»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Ten Commandments ?
| The Alley |
|
Ten Commandments ? |
|
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York 
|
If Moses were Hebrew and God handed down the Ten Commandments to him - set forth to be brought to the Hebrew people (not forgetting the fact that Jesus was Hebrew himself) then what has brought the Commandments to the Roman Catholic religion seeing that the two beliefs are extremely diverse? --------------------------------------------------- |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Sue Eckam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Ok Sue, heres my best answer for you, Roman catholics are, in core beliefs, the same as most other christian religons, and one of the oldest.Here is how they view the history. Jesus assigned to Peter the responsibility of creating the Christian church. Peter was the first pope. At his death, his work was continued by a continuous succession of popes. The 1st century CE popes were: St. Peter (30 to 67 CE, approximately) Linus ( 67 to 76) Cletus (76 to 88) Clement of Rome (88 to 97) St Evaristus (97 to 105) 1 The Roman Catholic church was a fully functioning organization with authority centered at Rome, as early as the middle of the 1st century. "History proves that from that time [of Peter] on, both in the East and the West, the successor of Peter was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the [Christian] Church." Jesus' Apostles ordained bishops, who in turn ordained the next generation of bishops. This continuous line of ordination, called the apostolic succession, has continued down to the present day. Thus the authority for the ordination of a new bishop today could theoretically be traced back as far as the individual Apostles -- except that accurate records were not kept in the early decades of the Christian movements That is how the Roman catholics tie themselves to the beginnings of christianity. As to the 10 commandments being at the core of both religons.I think christians view the Hebrews as their beginnings, and ancestory.Up until the birth of Jesus, the roots and beliefs are the same.Christians believe that Jesus and his sacrifice changed the religon and its philosphy.Jews just believe Jesus was another hebrew prophet, a non conformer.So the religons became two.But the core of both stayed the same.Two religons, both fathered by Abraham(actually three, Islam was also fathered by Abraham).Does that explain it? that has got to be my most long winded reply, I love ancient history. And finally, know what I think? I think everyone is talking to the same God anyway, so silly to see the world quarrel over God. Jason |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Actually, I find the Catholic religion most closely tied to pagan roots--despite their protestations...<--oh the things I type!  and? as you know? I am more than willing to discussion, but in an open venue such as an internet forum, I find folks typically are more defensive than not--sigh--these "discussions" too often become a point of pride of debate skills than a true sharing of ideas---so? So...grin..you KNOW where I am... (I'll be the one wearing the tiara!)  |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
I can agree with that statement, when I think about it Rome was so pagan they considered Jews and christians, athiest, to them, to say that there was only one God, eliminated Romes whole pantheon of Gods. I was stating that this was the Roman catholic view on their own history. I would love to hear your views on it, I love this period in history and the shaping it had on our today. Jason [This message has been edited by Jason Lyle (04-16-2003 01:58 AM).] |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Jason: that was quite an amazing reply there and I thank you - this question has confused me for ages . . . You see I have this belief system called "Sueism" yet was raised Roman Catholic (you wonder why I am confused). I do agree with a lot of what you have to say - moreso the Old Testament being the Hebrew part and the New being the Christian part. Looking into history myself and after speaking with people of varying Jewish faiths as well as Catholic - I have come up with this: The core of the religions cannot be the same because the Hebrews believed Jesus to be a non - conformer - his own people - and that he indeed was not the Son of God. The Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins. Thus, the core contrasts. Resulting in the splitting of the two. My question then lies in the split. If the Hebrews did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, yet the Catholics did - then why did the Catholics hold onto the Ten Commandments? It is a complete conflict of belief. How can one religion (Catholic) borrow beliefs from another (Hebrew) when they conflicted in the first place? Karen: I believe in the pagan blending - where each began is an entirely different ball of yarn - but around 100 B.C.E, the Roman Empire did invade the first Goidelic (Gaelic speaking) Celts. Instead of imposing their faith - they fused them. Celtic gods were worshipped along with Roman deities. Each religion in itself believes that their faith leads to one source, being the Divine Spirit. I do agree with you both when you say our paths lead to the same door. That being spirituality. The question remains then: why the split and why was it necessary? --------------------------------------------I am not starting a crusade - I only look for answers and opinions to enrich my own spirituality and welcome all opinions because my own encompass every belief system there is, other than anything obviously evil. I myself, do not hold one belief as my own, besides that being that one force guides us all. [This message has been edited by littlewing (04-16-2003 04:48 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"How can one religion (Catholic) borrow beliefs from another (Hebrew) when they conflicted in the first place?" And the answer is--- grin. like ya thought I had it, huh? k--I'll give a shot: There is NO borrowing. There is no theft. There is only personal realization of Godhead that transcends time, culture, and laws of man. It's a very personal path. To assume superiority of one's OWN path, is to attempt to question the values of self vs. divine--and the lines of those answers define our limitations. There are no easy answers. There are only easy questions. And now? I really should go play with some clay or something, they might notice the facial tics, and come medicate me... shudder ? |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
The answer can be found in the new testament. Jesus did tell his follower (and I am paraphrasing because I am too lazy to pull out my bible and quote directly) "I have not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it" Jesus essentially told his followers that yes, he was a Jew and he did not come to the world to destroy Jewish law (beginning with the ten commandments), but to uphold the law. As he himself observed the laws of the old testament, he likewise instructed his followers to observe those laws. Ultimately, God's law is God's law. The arrival of the Christ (as believed by Christian's) does not nullify God's law, but did enhance it. The enhancement came in the form of reform. A calling back to the original intent of God's law and admonishment for the corruption of the organized religions and their practices of that time (Jesus said 'judge not lest ye be judged' - in a response to the practices of religious judgement and punishment for crimes against God's law. Jesus was putting the authority for the enforcement of God's law back to God, whereas the pharasis (sp?) were in a big business of prosecuting for religious crimes. Okay, I've gone on a bit, but I hope the point is clear... The ten commandments are still God's law, believed to be so by Jew's and Christians alike. Rev. JP Burns Life's Grace Ministry Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient [This message has been edited by JP (04-16-2003 10:04 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Actually, JP, I think the quote is "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The Ten Commandments (the Law) provides the Hebrew path to righteousness and God. Yes, Jesus upheld the Law, obeying every command in every way. And He has been the ONLY man in all of history to ever do so. Unfortunately, there isn't any "I almost made it!" clauses in God's Law. To reach God through righteousness is all or nothing. The purpose of the Law, and indeed of the entire Old Testament, was to give mankind the opportunity to save itself. We couldn't do that, of course, because perfect obedience first requires perfection. But we had to be shown we couldn't do it on our own, else the fulfillment of the law would have been incomplete. We couldn't do it, so Jesus did it for us. He fulfilled the law by strict and perfect adherence to the law, then passed on the benefits to us through grace and forgiveness. Not only is there is no conflict between the Old Testament and the New, but they, instead, compliment and reinforce each other. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It should be noted that in the first century Christianity was a Jewish sect. In fact, converts to Christianity had to first become Jewish if they weren't already. This caused a rift between Paul -- the Apostle to the Gentiles -- and the church in Jerusalem headed by James (the brother of Jesus). After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the power base of the Jewish Church dwindled along with that of the other Hebrews. The Church in the west was able to survive and the gentile version is what has been passed down through the generations. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
It serves to mention as well that many of the Catholic practices and beliefs (preisthood, sisterhood, confession, just to name a few) had its beginings from earlier established - non judeo/christian religions. While I would never ascribe sinister motives to the catholic heirarchy, the original versions of thier religious structure were used as a "Big Brother" network, to keep an eye on the populace and an ear to the ground. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
I am going through a course in the Catholic Church called New Wine. It is a 3-year course that explains why Catholics follow their traditions and how each Catholic can fulfill their part in Gods plan. I am still learning. I was confirmed two Easters ago. My knowledge is still limited so I will only reply to topics I’m familiar with. The early Christians became known as “The People of the Way” during the early part of our history. They still went to Jewish synagogues and participated in the church. The huge separation between the two did not start until after the destruction of the Jewish temple. Most Jewish Christians fled into the areas of Turkey, Greece, Syria, India and Italy. This caused a rift in traditional Jewish values. Jewish Christians were also being bared from the synagogues. Paul is the one who expanded Christianity to include gentiles and not just Jews. The Gentiles of the time brought in their points of view and beliefs into the church. Paul was a lawyer and one of the few educated apostles. (Remember most of the other apostles were common men. Peter was a fisherman) Most people don’t realize how deep the Catholic religion is rooted in Jewish tradition. An example is a SEDAR MEAL and the significance it plays in our lives. Well I am at work and I can explain better when I am not looking over my shoulder for the boss so I will finish this later. Thomas |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
To add to JPs' post, all hebrew and christian religons share a past in earlier pagan religons, notably Baal, a God of Palistine.Abrahams monotheistic God, Yahweh translates early to mountian God, a warrior God. Jason |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well if you're looking for logic in catholicism you won't find it. First of all consider that Jesus himself NEVER wished to create a new religion but to reform Judaism and that is where any Hebrew influence seeps through to the new testament, through his speeches. When you consider the early history of Christianity you'll find the split between Jesus' view, as carried on by James his brother and the apostles, with Paul's view. I don't know about you but I think I'd trust the brother of Jesus more so than say Paul who was a roman outsider and rumoured spy. If one reads Paul's views in Acts, Apostles and his other Epistles one finds a man on the run, literally forced and kicked out by the other apostles for his radical changes. He is even lashed. He admits to all of this of course but cleanly absolves himself by saying Jesus appeared to him in the desert as he ran and had told him he was to do these things. Pauline christianity greatest influence is the bastardization or absolute erasure of the Hebrew element for introduction to Roman audiences. This is where the pagan element is most visible. To work with the roman audience there are drastic changes in its ceremonies, its holy dates now coincide with pagan holidays, etc.. Also the NT has a way of absolving any Roman wrong doing and placing it on the jews. Pontius Pilate is historically known to be one of the most ruthless tyrants not the kind and benevolent leader portrayed in the NT. Also there are absolutely NO record or known tradition whereby the romans allowed one criminal to walk free by vote of the jews. Christianity's origins and roots are muddled at best thanks to the persecution of the early christians and the destruction or hiding of early christian thought (read the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for insight, these were books of the bible later excluded for their radical and conflicting views with the new catholicism) Oh god both K and Sue know I can go on forever but I won't..must...hold..tongue in check..on this..holy...day |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Wow, there is sooo much to address in the previous reply I don't even no where, or if, to begin... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well don't be shy JP lol I don't bite, I'm not a scholar but I've studied christianity for quite awhile now. The wonderful thing in studying Christianity is that it is a fairly recent relegion shaped over the course of DOCUMENTED history. Which is a beautiful thing when researching cause and effect. There are truths for those who seek but not what most would want to see. But I only came to add my two cents worth as to the rift between Hebrew and Catholic dogma.. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-18-2003 02:00 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Law has been upheld and fulfilled (by Christ through his life), the price for sin has been paid for all men (by Christ through his sacrificial death). All that remains is the personal acceptance of that sacrifice on one’s behalf, through faith (trust) in what Christ has already done, as sufficient. We can't, as Ron said, establish our own righteousness through the keeping of the Law. It'll never happen. Here are some excerpts from the site below that put the focus where it needs to be, relative to the Law, and our standing in the eyes of God. http://www.e-grace.net/archive_jan02.html#Propitiation: Satisfying God's Justice quote: quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron writes: We couldn't do that, of course, because perfect obedience first requires perfection. But we had to be shown we couldn't do it on our own, else the fulfillment of the law would have been incomplete. It's always curious how we can read something and come up with such different thoughts....especially concerning the Bible! My take on it is, respectfully, the opposite. In Exodus we come to know the true personality of God. God was not the good humor ice cream man. God was a very stern, unforgiving and even vindictive being. There are many events to justify these thoughts. Consider the plagues of Egypt. God commanded Moses to deliver ultimatums to the Pharaoh under penalty of a plague striking the city...and He made it impossible for the Pharaoh to concede! Each time Pharaoh wanted to say ok, God hardened his heart so that he wouldn't give in and then sent another plague. His reasoning was obvious...He wanted to teach Pharaoh a lesson and perpetrated this facade of giving a choice to drive the point home...culminating with the killing of thousands of newborn babies. One could call that rather harsh. God sent an angel to kill Moses. His crime? He had not had one of his sons circumcized. Even the footnotes in the Bible plead Moses' case in that....Moses had spent a good part of his life as Egyptian royalty. Then he fled into the desert, got married, had sons. Afterwards God presented himself to him. Moses was then charged with being God's representative in the dealings with the Pharaoh. It is very easy to speculate that Moses had not had the circumcision done simply because it slipped his mind. It had not been a requirement when the child was born because Moses hadn't met God yet. It could have simply been a mistake...not a deliberate attempt to disobey God. That make a difference? Nope. God sent an angel to kill him anyway...kill Moses, the mortal he had hand-selected to be his spokesperson and representative for that simple lack of action - and He would have had not Moses' wife performed the circumcision in that moment, satisfying God's wrath. Doesn't this sound like a little bit of an over-reaction? The thing was that God was not by nature a compassionate or forgiving being. What are the penalties for disobeying the Ten COmmandments? For Thou Shalt Not Kill, the penalty is death. For raising a hand against one's mother or father, the penalty was death. For the majority of God's laws, the penalty was death. God was the first advocate of capital punishment. Obey His law or die...that was the bottom line. When Moses came down with the ten Commandments and saw the debauchery and praying to false idols and the drunkenness that had taken place during his absence, God told Moses He was going to kill them all. Not deal with...not forgive...kill..period. Moses did his best to reason with Him, pointing out that it would serve no purpose to rescue them from Egypt only to kill them in the desert. God relented..the Bible says He 'regretted' his decision to kill them. This is very important. First, these examples show that God was a strict, unforgiving and ruthless entity. Second, it showed that, in spite of that, he could be swayed to change his mind by a mortal. It happened twice....once by Moses' wife and once by Moses himself. What important thing does this say? To the Christians this say that Jesus Christ is the best friend they will ever have. Jesus became the buffer. Humanity was the class, Jesus the teacher, and God the principal. You did not want to get sent to the principal's office without your teacher speaking in your behalf! So that is why, Ron, I have a different idea of it all being a lesson to show humanity that it could not be perfect. I believe that, by God's actions, He expected perfection at that time and was willing to kill whatever, or whoever, did not meet His demands. You don't kill an entire race to show them a lesson because what lesson could be learned by the dead? That's what He was ready to do. It did not make God more compassionate because He later refused Moses entrance to the promised land after forty years of wandering in the desert for the simple reason that Moses had struck a rock instead of speaking to it to get water from it...but it at least saved the Jews at that time. My thoughts would be that Jesus was created by God to be the one being on Earth capable of following all of God's laws. So what did Jesus do? He became the champion of the sinners (the rest of us) and, through his sacrifice, appeased God's wrath and convinced Him that our survuval was worthwhile, even with all of our imperfections. If not for Jesus, I think humanity would have disappeared long ago from God's wrathful hand as an experiment that just didn't work out. Denise quote: It is too often supposed that human repentance and sorrow soften the heart of God and render Him propitious. It is the legal fact that Christ has borne all sin which renders God propitious. (emphasis added) You can't be more right, Denise. Repentance and sorrow does not soften God's heart. God is love - but it is a tough love, not giving in to repentance or excuse. These reasons make me feel that it must be a bit more comforting to be a Christian as opposed to a Jew. With God being the unforgiving, brutal and vindictive being He has occasionally shown Himself to be, I would not rest easy without the belief that there is a counter-balance working in my favor. Of course, Jews may think I'm nuts for thinking that...and they could be right! Wouldn't be the first time and these are only thoughts of mine alone, nothing more....are any of them valid? God only knows...  |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
stunning replies - I will be back to address them seperately . . . |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
My head hurts to much to consider |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Again... Wow! Okay Balladeer, so God is strict, he sets the rules and has one punishment for failure to adhere to those rules... sounds kinda efficient So let's consider this: Here is God, he knows he is strict, he know's his creation cannot adhere to his laws because they are not perfect (although he made them to be and they frigged that up from the begining) so God is sitting there having tea, thinking to himself "I am a jealous, righteous, and strict God, but I am a loving God - my children are running around down there all amuck-like, what should I do?" "I know! Since the penalty for not obeying my laws is death, I will send my son down there and he can die in the place of those ruffians... that way, they will not be held to a standard they can never achieve, and I will be able to bring them home when the time is right." So, he strict, jealous, righteous, 'harsh' but willing to sacrifice his only Son on our behalf - pretty loving I think. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
JP... God drinks tea??? I'd never considered that, although I'm sure Englishmen at least agree. Actually, I have a different view than the one you present....and, believe me, I'm not claiming that mine is right because I am flying as blind as you or anyone else who tries to claim they have the answers. All we can have are our opinions based on how we perceive the Bible. My view is that God didn't send His Son down in order to sacrifice Him. My view is that He sent Jesus to have one being on Earth capable of living by God's laws...perhaps to serve as an example to humanity that it could indeed be done. Of course that didn't work completely because man is man and therefore imperfect. I think that when God saw that He decided elimination was the answer. What did Jesus do? He said no! He opted to side with humanity because He believed in the goodness of humanity, regardless of the fact they were imperfect. "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." I can even imagine, in my fancy, a lively conversation between God and Jesus with God saying why are you sticking up for those bozos? They're a mess!..and Jesus saying yes, but they have goodness of heart and cannot help their weaknesses. Then I believe it was Jesus, not God, who decided to sacrifice his life for humanity's sake. When God saw this, that Jesus felt so strongly He was willing to sacrifice His own life for mankind - He, the one without sin giving His own life for the lives of the sinners, He allowed Jesus' sacrifice to offset the sins of mankind and spared them. So I don't believe that it was all a preconceived plan of God's to send down his Son and sacrifice Him. It was Jesus pleading for man that led to His willingness to give His life to give mankind a new chance....that's how I see it and any similarity between my views and the actual truth is purely coincidental |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So, you don't believe God is omniscient, Mike? God, and by extension Jesus, are capable of making mistakes and thus imperfect? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That is one excellent question, Ron, and one that makes any faith I may have as brittle as a three-day-old icicle. No, I do not believe He is. There are too many contradictions to consider Him so. If He had known Adam and Eve were going to destroy the sanctity of Eden, why let them...or even create them? If He had known Egyptians were going to hold Jews in bondage, why create Egyptians? If He truly wanted everyone to be perfect and have them follow His laws, why not just make them perfect? I believe God had the power to create and destroy but not the power to control. He could set the events in motion but they would proceed according to their own plan, or destiny..from what the world is it appears to me that He can punish or reward but not control, otherwise why is there so much evil in the world? Why so much sin? Earth's history is filled with war, brutality, murder, injustices. If God truly can control everything, then why has it ben so? Why did God have to punish the Pharaoh with the plagues to teach him a lesson? Why not just change his heart? If one believes that God is indeed omniscient, then one must believe that God has directed events to make the world what it is today and what it has been in the past..that all of the wars, brutality and man's inhumanity to man are by His design. If one believes that, then one cannot believe that God is love. Quite a conundrum, isn't it? We thank God for His mercies but we don't blame him for atrocities....why not if He is all-knowing and all-controlling? Do I think God and Jesus are imperfect? No. I simply believe they do not foretell the future...they watch and they make decisions based on the progression of events. That's not an imperfection.... Hopefully, I am not displaying a lack of respect for those who feel otherwise..... |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
No you have some good points but as you said yourself "believe me, I'm not claiming that mine is right because I am flying as blind as you or anyone else who tries to claim they have the answers. All we can have are our opinions based on how we perceive the Bible." Mine is God allows us freedom to worship him or not to worship him. Free choice is what makes our worship of him so special. Oh and I think he has a huge sense of humor |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly my thoughts, Thomas. God granted man free will and allowed him to make his own decisions - and mistakes. God doesn't know the future any more than we do. He just keeps looking into this petri dish we call Earth and probably shakes his head slowly in wonder - and possibly amusement. Someone once said that it is impossible to look at the platypus and not believe that God has a sense of humor! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God has always, from the time of Adam, demanded perfection. Sin is just another word for disobedience, and just as you can't be half-pregnant, you can't be almost obedient. You are or you aren't. Like any good parent, God established parameters and defined consequences. Do this and that will happen. Do that and this will happen. Unlike most human fathers, God then did exactly what He had said He would do. I wouldn't call that cruel and vindictive. I'd call that perfect consistency. While it's certainly easy to conclude that "Jesus was created by God to be the one being on Earth capable of following all of God's laws," such a conclusion will eventually raise many more questions than it answers. It's not necessarily intuitive, but the only conclusion that works in the long run is that Jesus, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, have always existed and were not created at all. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The relationship between God and Adam, and later between God and Abraham, was a legal one. The former was a very simple "contract" and was inherited by every human born of Adam. It foreshadowed the latter contract, which was much, much more complex and is still in force today for every Jew and Muslim born of Abraham. When Adam and Eve broke the first contract, the result was death, both a spiritual death and eventually a physical one. For God to do anything else would have made Him a liar. All who have died since then have died at the hand of Adam, not God. At most, God may have picked the time. Do you spank your errant child in ten minutes or in thirty? Generations later, God offered Abraham a partial out. Do this and do that, said God, and the spiritual death earned by Adam can be lifted. There were a whole lot of this's and that's, of which the Ten Commandments were only a part. Integral to this contract was the concept of appeasement through blood. Some say this, too, actually goes back to Adam. We usually remember that Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, but Genesis also tells us that God, before kicking them out of the Garden, made "coats of skins, and clothed them." This is the first recorded death in the Bible, and perhaps a harbinger of what was to come - that shed blood would be a covering for sin. "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22) Jesus didn't "convince" God that our "survival was worthwhile, even with all of our imperfections." That was never necessary, and even the idea of convincing an omniscient God of something boggles the mind. Jesus, rather, fulfilled the contracts God had made with Adam and Abraham. If the blood of a bull or goat or ewe could wash away a little sin, the blood of Jesus would wash away all sin. Completely. Totally. For all time. quote: But, Mike, there are also too many contradictions to NOT consider God omniscient. Virtually everything Jesus did in his brief time on Earth was foretold hundreds and even thousands of years earlier by the prophets of God. The place of his birth, Bethlehem, was prophesied in Micah 5:2. The time of his birth was prophesied in Daniel 9:25. In Psalm 69:9 we learn He will be heralded by John the Baptist, in Psalms 78:2, we learn that Jesus will teach in parables, and in Malachi 3:1 and Psalm 69:9 we learn how Jesus will drive the money-changers from the Temple. In Psalms 41:9, we learn of the betrayal of Judas and in Zechariah 11:13 the price of that betrayal, thirty pieces of silver, is foretold. Vivid details of His crucifixion and death are sprinkled throughout the Old Testament, in Isaiah 50:6 (spitting and slapping), Psalm 22:16 (piercings), Isaiah 53:12 (crucified with criminals), Psalm 22:18 (casting lots for His clothes), Psalm 69:21 (vinegar to drink), and Amos 8:9 (the darkening of the skies). Some few of the prophecies might be coincidences. Many could be manipulations by those who wrote the New Testament. But there are literally thousands of such minutia, none of which have ever been proven false. And what of the New Testament and the book of Revelations? To believe that God doesn't know the future is to deny the prophecies of John and the second coming of Jesus. The most important messages of the Bible depend on God's accurate predictions of a future yet to come. The bottom line is that God and Jesus either know the future or have repeatedly lied to us about knowing the future. quote: How does one reconcile these contradictions with the ones you noted? I don't even pretend to understand the answers to that question. But I long ago learned that anything and everything of worth always carries a price. My mom didn't send me to grade school to catch the mumps, chicken pox, and measles, though I'm sure she knew that would be a cost of going. At the time, I'll admit that I couldn't imagine ANYTHING being worth the mumps, and years later, I'm still not too sure it was. But Mom thought so. Free will is the greatest gift in the Universe, and I have to suspect the price is correspondingly high. Could God have made us perfect? Sure, but we would not have been mankind. We would have been angels. Beautiful, glorious, utterly servile, but very different from what God apparently intended. The very existence of mankind, something created by God but with the choice to follow or not follow God, is a paradox of the highest order. Had Adam not disobeyed God and been cast from Eden, there would have been no war, no disease, no death, no brutality, none of the contradictions that point to a God that is other than love. But could there be free will without disobedience? If there was only the theoretical possibility of disobedience, without the reality, would it still be free will? Can there be salvation without sin? Can a sword be tempered and made hard without searing heat? As fond as I am of analogies, there isn't anything that even remotely describes our relationship with God. I sometimes imagine myself writing a computer program. By definition, the program has to do exactly what I tell it to do, because, frankly, I don't know how else to do it. Even random choices can only exist because I explicitly randomize them. So, how do I tell the program to disobey me? I can't. And if I could, if the computer program really did disobey me, wouldn't it only be doing so because I told it to? Wouldn't its disobedience be just another form of obedience? Our relationship with God is a paradox. On good days, my faith insists there is a reason we are unlike the angels and the beasts of the field, insists God has a plan far beyond my understanding, insists that we are being prepared in the only way possible for something very, very special. On bad days, I find myself wondering if maybe mankind is just another incredibly funny platypus? |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
Littlewing are you going to add your 2 cents? Because at this rate I am going to lose my sense. LOL |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Thomas lol - yes - I am gathering my info to be precise and accurate in order to properly back my statements . . . xxoo |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And what of the New Testament and the book of Revelations? To believe that God doesn't know the future is to deny the prophecies of John and the second coming of Jesus Unfortunately, Ron, I have little problem denying either of them. I just don't know...period. What irks me is those who do claim to know. Is there life after death? Seems to me the only one qualified to know is someone who has been there and come back to tell us...I haven't heard of that happening and yet mortals will stand up there and tell me in no uncertain terms there is. I have problems with much of it. Adam's sin was eating from the tree of knowledge...as if knowledge were the sin. I have a problem with original sin. I have a problem with telling a one minute year old bably he is a sinner by the virtue of being born. That strikes me as the mantle of sin being used by the church as a weapon to force people to feel unworthy and spend their lives being repentant for actions they had no control over. Is the only way to get to heaven by accepting Jesus as the Son of God? What about Ghandi or other great figues of history who were not Christians? Are they out? What about the millions of people who existed before Jesus was born? Do they get grandfathered in? Jesus gave his life for our sins. So Jesus is dead? No, He is alive....so did he really die or just change addresses from Earth to heaven? Did God sacrifice His son or simply call him home and, if so, is that really a sacrifice? Yes, paradoxes indeed....paradoxes of the cruelest kind because the answers to them cannot be realized on Earth. All people have is their faith, not based on knowledge or fact but by what they feel in their hearts...and if that faith commits them to being God-fearing and kind to their fellow man, then so be it. That's good enough. My girlfriend is a devout Christian and one day, playing devil's advocate, I goaded her unmercifully in a tongue in cheek way about the inconsistencies of the Bible. Finally she said "Look, I can't tell you without a doubt that God exists, that Jesus exists or that Heaven exists. All I can go by is my faith and the teachings of the church. If it all exists, I feel I will be rewarded. If it doesn't and there is nothingness then I won't know it anyway so I'm going to cover my bases and believe with all my heart and hope for the best." I think she has the right idea.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, you're going in a very different direction now, both from the original question and certainly from your own earlier posts. Virtually every one of your rhetorical questions has a logical, reasoned response, available from even a cursory study of Christian beliefs. But those answers, as you've said, are only answers for those willing to accept the underlying premises. There are two way to discuss religion. One is to argue the existence of God, which seems to be what you are attempting in your last post. That can be fun, but is ultimately fruitless since such existence can never be proved or disproved. The second way to discuss religion is to agree on a foundation, which I thought was the tone of your earlier posts. Euclid set down his postulates, then used strict logic to build his Geometry. Euclidean geometry might be right or it might be wrong (in the sense it reflects the Universe), but there is absolutely no question that it is consistently and internally logical. A discussion of Christianity might never be quite as rigorous as Euclid's math, but it can come surprising close. IF those in the discussion agree on their postulates. BTW, the logic your girlfriend presented is called Pascal's Wager, and it does indeed make a whole lot of sense. |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
Okay Littlewing I was just wondering |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I would certainly be interested in those logical, reasoned responses to my questions. As far as my going in two different directions...you are so right. That's why I get so confused with religion. I can make a case for belief or non-belief, for foundation or non-foundation....and have no idea if I am even close with either one. When one tries to reason out the unexplainable it can lead to many different directions. The direction I began with are my poor attempts at trying to figure out what the Bible is saying with respect to God's personality and what role Jesus plays in the scenario. My other direction is questioning the validity of either....there are even more directions my befuddled mind can traverse when mired in religious ponderings. My girlfriend and I travel different roads to come to the same location..she believes by believing she will enter heaven if it exists. I believe that by living the best life I can for myself with respect for the rights of my fellow man I will enter Heaven if it exists...Christianity agrees with her but not with me...and I can live with that, too. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I could of sworn that earlier, I posted a reply and now I find that it is gone. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Foretelling the future? Not the same as foreknowledge I think. God did give us free will... why then would he involve himself in our day to day affairs? Why would he give us the gift of free will if he were then going to eliminate every obstacle to our decision to go to him? Not create the Egyptions because the Isrealites were to be enslaved by them? Why create Adam and Eve if they were going to destroy the sanctity of Eden? What joy is there in forcing someone to obey and love you? What use in this worship if it is compulsory? To be God and have your creations come to you and love you of their own choice regardless of the things You've seen them survive... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Well said, JP. If I were The Creator, I surely would not have a need to be praised by those whom I created. There would be no purpose for it, except for a sheer craving for attention. Why would Jesus want millions of "saved" people to play harps while they sing to him at his feet? Oh, the license to sin is given to all who believe. I always thought worshipping God was done out of "selflessness" not "selfishness" ~ I mean what is the meaning of obeying and accepting a saviour if the "I" doesn't receive something in return - immortality? [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-25-2003 08:19 AM).] |
||
|
bklynboy Senior Member
since 2002-12-15
Posts 660florida |
Just my 2 cents worth One who follows the Tao does not care to argue whether or not God exists, or to feel compelled to be obedient; they are simply in harmony with the Tao drinking green tea , while the others argue |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Any parent who says they don't want their children to love them is either lying or in need of serious psychological help. Such a desire is not selfish or egotistical, but is born instead of the unconditional love any good parent feels for their children. How many times have you heard the advise, "Always show your kids that you love them?" Taken by itself, out of context, that advise is a load of crap. The key to happy, healthy children who will become happy, healthy adults is to teach them to GIVE love. Showing your kids you love them is certainly part of that, a very big part of it, but it is still the path and not the goal. A parent should very much want their child to love them, not because it bolsters parental ego, but because it is the most important thing a mom or dad will ever teach their kid. Lives and hearts are never changed by merely receiving love. It is only when we feel it blossom within our own heart, when we GIVE our love freely to another, that we come to know its real power. This is true on a human level, and I think it's equally true on a divine level. Learning how to love God isn't for His benefit. It's for ours. quote: Or perhaps they are in harmony with green tea, while learning to drink Tao? Arguing is not the same thing as questioning. If free will is our God-given right to make choices, then the ability and willingness to ask questions is a very necessary part of that gift. Those who never question will never learn, and choices made in blind ignorance are an insult to both Man and God. There can be no harmony until first there is discord. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, If God exists and knows the future why would he/she bother to intervene in what is, by definition, a foregone conclusion? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Again, C, you're asking circular questions. "Why would he/she ..." suggests a time line that quite possibly exists only in your own perception of the universe. Creation was/is/will be an intervention, and without the ambiguity of time, may well have been/is/will be the only intervention necessary. That First Intervention (which, again, is a misnomer in the absence of time) would have necessarily created all or any other interventions, right along with your foregone conclusion. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have to go back to one of my first examples..God getting angry and threatening to kill the Israelites. First, if God gave man free will and yet knew exactly what decisions would be made in advance and what the outcomes would be from the use of that free will, then why get so murderously angry when that free will lead them away from His commands? No, I'm sorry but every action He took convinces me that He did NOT know what paths would be taken....otherwise His anger and vindictiveness would be nothing more than a sham and theatrical presentation. It would also be very cruel to punish for committing acts one knows in advance will be committed. You can't have it both ways. God either does not know which paths man's free will shall follow or God has a sadistic streak..I would prefer to hope that it is the former.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, why would you lend any credence at all to the stories of God's anger and displeasure detailed in Exodus? If God has lied to us about knowing ALL, then you have to assume that story is a lie, too, and you can't use it to prove or disprove anything. You're trying to take the word of a liar to prove He's a liar? You either have to throw out the Bible entirely or try to resolve perceived conflicts within the context of the entire book. The latter isn't always easy, sometimes it doesn't even seem possible, but personally, I don't think that's necessarily bad news. Any Absolute, whether it be omniscience, omnipotence, or this sentence, is a paradox just waiting to be revealed. The Bible is written in layers, and I don't think it's possible to fully understand a hidden layer until you have reached at least a partial understanding of the revealed layers. I believe that apparent contradictions in the Bible are invitations, like giant sign posts pointing to something really, really important. They exist for a reason, though I don't pretend to understand all those reasons. Put another way, seeming contradictions are choices to be made. Do you trust there are resolutions, even if they may exist beyond your current understanding? Or do you assign your own limitations to God and throw out the baby with the bath water? I've always felt those were the only two choices, but you seem to be presenting me with a third I never considered. You seem to want to do both? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Any parent who says they don't want their children to love them is either lying or in need of serious psychological help." ~ Really Ron. I do believe you should refrain from discussing issues with me because doing so clogs your sense of perception. Which "any parent" are you talking about? Certainly not me. Since when does praise = love? I don't need my children to praise my name. I don't need my children to play harps at my feet. I don't need my children to give me glory. That has nothing...listen Ron...nothing to do with expressing and teaching about giving LOVE. Get it? Good. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
After two years, Opeth, one would think you'd learn that twisting words to suit your own purpose wasn't going to work. Where in my post do I mention praise, harps, or glory? Those are presumably your concepts of divine love, not mine. When I say "love" you can assume I meant to use that precise word. When I use generalities like "any parent," you need not get defensive. Trust me; I rarely have a problem saying what I mean and I doubt I'll ever need your help finding the right word. Should that happen, though, I'll be sure to ask. Got it? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Sorry, Ron. I am not buying the backpedaling that you are selling. If you are going to post my quote about praising God and immediately below that comment, go on a tangent about love and parenting, well then, logically you directed your belief statements towards my quote. Not being defensive, Ron, just observant. Got it? Good. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Backpedaling? You give yourself too much credit, I'm afraid. Or perhaps you could explain exactly why I would have any reason to backpedal from you? I said exactly what I meant to say. Not my fault if it makes you feel so, uh, observant? |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, As I understand it what you are saying is that as we are bound by the linear progression of time, in the same way that the alphabet runs from A to Z. God could formulate the beginning of creation simultaneously at all points from A to Z and Armageddon at the same point. However the effects of Gods actions, as far as man and creation is concerned, cannot occur at any other time than point A or Z respectfully. All this is of course possible but that would allow the destiny of man to be known by God, he would need to know that we are heading towards Z and the point in our timeline when we will arrive. If that is true the future and the events that occur at point Z surely have to be fixed for God to know them, doesn’t that mean we have no control of our own destiny that we cannot change what will happen? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Ron, there is a third path. One is seeing things as you think they are. One is seeing things as you wish they were. One is the internal struggle of trying to convince yourself that number two may be possible even though number one seems to be the more realistic. I would chide God for being a liar, not out of insult, but because I desperately don't want Him to be and I would love to be convinced He is not...unfortunately that hasn't happened and the "we are not meant to understand" is too foreign to my personality to be of much use. Guess I'll just wait and see what happens...... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm going to assume you wrote those words on your own, without someone standing over your shoulder directing what you typed? Further, I'm going to assume you made choices in what you said, exercised your free will in deciding what to say and how to say it? Yet, in spite of that, those words are now frozen, at least in the sense that I know exactly what you typed. Does that knowledge in any way detract from the choices you made? Does it undermine your free will? Of course not. The words and choices are still yours, even though I know what they were. Remove time from the equation, and there is no discernible difference between knowledge and foreknowledge. Would it really make any difference to you if I had also known what they "would be?" Knowing exactly what you have done doesn't interfere with your free will. Knowing exactly what you WILL do doesn't interfere, either. Not unless I share that foreknowledge with you. And that ain't happening as far as I can see. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Balladeer said: quote: And while I might wish it, too, Mike, I've never felt that was something I could do well. Actually, I'm not sure that's something anyone can do well. There is no "proof" of God's existence and, in my opinion, that's not an accident. Uncontestable proof, I think, would come very close to hindering free will. I agree that the "we are not meant to understand" pill is one not easily swallowed. But I don't think it's quite that simple, either. My three-year-old son couldn't understand calculus, but my 28-year-old son can and should. He still has to work at it, though, learning algebra and trig first, and the understanding won't ever be instantaneous. Being convinced is accumulative, I think, and understanding is a matter of delving through the various levels of the Bible. Can it ever be entirely understood? Should I ever reach that point, I'll let you know. Please don't hold your breath, though? But even if it is beyond my ken, that's okay, too. Frankly, if I ever feel I can fathom the mind and plan of God, it sure won't be the God we've been discussing here. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, If I was destined to write it - if it was pre-determined that I couldn’t choose to write anything else - then surely I don’t possess a free will, I just think I do. After all I couldn’t have chosen to do anything else. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But you could. You could and can write anything you wish. Once you've made your choices and posted them, then I will know what they are. If I knew right now what they would be, that wouldn't change a thing. That I might be able to "guess" all of your decisions, even with 100 percent accuracy, doesn't take the decisions away from you. If you don't know what is predestined, all of your choices are still open to you. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, Doesn't that just equate to it being an illusion? If the future is fixed all the choices may be available but I can only choose one, the one that I’m pre-destined to choose – I have the illusion of free will. Under such circumstances I cannot do anything to alter what will happen, if I could the future would not be the fixed future that God has seen – one is incompatible with the other. Let’s say for a moment that this is how it is, that man has the illusion of free will and God knows and has seen the future. In this scenario you’d have to admit that God knew that he would hand down the Ten Commandments, the obvious question however is could he/she have decided not to? Littlewing, I’m sorry I’ve digressed away from the original topic, it’s probably due to intense curiosity and a side order of selfishness on my part. The original question was how the Ten Commandments became part of the Roman Catholic religion. My opinion is that the answer lies in the creation of the Pauline church that split from the devoutly Jewish church of Jerusalem founded by the disciples of Jesus. It was the followers of Paul who wrote and collated the gospels of the New Testament almost a century after the death of Jesus, to add credence to the new religion aspects of the Jewish faith including the Ten Commandments were adopted. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-26-2003 07:03 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
It is not only a breach between the Old testament and the New testament there is also the split between the disciples and original 'Christian' thought and what became Pauline Roman catholic thought. Pauline though and the entire New Testament was written to entice and persuade a Roman audience thus the chasm between Judaic and Pauline thought...sigh. Oh nevermind |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well since the original question has been asked and answered many times over I spose it's ok to proceed -- I'm not sure why this topic is in the Alley in the first place -- but -- Ron Pascal's Wager doesn't make sense because it assumes that this Hebrew Lord would want someone to 'fake' it just on the bet that he exists. This runs completely contrary to the record. IE: "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." And then there is the bit about preferring someone hot or cold and spewing out the lukewarm et al. Deer, There are fourth and fifth possibilities as well. Some who seek to maintain some modicum of relevancy of the bible ascribe the apparant changing face of God as a growth in understanding amongst the authors over the many generations instead of a change in God. It's pretty easy to see that understanding evolve. Of course -- the fifth possibility is pretty close to what Ron is saying -- and that is that we're ill equipped to understand the nature of God and whether or how influence is exacted in the universe. I have to give you credit Ron for that point -- but then you go back to anthropomorphizing God into the parent paradigm.... and that's ok because it's your view. The Kabbalists had an interesting interpretation of the interaction between God and the observable universe that goes something like this... You dream that you're floating on an iceberg freezing to death and you awake to find you've kicked the covers off the bed. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-27-2003 03:22 PM).] |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Deep Breath . . . Amazing replies everyone - here is what I came up with: Jason: As to the 10 commandments being at the core of both religons. I think christians view the Hebrews as their beginnings, and ancestory. Up until the birth of Jesus, the roots and beliefs are the same Exactly - I agree TY K: There is NO borrowing. There is no theft. There is only personal realization of Godhead that transcends time, culture, and laws of man. It's a very personal path. To assume superiority of one's OWN path, is to attempt to question the values of self vs. divine--and the lines of those answers define our limitations. Excellent - yes - I do agree - unfortunately we have this thing called the Bible . . . which I am trying to work through here - but yours - seems like a more peaceful way TY Ron: The Ten Commandments (the Law) provides the Hebrew path to righteousness and God Just what I was looking for TY JP: It should be noted that in the first century Christianity was a Jewish sect. I like this idea - do you have any more thoughts on this? I do think that Christianity stems from and is rooted deeply in Judiasm and that is what my question begs . . . why the switch - why not one religion? the original versions of thier religious structure were used as a "Big Brother" network, to keep an eye on the populace and an ear to the ground. another amazing statement TY TY Thomas: The huge separation between the two did not start until after the destruction of the Jewish temple. Most people don’t realize how deep the Catholic religion is rooted in Jewish tradition. An example is a SEDAR MEAL and the significance it plays in our lives. That is what I am seeking - the seperation . . . Jason: TY for the views on diversification - we need more on this - anyone? Yahweh translates early to mountian God, a warrior God. Raph: to my rescue Well if you're looking for logic in catholicism you won't find it. Pauline christianity greatest influence is the bastardization or absolute erasure of the Hebrew element for introduction to Roman audiences. This is where the pagan element is most visible. To work with the roman audience there are drastic changes in its ceremonies, its holy dates now coincide with pagan holidays, etc.. Christianity is that it is a fairly recent relegion shaped over the course of DOCUMENTED history Excellent! Yes TY Balladeer: For me it is much more confusing to understand Christianity than it is Judiasm. These reasons make me feel that it must be a bit more comforting to be a Christian as opposed to a Jew Thomas: excellent views - yes I agree fully: FREEWILL & Yes a HUGE sense of humor . . . Mine is God allows us freedom to worship him or not to worship him. Free choice is what makes our worship of him so special. Oh and I think he has a huge sense of humor Balladeer: He just keeps looking into this petri dish we call Earth and probably shakes his head slowly in wonder - and possibly amusement. I KNOW he/she does this . . . BB: hehe - made me smile there for a sec Ron: OUTSTANDING STATEMENT - WHICH IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD: Those who never question will never learn, and choices made in blind ignorance are an insult to both Man and God. There can be no harmony until first there is discord . . . You either have to throw out the Bible entirely or try to resolve perceived conflicts within the context of the entire book . . . Thank you Eddie: no apologies please - this is why I started this . . . do you have more on this? My opinion is that the answer lies in the creation of the Pauline church that split from the devoutly Jewish church of Jerusalem founded by the disciples of Jesus. It was the followers of Paul who wrote and collated the gospels of the New Testament almost a century after the death of Jesus, to add credence to the new religion aspects of the Jewish faith including the Ten Commandments were adopted. Raph: again here - please continue: Pauline though and the entire New Testament was written to entice and persuade a Roman audience thus the chasm between Judaic and Pauline thought Rebel: I posted this here because this is a forum open for discussion - highly charged or not - where else would I put it? I agree/disagree with many of these statements as all of us hol dour own belief system and opinion - a touchy subject indeed and really not one with rock solid answers but am pleased to see all I have learned here. I still question why the switch? Why not one religion? My misunderstanding lies in the fact of organized religion and specificaly WHY there was a switch. What purpose did this switch serve but to diversify spirituality? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Philosophy... of course |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I said exactly what I meant to say. Not my fault if it makes you feel so, uh, observant?" ~ Then tell me what my comment had to do with your declaration? It is quite simple, why post this... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I were The Creator, I surely would not have a need to be praised by those whom I created. There would be no purpose for it, except for a sheer craving for attention. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ My words and then answer with this... "Any parent who says they don't want their children to love them is either lying or in need of serious psychological help. Such a desire is not selfish or egotistical, but is born instead of the unconditional love any good parent feels for their children. How many times have you heard the advise, "Always show your kids that you love them?" ~ You quoted my statement regarding praise and then immediately talk about love, children and parents. How do they relate? [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 10:34 AM).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
It's obvious how they relate: God The Father.... Come on y'all! Get real. If you want to debate something be above pedestrian bickering. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
They only relate JP if one has a particularly anthropomorphic and Christian view of God. Not everyone does. The notion didn't really turn up in Hebrew thought until around the time of Jesus... perhaps he was the one that introduced the idea. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Crazy Eddie said: quote: Let's rephrase that slightly, using a different time-line. "If the past is fixed all the choices may have been available but I could only choose one, the one that I actually chose – I had the illusion of free will." Even if we agree that the past is fixed and cannot be altered, the conclusion that such a fixed past interferes with your free will makes little sense. They have nothing to do with each other. I believe the same is true of a fixed future, with only a slight variation in the equation. With past events, you know the choices made, but have no power to change them. With future events, you have the power to shape them, but do not know the choices that will be made. The equations are similar to moving like quantities from each side of the equals sign in algebra in the sense that such manipulation doesn't really change much. Both equations result in free will. Local Rebel said: quote: Actually, it's not my view. One danger of an analogy is that it can be taken too literally. And too far. That is particularly true when you are comparing the incomparable. Unfortunately, though insufficient, such comparisons are the only tools we have available. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
JP and Local Rebel, you both missed the point. They (my quote and his retort) don't relate at all unless one equates love to praise. I think Ron "jumped the gun" on his retort to my praising statement by equating my usage the term "praise" to his definition of love. To me, they are separate terms and not equivalent. Common Sense 101 I don't have to be praised to be loved. I don't have to praise in order to love. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
At some point, one would think I'd stop dropping pennies into the well. I know this is a waste of breath, but I guess there's a bit of masochist in all of us. Sigh. Praise and love are not equivalent terms, Opeth, but neither are they necessarily separate and unrelated. You have repeatedly used phrases alluding to praise, playing harps, giving glory, and singing at the feet of Jesus. Your tone seems to be one of mockery, but maybe that really is your interpretation of the Bible. Doesn't matter. You claimed that the only purpose behind praise was a "sheer craving for attention." I used a close analogy to show that wanting something from others, in the example I gave, love, wasn't necessarily as selfishly motivated as you concluded. That one went over your head, so let me try another, one perhaps a little closer to your world. A military officer doesn't require discipline, respect, and obedience from the enlisted ranks because he is on a selfish, power-hungry ego trip. He knows, instead, that those requirements will both lend order and purpose to the lives of the enlisted men and may, ultimately, be their only path to survival. Asking a man to salute you may seem like adulation, and forcing him to do pushups as punishment may be interpreted as petty, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a good officer loves the men he commands and wants only what is best for them. Those who ascribe his motivations to selfishness simply aren't looking very deeply. Wanting something from those we love, even demanding it, can often be the most true and real way of expressing our love. Tough love isn't an oxymoron. It's a redundancy. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
The Catholic religion is in fact the oldest religion in the world today. They can be traced back to as early as 50 BC. Over time they have become one of the most paganistic religions. Before a man can become a priest in the church of satan, he must be ordained as a Catholic Priest, that should tell you something. They are also steeped in idolatry. Well that was more than my penny on the Catholic Church.. So, anyway, on to the ten commandments. They were given in the age of law. Before Calvary, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the world was in the age of law. There is no way that anyone could ever live an entire life upon this earth and not break one or two, or more, of them. That was why there was the need for the priets to offer up a blood sacrifice once a year for the sins of the people. They were breaking them all the time. The catholics adopted, and still teach them as law for the simple fact that they believe the priest still has the power to forgive sins, and they think sin, sin that would make you miss heaven, is the breaking of the ten commandments. We now live in the age of grace. There is no more sacrifice for sin. Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. Priests no longer have the power to forgive sins. The Catholics seem to be unaware of this fact. But because they are a religion that puts more faith in acts, rituals, and hail mary's and such, they seem to find it comforting to have a set of rules they can easily recognize, and then be forgiven for by the priest. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 12:12 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Let’s start from the top… My original statement that made caused you to err in a retort “If I were The Creator, I surely would not have a need to be praised by those whom I created. There would be no purpose for it, except for a sheer craving for attention. (Your reply) “Any parent who says they don't want their children to love them is either lying or in need of serious psychological help. Such a desire is not selfish or egotistical, but is born instead of the unconditional love any good parent feels for their children. ~ And so, I ask how does one go on a rebuttal about “parents who say they don’t want their children to love them” out of my original statement about a Creator needing praise? You have yet to successfully answer that question. Your rebuttal just doesn’t make sense with regards to my original statement, unless one mistakenly reads “praise” as “love.” You further stated) ”A parent should very much want their child to love them, not because it bolsters parental ego, but because it is the most important thing a mom or dad will ever teach their kid.” ~ You make a definite link between the phrase “bolsters parental ego” and my “sheer craving for attention.” And by doing so you have mistakenly equated praise to love. (I replied) ”Really Ron. I do believe you should refrain from discussing issues with me because doing so clogs your sense of perception. Which "any parent" are you talking about? Certainly not me. Since when does praise = love? I don't need my children to praise my name. I don't need my children to play harps at my feet. I don't need my children to give me glory. That has nothing...listen Ron...nothing to do with expressing and teaching about giving LOVE.” (To which you replied) “Where in my post do I mention praise, harps, or glory? Those are presumably your concepts of divine love, not mine.” ~ Talk about twisting words, you lost track of what was said. It is not my concept of divine love, it is most likely yours and other Christians. You equated praise to learning how to love God…remember? “Learning how to love God isn't for His benefit. It's for ours. ~ I believe a Creator wouldn’t want his creations to go around praising Him (or Her), just like I wouldn’t want my children praising me. “Praise and love are not equivalent terms, Opeth, but neither are they necessarily separate and unrelated.” ~ True. However, you took a statement of mine that dealt with “praise” and immediately retorted by this… “Any parent who says they don't want their children to love them is either lying or in need of serious psychological help.” ~ Again, I ask you…how do you relate “Any parent who says…” to my original statement? To say I am being defensive is ridiculous. Two people are in a room, one says that god doesn’t need to be praised, the other person immediately says to that person, “Any parent…” What is the other person to think? P-lease. Your answers may fool others, but certainly not me. “You have repeatedly used phrases alluding to praise, playing harps, giving glory, and singing at the feet of Jesus. Your tone seems to be one of mockery, but maybe that really is your interpretation of the Bible. Doesn't matter.” ~ It is out of common sense. A Creator so powerful to create the universe would want people to play harps at his/her feet? This Creator would want people to sing and praise his/her name…for eternity? I don’t know about you, but I would be sick and tired of praising the Creator in about a week. ”You claimed that the only purpose behind praise was a "sheer craving for attention." I used a close analogy to show that wanting something from others, in the example I gave, love, wasn't necessarily as selfishly motivated as you concluded. That one went over your head,” ~ Your analogy doesn’t work, Ron. It doesn’t work with my original statement. What went over your head was your common sense when you allowed your personal bias towards me enable you to “jump the gun” when retorting. The subject of your analogy was about “love.” The subject of my original statement was about “praise.” Result, bad analogy, concocted out of a personal bias. Try again. and I didn't even sigh. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-29-2003 01:03 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
PS ~ As for your "saluting" and military analogies, in my best Richard Dawson voice, "Our survey said [insert BONK here]." |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Can we please try to stay on the subject guys? Thank you |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
quote: Ron, I agree concentrating only on a fixed past does make little sense with regard to an interference of free will. It’s only when you see the fixed past as having been at one point a seemingly unknown future that the cracks begin to appear, then the fixed past question becomes exactly the same as that of the fixed future. On the 06/10/99 I had a choice to make, whether or not to join these forums, on the face of it I could have decided either way, which suggests I possessed a free will. If we agree a fixed past then I definitely do know now that I did indeed decide to join, this knowledge doesn’t affect the choices I had at the time until you consider what God knew on 05/10/99. On the 05/10/99 in the linear time line I inhabit God knew that I would join the forum, on the 05/10/99 I was destined to join the forum - I couldn’t make any other choice but to join. If the future, or the past is fixed, enabling God to see it, then my belief that a choice existed at all is merely an illusion. Applying the perspective of an omnipotent entity that lives outside time but has free access to our proposed linear timeline adds, I believe, even more weight to my assertion when applied to this hypothesis. If an omnipotent entity that could see the fixed future turned back time to 06/10/99 and allowed me the choice again the outcome would always be the same. I would never choose not to join these forums, not because I happen to like it here but because the fixed nature of the future, dictated by the ability of the entity to know it, denies me any other option. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Cool. Now I just have to do is convince you that everything is a fixed past. The only difference between past and future choices is one of personal knowledge. If you are unaware of the choice you're to make, the only possible way to become aware is to make the choice. THAT is free will. Interestingly, when someone says "I had no choice," what they usually mean is they felt they knew the results of all their choices and only one seemed palatable to them. Absolute foreknowledge removes choices. quote: But absolute foreknowledge only removes choices when it is balanced by action. You can possess absolute knowledge of the past without affecting your free will because that knowledge is not balanced by a freedom to act. Similarly, what someone else knows, even God, is irrelevant to your choices because there is no action to balance the knowledge. Your free will can only be determined by what YOU know. If I knew, without any doubt, exactly where you would make your next post in these forums, would that turn your free will into an illusion? If I turned out to be wrong, obviously my knowledge didn't interfere with your free will. But if I was right? Would that make a mockery of your free will? Of course not, else I could have you repeatedly flip a quarter and "force" the coin to land on its head half the time. Because I am right half of the time doesn't mean I am influencing the coin. It only means I know something about the nature of the coin. If we assume that God knows more than I do, about the coin, about the Universe, about time, then it is not at all unreasonable to think He would be right 100 percent of the time. Without necessarily ever influencing the coin! You have the ability to make personal choices. Heads or tails? That God knows what those choices will ultimately be is irrelevant because you will STILL have to make the choices. Each choice will be a reflection of who you are, and each choice will lead to a definition of who you will become, two concepts necessarily mired in the human perception of time. Only by making your choices will you learn what God already knows. |
||
|
Thomas119gold Senior Member
since 2002-06-03
Posts 708Biloxi, MS (city by the sea) |
Ok where are we going with all of this? |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Thomas119gold, To hell, or so people keep telling me. If you mean in this thread then I’m not quite sure, generally we end up agreeing to disagree and wander off avowing never to get involved in a religious discussion ever again - until next time. Ron, If it helps I’m convinced that the past is fixed, I’m just not sure the future is, which it would have to be for an entity to know 100% what that future is. Flipping a coin is also a good analogy for my argument against an entity that knows a fixed future: I may think the coin can land on heads or tails (there are other possibilities but let’s not get into those) in the same way I think I have a free will but if the future is fixed then the outcome is pre-destined to turn out the prescribed way. In fact with a fixed future everything that happens occurs regardless of the myriad of choices or possibilities that we think exist. Free will presumes that there exist choices that are real and valid possibilities, like there was actually a possibility that I wouldn’t join these forums. I maintain that if the future is fixed and allows only one possibility to exist the choice is simply an illusion. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-29-2003 06:55 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Then that must be equally true for a fixed past. Your future, after all, is the past for your great-great-grandkids. The ONLY thing that differentiates your past and your future is personal knowledge. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Well, no, lets just take a look at a few -- First Judaism has to predate Catholicism doesn't it (of course it's a neat trick to have Catholicism predate Christ)? and Hinduism -- dates back to 10,000 B.C.E and Confucianism to around 500 B.C.E and Taoism also 5th century B.C.E and Buddhism 563 B.C.E. and Zoroastrianism around 1500 B.C.E. -- oh yeah and it was the Zoroasters that invented the Devil -- now what the devil was it you were saying? quote: Would that be the First Church of Satan? The United ? Or the Southern Satan Convention? What the devil should it tell me? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-30-2003 01:34 AM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Rebel, I should have specified that when I speak of religion, I was not speaking of a belief system such as one that thinks their poor passed relatives are coming back as cows. And I'd like to know how this odd reincarnation was going on when there were no cows in 10,000 BC? The world wasn't even here, let alone the cows. Hinduism differs from Christianity and other Western religions in that it does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, a single system of morality, or a central religious organization. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE." That is a statement I read from a hindu page. Sounds more like chaos than religion to me. As for my statement about the priests of satans church, and their correlation with the catholic church. Read this book, it will tell you what you need to know. http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0175.asp |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
There have been "Messiahs" in other religions which are quite similiar to the Jesus messiah in Christianity...and these religions are thousands of years older than Judaism/Christianity. But like politics, religion is another topic of discussion that can be debated hours on end without any resolve if both parties have already made up their minds and do not want to turn away from their norms. The biggest problem I have with Christianity is that it teaches that its Jesus is the one and only true messiah and if you don't believe in Him, you are to suffer in hellfire forever. To me, that is just plain ludicrous. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
As for the 10 commandments, many Christian churches teach that 9 are still to be obeyed and 1 was done away with, while other Christian churches believe the commandments changed to just 2, yet others believe in all 10, but have changed the 4th one. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
The biggest problem I have with Christianity is that it teaches that its Jesus is the one and only true messiah and if you don't believe in Him, you are to suffer in hellfire forever. That's because the Bible says; (Joh 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Act 16:31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Joh 3:19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (Joh 5:24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (Rom 8:1) [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. And the list goes on. It is clearly stated in God's word, the one True God's word, that the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ. It's not like Christians sat down one day and decided this is what they would believe. God said it, so we believe it. And we know that it is God's word because; (2Ti 3:16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Did God say it or did man write that God said it? Like I said before, there are many other religions predating Christianity that tell the story of a Jesus-like Messiah, and not only that there are many other religions which claim to be "the truth." You are set in your beliefs, that is fine. However, I don't believe that I need saved from myself. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-30-2003 11:24 AM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Opeth, I'm not trying to convert anyone, nor am I trying to save anyone. It is the Holy Spirit's job to save, not mine. I simply put the Word of God out there, which the Bible tells me will not return void. As for you not needing anyone, or anything to save you from yourself. It is sin, and the eternal separation from God that one is saved from. I suppose you could look at that narrowly and say that you are being saved from yourself. But it's really more broad than that. But I will not get on my soap box here. If you ever wish to know more about salvation, my email is in my profile.  |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Thanks for the offer, WhiteRose...but I have been there and done that. In fact, at one point in my life I was a "hardcore" Christian. I know the Bible moreso than most Christians that I have been in contact with...even the Jehovah's Witnesses avoided my house at one point in my life. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-30-2003 12:12 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Please Please Please read The Dead Sea Scrolls Conspiracy by Micheal Baignent..while your at it take a gander at the history of the catholic church and add to your list the New and Old testament Apocrypha's and the Pseudographia for books that were excluded or phased out of the modern day bible. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Yes, excellent suggestion. The more one learns, the more one studies history, philosophy, ancient civilizations and their religions, the wiser one becomes. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Opeth, I'm not trying to convert anyone, nor am I trying to save anyone." WhiteRose, the problem with your above statement is this... You say you are not trying to convert anyone, but by believing your way is the only way, you must believe that all non-christians are doomed for eternity. So, you may not be trying to convert, but your beliefs condemn those non-believers of your religion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It's too bad there isn't any salvation from religious bigotry. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-30-2003 12:42 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Am I to assume then Whiterose that you don't count Judaism (from which you would suppose to 'date' the planet) as religion either? What some people believe: -10,000: Taittiriya Brahmana 3.1.2 refers to Purvabhadrapada nakshatra's rising due east, a phenomenon occurring at this date (Dr. B.G. Siddharth of Birla Science Institute), indicating the earliest known dating of the sacred Veda. -10,000: Vedic culture, the essence of humanity's eternal wisdom, Sanatana Dharma, lives in the Himalayas at end of Ice Age. -9000: Old Europe, Anatolia and Minoan Crete display a Goddess-centered culture reflecting a matriarchial order. -8500: Taittiriya Samhita 6.5.3 places Pleiades asterism at winter solstice, suggesting the antiquity of this Veda. -7500: Excavations at Neveli Cori in Turkey reveal advanced civilization with meticulous architecture and planning. Dr. Sri B.G. Siddharth believes this was a Vedic culture. -7000: Proto-Vedic period ends. Early Vedic period begins. -7000: Time of Manu Vaivasvata, "father of mankind," of Sarasvati-Drishadvati area (also said to be a South Indian Maharaja who sailed to the Himalayas during a great flood). -7000: Early evidence of horses in the Ganga region (Frawley). -7000: Indus-Sarasvati area residents of Mehrgarh grow barley, raise sheep and goats. They store grain, entomb their dead and construct buildings of sun-baked mud bricks. -6776: Start of Hindu lists of kings according to ancient Greek references that give Hindus 150 kings and a history of 6,400 years before 300bce; agrees with next entry. -6500: Rig Veda verses (e.g., 1.117.22, 1.116.12, 1.84.13.5) say winter solstice begins in Aries (according to Dr. D. Frawley), indicating the antiquity of this section of the Vedas. -6000: Early sites on the Sarasvati River, then India's largest, flowing west of Delhi into the Rann of Kutch; Rajasthan is a fertile region with much grassland, as described in the Rig Veda. The culture, based upon barley (yava), copper (ayas) and cattle, also reflects that of the Rig Veda. -5500: Mehrgarh villagers are making baked pottery and thousands of small, clay of female figurines (interpreted to be earliest signs of Shakti worship), and are involved in long-distance trade in precious stones and sea shells. -5500: Date of astrological observations associated with ancient events later mentioned in the Puranas (Alain Danielou). -5000: World population, 5 million, doubles every 1,000 years. -5000: Beginnings of Indus-Sarasvati civilizations of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. Date derived by considering archeological sites, reached after excavating 45 feet. Brick fire altars exist in many houses, suggesting Vedic fire rites, yajna. Earliest signs of worship of Lord Siva. This mature culture will last 3,000 years, ending around -1700. -5000: Rice is harvested in China, with grains found in baked bricks. But its cultivation originated in Eastern India. -4300: Traditional dating for Lord Rama's time. -4000: Excavations from this period at Sumerian sites of Kish and Susa reveal existence of Indian trade products. -4000: India's population is 1 million. -4000: Date of world's creation (Christian genealogies). -3928: July 25th, the earliest eclipse mentioned in the Rig Veda (according to Indian researcher Dr. Shri P.C. Sengupta). -3200: Hindu astronomers called nakshatra darshas record in Vedic texts their observations of full moon and new moon at the winter and summer solstices and spring and fall equinoxes with reference to 27 fixed stars (nakshatras) spaced nearly equally on the moon's ecliptic or apparent path across the sky. The precession of the equinoxes (caused by the wobbling of the Earth's axis of rotation) causes the nakshatras to appear to drift at a constant rate along a predictable course over a 25,000-year cycle. From these observations historians are able to calculate backwards and determine the date when the indicated position of moon, sun and nakshatra occurred. -3102: Kali Era Hindu calendar starts. Kali Yuga begins. -3100: Reference to vernal equinox in Rohini (middle of Taurus) from some Brahmanas, as noted by B.G. Tilak, Indian scholar and patriot. Traditional date of the Mahabharata war and lifetime of Lord Krishna. -3100: Early Vedic period ends, late Vedic period begins. -3100: India includes Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia. -3100: Aryan people inhabit Iran, Iraq and Western Indus-Sarasvati Valley frontier. Frawley describes Aryans as "a culture of spiritual knowledge." He and others believe 1) the Land of Seven Rivers (Sapta Sindhu) mentioned in the Rig Veda refers to India only, 2) that the people of Indus-Sarasvati Valleys and those of Rig Veda are the same, and 3) there was no Aryan invasion. This view is now prevailing over the West's historical concept of the Aryans as a separate ethnic or linguistic group. Still others claim the Indus-Sarasvati people were Dravidians who moved out or were displaced by incoming Aryans. -3000: Weaving in Europe, Near East and Indus-Sarasvati Valley is primarily coiled basketry, either spiraled or sewn. -3000: Evidence of horses in South India. -3000: People of Tehuacan, Mexico, are cultivating corn. -3000: Saiva Agamas are recorded in the time of the earliest Tamil Sangam. (A traditional date.) -2700: Seals of Indus-Sarasvati Valley indicate Siva worship, in depictions of Siva as Pashupati, Lord of Animals. -2600: Indus-Sarasvati civilization reaches a height it sustains until 1700 bce. Spreading from Pakistan to Gujarat, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, it is the largest of the world's three oldest civilizations with links to Mesopotamia (possibly Crete), Afghanisthan, Central Asia and Karnataka. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro have populations of 100,000. -2600: Major portions of the Veda hymns are composed during the reign of Vishvamitra I (Dating by Dr. S.B. Roy). -2600: Drying up of Drishadvati River of Vedic fame, along with possible shifting of the Yamuna to flow into the Ganga. -2600: First Egyptian pyramid is under construction. -2500: Main period of Indus-Sarasvati cities. Culture relies heavily on rice and cotton, as mentioned in Atharva Veda, which were first developed in India. Ninety percent of sites are along the Sarasvati, the region's agricultural bread basket. Mohenjo-daro is a large peripheral trading center. Rakhigari and Ganweriwala (not yet excavated in 1994) on the Sarasvati are as big as Mohenjo-daro. So is Dholarvira in Kutch. Indus-Sarasvati sites have been found as far south as Karnataka's Godavari River and north into Afghanistan on the Amu Darya River. -2500: Reference to vernal equinox in Krittika (Pleiades or early Taurus) from Yajur and Atharva Veda hymns and Brahmanas. This corresponds to Harappan seals that show seven women (the Krittikas) tending a fire. -2300: Sargon founds Mesopotamian kingdom of Akkad, trades with Indus-Sarasvati Valley cities. -2300: Indo-Europeans in Russia's Ural steppelands develop efficient spoked-wheel chariot technology, using 1,000-year-old horse husbandry and freight-cart technology. -2050: Vedic people are living in Persia and Afghanistan. -2051: Divodasa reigns to -1961, has contact with Babylon's King Indatu (Babylonian chronology). Dating by S.B. Roy. ca -2040: Prince Rama is born at Ayodhya, site of future Rama temple. (This and next two datings by S.B. Roy.) -2033: Reign of Dasharatha, father of Lord Rama. King Ravana, villain of the Ramayana, reigns in Sri Lanka. -2000: Indo-Europeans (Celts, Slavs, Lithuanians, Ukranians) follow cosmology, theology, astronomy, ritual, society and marriage that parallel early Vedic patterns. -2000: Probable date of first written Saiva Agamas. -2000: World population: 27 million. India: 5 million or 22%. India has roughly G of human race throughout history. -1915: All Madurai Tamil Sangam is held at Thiruparankundram (according to traditional Tamil chronology). -1900: Late Vedic period ends, post Vedic period begins. -1900: Drying up of Sarasvati River, end of Indus-Sarasvati culture, end of the Vedic age. After this, the center of civilization in ancient India relocates from the Sarasvati to the Ganga, along with possible migration of Vedic peoples out of India to the Near East (perhaps giving rise to the Mittani and Kassites, who worship Vedic Gods). The redirection of the Sutlej into the Indus causes the Indus area to flood. Climate changes make the Sarasvati region too dry for habitation. (Thought lost, its river bed is finally photographed from satellite in the 1990s.) -1500: Egyptians bury their royalty in the Valley of the Kings. -1500: Polynesians migrate throughout Pacific islands. -1500: Submergence of the stone port city of Dwarka near Gujarat, where early Brahmi script, India's ancient alphabet, is used. Recent excavation by Dr. S.R. Rao. Larger than Mohenjo-daro, many identify it with the Dwarka of Krishna. Possible date of Lord Krishna. Indicates second urbanization phase of India between Indus-Sarasvati sites like Harappa and later cities on the Ganga. -1500: Indigenous iron technology in Dwarka and Kashmir. -1500: Cinnamon is exported from Kerala to Middle East. -1472: Reign of Dhritarashtra, father of the Kauravas. Reign of Yudhisthira, king of the Pandavas. Life of Sage Yajnavalkya. Date based on Mahabharata's citation of winter solstice at Dhanishtha, which occurs around this time. -1450: End of Rig Veda Samhita narration. -1450: Early Upanishads are composed during the next few hundred years, also Vedangas and Sutra literature. -1424: Bharata battle is fought, as related in the Mahabharata. (Professor Subash Kak places the battle at -2449. Other authors give lower dates, up to 9th century bce) -1424: Birth of Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna, and next king. -1350: At Boghaz Koi in Turkey, stone inscription of the Mitanni treaty lists as divine witnesses the Vedic Deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the Nasatyas (Ashvins). -1316: Mahabharata epic poem is composed by Sage Vyasa. -1300: Panini composes Ashtadhyayi, systematizing Sanskrit grammar in 4,000 terse rules. (Date according to Roy.) -1300: Changes are made in the Mahabharata and Ramayana through 200 bce. Puranas are edited up until 400 ce. Early smriti literature is composed over next 400 years. -1255: King Shuchi of Magadha writes Jyotisha Vedanga, including astronomical observations which date this scripture-that summer solstice occurs in Ashlesha Nakshatra. -1250: Moses leads 600,000 Jews out of Egypt. -1200: Probable time of the legendary Greek Trojan War celebrated in Homer's epic poems, Iliad and Odyssey (ca -750). -1124: Elamite Dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar (-1124-1103) moves capital to Babylon, world's largest city, covering 10,000 hectares, slightly larger than present-day San Francisco. -1000: Late Vedic period ends. Post-Vedic period begins. Why is your belief any better? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok... I looked at your book page. http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0175.asp So what? There is nothing there about the Catholic Church. You still don't say what you're saying. |
||
|
wranx Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689Moved from a shack to a barn |
Well, Sue? I don't know if your question was answered to your satisfaction, but there is a positive wealth of opinon and information in this thread. (And one or two very good, er...discussions). So? wanna start a thread on "how orange is orange?" *exits, chuckling* [This message has been edited by wranx (04-30-2003 01:25 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Rebel, you'd have to read the book. I think I said that in my post actually. Opeth, I don't condemn anyone. Gee, I don't have that much power actually. Neither does God send anyone to hell. It is the rejection of Jesus Christ that decides a persons fate. Aenimal, If I wanted to know more about history, I would read a history book. If I wanted to know more about Math, I would read a Math book. If I wanted to know more about God, why would I not go to the source, the only Word of God available to me, The Bible? Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll stick with the Book I know was inspired by God. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
It was not too long ago, just prior to Easter (which btw originates from the celebration of the God Estern - meaning fertility...now you know where the whole bunny and eggs thing comes from...which reminds me, no Christian has yet to answer me, successfully, why they celebrate Easter instead of Passover) when a christian worker of mine came up to me and told me about the ressurection of Christ and how a thief was able to save himself on the thief's dying day (maybe he was referring that it wasn't too late for me LOL!)... And so, I asked him if the thief went to heaven on that very day...and he told me, yes, the thief went to heaven that day and quoted, "Verily, verily, I say to you, today you shalt be with me in Paradise." So I says, I thought that Jesus said, "Like Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth." He said, "so what?" I said, well how did the thief beat Christ to heaven when Christ took a left turn at Hades? That was prior to Easter. He still hasn't answered my question. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-30-2003 01:43 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Rebel, Why is your belief any better? Not better, just true. Because it is taken from, and based upon, the Word of God. I do not worship the creation, but the creator. I do not pray to Mary, I go to the source, God, through Jesus. I do not pervert, change or take out of context any verse of scripture. Nor do I put my faith in writings that are not contained in the Word of God. I believe every single word of the Bible is true. There are many, many, many false religions out there. That doesn't surprise me, my Lord tells me in His word that there will be. I would not follow something that is false, nor base my eternal destination on that which has nothing to do with God. Am I any better than anyone else? No. Am I a part of a peculiar people"? Yes. A people saved by the grace of God, through belief and acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not better, saved. Not perfect, forgiven. As for me being a bigot. I show no prejudice, only love for the souls of man that need to come to God through His Son. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I don't condemn anyone. Gee, I don't have that much power actually. Neither does God send anyone to hell. It is the rejection of Jesus Christ that decides a persons fate. ~ If you believe that any person doesn't accept Christ as his or her personal saviour, that that person will suffer in hell for eternity, then through your beliefs, you do codemn those such persons. Example ~ If I were to ask you what is the fate of all who don't accept Christ as their personal saviour. I am sure you would answer that God will punish them for eternity. By that, you are condemning those people. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
If you believe that any person doesn't accept Christ as his or her personal saviour, that that person will suffer in hell for eternity, then through your beliefs, you do codemn those such persons. So let me see if I got this right. My belief condemns another. Well I have to say, that's a new one on me. That is merely your opinion. It's a bit backward, and really incomprehensible to me, but it's your opinion nonetheless, and I will take it as such. But, that's kind of like saying that if you became ill, and I diagnose the illness, and tell you that the illness will in fact kill you, (if you don't take the cure) then it is me, not the illness, that in the end kills you, because you didn't take the cure? So it is my belief in what the illness can do that will kill you, not the disease itself? I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-30-2003 01:50 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
You have misdiagnosed no illness for an illness, Dr. WhiteRose. I want a second opinion. Let's agree to disagree. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
So I says, I thought that Jesus said, "Like Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth." Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive forever more, Amen: and have the keys of hell and death. This is one of the mountain-peak verses of Scripture, and one of the most amazing of the great claims of Christ. Multitudes of religious philosophers as well as scientists have searched for the key to life and death, but Christ claims to have the key. Further He claims to possess the keys to hell (Greek Hades). Hades is the New Testament equivalent of the Hebrew sheol, both terms describing the abode of departed human spirits. The position of the scientific establishment, of course, is that neither Hades nor heaven has any real existence. The popular lay view, on the other hand, is that both do exist but in some kind of different state of existence, completely outside the framework of our present physical universe. The fact is, however, the Bible clearly teaches that both heaven and hell literally exist in the present cosmos, and this teaching has not been refuted in any way by modern science. When the Lord Jesus died on the cross and His body was placed in the tomb, His spirit "descended first into the lower parts of the earth" (Ephesians 4:9) These lower parts of the earth are also called "the deep: (literally, "the abyss" from the Greek word abussos as in Romans 10:7) and are apparently the same as Hades. But in fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 16:10. "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in (Hades) neither did his soul see corruption. (Act 2:31) Until Christ descended into Hades, it had housed all the souls and spirits of people who had lived and died before that time. Those who died in faith were "comforted" in one compartment of Hades; all others were separated from these by "a great gulf" and were "in torments" (see Luke 16:23-26) Pre-calvary believers were in God's keeping, trusting His Word that someday the redemption price would be paid and they would be freed. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14,15) Therefore, after He went and proclaimed His victory to the evil spirits incarcerated in prison (see I Peter 3:18-20), "When he ascended up on high, He led captivity captive....He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fulfill all things" (Ephesians 4:8-10) All of this is implied in the great assertion by Christ that He now possessed the very keys to Hades and death. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him" (Romans 6:9) "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth and make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25) Ever since, those who die in Christ are translated to "be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23)in heaven. The unsaved dead remain in Hades, whence they will be brought forth for eternal judgement (Revelation 20:13) In the meantime, the great abyss in the heart of the earth continues to "enlarge itself" (Isaiah 5:14) with multitudes dying in their sins. Jesus descended, then ascended, so in fact He was there when the thief went to heaven, He just didn't stay there, for we know He had more work to do on earth after His resurrection, before going to sit on the right hand of the Father. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-30-2003 01:58 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Okay, I'll agree to disagree. I hope that my post above at least answered your question about where Jesus went after He gave up the ghost. And how it is that He could say to the thief that "today, thou shalt be with me in paradise", and mean it. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-30-2003 02:03 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
P.S. ~ My beliefs, even when I was a Christian, do and did not condemn any person for not accepting Christ as their saviour. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
P.S. That's good, because it is not your place to condemn anyone. Nor is it mine.  |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
No, it didn't. As a matter of fact, it opened up a whole can of worms which I do not wish to go through (yet again). Your interpretation, to me, is downright illogical. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
P.S. That's good, because it is not your place to condemn anyone. Nor is it mine. Alright, I will give this issue one more shot. You believe that all non-believers of your faith are doomed because you decree that God says so in a book written by men. I say, that no one is to suffer for eternity for not being a christian...even when I did believe in christianity. If you can't see the difference between the two, then with regards to this issue - you are biased beyond rational thought. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok then Rose... you said: quote: So the word of God is true because it is true? Hmmm... why are all the other scriptural texts not true then? Catholics aren't Christians and Non-Christian faiths aren't religions? and -- you're not a religious bigot? I still haven't gotten your ruling on Judaism...it's not a religion? or is it? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-30-2003 02:13 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Jesus descended, then ascended, so in fact He was there when the thief went to heaven, He just didn't stay there, for we know He had more work to do on earth after His resurrection, before going to sit on the right hand of the Father." ~ I couldn't resist. And even though there are many many holes to your interpretation of the scriptures, I will at least address this simple one. Read your above quote and answer me this, if the thief was to be with Christ in Paradise (which may not be heaven, yet another debate, but I'll give you that paradise means heaven in this verse) on that very day, yet Christ did not go to heaven on that very day, because he was in hades for 3 days and 3 nights - explain how the thief got to heaven two days before Christ? Especially since the scriptures state that Christ is the first and only to asscend to heaven? And, Christ told the thief that both He and the thief would be in heaven that very day? please, just stick to that one single simple issue and answer it if you can... [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-30-2003 02:15 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Believing in Christianity, and believing and trusting in Jesus are two different things. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. I believe everything that the Bible says is true. I believe it is the inspired Word of God. I think you are taking issue with the wrong person here. If you have an issue with what God says, than I suggest you take it up with God. What I posted about Jesus and His trip to Hades was taken from *The Revelation Record, A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the book of Revelation, by Henry M. Morris I did not find it to be illogical, but to be scripturally sound from what I already knew to be truth from reading the Bible myself. But again, you are entitled to your opinion. Let me leave you with this thought, "Just because you do not perceive a thing to be a truth, does not make it any less, in fact, a truth". |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
And yes, it does make a difference...a big difference, because the Bible are words translated and written through thousands of years by men varying in cultures, each with their own slant and worldviews, just as any other religion ever recorded. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Just because you do not perceive a thing to be a truth, does not make it any less, in fact, a truth". ~ I can say the same to you, so could a Buddhist or a Muslim. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Rebel, The Jewish people, and those who convert to Judaism, if they are lost and without Christ, and do not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the saving power of it, are lost and without Christ. You do not go to heaven based on your religion. That is decided on by this fact and this fact alone. What it is you did with Jesus Christ. Either you accepted Him, or you did not. That's pretty simple really. I've known many Jewish people who were gloriously saved. The associate pastor or our church was born a jew, and will always be a jew actually, for that is not a religion, but a race, but he is now a child of God, for he accepted the precious gift of salvation. What do I think of the Jewish people? My heart aches for them. They are still God's chosen people, and the great commission states, "to the Jew first". It is every born again Christians duty to pray for Israel, and the Jewish people, for they are lost, and without Christ, and in need of salvation, as is every man, woman and child that is born on this earth. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Opeth, There is only one absolute truth in this world, and that, is the truth of the Word of God. When I made that statement, that is the truth that I was talking about. By the way, I didn't make that up, I read it somewhere, and at the moment I cannot recall where. I would give credit where credit is due, and will as soon as I figure out where I read it. hmmmm..I thought we were going to agree to disagree |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
And yes, it does make a difference...a big difference, because the Bible are words translated and written through thousands of years by men varying in cultures, each with their own slant and worldviews, just as any other religion ever recorded. Well this just never seems to end. No other Holy text has withstood the test of time like the Bible. No other religious writing comes together perfectly the way the Bible does. 66 books, written by more than one man, but all inspired by God, that perfectly fits together. There are no contradictions, there are no imperfections. And it makes the claim of itself that it is in fact the inspired word of God. No other religious writing makes such a claim. I will tell you just what I told someone the other day. There are many verses of scripture, I won't post them here, for I don't think you'd put much stock in them anyway, that state why it is the lost do not understand His word, and the saved do. If you had a book that you were reading and you came across something that you did not understand, wouldn't it be nice to have the author handy to explain it to you. Well, I do. Once a person is saved, they then have the Holy Spirit living within them. God, through the Holy Spirit (also God) authored the Word of God. I read the Bible many times before I got saved. It didn't mean much to me, and I was confused more often than not by most of what it said. When I got saved, it was opened up to me in ways I can't even describe to you. I no longer had any questions about it's doctrines, it's truths, and it literally came alive to me. It is so obviously the love letter of my Lord to me, and to anyone who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, and can only be said to be breathed from the very mouth of God. That is what I believe, that is what I know, and I would not deny this fact, or my Lord, were I facing complete alienation from every person in this forum. My faith is who I am. Of myself I can do nothing, but; (Phi 4:13) I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. I owe my talent as a poet to the Lord, whatever I have, whatever I will have, all that I am, I owe to the Lord, for He gave it to me. Now since He has done all that, how could I possibly not worship Him in Love, in obedience, and in the Spirit of truth? So, are we agreeing to disagree now? [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-30-2003 02:45 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rose, I feel sure that every Jew appreciates your letting them know they are lost and worthy receipients of sympathy. Probably all of the other religions that do not have Jesus as the Son of God would be equally appreciative of your wisdom. If there is any one thing that irks me most about Christians is their absolute certainty that their way is the only way and everyone else is damned, as if there can be no doubt whatsoever to be in possession of this knowledge which is cannot possibly be known to man. To feel that way is fine. To preach it to others as you give them your sympathy is the height of arrogance. I still go along with the bumper sticker that states "Dear God, protect me from your followers". |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Every time I see that fish on the back of a car I grab my wallet on the way by just to be safe Mike. Rose; I don't understand why Catholicism counts as religion (and starts in 50 BC  ) but isn't Christian because of Marian doctrine. I thought non-Christian religions weren't religions?Ok.. you pity the Jews. But is Judaism a religion or not? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-30-2003 03:00 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But everyone does that, Mike, including you. How many times in these forums have you condemned Saddam Hussein based on the absolute certainty that your morality is not only the right morality but the only possible morality? I have no doubt that what you believe to be right and wrong seem completely self-evident to you, beyond argument, beyond reproach. But how do you know you're right? How can you be so sure you're right that you would inflict your views on others and, in many cases, condemn them for disagreeing? When it comes to issues of basic right and wrong, we ALL make judgements. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Ron, If there is any one thing that irks me most about Christians That's definately the difference between you and I. You see, there is nothing about a person who is without salvation that irks me. I've no time to be irked with the souls of men, women, boys and girls that are in need of a Savior. That isn't going to help them one bit. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-30-2003 03:47 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Rebel, Judaism a religion or not? Yes, it is. So is Catholicism, so is Islam and all the others. The difference is, I do not have religion. I have a relationship. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden and they fashioned clothing out of fig leaves, that's man made religion. It's the covering of their sin. Man has been trying to cover his sin ever since then with his religion. There is no covering it, only cleansing oneself of it, through the blood of Jesus Christ. So yes, there are a lot of religions in the world. I want no part of what is man made. I choose to have a relationship with the savior instead. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, once again I'm afraid I'm having difficulty with your comparisons but I'll try to answer the best I can. I have condemned Hussein for torture, murder, genocide and brutality. Yes, I will concede that, for anyone who considers murder, torture, genocide and brutality, moral actions then I am doing them a disservice. Am I convinced that these actions are worthy of condemnation? I'm afraid I do. Does that make me judgemental? Yep, I suppose so. Do I consider this to be comparable to Christians telling all other religions they are damned? Not in the foggiest. Perhaps I am being unfair...it happens. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Deer, I still go along with the bumper sticker that states "Dear God, protect me from your followers". That is your choice. Everybody makes one, and only one, that determines their eternal destination. I see you've made yours. So be it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Adam and Eve used fig leaves???? Darn that Mysteria!!! She had me convinced they were maple leaves!!! |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
God, I feel out of my league to even post again, I thought I knew my history but some of you guys are amazing.But after reading several post that to me smack of bigotry......Catholics are not christians? Judaism is not a religon? Pity the non-christian, they will go to hell? I can only hope that God is not truly as shallow as we are.I know of christian sects that worship with snakes, and others that practice polegamy(sp?)I have friends that are practicing christian jews (is that a conflict?) Muslims revere Jesus Christ as a great prophet.All of these religons have deep pagan roots.And as to the bible? does the "inspired word of God" , mean the dictated word of God? God can inspire me, And his inspiration can lead me to write joyous words.One thousand years from now, if those words are added to the King James, does that make the "book of Jason Lyle", the word of God? Once again, these arguments seem shallow to me, they seem beneath Gods' intent.I go to a catholic church, was raised in the church of christ, have called myself an athiest at times.I truly believe if I go to a place called heaven, And meet a being called God.I will find many good people of many differant faiths.And I think we will find out that God never cared if we called him Yahweh, or prayed to (through) Mary, or welcomed the day with alms to Allah,or practiced Buhddism.God does not practice bigotry. Jason Lyle |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rose, you have certainly made your choice and I respect you for your passion and dedication to it. Yes, I have also made mine. Respect it if you wish but please don't offer your sympathy.. Jason.....very nicely said  |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
White Rose let me share with you an important lesson the catholic church learned early in this century. With the popluarity of philosophy the church found itself faced with its most serious threat, a populace of educated, intelligent and extremely curious people who began to question the church's authority and the scripture's themselves. The Catholic Church decided to fight fire with fire and formed a group out of it's most intelligent and promising clerics in order to combat logic with logic. The problem was that once the clerics themselves were let loose in the vaults to arm themselves with deeper knowledge in an effort to counterattack most all of them abrubtly left the church disillusioned with what they've learned. I see you are very fond of the words and will not question them despite being written and rewritten by men. Well then maybe you'd appreciate this quote taken from the Pseudepigrapha, (scripture that was not canonized or in other words some men didn't like it so excluded it from the bible) it is attributed to Jesus himself and found in the The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I If we're to follow the word of Jesus despite who wrote them then we are then to believe that from the mouth of Jesus himself that the crucifiction was staged, a theory that has stirred controversy since the beginning of the church. It is also fueled by a passage in the Qur'an which states: "they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so to them. ..." (Sura 4:157-8). The point is for each point you've made to justify Christianity's supremacy by words and quotes that are law from the mouth of Jesus himself, there are an equal amount of references to tear it down. The problem with words and religion is that they are written by men and therefore written and rewritten to suit the needs of the church and if you don't believe the church is capable of this then read this: http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/secm.htm a famous letter which describes the elimination of a passage as well as a policy to deny of its existence from the gospel of Mark because it instigated opposing and therefore sacrilege. Before you declare religious supremacy of your word over those of other religions you should learn it's history and it's infamy. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-30-2003 05:20 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ for anybody interested in the non canon books, also read Baignent's Dead Sea Scroll conspiracy as well as his book Holy Blood and The holy Grail for some alternative views.There's a host of others here but Dead Sea is a MUST!! |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Aenimal, I read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and wasn’t convinced, which surprised even me – being an atheist you’d think I’d lap it up. I believe the book was correct in saying that Jesus existed because there is an independent and unbiased testimony that he was sentenced to be crucified (Tacitus The Annals) but after that the book, like many before it, wandered off too often into the realms of fairytale to be totally believable. My opinion is that Jesus did exist and that he died and that everything beyond that is down to personal belief based on highly questionable evidence. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: They're exactly the same, Mike, in the sense that both you and WhiteRose are willing to stand up for what you believe. Even though neither of you can possibly "prove" you are right, and I strongly suspect neither of you can even exactly articulate what it is you believe. Yes, in 2003, there are differences, of which I am supremely glad. I would much rather have someone praying for me than gunning for me. But even those differences are only a few hundred years old. quote: That has to work both ways, Raph. Ignorance leads only to impotence, and arguments against Christianity will remain toothless if they fail to address the role of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is NOT a static document, but a continuing revelation. The books that comprise the Bible were not selected by men, but by the hand of God. The history of Christianity is muddied by human weakness, but the underlying message of Christianity remains untouched, protected by omnipotence and redeclared every day by the living, teaching Holy Spirit. You don't have to believe that, of course. But it is impossible to effectively argue against it, and doubly impossible if your ammunition is material already rejected by the Holy Spirit. What I personally believe is irrelevant, though I've stated many times in these forums, in many different ways, that only the most rash could think God has revealed His entire truth to us. Any plan the human mind can understand is far too simple to encompass the will of God. I suspect we are like the three blind men, each describing their own piece of the elephant, each right, each wrong, and each largely ignorant of what the others are experiencing. I feel certain Jason is right, that God is not a bigot, but I'm equally certain Man is. We divide when we should unite, argue when we should learn. We demand we are right, yet bristle when others do the same. Anyone who truly believes they have "the answer" is a fool if they announce it and a hypocrite if they don't. The recalcitrant alcoholic doesn't want our sympathy. The delirious man dying of a high fever doesn't want our help. The abused child doesn't want to be taken from their mother, and the patriotic Iraqi doesn't want our interference. But if you know you have the answer that will save the alcoholic, cure the dying man, protect the child, and free the Iraqi, how can any decent human being willfully ignore their obligation to help? Ironically, I think those most apt to bristle at the uninvited prayers of a Christian are the ones the least likely to stand by and do nothing when they are called upon to make their own decision. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, quote: Believing you know the answer doesn’t mean you actually know the answer, and as you stated no one really knows when it comes to religion. With that in mind replacing know with believe in your statement would seem reasonable, then the antagonistic responses to personal beliefs foisted as irrefutable truths start to make more sense. quote: Personal belief doesn’t confer an inalienable right to be believed or an automatic affirmation of unimpeachable truth. Well, that’s what I believe. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I strongly suspect neither of you can even exactly articulate what it is you believe. I can state it with no problem. I believe that ruling by murder, genocide, torture, and brutality is wrong....period. If you want to call that nothing more than an opinion of mine, so be it. I would call it a constant for moral thought. If that question were asked to the entire world, I feel sure that less than one hundredth of one percent would say otherwise - even the ones doing it. Your comparison between this and Rose's claim that Christianity is the only path continues to be wasted on me, I'm afraid...and so it goes |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No exceptions, Mike? Not for terrorists interred in Cuba? For soldiers fighting to protect WMD? You believe that killing Sadamm would be wrong ... period? Murder, torture and brutality are subjective terms, usually defined by those with a beef against someone else's violence. But violence is still violence, and the person who is morally opposed to ALL violence is exceedingly rare. Somehow, Mike, I don't think you're one of those people. Every single government, including ours, rules in part by maintaining the option of killing those it deems a danger. No, we don't call it murder. I doubt Hussein did either. I suspect I know exactly what you mean, Mike. I suspect I would even agree with you, at least in large part. But no one yet has ever "exactly" articulated what you are trying to say, because there always seems to be exceptions and special circumstances. It's a moving target, one we've been aiming at for a few thousand years. Isn't it interesting, though, how you can be so convinced you're right when it's so difficult to even say what you're right about? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's easy to separate the "I think's" from the "I know's," but the "I believe's" aren't always so simple. Maybe that's because there really aren't any "I know's," but only the strength of our certainties on the "I believe's." I swear, I have NEVER written a more confusing paragraph in my life. Nonetheless, the difference between "knowing" and "being certain" is probably only important to linguists and poets looking for the perfect meter. In the real world, what I know is little more than what I believe with certainty. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Well, Ron, I don't know if our differences are semantics or simple misunderstanding but you have omitted some of my words and substituted others. Let me repeat.. I believe that ruling by murder, genocide, torture, and brutality is wrong Somehow you have disregarded "ruling" altogether and you have redefined murder, genocide, torture and brutality as generic "violence". Include "ruling" and your examples of terrorists in Cuba, soldiers fighting for WMD and the killing of Saddam Hussein have no meaning. Also, I have never said I was against all forms of violence but I do say that I am against ruling by that format. I also take exception to the insinuation that we rule our country in somehow the same way Hussein ruled his simply because we would use violence to protect our country from what we consider dangers. Hussein was not protecting his country by killing dissidents - he was protecting his rule. I don't find that difficult to elucidate at all...I do have a problem with not understanding why it is not understood. My glibness must be rusty |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I didn't leave the "ruling" phrase out, Mike, either in my quote or in my examples. Those I listed, and many others, are actions sanctioned by those who rule. They are tools being used to rule a nation. And I certainly didn't redefine any of your words. Since you didn't define anything, I couldn't very well redefine anything. Surely you realize, with the exception of genocide, all of your terms are relative to the observer. Murder, kill, execute and assassinate all mean the same thing. We may execute a convicted criminal, but those against such things will always see it as murder. We justify those deaths by consensus (more or less) and law, but do you really think Hussein didn't feel he could justify his murders, too? Again, I know exactly what you mean, Mike. But you are NOT saying it. You're throwing a bunch of very loaded words on the table, apparently in hopes one will go off. Sure, virtually everyone in the world will agree with you that rule by murder is wrong. But the agreement is going to end quickly when you try to define what murder really means. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ok, I give..... I do have to come back and say that, after reading your response again, for the life of me I can't make any sense out of it. That's ok..I'll keep not defining anything and throwing loaded words out on the table and you keep asking what "is" is.....and life goes on [This message has been edited by Balladeer (05-01-2003 12:15 AM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Crazy Eddie no no don't think I believe it all I only used them as examples because alot of theories were condensed into one. Made things easier for me then spouting off a list of a thousand books. My point is that and this works with the fairy tail of Baignent's work as well, that words can be bent and shaped by whomever reads them. The examples I used were not from Baignents books alone But as an atheist or agnostic, whatever the hell I am. I took a long hard look at the history of the religion I was raised in and to claim the words are law knowing how the words were chosen and how the church was formed simply does not wash with me. Now I'm not attacking catholics solely but within this thread White Rose's thread asserted that it was the way of Jesus and nothing else. The beauty as I mentioned earlier. of catholicism is that it lies within recorded history and the scriptured word vs historical word reveal a tonne of inconstistences about this man who later became deified. The main fault with Pauline thought is Paul himself. If you believe that James is the brother and blood of Jesus then how do you justify the rift between James teachings and those of the outsider Paul who admits this. Also while the blood and the holy grail became a fantastic mystery it veered from its good points. That's why I suggested Dead Sea Scrolls conspiracy because the historical and Biblical studies included within took a more straight forward and scholarly approach and fits in well with the original topic of this thread [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-30-2003 11:19 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
White Rose quote: I'm still trying to correlate this to your original statement that Catholicism is the world's oldest religion and that bit about preists and satanism. Now, if I'm getting you right, you're saying that the problem with Catholicism is that it is a religion? quote: Well I'll strip out of my skivvies if you will. Jason -- when you and all the other folks get to heaven please be VERY VERY quiet.... you don't want to disturb Rose. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
I have been raised Roman Catholic - I believe (I did say believe) that whatever we abide by leads to the same path in the end and that no one person is condemned to "Hell" for their beliefs and that as long as we lead a considerably good life - we will all be ok. I must include these statements - for they are the only ones that make any sense to me at all: God, I feel out of my league to even post again, I thought I knew my history but some of you guys are amazing. But after reading several post that to me smack of bigotry......Catholics are not christians? Judaism is not a religon? Pity the non-christian, they will go to hell? I can only hope that God is not truly as shallow as we are.I know of christian sects that worship with snakes, and others that practice polegamy(sp?)I have friends that are practicing christian jews (is that a conflict?) Muslims revere Jesus Christ as a great prophet.All of these religons have deep pagan roots.And as to the bible? does the "inspired word of God" , mean the dictated word of God? God can inspire me, And his inspiration can lead me to write joyous words.One thousand years from now, if those words are added to the King James, does that make the "book of Jason Lyle", the word of God? Once again, these arguments seem shallow to me, they seem beneath Gods' intent.I go to a catholic church, was raised in the church of christ, have called myself an athiest at times.I truly believe if I go to a place called heaven, And meet a being called God. I will find many good people of many differant faiths. And I think we will find out that God never cared if we called him Yahweh, or prayed to (through) Mary, or welcomed the day with alms to Allah,or practiced Buhddism. God does not practice bigotry. Jason Lyle . . . let me share with you an important lesson the catholic church learned early in this century. With the popularity of philosophy the church found itself faced with its most serious threat, a populace of educated, intelligent and extremely curious people who began to question the church's authority and the scripture's themselves. The Catholic Church decided to fight fire with fire and formed a group out of it's most intelligent and promising clerics in order to combat logic with logic. The problem was that once the clerics themselves were let loose in the vaults to arm themselves with deeper knowledge in an effort to counterattack most all of them abrubtly left the church disillusioned with what they've learned. - Raphael . . . everything beyond that is down to personal belief based on highly questionable evidence. - Crazy Eddie Anyone who truly believes they have "the answer" is a fool if they announce it and a hypocrite if they don't. The recalcitrant alcoholic doesn't want our sympathy. The delirious man dying of a high fever doesn't want our help. The abused child doesn't want to be taken from their mother, and the patriotic Iraqi doesn't want our interference. But if you know you have the answer that will save the alcoholic, cure the dying man, protect the child, and free the Iraqi, how can any decent human being willfully ignore their obligation to help? Ironically, I think those most apt to bristle at the uninvited prayers of a Christian are the ones the least likely to stand by and do nothing when they are called upon to make their own decision. - Ron The more one learns, the more one studies history, philosophy, ancient civilizations and their religions, the wiser one becomes. - Opeth It's too bad there isn't any salvation from religious bigotry. - Local Rebel[/b] So? wanna start a thread on "how orange is orange?" - Ed I still go along with the bumper sticker that states "Dear God, protect me from your followers". - Balladeer I took a long hard look at the history of the religion I was raised in and to claim the words are law knowing how the words were chosen and how the church was formed simply does not wash with me. - Raphael I'm still trying to correlate this to your original statement that Catholicism is the world's oldest religion and that bit about preists and satanism. - Local Rebel Whew! Ok what I have surmised here that makes any sense - sorry if I missed a few but the ones stated above are relevant in every way. What I do not believe in is that we go to "Hell" for not living the life according to the Bible. (In my opinion, it is a guidebook - nothing more -I take from it which applies to my life and I think God is ok with that seeing as I havent been engulfed in the flames of hellfire. Not yet anyhow. *Wink* The words of the bible are taken much too literal. Passages are misconstrued and followed word for word. This is not what was intended. In the Bible, it does say that time is eternal and that one day is like a thousand days. EX: do you actually believe it took seven days to create everything? Of course not. That is just foolish. This is mans' understanding of ho wtime works, not God. It was written so man could understand. As for the notion that we all must be saved - quite frankly - the word "saved" scares me. EX: My neice, who is eighteen, has led a pure life, never done anything wrong, is a sweet soul etc. She has never been baptized, accepted Christ in the church or confirmed. Do I believe that if the world ended tomorrow, that she would go straight to Hell? OF COURSE NOT. Why? This is not how God works This is how organized religion works, and not all , but most. It is ludicrous to think that God would not accept any one of his children - no matter their belief, color, sexual preference or the number of times they worshipped (another scary word) Him. To denounce any religion, or belief system, in my opinion - is a direct contradiction of the very thing that history itself has "tried" to teach us. That being the simple phrase: LOVE ONE ANOTHER . . . Like I said, I take parts that apply to my life and this one certainly does apply to us all: Matthew: 5: 43-48: (this is a direct quote of Jesus) "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous . . . " I tend to stick to the Psalms . . . they are first to last poetry, impassioned, vivid and concrete, rich in image, simile, metaphor, assonance, alliteration and wordplay. The psalms cry out in distress and give voice to suffering in a hostile and evil world. "The story of life is quicker than the wink of an eye . . . the story of love is hello and goodbye. Until we meet again." - James Marshall Hendrix [This message has been edited by littlewing (05-01-2003 09:00 AM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. This is clearly not the place.  |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
WhiteRose, You never (re)answered my question in post 99. Just read that post and explain it to me. Your first answer did not answer it. Btw...until the early Christian church began to mix their beliefs with the philosphical teachings of Socrates and Plato, the term "hades" did not mean a place where souls lived on after death. It only meant the grave or a hole in a ground where people are buried. Much of Christian doctrine, today, is based on "pagan" Greek philosophy. And of course, Christianity itself is a derivitive of both Judaism and Egyptian religion. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-01-2003 11:11 AM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Well drats, you just aren't gonna let me out of here are you?  Read your above quote and answer me this, if the thief was to be with Christ in Paradise (which may not be heaven, yet another debate, but I'll give you that paradise means heaven in this verse) on that very day, yet Christ did not go to heaven on that very day, because he was in hades for 3 days and 3 nights - explain how the thief got to heaven two days before Christ? So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth" *John Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible* Not that his Spirit would be in Hades 3 days, but that his Body would lay in the tomb (or the heart of the earth) for 3 days. The heart of the earth is not a reference to Hades. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (05-01-2003 11:49 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I understand what you are saying. You are separating Christ from his body, stating that his body lie dead for three days and three nights, but his spirit went to heaven after visiting spirits in hades on that same day with the thief. Yes, I now remember that same answer was given to me many years ago. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-01-2003 12:17 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Maybe I am not making myself clear. So I'll try to be more precise. Jesus is not a gopher. He did not burrow through earth to get to Hades. His "Spirit descended to Hades, and then to heaven. His body laid in the tomb for 3 days. But his "Spirit" did not. After His Spirit descended to Hades, it ascended to Heaven. Therefore, and I want to be really, really clear on this. He was in Heaven that very day. The same time as the thief. Just in case you completely missed what I said in post 132, I said, that the "heart of the earth", wasn't a reference to Hades, but to the tomb, where His Body in fact, laid for three days. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (05-01-2003 12:09 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
One more point. You really don't believe that anyone is arriving in heaven with this flesh that we are stuck with here on earth do you? You know, clothes and all we're just knocking on heavens door with a howdy do, perhaps with our purses and wallets? No ones body goes to heaven when they die. This physical body will still be in the coffin while our Spirit is either in heaven or in hell. We won't have a body until we get our resurrected bodies, and that's a whole other issue which I will not get into. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
You believe that. I don't. I still won't condemn you for your beliefs. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
White Rose please answer if you could a few questions. If the words are static then why all the different factions of christianity? Why the incredible differences between the gospels? Why the rift between the original disciples and BROTHER of Jesus with Paul? Why does theology and dogma spawned from a roman enforcer's words (ACTS 9 Paul was Saul of Tarsus before his conversion for those who may not know, he was enlisted by the Temple to ferret out and supress or kill the early christians the 'heretical' jews ) mean more than that of Jesus' disciples? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul is summoned to meet with James and the disciples community for what the deem as non-observance of the Law. Paul himself admits his word is in direct opposition and accepts a ritual of purification to amend his sin. Once released he is again found to be ignoring the word and law of James and the community for his own brand of preaching. So why should his word in direct opposition to Jesus's disciples be the proper way? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Just when I thought I was outta here... "You really don't believe that anyone is arriving in heaven with this flesh that we are stuck with here on earth do you?" ~ The bible states that one must be born again, so no, I don't believe that. However, the bible states that one is not born again until the second coming. I believe the bible teaches that all human beings who have died are dead - their thoughts have perished, and that the only hope they have for eternal life is the ressurection, which will occur during Christ's second coming. And that hasn't happened yet. "You know, clothes and all we're just knocking on heavens door with a howdy do, perhaps with our purses and wallets?" ~ I don't believe the bible teaches that any person "goes to heaven." I believe the bible teaches that heaven comes to earth. "This physical body will still be in the coffin while our Spirit is either in heaven or in hell." ~ Why? If people are already suffering in hell or worshipping in heaven, why do a 180 and come back down to be put back in decaying bodies? Why are people immediately in heaven or hell and they haven't yet been judged? The bible does not teach this, Satan does. "We won't have a body until we get our resurrected bodies, and that's a whole other issue which I will not get into." ~ You, WhiteRose, have been duped by the false churches of Christianity. You believe in pagan philophies mixed with truth. Christ and his apostles warned people like you to don't be swayed by Satan and his ministers of righteousness. God warned all of his creations not to mix pagan philosphies with his truth and you and your false church, as all the other false christian churches have done so. But I still don't condemn you. You are not being called right now...that is all. You will be called when the Kingdom is set-up on earth and then all men will worship God on HIS Sabbath day, not the false sabbath of men. Men and women at that time will be taught by born-again saints, not by false preachers. Most will choose to accept Christ and only the very few will reject Him. There fate is an eternal punishment of everlasting death. Death = nonexistence. Have a great weekend. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Aenimal and Opeth, I could go on and answer your questions, but I'm not going to. I was just going to stop posting to this thread, without saying anything, but I feel an explantion needs to be given. I think when I stumbled in here and posted something that had to do with God, I might as well have thrown a piece of meat in the midst of a school of sharks. If I honestly thought that these questions were being posed because anyone who posed them really wanted to learn more about God, I would have no problem. But, since the responses by Ron, and Deer, and Rebel, and others would lead me to believe this really is about "let's have some fun with the Christian and see how many names we can call her, and let's see if we can trip her up with some questions", I really just don't think that the Lord would have me stay for the actual crucifixtion. One in history was enough. So, again, if anyone is sincerely wishing to get some answers, my email is in my profile. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
With much objection... "If I honestly thought that these questions were being posed because anyone who posed them really wanted to learn more about God, I would have no problem." ~ Are you ready to or are you able to open yourself up to other possibilities? You see WhiteRose, I was where you are at now. I believed in all of what you have written here. I abided by what I was taught. But as I began to read and study the bible, I kept finding contradictions and illogical explanations of various biblical topics. I don't know about you, but at that point I got down on my knees and prayed like I had never prayed before - asking God to show me HIS truth. The more I prayed, the more I was able to realize that what I was being taught was bogus. I didn't ask for it. Unlike yourself, I wanted to keep ahold of beliefs. I wanted to stay with the status quo = traditional christian doctrine beliefs. I did not want to become a piriah in my community. I had no reason to stop believing in what you believe. But was I to lie to myself? And just forget what I came to know and understand? Many people told me to just forget about it, it doesn't matter if things can't be explained. But wasn't I praying to the same God as they? I was able to understand things by completely ridding myself of any biases or my own worldview, yes I had that ability. "But, since the responses by Ron, and Deer, and Rebel, and others would lead me to believe this really is about "let's have some fun with the Christian and see how many names we can call her, and let's see if we can trip her up with some questions", I really just don't think that the Lord would have me stay for the actual crucifixtion. One in history was enough." ~ Oh really. The poor Christian routine. No, WhiteRose, you are not persecuted. You don't know what persecution is. You have your church and friends all believing the same Jesus. This country looks highly upon Christianity. You don't know what persecution is until your own friends and peers turn their backs on you and call you satan or even have one of your friends try to cast a demon out of you because all you did was pray to the same God for understanding. P-lease, give me a break. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-01-2003 02:27 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
White Rose "let's have some fun with the Christian and see how many names we can call her, and let's see if we can trip her up with some questions"? I don't think anybody called you any names but i do recall you basically denouncing every religion but your own. My efforts were not to denoucnce christianity or your beliefs but if you question the importance of others that why not question your own. You gave many quotes of scriptures as if the christian view was the only valid one. I just want to remind you that Whitesupremitists and Neo-Nazis can also quote reasons passages as fodder for their agendas. The words are vague and flexible and should be read and used with caution. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
[Personal attack removed - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (05-01-2003 03:01 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
littlewing I think this thread has challenged you in ways that you hadn't anticipated... it's nice to see a young person respond to a challenge  Rose -- believe me... I was easy on you -- if I'd wanted to rip into you I would have -- I wanted to discover your thought process. You had a reason to post here. One can't expect to say things in a forum open to the world and expect that it won't go unchallenged. Everybody challenges everybody -- especially me -- but, if you ask Opeth I'm sure he'll point out that he's the one that always gets picked on  Ron, was defending you dear lady -- he did nothing to you at all. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
You don't know what persecution is until your own friends and peers turn their backs on you and call you satan or even have one of your friends try to cast a demon out of you because all you did was pray to the same God for understanding. Excellent Opeth, from one who knows. Another poor christian being crucified..cooooooooome ooooon...yeeeesh and btw "We won't have a body until we get our resurrected bodies, and that's a whole other issue which I will not get into." a)Is that with or without the decay and b) is there a possibility i can excahnge mine for say Brad Pitt's? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's a shame that some equate humorous (sic) sarcasm with actual communication. I guess if you can't piece together a cogent response, making fun of others is what you have to fall back on? It's even more sad, though, when others attack someone for doing EXACTLY what they themselves repeatedly do. This thread serves no useful purpose. I sincerely hope those unwilling to practice respect and tolerance don't find themselves soon following the thread into forum oblivion. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
