 minutes to get from where you are to the hospital. On the way you get stuck at some roadworks, you think you can still make it but decide to jump the temporary lights just to be sure. Unfortunately you hit a car coming the other way, in court you plead guilty to reckless driving claiming “ I knew it was wrong but I did it anyway.” Or “I went against my better judgement,” but when you jumped the light did you think it was the right thing to do at the time based upon the evidence you had? Btw, the snake that bit your friend was not poisonous and no one was injured in the car accident or the construction of this scenario. [This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-23-2002 01:29 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- In regards to your first post: I said 'human beings will always act in a way that most benefits them, evil isn't an option. Or, to clarify, willful evil isn't an option. Evil does not have positive connotations, any way you put it. Nobody wants to be evil. When people do something, anything, they believe they are doing the right thing, or, at the very least, the least wrong thing.' What most benefits a person is self-interest. In my opinion, self-interest dictates morality. Some people's idea of self-interest encompasses more universal ideals; conversely some people have more concern for their own comfort. Either way, acting in a way that most benefits yourself interracts directly with one's morality. For example, the rich white business owner, morally, believes that poor people need to get off their asses and work. That's how he got to where he is, after all- work ethic! Because their morals collide with his, he can feel justified in calling their perceived laziness evil. Do you think his morality has anything to do with his lifestyle? At the same time, the people he employs, in, say, Malaysia, make less than a dollar a day assembling his products. From their point of view, he is greedy and doesn't care that he is exploiting them, and they trash the factory. From their point of view, it is evil for him to live in a 30-room mansion while they live in hovels without utilities, and this is the only means they have of calling attention to their situation. Do their lifestyles have anything to do with their morality? Both parties feel justifiedin their actions. Who's evil? There's an Ani DiFranco song, and a line from it that I've been thinking about for the longest time: "Those who call the shots are never in the line of fire..." The rich man doesn't have to live in a hovel in Malaysia- he doesn't have to deal with starving every night because he cut already scant wages. He cannot understand their plight. Similarly, the workers in malaysia can't understand the man's reaction to the destruction of his equipment. His rage and indignation are so completely different than their own that it becomes meaningless. They don't care about his pain, nor he about theirs. After all, both parties just got what was coming to them, right? It's all about feeling justified. Feeling justified is all about living out your morals. If you aren't living out your morals, you eventually change your lifestyle, or your morals. We naturally seek this reconciliation. If we can't have this unity in morals and action, we cease to function properly as humans. I say this, with no hesitation or "I think" antecedents, because it is something I know from personal experience. Now, okay, let's say the rich guy is my father and I inheret his business. I think what he was doing is wrong, and I want to raise their rates. However, raising their rates will eventually cut into profits to the point that I either have to give my American distributors a paycut (and lose business) or eventually, my business will fail, and not only will I be screwed, but the Malaysian and American workers will all be out of jobs. So much for my altruism, huh? But this is really oversimplified. Let's say I can manage to pay the Malaysians American wages, so long as I give all my executive workers (myself included) a ten-percent salary cut. My vice president tells me if I do, he's going to have my husband and kids killed. He's rich, he can afford good lawyers, he'll be found innocent. I have no way to report this to the police, because I ahve no proof that he said it, but I really believe he's serious. Which decision is right? Bad question- because there is no right decision in this case- only less wrong. I know that allowing my vice president to bully me, and allowing my Malaysion workers to starve, is terribly wrong. However, I can safely say the same about my family being butchered for some man's greed. It boils down to what is most beneficial for me- what is in my best self-interest? I'd opt for saving my family from impending danger. I'm not willfully exploiting them- however, circumstances, in my case, dictate that that is the best option available to me. But the Malaysian workers don't know this- they only think I am as evil as my father. [This message has been edited by hush (11-23-2002 02:16 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Phaedrus, I see a crack in your reasoning here you will have to explain for me to follow you. You wrote, "Guilt is based upon historical knowledge and falls into the category of hindsight" What about simultaneous guilt? I myself have sinned while knowing it was wrong and experienced guilt simultaneous with the execution of the wrong action. Doesn't your assertion fall apart if simultaneous guilt is present? After all, this guilt reveals a knowledge of sorts that the action is a wrong choice. I've even felt guilt before I've done something immoral, from the moment I knew that I was going to do it! The only way you can salvage your theory in my opinion would be to reassess your ideas about guilt. You would almost have to say that guilt is invalid, or does not represent true knowledge. But the acceptance of guilt as representing a genuine knowledge of wrong choice seems to me much more solid and grounded than your theory that wrong choices cannot be consciously made. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, " My intention was to show that when two "green" teens are together, alone with a snake, and the snake is much more wiser, it seems only natural to me, that these two would partake in the forbidden fruit. What else would god of expected?" I think perhaps God, seeing that they were under the counsel of himself and the serpent, expected (in the sense of required) obedience. I don't think it was evident that the serpent was wiser than God who created everything! Was it unreasonable for God to require obedience, seeing he was not silent in counseling them about life in the garden? They clearly had a choice between two different paths. You seem to suggest that they had only one real choice. Not so. Now, while I chose "required" as a more proper meaning for "expected" in my previous point, you are right to say that God expected (in the sense of predicted) Adam & Eve to take the forbidden fruit. He knew it. He knew they would greedily munch before he created them. He is omniscient. He chose to create anyway. He chose not to forgo their very priviledge to live, just because they would fail. This is mercy, not cruelty. What if your parents had somehow known you would set the living room curtains on fire at age 4, and so had chosen to use rigorous birth control to avoid the flames? No Opeth ... no burning drapes! I know you can pick apart the problems with that question if you want, but it was merely to make you think. Admittedly, this kind of scenario is impossible with human parents, but not with an all-knowing God. Here also is a point where God's sovereignty comes in. So seeing all the mess, he chose to do it anyway. They chose evil. He chose life anyway. The problem of evil is not a problem at all with God, if he has a sufficient and merciful reason (revealed or not) for allowing evil to exist. Which the Bible strongly relates that he does. You cannot point to any logical fallacy here. You can only say that as to the Christian worldview, you don't like God's choice. Yet even so, you are enjoying your status as an "I", or an individual person, in order to say that very thing. You must actually use the faculties that God gave you in life in order to say he shouldn't have given life. Regardless of the trouble of evil (as bad as it is, I'm not making light of it), I am glad to be alive. Are you? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2002 01:33 AM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Stephan, Guilt is only applicable and ascribable after the event, in this respect it is similar to remorse, both are reliant on the event having already taken place. I’d suggest that you didn’t feel guilt before the act, you imagined or projected the guilt that you might feel after committing the act based upon reasoning, in this sense I readily agree, guilt, or imagined guilt, does play a part in the decision making process. However, irrespective of the process undertaken to reach a particular decision I still maintain that a person cannot reach a decision that is anything other than the right one for that person at that time. Humans are fallible, sometimes they make bad choices and end up doing things that are obviously wrong. You say they know what is wrong but do it anyway, this presupposes that sometimes they are in possession of a better answer, one that is obviously more correct but make a conscious decision to ignore it. Strange as it may seem I completely agree, the friend of the snakebite victim was in possession of a better answer, he could have stayed and waited for the lights to change but he didn’t. He made a conscious decision to ignore one choice in favour of another, once the decision was made he acted upon the choice that he perceived to be the right one at the time. The one he perceived to be the wrong one for him at that time he abandoned and did not act upon, given this how can you reason that the decision that that person made was anything other than the right one for that person at that time. Regardless of how wrong it may seem to you, me or even him at another point in time was his decision the right one? This may seem an argument in favour of free will, it isn’t, in fact it’s possibly a very strong argument against it. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"...This is mercy, not cruelty. What if your parents had somehow known you would set the living room curtains on fire at age 4, and so had chosen to use rigorous birth control to avoid the flames? No Opeth ... no burning drapes!" ~ This analogy is completely inappropriate for the subject matter. It just plain doesn't work. But I will answer your analogy this way... If I created a son and I knew he was to burn those drapes, would I, me, Opeth, still create him anyway? Yes. However, I wouldn't want him to worship me every day in hopes of eternal life. I wouldn't hang him upside down in a burning closet forever because of his actions. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, It was an analogy intended to compare God's decision with an Earthly decision. Analogies can never be comprehensive. They are imperfect. I just used that one to illustrate a point... that God's desire for us to live (benevolence) was his motivating factor in creating us, even with the knowledge of a fall... Remember, Hell, is not the only outcome here. Remember, Christianity teaches that Hell is one's own perverse choice as well. I see no reason why God is to be blamed for evil he did not do. However he was willing to take the punishment in the person of Jesus Christ. Weigh all these things together, and your accusation of injustice (actually hyper-justice) with God doesn't stand. He was more than just, he was merciful beyond what we deserve. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-24-2002 08:42 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, "It was an analogy intended to compare God's decision with an Earthly decision. Analogies can never be comprehensive. They are imperfect." ~ I disagree with you. Their are effective analogies and then there are ineffective analogies. Your analogy was not only ineffective, but not even close to the issue at hand: God, creation, evil, and an eternal fate in the lake of fire. "...Remember, Hell, is not the only outcome here." ~ According to Christianity, if one is not born again, one is destined for the lake of fire. Many of those who died as a non-christian are at fault? For what? For accepting another religion, that in their minds is the true religon? Who's fault is that, their own? "Remember, Christianity teaches that Hell is one's own perverse choice as well." ~ Your reasoning is clouded with subjectivism and bias of your worldview. An American Indian is taught by some evangelist to accept Christ as his saviour, and to become born again in order to be saved, but this particular Indian doesn't trust this white evangelist. He can't comprehend a long brown haired white man with blue eyes as the true god. In his mind, this religion of christianity, is bogus. So, he does not accept it, and believes what his ancestors have always taught him: the ways of his own people, his own religion. He dies. Now, he is to suffer forever in a hellfire? This, according to you is a perverse choice? Truly, Ludicrous. "I see no reason why God is to be blamed for evil he did not do." ~ I wouldn't blame him either, if he were to not throw people into a lake of fire for their "evil" doings. If he were not to throw people in the lake of fire just because they didn't believe in a Western European version of a white man god...with blues and long brown hair. That, this god was just in knowing that since he himself allowed evil to exist, and he himself created man with imperfections of the mind, that then he would not cast people into a lake of fire for not believing in ONE religion. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-24-2002 12:27 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, I think Jesus was of Jewish ethnicity. I doubt he had blue eyes and blonde hair. I never liked those pictures either. And the cardinal claim of Christianity is that God does not send men to hell for not believing in one religion, but for rejecting the only personal and relational means to get to heaven, his son Jesus Christ. Your apparant anger at what you percieve to be narrowness, misses the eternal benevolence in the actions of this Jesus that were undertaken for you and me. He was willing to die for us, in our stead. How can you continue to blame him for that? God's not being egomaniacal in his exclusivity here. No one else was able or even willing to do what he did. Will we revile a man who builds a stable bridge over a chasm, just because it is the only one? Remember rather, the man's labor and sacrifice. I can't communicate this to you Opeth. If you don't see love in what Christ did for you, then what can I say? We can agree to disagree here if you want and stop. All I can do is pray, and that I will do. It's not that I don't want to talk. We're just hitting the same point over and over. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Phaedrus, "I readily agree, guilt, or imagined guilt, does play a part in the decision making process. However, irrespective of the process undertaken to reach a particular decision I still maintain that a person cannot reach a decision that is anything other than the right one for that person at that time" If I take what you are saying to be true, why couldn't I just reverse your words and say "I still maintain that person cannot reach a decision that is anything other than the wrong one for that person at that time". What I am trying to say? You are making a statement against free-will which seems to me fatalistic. If we are to really look at things this rigidly, why do our criminal justice systems punish criminals? Why do we have a sense of "justice" that seems universal?... (I'm not saying that we all agree on what is just, but that the concept itself is pervasively present). Why do people strike back at others? Wouldn't it be a logical fallacy to do so? Why do people get angry at the "unjust" deeds of others, wouldn't it be illogical? Why should someone feel anger that his grandmother was gassed to death at Auschwitz? A mere irrational reaction? If Hitler was only doing what was "right" at the time, why the moral indignation? In other words, "everything just is, everything just happens, period" seems to be where you are heading philosophically. "The one he perceived to be the wrong one for him at that time he abandoned and did not act upon, given this how can you reason that the decision that that person made was anything other than the right one for that person at that time. Regardless of how wrong it may seem to you, me or even him at another point in time was his decision the right one?" Firstly, again I don't see the necessity of "at another point in time". The distinction I think you may be overlooking (or denying) is that people have two distinct things working inside them, will and conscience. The will may indeed think that something is "right for me", and then choose to do it for that reason. But this is often over and against the insight given by the conscience which speaks of something being "right or wrong" in another sense altogether. So can't your use of the words "right one" be taken in two totally different ways? One moral, and one personal? The conscience speaks a more fundamental "rightness" or "wrongness". The will can contradict this moral voice of the concience through reasoning... "I can escape the consequences of this action being morally wrong, so even if it's wrong in that sense, I'll be okay. So this is the right thing for me". You are right in one sense. There is a reasoning that justifies ones own actions to oneself. But this does not mean that a person did not act against the moral voice of conscience inside. A person can even learn a thousand times that the conscience tends to be right, and yet violate it out of a selfish preference for his desires. That's why actions can be deemed immoral. "Immoral" is not just another name for something someone did that was right at the time, but wrong later. If it is just another name, it is an "unjust" name isn't it? Why the negative connotation? But we used the word "unjust"... hrmmph, we're contradicting ourselves again. concluding, these are the points I want to make: 1) To admit no reliable insight is possible before wrong choices leads to a fatalistic denial of freewill. (note, I'm not denying the existence of honest mistakes) 2) What is "right" is considered on two different levels, the personal (will) and the moral (conscience). And these two don't have to synchronize in decisions. It is possible to say in effect to the moral voice, "I've heard you out, and I know you're right. But temptation wins out" and send will in the opposite direction. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-25-2002 12:15 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I think Jesus was of Jewish ethnicity. I doubt he had blue eyes and blonde hair. I never liked those pictures either." ~ Stephanos, you again fail to understand. So many people of various cultures have been taught by evangilists that a white man with brown hair and blue eyes is the only way to salvation. Not that you or I believe these physical characteristics of christ, but this is what was taught them. "...God does not send men to hell for not believing in one religion, but for rejecting the only personal and relational means to get to heaven, his son Jesus Christ." So...Stephanos, this American Indian Chief, was approached by an evangelist, and this evangilist attempted to save this Indian Chief by explaining that a brown haired blue eyed white man from Jerusalem died on a cross for sins that this Indian Chief cannot even understand. This Chief ponders this white man, whom he doesn't trust to begin with, because he trusts no white man. And through utilizing his own reasoning, he decides this evangilist is full of $hit and rejects his teachings. He dies a few days later. And don't add anything to this example. From what the information I provided... What say you? According to christianity, his fate is the lake of fire? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The days of Christian aggression and superiorism are far bygone, if there is a God the people involved in those forcings, assimilations, blackmailings, excesses to evil extents, were punished for their acts. They are part of history and won't be forgotten, but People shouldn't uphold aggressive thoughts and spites against Christianity as a whole long of those particular groups of Christians of the past who used their faith arrogantly to get a hand of power with greed. It is not due to the Faith, nor the ways of today's Christianity. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-25-2002 11:43 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, I am not pretending to be able say what God would do in every varied and theoretical situation you might be able to present. He is God. The Bible tells us that he will "judge men's secrets", and that he "looks upon the heart". God knows the real reasons why a man would reject anything. This Indian in your example would be no exception. I think God has much patience with honest misconception. It only becomes dangerous when you begin to wonder if your doubts are misconceptions after all, begin to see evidence that they are, and then begin to dig your heels in. God knows the real reasons why you reject Christianity also, whether they are honestly concieved or not. C.S. Lewis once said that a man rejecting Christianity for honest reasons may be closer to Christ than someone sitting in church who attends out of mere tradition. I agree with him. However, there is a dishonest unbelief as well. It's called denial. Be careful not to confuse one with the other. If enough of the distortion of truth is because of this "white man", then he will be the one most accountable to God. But only God knows. I think God could and does work around the fallacy of suggesting certain physical characteristics of Christ. I agree with you that it should not be done. But you make it sound like it was common practice among Christian Evangelists everywhere. You'll have to give me some support for this, other than showing me European art where Jesus looks European. Everyone in their art looked European. I want to hear it in their teachings, sermons, or writings.... in what they said, not what they painted. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-25-2002 12:08 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Stephan, I’ve tried to answer each question you raised succinctly and in context with the discussion, in doing so my reply may seem off-handed or arrogant at times due to brevity and the slice and dice method of reply, I’d like to point out that neither was intended. quote: Because if the person didn’t believe it was the right one he/she wouldn’t have made the choice. quote: No, I was explaining why I believe that every action undertaken by a person is the right one for that person at the time they make the decision, the fact that this raises questions about free-will is purely coincidental. quote: Because people do things that are judged to be contrary to the ethical and moral standards set by society. quote: Because ethics, morality and a “sense of justice” have evolved due to necessity. quote: Because they believe the person has done something wrong. quote: No, if a person struck back at another that would be the right choice for that person at that time, if they did not strike back then that must have been the right choice for that person at that time. quote: No, I, or society can judge a person’s deeds to be unjust or just regardless of whether it was the right choice for that person at that time. quote: Because they believe it to be an unjust and heinous crime against humanity in general and their Grandmother in particular and I’d agree with them. quote: No, a very rational reaction. quote: I never said Hitler was doing what was “right”, my point throughout has been that Hitler was making what he believed to be the right choice for him at that time. People do not do things because they believe them to be the “wrong” choice they always do them because they are right for them at that time. Hitler did not wake up one morning and think, “this is the worst possible thing one human being could do to another – I’ll do it.” It was the right decision for him at that time otherwise he wouldn’t have done it. quote: Yes. Thanks for the chance to read and reply. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Stephanos: "If we are to really look at things this rigidly, why do our criminal justice systems punish criminals?" Phaedrus: "Because people do things that are judged to be contrary to the ethical and moral standards set by society." You are evading the question here. That is my question, after all, stated differently. Why are actions which people do that are "right for them" at the time, judged as unethical or immoral by society? In other words, why should actions which are done out of ignorance, and out of a sincere belief that they are right, be thought of as morally wrong? Stephanos: "Why do we have a sense of "justice" that seems universal?... (I'm not saying that we all agree on what is just, but that the concept itself is pervasively present)" Phaedrus: "Because ethics, morality and a “sense of justice” have evolved due to necessity." First of all, social Darwinism is a theory. If a sense of justice arose merely as an evolutionary trait, then it only describes our biology. We can't say justice is more "right" than injustice, any more than we can say a moth which unexpectedly develped black wings rather than white ones is "better". Do you feel justified in your anger about Hitler, or a child molester, when his actions are merely the result of genetic mutations? Stephanos: "Why do people get angry at the "unjust" deeds of others, wouldn't it be illogical?" Phaedrus: "No, I, or society can judge a person’s deeds to be unjust or just regardless of whether it was the right choice for that person at that time." Yes. But I'm not asking if an individual or society can or cannot do so. Of course they can. I'm asking how doing so can be justified, seeing that all choices to do wrong things are made in sincere ignorance? Why the immense responsibility placed upon those who really, from your standpoint, could do nothing else? It's like asking a leopard to rid himself of spots, and when he can't, killing him for it. Stephanos: "Why should someone feel anger that his grandmother was gassed to death at Auschwitz?" Phaedrus: "Because they believe it to be an unjust and heinous crime against humanity in general and their Grandmother in particular and I’d agree with them." Websters says unjust is "not just; lacking in justice or fairness". Show me how moral indignation to Hitler can be fair, if he was choosing what was right for him at the time. Did he have a choice to do otherwise? If no, then I don't see how moral indignation can be fair. Please explain this. Websters says heinous to be "utterly reprehensible or evil; odious; abominable" You used this word in your description of what Hitler did. But I thought that "evil" is what you didn't really believe in. Why is it so evil, if Hitler was acting uprightly and choosing sincerely the only viable option for him at the time? Is this an odious thing? An abominable thing? You might as well call people odious for having red hair. "I never said Hitler was doing what was “right”, my point throughout has been that Hitler was making what he believed to be the right choice for him at that time. People do not do things because they believe them to be the “wrong” choice they always do them because they are right for them at that time" Again, you are denying the possibility of a division in the meaning of "right". Right can be taken to mean, "what I judge to be personally preferrable to me", or "what is morally right to do regardless of my preference or feelings". These two types of right are both a part of consideration. They can and do both exist at the same time. Therefore one can choose to allow one to override the other. If these both exist (as most people will attest that they do... in their conciences), then a person would certainly be able to choose what is "wrong" despite the moral insight offered by his conscience. This would give cogency to the term "unjust". Otherwise our outcries against anything at all are unjust. But then again, we can choose no other way I suppose... Ah, the dilemmas of a naturalistic universe. "Hitler did not wake up one morning and think, “this is the worst possible thing one human being could do to another – I’ll do it." I don't deny that the process of self deception in Hitler's heart and mind took years and years to get to the point of being able to commit atrocities without blinking. You can "sear" a conscience much like cauterizing a bleeding vessel. But that doesn't mean you never heard it. That also doesn't mean that you did not choose to do it, consciously and with full responsibility. The murder of concience is an inustice in itself. But it's more like a strangulation. It usually (thank God) won't die easily. Stephanos: "In other words, "everything just is, everything just happens, period" seems to be where you are heading philosophically." Phaedrus: "Yes." Then why the debate? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-25-2002 06:00 PM).] |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Stephan, Hope this answers some of your questions. Why are the actions that people do right for them? Because they have weighed the choices, however ineptly, and reached a decision that they perceive is the best they can attain. Why are they judged unethical or immoral by society? Because society weighs the choices, however ineptly, and reaches a decision that they perceive to be the best they can attain. Why are the actions of the individual believed to be morally wrong by society? Because they ARE wrong according to the standards laid down by society. I’m not sure I evaded the question the first time round, the judgement of society before during or after the event is of little consequence beyond adding another argument to be weighed by the individual. My assertion was, and still is, that a person can never make a choice that they perceive to be the wrong choice at the time they make it. Refuting my claim suggests that people can knowingly make the wrong choice while in full possession of a more prefferable one. I see no evidence nor justification of the latter only the former. The fact that moral indignation exists at all is proof that people make choices and that they believe the choices they make are right. Can you give me an example of any person who has acted upon a decision they did not believe at the time to be the right one? If you can I’ll happily reassess your assertion that a person can purposely commit an act that they believe at the time is the wrong choice for them. With regard to theories, we all have them, they’re what we put our faith in until the facts arrive and each is valid and useful in some degree until proven otherwise. Your question about evolutionary processes and justification is an interesting one, I was wondering how a morality that didn’t evolve could actually function. A fixed moral code would necessarily have to be all encompassing at its conception to be able to cope with new dilemmas as they appear but most of all it would have to be uniform, everyone would surely have know and use the same one. Any deviation would risk the creation of new moral standards, which although useful for dealing with new dilemmas, would risk morality being put under the banner of Evolved. As to the justification of judging another persons actions the answer is simple, take the child molester you mentioned. That person had a choice to molest a child or not to, he/she weighed all the options, including the consequences of such an action and decided that molesting the child was the right choice. Most people would agree that the act was wrong and that he/she should suffer the consequences of his/her actions. I see your point with the leopard and its spots though, if it’s the right thing to do it’s the right thing to do and they can’t help it, right? Well not quite, remember back to when the child molester was weighing the options? That choice was not made in “sincere ignorance” he/she weighed the urge to molest the child against the possible consequences and the urge to molest won. Everybody is judged on their actions and everybody is responsible and accountable for those actions, if a leopard, spotty or otherwise, started molesting children it would face the same judgement. Did Hitler have a choice? Yes, I’m not sure how much he considered the choices but he definitely had them but still decided to do what he did. Sorry my use of the word heinous threw you so much, words have a funny habit of having several meanings or definitions, I was using the Collins New English Dictionary definition: Heinous: Extremely wicked; atrocious; odious. There’s a fair chance Webster might say that any of these mean evil too but it’s not what I meant. Hitler had a choice and he made an atrocious decision in my opinion. People born with red hair didn’t have much of a choice and red hair isn’t atrocious in any case (in my opinion of course). Regarding the definition of “right”, I thought I’d stated my position clearly on numerous occasions “People do not do things because they believe them to be the wrong choice they always do them because they are right for them at that time.” I have at no time asserted that the choices made were correct judged by any standard other than decision of the individual to act upon the choice he/she deemed to be the right choice for them. It is almost certainly correct that some choices made are morally, ethically and legally “wrong” but that they are chosen and acted upon attests to the fact that the person making the choice chose the right one for them at that time. Why debate? It fills the time between things happening. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: As I think becomes particularly evident when you consider the way you use the word "right" to determine a person's choices. It seems to me it would be equally valid to say a person's thought processes are always logical, at least for them, at least at the time they are made. FWIW, I agree that a person's choices are always motivated solely by self-interest, as seen at the time the choice was made. I would not define that as right, however, not even necessarily right for the individual. There are frequently too many unknown variables, especially in the most important decisions we make, and as with simultaneous equations, each variable must be known before a "right" answer can be found. There is often a conflict between short- and long-term self-interest, a conflict between self-excluding interests, and of course the ever-dangerous always-present unrecognized self-interest, all of which overlap and mix and obscure the reasons behind each decision we make. Toss in a good dollop of emotion, which very rarely serves our best self-interest, and it becomes something of a crap shoot. Choices are rarely right or wrong until long after the time they're made. Usually, they're just a gamble. Throw the dice and hope it's not snake eyes this time? Everything we do is done either in pursuit of what we want or to escape what we don't want. Granted. But life isn't that simple, and most of us know we can't have everything we want, nor can we escape everything we don't want. Choices are always made with incomplete knowledge, sometimes by weighing what we do know, sometimes on gut instinct, frequently I fear, based on little more than expediency. And, yes, each of those is ultimately driven by self-interest. But, right? Even within the sense that the individual feels they've made the "most right" decision? Sorry, but I don't see it. Mostly we just spin the wheel and watch the ball bounce around. Our choices are rarely without conflict, and I think that's where morals and a code of ethics come into play. We make our decisions before we are faced with the inevitable conflict. Joe decides he won't cheat on his wife, no matter how great the temptation, no matter how little risk there seems of getting caught, because thousands of years of human experience have convinced him there is an inevitable cost that is higher than he is willing to pay. It's still self-interest. It's still gambling, because there's no possible way to actually know what is right or wrong for Joe. But I think it's playing the odds. Never draw to an inside straight and NEVER intentionally hurt another person. Because in both instances, you'll lose a lot more often than you win. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Phaedrus, you wrote, "Can you give me an example of any person who has acted upon a decision they did not believe at the time to be the right one?" Yes. Me. I am taking "right" here to mean "morally right", not necessarily "the thing I want to do". I have violated moral insight countless times, even knowing the probability of consequences. I have done this many many times as I also suspect you have. You are still not addressing the difference between the moral and the personal voice as to what "right" means. I see this differentiation in myself. There are always two totally different levels upon which I am considering what "right" is. Ron also brought out the point of the adulterer who might choose to ignore thousands of years of human experience which suggests certain consequences. But I don't think conscience is so easily explained as a "corporate memory". Or even an individual learned memory. Men have feelings of conscience, even when they are not aware of thousands of years of testimony. But even if there is such as a "corporate memory", or there is always an educated individual memory at work, it should also account for potentially thousands of people who committed adultry and did not get found out. I am pointing to a deeper philosophical question perhaps. Is the wrongness of committing adultry the same as "consequences". Did the man who committed adultry against his wife, and did not get found out or suffer any painful consequences, do the "right thing" for himself? My assertion is that there is a moral question asked by the conscience that is beyond mere consequences. If it were not so, then the conscience would be hushed when we "get away" with something. The fact of the matter is, that's when the conscience is the hardest to hush! And I think the theory that all moral considerations are based on self interest is false. In fact, the conscience in certain instances, speaks in such a way as to suggest that a person ought to primarily consider the interest of someone else over themselves. That's why we can have moral insight pertaining to how others behave when no personal gain or loss is attached. For example, "It is wrong for person A to mistreat person B". Let's assume that I don't know either person, but I still have moral convictions about what A does to B. This is not "self interest" in any convincing way that I can see. It is an interest in what is just, fair, or right. What does it matter to me in the way of self interest what A does to B? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2002 03:29 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Phaedrus, I can't let you slide on this one. You have not adequately answered this question . . . How can we or anyone be justified in calling someone's action "immoral", if they did it with no knowledge of any better choice? This seems to me too arbitrary to be fair. How is this justified? You have not yet answered this question. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"C.S. Lewis once said that a man rejecting Christianity for honest reasons may be closer to Christ than someone sitting in church who attends out of mere tradition." ~ If that were true, then my views as an agnostic makes me closer to christ than anyone who practices mainstream christianity. "If enough of the distortion of truth is because of this "white man", then he will be the one most accountable to God." ~ But in that example, the white evangilist sincerely believes that Jesus was a white man with blue eyes and long brown hair. How would he be at fault? "But you make it sound like it was common practice among Christian Evangelists everywhere. You'll have to give me some support for this,..." ~ I have not been to one church, I have not seen one crucifix, I have not seen one movie on tv or in the children's bible or in other forms of media, that doesn't take for granted that Jesus was of the white man's race. Now, back to my biblical fallacies...no takers on my trinity questions, I see. Don't feel bad, when I first began to seek the truth about christianity, I asked numerous preachers, priests, called on evangilist hot-lines, etc. I always received the same bogus responses, that to me didn't make sense at all and didn't answer my question with authority and rationality. The next christian and biblical fallacy... III. The possession of an immortal soul by man. ~ do the words "immortal soul" appear in the bible, and if they don't why not...as important as an issue that this is, and it is very important because the immortal soul belief is connected to existence of heaven and hell, in that their are dead humans now either in one of the two? ~ Where did the idea of an immortal soul originate? Was it a Judaism belief? [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-26-2002 07:27 AM).] |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Critical States: 1. The boiling point of water, when it is just about to turn from liquid to gas. 2. The moment when a bubble of air reaches the surface just before exploding. (I wonder if the bubble do that just to join its family of air?) 3. Silence particularly when there is a tremendous strain between a couple during a stressful relation. How much do we wish that words were spoken and everything in mind is spit out then be stored inside... sorry to have tried to say something else than was expected... regards, sudhir |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Sudhir, Were you commenting on my previous reply? |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
No, I was just mentioning what came to my mind when I read the title of the discussion, once again after so many days... In fact, I haven't had the time to read all the 200+ posts on the topics... Regards, Sudhir |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: In Brad's thread, you wrote: quote: I don't have a concordance handy, so if you could provide me with the Biblical references, I might be able to get to this by day's end. Thanks. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, "If that were true, then my views as an agnostic makes me closer to christ than anyone who practices mainstream christianity." I pray that you are close to Christ in way of seeking the truth. But Jesus also spoke of motes and specks in the eyes. With one sweeping statement you are seeing alot of specks in a lot of eyes, most of which you've never actually seen. Lewis did not imply by his statement that all doubt of Christianity is the honest kind. "I have not been to one church, I have not seen one crucifix, I have not seen one movie on tv or in the children's bible or in other forms of media, that doesn't take for granted that Jesus was of the white man's race." You should come to the South. There are African-American portrayals of Jesus as well. Every race wants to paint him in their own colors. There is a danger in this. For we can end up just worshipping ourselves and losing sight of the historical reality of Jesus. How much of self is projected on to Christianity? Alot I am afraid. And yet there is a beauty in this as well. He was the incarnate God who became what we are. In a sense, spiritually speaking, he did become the white man, the black man, the red man, the yellow man, etc... He is the God who "understands our thoughts from afar" and who is "aquainted with all our ways". He created all the different racial characteristics of men and is intimitely familiar with them. He was also called "God with us". Is it a mortal sin to paint Christ as a white man, or a black man? I don't think so, though I admit a danger. But I have never met a Christian group that did not explicitly teach in their doctrine that Jesus was Jewish. Just because I draw my mommy with a black crayon doesn't necessarily mean I think she looks like that in reality. It's just a big assumption on your part to say so. And you are ignoring the fact that all cultures where Christianity has spread, have ethnic expressions of Christ in their art. You can't pin that charge on "White Europeans" alone. You have a conspiracy theory of sorts and want to affirm it. But there is no way to affirm it with this assumption. You'll have to give me more to go on. No, the words "immortal soul" is not present in the Bible. But neither are the words "Mortal soul", or "Temporal soul". But you'll never see me arguing my point based on the abscence of two distinct words. Why? Because the argument is fallacious. Logically speaking, the essence of what is expressed may be taught in different words right? Ever hear of synonyms? The right way to go about this is to look at many scriptures which might support or refute this point and then judge if it is really taught or not. But it can't be based on the abscence of words or we are in a stalemate. I could just as easily say that the temporal soul doctrine is not taught because the words aren't there. Now I do believe it is not taught, but it would be fallacious for me to argue it from that point. It is just not a valid argument. The same goes for the "Trinity". An abscence of the word does not mean that the triune nature of God is not taught. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2002 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Within context, Jim Rev 12:9 This verse provides a description of Satan as one who deceives the whole world. And so, within context, Satan is the deceiver of the whole world. 2 Cor. 11:13-15 Paul is explaining to the Corinthians to be aware of false apostles. These false apostles transform themselves into apostles of Christ/righteousness. He furthermore states that this should be expected because Satan himself appears as an angel of light/righteousness. And so, within context, Satan deceives the whole world, but how? By appearing as a horned demon preaching hatred and wickedness? To a smaller extent, yes, but to deceive the whole world, he comes in the form of ministers preaching Christ. Matt 24:4-5, 11 Concurs with the above passage… Christ tells the people that many will come in his name, preaching his word. In concurrence with the 2 above quoted passages, Christ states that false prophets will deceive many. Gal 1:6-7 Paul states how already in such a young church, new religion, that the false perverted gospel of Christ is already creeping into the Galation Christian church. [/b] Can one imagine if this was occuring already then, just how much it has happened now? 2 Cor. 11:4 Agrees with all of the above passages, as Paul warns the Corinths about the preaching of another Jesus: false prophets preaching a false Christ as Satan deceives the whole world, making for the beginning of false Christianity. Jude 3-4 Confirms the beginning of false Christianity, creeping into the Church without being detected. 3 John 9-10 Is a clear example of how true Christians were already being forced out of the Church. A beginning to what Christ calls his “little flock” which is persecuted. Luke 6:46 Well, even Jesus says that not everyone who calls on the Lord will be saved because they do not do what He tells them to do. And this makes sense because as we read in… 1 Cor. 15:1-2 Because there are Christians who worship in vain, as Paul relates to the Corinths. But Christ says it himself… “In vain do they worship me, believing in doctrines of men.” False Church-false Christianity-created by false prophets who preach a different Christ because Satan deceives them. Acts 5:29 Confirms what Jesus says, Christians believing in traditions of men, and not God. And what of the Christian Church today? II Tim. 4:3-4 He is talking about a time to come, our time, when sound doctrine is refuted, and many will not be able to understand the truth: False Church, false Christianity, False prophets, as Satan does deceive the whole world. Luke 12:32 Maybe this why Christ calls his true followers a little flock. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-26-2002 02:12 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, no offense here, but I weary of constant allegations against others. I do not deny that much of Christianity is religiosity and traditions of men. God has always spoken of a "remnant" people. So I too agree with the presence of a "little flock", a "chaste virgin" dedicated to Christ. However, judging from things Jesus said, the dividing line is not so much doctrine as it is living. He said of the Pharisees to his followers, "Do as they teach, but not as they do". There is the concept of a form of godliness while "denying the power thereof". There is the example of the church of Ephesus, which Christ in the book of Revelation charged with having "lost your first love"... but just before he lays this heavy charge, he said, "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars". This suggests a more common malady of correct doctrine, but lack of Heart for Christ. This is the sickness of the Church in many ways that you are seeing. But I think the enemy can decieve you as well into thinking that they are all wrong doctrinally, for two reasons. 1) That you might not believe doctrinal truth, and 2) so that you might be critical and loveless in your rebuke. You don't have to approve of all that Christendom presents in order to accept her cardinal truths. Plus, if you have a problem with these cardinal truths, what is there to replace them? Give me an alternative other than atheism. You revile the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, but only present angry atheism to take its place. To come from the Christian worldview (as you are doing in this particular instance, though you go back and forth), you must present a viable alternative to the points you criticize. You have not come up with a viable understanding of Christianity for me to agree on. There is indeed a remnant of true believers. But their difference is not in doctrine so much as it is heart ... love, humility, and Christ-likeness. And you can't convincingly charge the nation with heresy, if you are not the "remnant" yourself. Is atheism and denial of Christ and God an example of your "little flock"? Interestingly enough, examples of the "remnant" mentality in scripture showed a great love for Israel. Jeremiah was called the "weeping prophet". Simeon was called a "just and devout" man who was "waiting on the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25). And Considering the ravaged condition of Jerusalem, the Psalmist says "Your servants take pleasure in her stones, and show favor to her dust". There was a love for the people of God that intensified with the apostasy. Coupled with speaking the truth, this is what it means to be the "remnant" in my eyes. I've a long way to go, but I don't hate my "fathers" in the faith either. Sorry to sound so heated, if I did. But I just wanted you to consider these things. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2002 02:49 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: Before I finish, perhaps you would provide me with you definition of orthodox, "true" Christianity. That would be helpful to me. quote: I would advise you to be careful when interpreting apocalyptic literature NOT to "over-literalize." Revelation is a difficult book to interpret and very often uses rhetorical devices that are not intended to be taken literally. Satan is also characterized as Deceiver, Tempter, Enemy, Angel of Light etc. in Scripture. Satan's temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, according to the Genesis account, is how sin entered the world, after all. quote: Yes, this happens, but these "false teachers" are identifiable. That is one of the reasons why the early church fathers wrote the Creeds … so that error would be exposed and avoided. quote: I agree and disagree. I agree that apostasy exists in the modern day church. But Paul was writing to a specific problem … that of Gnosticism in the early church. The Gnostics denied justification by grace alone through faith alone. They were dualists who considered material things evil and the spiritual good. If you read the rest of Galatians, you will see that Paul goes on to teach one of the clearest didactic works on the Gospel in the New Testament. If apostasy is rampant today, Paul provides us with a roadmap out of it. quote: Yes, but he also exhorts them to remember what he taught them about the Gospel. quote: Yes, apostasy is an ever-present danger to the church. That is all I have time for now. More later. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Well, I would have to say this to you, Jim. Everything about your last reply confirms my beliefs and findings even moreso. Example... So, those who are deceived, those who are in a false Christian church would not believe that they are being deceived? The only answer is a resounding, yes. Therfore, Christ's true followers are of the "little flock." [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-27-2002 12:11 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, "You revile the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, but only present angry atheism to take its place." ~ "Angry atheism?" Now that is an original phrase, indeed. I am not angry. I am not an athiest."To come from the Christian worldview (as you are doing in this particular instance, though you go back and forth), you must present a viable alternative to the points you criticize." ~ Give me a specific. An alternative to what? The Trinity? The Immortal Soul? Ask me, and I will give it. You are the first to ask, btw. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan- 'Why are actions which people do that are "right for them" at the time, judged as unethical or immoral by society? In other words, why should actions which are done out of ignorance, and out of a sincere belief that they are right, be thought of as morally wrong?' Most are harmful to another person. In my opinion, right and wrong are relative, but there are some things that other people, or a society, cannot tolerate. It is intolerable for one person's version of right to interfere with another person's pursuit of what is right. My personal opinion is that rules that are meant to keep us from harming ourselves or to preserve the 'moral integrity' of a community(like seat belt laws, prostitution laws, not legally allowing gays to marry, and more debateably, drug laws) are more suspect- I suppose that if the majority of members in a given society feel that a certain practice is unwholesome, I can see why it's illegal. That doesn't mean I agree with it. Legalize and regulate prostitution, gambling, and drugs, and there you go- where'd all your organized crime go? The black market becomes obsolete. '"Why do we have a sense of "justice" that seems universal?... (I'm not saying that we all agree on what is just, but that the concept itself is pervasively present)"' Because, we know when somebody is intruding on our rights. Having something taken away without good reason (or due process) obviously offends the victim. We eventually know how it feels to have something done to us that is unpleasant, and often, even if these things are just, we rationalize them that they're not ("I got an F because the teacher hated me!"). It's only a mater of application. I know that intruding upon someone's rights is something that I, and society, consider wrong. Hitler did this to and extreme degree. Therefore, I feel that it is injust. I do think that the idea of justice is strongly motivated by the question, conscious or unconscious, of "How would I feel if I were them?" 'That also doesn't mean that you did not choose to do it, consciously and with full responsibility.' I completely agree. Unlike Phaedrus, I don't think that always making the best choice possiblenegates free will. When people are faced with decisions they just can't make, they find other alternatives. Some are innovative, and think of a choice that is better that the first two. Some can't think of any that that find better, and end up inevitably choosing between the original two (or more...) Some people decide that suicide or running away or denial or lying are good choices, given the circumstances. Opeth- Following this thread, it seems to me that you are afflicted with the same bias you accuse Christians of- except objectivity, extreme literalism, and critical thinking seem to be your flawless gods. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Hush, "Following this thread, it seems to me that you are afflicted with the same bias you accuse Christians of- except objectivity, extreme literalism, and critical thinking seem to be your flawless gods." ~ It would appear that way, and I can understand how you arrived at that conclusion. It is too bad that the Internet forum such as this, is not a good source for communicating. With the many directions that this thread has taken and my limited time available, it is difficult for me to keep up. But let me answer your reply this way... When I first started out being a Christian (in my adult years that is), I was shown a scripture that said to "prove all things" and that a christian must grow in knowledge, lest they become duped by the traditions and doctrines of men. I took that to heart, literally. I became able to open my mind without any subjectivism and bias, and truly question my beliefs (trinity, immotral soul, eternal suffering in hell, etc) even at the point of myself becoming a piriah, which of course did happen, because although I was being taught by preachers these doctrines, when I read the bible on my own, at home, I found scriptures that didn't support what was being taught...and so I began to investigate, combing all the various christian religions and finding out why they believe in certain docrtines and asking for biblical support to back those doctrines up. I don't know if Stephan, Jim, etc ever did what I did, but I know this, I was once on their side of the fence. Have they ever really looked at my side with an open mind and without bias? I don't believe so. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-27-2002 10:59 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephan, "But their difference is not in doctrine so much as it is heart ... love, humility, and Christ-likeness." ~ To which Christ? Whose doctrines, Christ's or man's? Since Satan deceives the entire world, and false Christianity was already established thousands of years ago, and our generation was warned about Satan appearing as a minister of righeousness, preaching "another Christ," and this was foretold, indeed. And that Christ himself says that they call out to me "Lord, Lord," but they believe in doctrine of men (immortal soul, trinity, pagan holidays, etc), implemented by the Deceiver and his false prophets...and yes these Christians may be sincere, but sincerity does not make a difference here, because they don't do what the true Christ says...these are not my words, they are your lord's words. Read the story in the OT about Azazael, the goat. It has much to do with false christianity today. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-27-2002 10:56 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Opeth, I'd be interested in hearing you opinion and critique of the world's other religions. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Denise, I have never completed an in-depth study of other religions. Why would you be interested? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: Perhaps I need to illustrate your apparent method of biblical interpretation another way. I'm about to prove that the Bible advocates suicide: John 13:27 "What you are about to do, do quickly." Matthew 27:5b "[Judas] went and hanged himself." Luke 10:13b "Go and do likewise." Clearly, from these assembled Scriptures, the Bible advocates prompt suicide. This is an example, albeit an extreme example, of a proof-texting hermeneutic, but in essense, is not all that different from what you are doing. I go about interpreting the Bible in much the same way as I go about interpreting the law in my vocation. When interpreting an Act, it is important to consider the legislative intent, and often, with major legislation, the legislative intent can be derived from somewhere in the body of the Act (usually at the beginning). A good judge (being, him or herself an interpreter of the law) will consider the legislative intent of an Act when deciding a dispute of law. Reading the legal opinions of skillful judges will reveal how the judge interpreted the law and applied that interpretation to the facts of the case. When interpreting the biblical texts, it is extremely important to consider the author's intent, purpose and plan, the historical context, the grammatical construction, and language use. It is far more involved than following a chain of references in your study bible. All Scripture is not didactic. All Scripture is not prophesy. All Scripture is not law. All Scripture is not Gospel. Some Scripture is almost exclusively culturally relevent. Some Scripture is universally relevent. But you cannot know without taking the necessary time and effort involved in interpretation because you usually cannot arive at an accurate understanding of a passage of Scripture without exhausting a considerable amount of time in research and reflection. The majority of what you have deemed "fallacies" are little more than blatant misinterpretations you've committed in your somewhat simplistic hermeneutic or a lack of understanding of the historical events that drove what was written. I agree with you that there are some today who depart from orthodox Christian teachings that are of primary importance. But to suggest that the majority of, if not all, Christians have a fundamental misunderstanding of the core of 1st century Christianity would be grossly unfounded. Some of the doctrines you mentioned (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) were articulated in order to counter teachings that were inconsistent with Apostalic teachings such as the kenosis (full deity and full humanity of Christ) and unity of the Godhead. Several key figures in church history such as Augustine, Calvin and Luther strove diligently to preserve the Gospel as revealed in Jesus Christ and as articulated by Paul and the other Apostles. I am nearly certain that I cannot convince you to abandon your positions, as flawed as they appear to be. Interpretation is a honed skill requiring time and discipline, and if you are unwilling to look at your interpretive approach from time to time and make adjustments as you become more knowledgeable, then chances are high that your interpretive skills will be driven by your biases and presuppositions, rather than your discoveries driving how you go about the business of interpreting. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Jim, Your example is lacking of logic, indeed. In your example you took everything out of context, including the corelation of passages. Suicide and the other passages do not corelate at all. However, what I posted does corelate. It does not surprise, Jim. I was at the point you are at one time, refusing (or unable) to see the clarity of and simplicity of my discoveries. Let's keep it in perspective... 1. Satan does deceive the whole world. 2. The NT does teach that false Christianity was already infiltrating the various churches. 3. Christ and the scriptures warn of false Christianity. 4. Christ calls His true followers a "little flock" ~ This certainly cannot mean mainstream Christianity today, because, logically, if it does, then that means mainstream Christianity is the little flock, but where then is flock of the false christians, which would then be certainly much much larger. There is no way around this, Jim. But see, Jim...what you fail to understand, as most Christians do, that there are answers for all of these inconsistencies. The day of ressurection The Trinity The Immortal Soul Hell Heaven The reward of the saved. etc... And these answers are rather simple, IF and only if, God is calling you at this time. If not, then you are not being called and will not be able to understand. But doe that mean you will not be saved? Absolutely not. The majority of all whom have ever lived will be saved. God is much stronger and gets what He wants over Satan. He is a logical God, indeed. He is not in a contest of souls with Satan. This is laughable, but would put traditional Christianity out of business, and yes...it is a business. Jesus forsaw this in His Temple during His days. The majority will be saved. This is not the only day of salvation. There will be a time when all will learn. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Let's hear the Gospel according to Opeth. A man on the street comes up and asks you "What must I do to be saved"? What is your answer. If cardinal Christian truth is not the answer, I would like to hear yours. Remember, that I agree with your view of the "little flock" being a remnant. I just don't think that doctrine is what separates the larger from the smaller. Remember how Jesus said "Do as they tell you, but not as they do."? So your going to have to be pretty convincing to show me that I should reject the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, since I don't believe that doctrinal error is implicit to wide spread apostasy... not that it doesn't happen. It's just that I can show you examples where the doctrine was kosher and yet God was not pleased. So let's hear your alternative to the creeds of Christianity. You've yet to tell us what to believe, only what you say is false. Maybe if you present something that is cogently true, from a scriptural standpoint, and let me test it, I will better be able to see the falsity of what I believe. Up till now, your arguments of how false the cardinal Christian teachings are, are not convincing. You might say that those like Jim and me, are not saved, or called, and so can't understand. But even Paul wrote, "How shall they believe without a preacher"? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-28-2002 01:04 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'A man on the street comes up and asks you "What must I do to be saved"?' Another qualm I've had with Christianity is the idea of 'being saved.' Maybe it's that human pride thing, but I'm usually not flattered when I'm told that I'm inherently sinful and bad the way I am, and I must believe in so-and-so to be forgiven for how I am. Hey, thanks but no thanks, I think I'm okay as is. As a kid, when I was first introduced to the idea that humans are basically nothing without God, I was apalled. I never lost that distaste. I think that original sin is simply a way for people to reconcile with themselves things (unconscious drives, to be Freudian for a moment) that don't quite jibe with their consciences. I think that while humans have certain drives that aren't conducive to participation in civilized society, we need to come to terms with them a natural. I just can't buy the story that at one time, humanity was perfect- and also, that the reason we were treated so well was because we hadn't yet learned right from wrong. Once again, thanks, but know thanks- I'll take my ability to judge moral integrity over a brainless paradise any day. I'm going to avoid going on a rant here, but I guess I'd answer your question with another question: "What if I don't believe that I need to be saved?" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Opeth, I ask because I am trying to ascertain what you actually believe, as Stephen said. If you have discovered that Christianity is illogical and bogus following your in-depth study, and have stated that you are an atheist because of it, what of the other religions? Wouldn't logic, or at least an honest attempt at ascertaining truth, dictate that you investigate at least a couple more of them before deciding that atheism is the only logical alternative to Christianity? Or is it that, perhaps subconsciously, you see no alternative, that maybe in your mind, if there is a valid religion, it would have to be Christianity? I don't really believe for a second, though, that you are an atheist, by the way, due to the fact that in my thread from last March, "What exactly is Christianity", you stated more than once that you were one of the ones that God had spoken to and reavealed His hidden truths, and that is why you don't go along with the tenents of the Christian faith. Unless, of course, you have come to believe in the meantime that it wasn't really God who revealed anything to you and have now come to believe since you made that previous assertion that there really isn't a God afterall? Enlighten me, please. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, Your reaction would be fitting if it were true that you didn't need salvation. Someone telling you that you need salvation should only be offensive if you are sure the proposition isn't true. If it is true, gratitude would be more fitting. The assertion that a person needs salvation and has a problem with sin was never meant to flatter. In that much you are right. The good advice for sailors to throw their cargo overboard in the throes of a sea storm is not a pleasant or flattering thing either, it was meant to preserve life. Of course there was a time in my life as well when I denied that I was lost without God. I denied that my life was "that bad". It took the conviction of the Holy Spirit speaking to me to convince me of the truth of my condition. Here is something for you to consider. Is there a possibility of denial? Is there the possibility that you could be in a desperate spiritual state and be ignorant of it? There are people walking around with terminal cancer, unknowing and in complete denial of the fact. But that doesnt change the fact. After all is said and done, Jesus did say that the only the sick need a physician. He did not come to save those who positively don't need it. If you are well and ready to face God without the legal defense that Christ offers through his sacrifice, then okay. I know however how shocked I was when my eyes were opened to my true spiritual condition ... (this was not a doctrine I had to blindly believe, it was shown to me vividly) ... Our rebellion and enmity with God is very deep and incriminating. I got a glimpse of Hell that I will never forget. Pride in me was the result of a lack of knowledge of the reality of things. And like you it made the offer of salvation seem insulting. However now, I feel in a similar way, how 9-11 survivors feel indebted to the firefighters that saved them from that wreckage. No room for pride there. Your reaction is perfectly sensible if and only if your estimate of your spiritual condition is right. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It always fascinates me. Suggest to any stranger, friend, or family member that they need to do this-and-that or such-and-such if they want to improve their life, and it's amazing how many will get mad at you. Ask the same person whether they think they're perfect, or if they're completely happy with their life as it stands, and I've yet to hear anyone answer in the affirmative. We are truly strange creatures. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Let's hear the Gospel according to Opeth." ~ It is not the Gospel according to Opeth. Everything that I have quoted comes directly from the words of the Bible. It is your belief in mainstream Christianity, which could allow me to say, "Let's hear the Gospel according to the carnal mind of man, and not from God." And about the Gospel, just what was the Gospel that the true Christ preached? Salvation? No. But that the Kingdom of God is at Hand. Of course there was other good news too, but somehow in traditional christianity, this message was lost...long ago. That Christ will rule here on earth as King is the Gospel. "A man on the street comes up and asks you "What must I do to be saved"?" ~ Setting me up, Stephan? I know of this biblical passage. Believe on the Lord Jesus, I think was Christ answer. But takes things into context, Stephan. Even the devil believes in Jesus, but that does not make the Devil saved, now does it? To believe, means to obey, to do what Christ commands. And unless the Spirit of God (yes, the Spirit of God, not a separate entity called the Holy Spirit), calls one, they will not understand what Christ wants them to do."Remember, that I agree with your view of the "little flock" being a remnant. I just don't think that doctrine is what separates the larger from the smaller." ~ So false christians are being taught in the same churches as true Christians? This would mean that Satan's ministers are working side-by-side with God's ministers? Mixing of evil and truth...I think not. "So let's hear your alternative to the creeds of Christianity." ~ I could, but I don't think that you want to hear it for the right reasons. If you are being called, you would really want to hear it, not for just the sake for counter-arguing, but to really want to distinguish truth from lie. Besides, I have already asked you for specifics in a previous reply, you never gave any. "But even Paul wrote, "How shall they believe without a preacher"? ~ In context, and in this case, could I be that preacher? [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-29-2002 11:06 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"...If you have discovered that Christianity is illogical and bogus following your in-depth study,..." ~ Mainstream Christianity, for sure is bogus. "...and have stated that you are an atheist because of it,..." ~ Why do people keep saying that!? I never said I was an atheist."...Wouldn't logic, or at least an honest attempt at ascertaining truth, dictate that you investigate at least a couple more of them before deciding that atheism is the only logical alternative to Christianity?" ~ I read about other religions, I don't believe any of them claim what Christianity does, that God became man and died for our sins in order to save us. "Or is it that, perhaps subconsciously, you see no alternative, that maybe in your mind, if there is a valid religion, it would have to be Christianity?" ~ Yes, from what I remember, that was the first step in my process. "...you stated more than once that you were one of the ones that God had spoken to and reavealed His hidden truths, and that is why you don't go along with the tenents of the Christian faith." ~ Yes, I have stated this fact on this thread, I do so believe. "Unless, of course, you have come to believe in the meantime that it wasn't really God who revealed anything to you and have now come to believe since you made that previous assertion that there really isn't a God afterall?" ~ I stated previously, I came to the conclusion in my mind that either God has revealed to me (for sure I am not the only one), the truth or Christianity and all other religons are man-made, which led to my present day refraining from all organized religions. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan- 'Your reaction would be fitting if it were true that you didn't need salvation.' I guess this all boils down to relativism. I'm not ready to accept that tenet as true. I don't know if I think the your truth vs. my truth idea is too lenient or not. 'Someone telling you that you need salvation should only be offensive if you are sure the proposition isn't true. If it is true, gratitude would be more fitting. The assertion that a person needs salvation and has a problem with sin was never meant to flatter.' No, I'm not sure that the proposition isn't true, but I'm going on gut instincts when I say it feels wrong. I guess I just think people are fundmentally good rather than bad, and hearing someone say that hey, people actually are bad and here's the only way out of that, is kind of a smack in the face of my observations throughout my life. 'Of course there was a time in my life as well when I denied that I was lost without God. I denied that my life was "that bad". It took the conviction of the Holy Spirit speaking to me to convince me of the truth of my condition.' Do you think the Holy Spirit speaks to everyone, Stephan? I'm just curious, because I am honestly not driven toward God, or rather, do not feel so. I am trying to take the time to educte myself on different religions, chiefly Christianity because it's hte predominant one here, but what am I to do if no religion calls to me? Or, to take it a step further, if Christ never calls to me? Is it a fault that when I read the bible, I'm not moved? Is it something I should be able to help? I think it's kind of interesting, but I don't really see it as a guidebook to my life. Yeah, there are ideals I can definitely relate to in it- and similarly, in other religions. But agreeing with certain codes and believing in the god(s) of any particular faith are two different things... can I be held accountable for simply not feeling something? 'Here is something for you to consider. Is there a possibility of denial? Is there the possibility that you could be in a desperate spiritual state and be ignorant of it?' That's a harder question. Yes, it's possible, but I think the same can be said for anyone. Couldn't you be ignorant, Stephan, that another faith is the one 'true' religion? Everyone can't claim exclusivity to God. Either there's inherent value in all spiritual conditions and convictions, or there is one way to salvation. In any case, I don't think anybody can say with certainty, no matter how certain they believe they are, what happens after death. So, in that aspect, we're all ignorant to some degree. You speak of pride that acted as a barrier between you and truth, and at this time, yeah, maybe that is my problem. I guess I have enough pride to question a philosophy that strips me of it, and yeah, I guess that could be a mote in my eye. But I just don't see how somebody can tell me something, and it's supposed to make sense to me even though it flies in the face of things that I have seen during my own life. I know a lot of people who either aren't Christians, or by religious standards, are very lackadasical Christians, who are very good people. I really don't see the logic in original sin, because I haven't accepted my deliverance from it, but I still extend efforts to do good things, to help others, and to live a truthful life. I don't necessarily see religion as necessary to facilitate those things, and even if religion acts as a helping hand, I don't see the merit in claiming that only one religion can fully do so. Ron- I'm not mad... I'm simply saying that I don't accept a certain assertion, at least not at this point in time. I don't see it as necessary to improve my own life, and for that matter, in Stephan's scenario, I'm not asking anybody for advice either. It's one thing if I say to Stephan "hey, I feel kind of empty, what do you think I should do?" and then call his advice stupid. But in this case, somebody's coming up to me and asking me a question, with a very strong assumption that I feel as though I need to be saved. I mean, that's kind of like if I had my kid, walking down the street, and somebody walked up to me and said "you want to know how to be a better mother?" How do they know that I'm not a good mother to begin with? Besides, I don't think that something not making sense to me and getting "mad" are the same thing at all. It's like when you're a kid and you see a bully picking on a smaller kid. It just doesn't sit well, and that's exactly how I felt as a child- as if God, personified in this priest who was telling us how worthless we are without God, was a bully picking on humanity. I can't shake that feeling. Even if it is true that we wouldn't be here without God, I think it's kind of a high-handed request of him that we accept our own worthlessness in light of his superiority- him having created us and all. I can't remember the last time my parents told me I'd be nothing without them- however true that is. Loving parents generally don't seek to make their children feel worthless and eternally dependent on them- why would a loving God do so? I'll say now that this is all based on experience, and I don't know whether or not all of this is Biblically supported, or how other churches approach the subject. I don't claim to be an authority, or to know whether Christianity is or isn't a spiritual reality, or, if it isn't, what is- but it's human nature to learn by experience, and the things I've learned in my religious experiences aren't things that get me chomping at the bit to go join a church. I really don't mean to be disrespectful, or to sound angry, but there is a certain feeling of defiance against ideas I feel are unfair. Maybe that's because I'm still young, or too proud, or whatever, but I can't just contradict what I feel, and accepting that Christianity, as with all faiths, has many virtues, doesn't negate the things that I don't agree with. [This message has been edited by hush (11-29-2002 11:54 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Do you think the Holy Spirit speaks to everyone, Stephan? I'm just curious, because I am honestly not driven toward God, or rather, do not feel so." ~ Exactly, Hush. Mainstream christianity believes that everyone should seek Christ and then they will be saved, that the Holy Spirit is to speak to everyone. But, like yourself, you are not being called, the Holy Spirit is not calling you. Yet, christians will tell you that because you do not seek God your fate is the Lake of Fire. The Bible does not teach this, man does. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Opeth, "Yet, christians will tell you that because you do not seek God your fate is the Lake of Fire." I agree with you, but speak for that sort of Christians, I am not a Christian of it. We are not all the same you know! [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-29-2002 02:27 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that if a man is not saved during his lifetime, his fate is the lake of fire. Which traditional/mainstream christian church does not support that belief? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Some notions a particular group gets very fond and fixed on start losing the name and mood of symbol, question or suggestion, and therewith too soon act like knowledge or truth. Thoughts decieve their masters. And it will soon be written like truth or knowledge and thus often read like it too. In this case as far as I'm concerned, "Lake of Fire" is a superstition. But every religion seems to have something alike. I guess it is human nature. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 01:45 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The Bible does tell of the Lake of Fire, Christ compared it to gehenna, however it is not for the masses, not one person is suffering in it as we speak, it cannot burn that which is not physical, and no one will be suffering in there, forever. It is an eternal punishment, not punishing, in that whoever is cast into it can never be born again in the Kingdom of God. They are forever dead = non-existence. This is what the Bible teaches. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sorry Opeth, my mistake, you stated that you were an agnostic. But I really don't see how you can be that either when you've made statements that God has revealed truth to you. If that's the case, then you must believe in His existence, musn't you? As an agnostic you could say "if" there is a God, He has revealed such and such to me, but you couldn't dogmatically state that He has, and that because of this revealed knowledge that you know for certain that Christianity is not God's truth, when you are not even certain of His existence. As an agnostic you could only offer qualified statements. So upon what do your dogmatic statements rest? If you are not even certain of God's existence, how do you dogmatically declare that He has given you a message or enabled you to see truth? quote: Stephen is trying to ascertain what you believe, Opeth. If you claim that what Christianity states is false, then what is the truth? You can't expect people to take your claims seriously if you, on the one hand, trash their beliefs, and on the other hand don't give them what you see as the alternative, while intimating that you are in possession of such knowledge but won't share it because you judge someone as not having proper motives. As for Satan believing in Christ as Savior, that's not a valid argument. Yes, Satan knows that Christ exists and that He is who He claims to be, but he can't believe in Him in a saving way, i.e., personally trusting in His death and resurrection to secure his salvation, because Christ's sacrifice was not made for him, and he is aware of that also, so he can't believe that Christ died for him. As to the meaning of belief, it means to believe, to trust, in Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice, personally, for one's salvation. Believe does not mean "to obey, to do what Christ commands", unless of course you are referring to obeying Christ's command to believe. Again, I'm not saying that Christian's shouldn't obey, but obeying the Law does not secure or maintain salvation, it is purely a gift received through faith. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone sums it up. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, I think everyone here can read the Bible for themselves. If anyone is curious as to what Jesus taught, or what the Bible really says then it is available to them. I have studied the bible much. And I honestly disagree with what you are saying. But everyone has the freedom to look for themselves. Hush, I appreciate your honesty. The only reason I responded the way I did, was that you asked the point blank question "What if I don't believe I need to be saved"? And so I gave you a point blank answer. This is the biblical answer to pride. God's word seems harsh toward pride. But to the humble, he is not in some malicious habit of making people feel worthless. In fact no where in the bible is it taught that humanity is utterly worthless. Christ counted us worthy of his own life. The Bible rather teaches that we are our truest selves in God, and can have it no other way. You know what it really teaches, is that a satisfactory autonomy is an illusion. We were never intended to be whole while operating on our own. You can look at it in two ways.... You can get angry at the alleged audacity of God to suggest that you actually might need him (the source of all). Or you can see that he loves you so eternally and unswervingly that he lets you know, in no uncertain terms, where your true home is, the only place you will be truly you. I know I am blunt (too blunt at times), in stating these things... But there are cogent answers to your questions and objections. And God can handle your honest questions. You may yet come to see God in a different light. I know it's hard for you to see, but it is a misrepresentation in your mind that he is a cosmic sadist. I think this alone is enough to interfere with anything you might percieve as a "calling". And by the way, Opeth says he believes in the Bible. But as regards to a calling, I wouldn't just believe what he says without reading for yourself. You seem to be searching for what is true, which is evidence of a calling to me. The Bible says "Many are called". You want to know what God really says about you? You are totally unique in all the myriads of humans he has created. You are the only one who expresses his glory like you can. So unique and so special that he had you planned from "before the foundations of the world". That's pretty exciting to think about. You actually have purpose, meaning, and eternal value that won't be dismantled when the Sun is snuffed out. You are much more than molecules in motion. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-29-2002 08:49 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The bible was written by people given to much superstitions that had a wild hand over the ages. People probably did earnestly believe in a "Lake of Fire" and wisely use it to counsel people into doing the right thing, while others oppressingly as device to incite fear and change in a believer of different things. Who in the world would want to end up in a "Lake of fire"? I do not believe that such a fire exists thus. If God is, he forgives and punishes only to discipline. Such a notion is ugly and cruel and could never make beings better. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-30-2002 02:28 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Stephen is trying to ascertain what you believe, Opeth. If you claim that what Christianity states is false, then what is the truth?" ~ Check my replies. I have asked for specifics on numerous occasions, but he nor has anyone else responded. "You can't expect people to take your claims seriously if you, on the one hand, trash their beliefs, and on the other hand don't give them what you see as the alternative, while intimating that you are in possession of such knowledge but won't share it because you judge someone as not having proper motives." ~ If he is called, or anyone else reading all of this for that matter, they will really want to read and understand what I share. However, I don't feel comfortable putting out this information if it is only to be ridiculed and chastised by biased and unwilling to change carnal minds. Remember, I was where both you and Stephan are now. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"As for Satan believing in Christ as Savior, that's not a valid argument. Yes, Satan knows that Christ exists and that He is who He claims to be, but he can't believe in Him in a saving way," ~ The Bible would contradict itself, yet again, if a person only had to believe in Christ. Because scripture can be found throughout the Bible, that one has to, yes, has to, first repent for their sins, become baptised and before anyone is ever saved, they must receive the Holy Spirit, so Denise, there is much more than just "believing on Jesus." As a matter of fact, there are verses in the Bible where the Devil took over a person and proclaimed that Christ was God and Saviour. The devil does believe, yes. Jesus even said that believing is not enough when he tells the masses one day, you call my name lord, lord, but I don't even know you. Why? Because they believe in doctrines and commandments of men, not God. [This message has been edited by Opeth (11-30-2002 12:21 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: You are so sadly mistaken, Opeth, about so many things. And that won't be rectified until you are open to the consideration of learning to read the Bible in context. quote: Many people here have given you in-depth replies to your questions/assertions. Go back and read them again. You just don't accept their answers. That is quite different than them not having answered you, for indeed they have. quote: Ridicule? You are afraid others here will ridicule your beliefs if you stated them? There is no one here who would ridicule your beliefs, Opeth. Disagree with, perhaps, but not ridicule. If you aren't willing to share your specific beliefs here, then I think you should cease bad-mouthing others' beliefs unless you are willing to somehow substantiate your claims to some higher knowledge or truth. Otherwise your claims ring hollow. And you still haven't told me how you can dogmatically proclaim to have special truth/ knowledge from God when you have stated that you are an agnostic (one who claims they don't know and/or can't know if God actually exists). That seems like a contradictory statement to me. [This message has been edited by Denise (11-30-2002 08:33 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"You are so sadly mistaken, Opeth, about so many things. And that won't be rectified until you are open to the consideration of learning to read the Bible in context." ~ So says you. "Many people here have given you in-depth replies to your questions/assertions. Go back and read them again." ~ I don't have to. I have heard the same answers for years. "You just don't accept their answers. That is quite different than them not having answered you, for indeed they have." ~ No. When told that all I have done was shoot down mainstream doctrine without providing an alternative, I asked for a specific alternative (at least on 2-3 occasions), and have not received a reply. I have also asked certain other questions, which never were answered. "Ridicule? You are afraid others here will ridicule your beliefs if you stated them?" ~ (Sigh) No. I am not afraid to be ridiculed. Seriously, if you came to that conclusion, can you see how easy it is to misinterpret what is written? That the interpretaton itself would be ridiculed, not me. This has nothing to do with me. Not at any time do I feel like I am either right or wrong. I am only a messenger. "And you still haven't told me how you can dogmatically proclaim to have special truth/ knowledge from God when you have stated that you are an agnostic..." ~ Yes, I have told you. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Opeth, the point is that you are claiming that Christianity is false, and yet you are not giving an alternative. If you claim something to be false, you have to posit something in its place, if you are to have a valid argument. All you keep saying is that the Bible is contradictory, using your own interpretation of various verses, taken out of context and yet you have still not stated what this all means to you. What is your bottom line, Opeth? What do you believe? That should be a fairly simple question to answer. quote: I was referring to your beliefs/interpretations, not you yourself. I specifically stated that, Opeth. I have not misinterpreted anything. quote: Then I must have missed it. Can you please direct me to your answer? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The Bible teaches that God calls many to Him. How will one know if they are being called? The Spirit of God will allow these called indivdiduals to understand the truth of His ways. Those not called will never be able to understand. This is why Christ spoke in parables and even told his apostles, it is not for them to know. God does not call everyone. However, for those He does call, the Bible states that the gate is narrow and the path is wide leading to destruction. Of course, this does not mean that those who are called and have failed are necessarily doomed. No. God is merciful. However, if one responds to the calling, they will have a high place in the Kingdom of God. As I said before, I am either truly being called by God, or Christianity is bogus. Why? Because after all of my studying, the ways and traditions taught by christianiy, in my mind, are nonsensical and full of contradictions and stupidities. So, if I am not being called, there would have to be, in my mind, no true religion, therefore, I would lean to my agnostic views. But at times, such as these, it seems through fate that I get "pulled" into these types of discussions where then this knowledge that I have flows through me so easily - clear as a crystal lake on a cold sunny day. So maybe, I am being called and am failing...I am not sure. I will say this...since I am spreading the knowledge that I received (and again, I didn't choose to belief this way, you all may find that hard to believe, but I never chose to believe what I believe), maybe this is what I am called to do. As time goes by, I am sure to find out. So, as for now, since I know of no church that believes what I believe, and if what I believe is the truth, I will remain scattered from the little flock. I take it one day at a time, and for sure, never will I partake in mainstream christianity, because if I have been called and then partake in traditional christianity, that would surely be my demise. [This message has been edited by Opeth (12-03-2002 11:26 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There is a third alternative, made all the more likely I think from your very failure to recognize it. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Please, enlighten me. What is the third alternative? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Opeth Are you going to judge Christianity then solely by its literature and church? Don't you have a good opinion at all for it for what its done for the world, ignoring the literature and church? Hasn't it guided people, given people higher hope and reason? I'm not of opoinion religion should be more judged by how it seems to show accuracy or not in its literature or even common sense in its mentality, but in the way it shows overall nature and respect to the world. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-06-2002 11:19 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Essorant, I am debating from a Christian standpoint. "Are you going to judge Christianity then solely by its literature and church?" ~ I am judging Christianity from its own source, the Bible, which on most occasions, must be taken literally, for if we don't how can we know what was in the minds of the writers? For example, a verse in the Bible states this: "No man has ascended into heaven..." A literal interpretation of this verse would be to say that the entire man has not ascended into heaven. Now, we can see how the literal interpretation matches other passages, such as Paul calling those dead, asleep. Logically then, we can conclude that until a ressurection occurs, man is lies dead in a grave in an unconscious state. Of course, this is only two verses. There are plenty more to support this truth. For someone to interpret the mind of the writer and say that the writer meant only the man's body has not ascended would be erroneous and dangerous to do. Because then one is injecting their own opinion into the translation. Mainstream christianity has done just this throughout the ages. "Don't you have a good opinion at all for it for what its done for the world, ignoring the literature and church? Hasn't it guided people, given people higher hope and reason?" ~ So has many other religions. Most humans need something to lean on. Most humans cannot find the strength within themselves and need to believe in something or someone. Humans are also social creatures, needing to socialize with others. Organized religion is good for this need too. "I'm not of opoinion religion should be more judged by how it seems to show accuracy or not in its literature or even common sense in its mentality, but in the way it shows overall nature and respect to the world." ~ I believe many of the old American Indian religions showed much more respect towards nature and the world than Christianity. [This message has been edited by Opeth (12-07-2002 11:25 AM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
First, let me say, wow! I forgot all about this thread ... over 4 years ago! Ron found that one. Okay, so here we go... ~ Jesus spoke (taught) in parables for a specific reason, and was even questioned so by his own apostles: Matt. 13:10 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" ~ And Jesus answered the question, clearly: Matt. 13:11 "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." ~ So, why would Jesus NOT give the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven to the masses? He answers that one too: Matt. 13:15 "... lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." ~ It wasn't there time to know! Lest, he they would see and hear, become converted and would be healed. This is a great passage from the Bible, a passage that shows that God wasn't trying to save the world then, just as He isn't trying to save it now. Now if somone disagrees with that interpretation, then I will continue on with Matt. 13: [Verse 17] "For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them]." ~ Prophets and righteous people who desired to hear and see what the apostles have seen and heard, but did not, they never did - just as those who, if Jesus at that precise time did not teach in parables, would be able to see and hear. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
