well, basic theology says Lucifer cannot be forgiven because he has sinned in his rebellion against the Holy Spirit of God which is that which forgives and loves; this is the only thing that cannot ever be forgiven.
I see a lot of cannot in these posts. What about the idea that God can do anything. What about jesus preaching forgiveness 77x77.
Was this Lucifers 5930th offense?
|
I see a lot of cannot in these posts. What about the idea that God can do anything.
"Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? If he can, how can he be God if he can't lift it? If he can't, then how can he be God since God is supposed to be able to do anything?"
I really think that this particular instance is more a matter that God has forgiven him, but he will not change his ways and therefore has no place with God.
And for those of whom it applies all I want is an answer. Either their chosen God does appear at face value to be a jerk but he still offers eternel bliss so, no biggie.Their God does not really work like that and I am horribly misconstruing something.
Or any other answer I may not have considered.
I'm gonna vote for option A, though I don't personally think God appears as a jerk and I'm not sure why someone would think so. I admit that God can "appear" cruel and capricious, especially in the Old Testament when He was training the Isrealites. In modern pretext,though, if holding someone accountable is being a jerk, then, yes, I guess He is to your viewpoint.
It seems to me that with religion, if you really believe it, you either are out there fighting for it--come what may,
The thing about "interfaith dialogue" is that, for me at least, it helps a person flesh out their own personal beliefs. It is mostly for the benefit of the speaker, not the listener. It's difficult to fight for something if you're not quite sure what it is.
...Or any other answer I may not have considered.
Here's one: Religion, in my opinion, is not about what happens after we die, metaphysical truths, or even what Kirth siad about reducing suffering. All these things are nice, but they're missing the point. What we need from religion is the knowledge that no matter what, it is not all going to hell in a handbasket and that there is some reason for why all the messed up s!+@ happens. And, lacking that, some comfort from the afforementioned s+$$. All I need from God is a really, REALLY big shoulder to cry on. Everything else is just perks.
I happen to agree with Dirk on the whole " big shoulder to cry on" thing. All that is necessary from a faith is that it makes you happy and comfortable. If you feel guilty about something it makes you feel better to confess to your God. You feel as if the matter is resolved and can sleep better. This is all I require from faith.
I also agree with sexi golem about the fact that God is supposed to be able to do anything. I mean hell if he can create an entire universe then he oughta be able to do pretty much anything you could think of. The fact that he doesnt seems to bother a lot of people. "If God is so powerful then why does he let people suffer from disease, war, famine, etc.?" The answer is quite simple: Supposedly God gave us freewill so we choose to let people suffer. With the possible acception of natural disasters and diseases. Those are simply the planets form of population control. People who are for hunting deer say that its for the deer's own good because if they were left alone they would eventually wipe themselves out. It is the same with people. If left unharmed we would eventually kill ourselves. But now I'm babbling.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hope y'all will forgive me for posting this in the form of a rant, because I mean no disrespect to the theists on the board that are taking all this time to express and explain their views, but...
WTF is with people saying "He gave his only son." I get tired of the emphasis on "only," as if this is some huge sacrifice on the part of God. He's omnipotent, is he not? Can't he just have another son (or a daughter, or an un-gendered walking squid creature?) Did God lose reproductive capabilities after bringing Jesus into the world? It's really hard for me to feel indebtedness for someone killing off one human prematurely out of the billions that have inhabited this planet, particularly when that being routinely takes other persons prematurely. It's like if Bill Gates gave $50 to the Betty Ford Foundation to get us all to quit being alcoholics, and then the Betty Ford Foundation came to us and said "Look what Bill Gates sacrificed for you! His only Fifty Dollar bill!!!"
A lot of mortals give their own lives, and the lives of their children, for real things here on earth, for real freedom, for real peace, for real truth, and yet the sacrifice of an omnipotent being is worth more than that?
Sebastien is right. I dont even believe that Jesus was his only son. There have been many people throughout history who could have been considered His son. Some examples include Ghandi, Hare Krishna, and Buda. They just took a more subtle aproach than Jesus's "Hey Look at me I'm the son o' God Please hang me on a large wooden stick !!" aproach. Not that that was a bad way to go about it.
|
|
WTF is with people saying "He gave his only son." I get tired of the emphasis on "only," as if this is some huge sacrifice on the part of God. He's omnipotent, is he not? Can't he just have another son (or a daughter, or an un-gendered walking squid creature?) Did God lose reproductive capabilities after bringing Jesus into the world? It's really hard for me to feel indebtedness for someone killing off one human prematurely out of the billions that have inhabited this planet, particularly when that being routinely takes other persons prematurely. It's like if Bill Gates gave $50 to the Betty Ford Foundation to get us all to quit being alcoholics, and then the Betty Ford Foundation came to us and said "Look what Bill Gates sacrificed for you! His only Fifty Dollar bill!!!"
A lot of this really depends on what you believe, but try this out --
God isn't like Zeus with a lot of his progeny running amuk. I'm not sure why you feel he should be like this.
Then there is the question of the divinity of Christ. If Christ really is God, then it really isn't a matter of procreation. If he wasn't, then you get back to the liar/lunatic argument in which case he wasn't really God which means that his sacrifice was ultimately kind of pointless (Biblically speaking).
Last thought is why does God need more than one? It seems to me that if he needed another son to get it right because the first one failed, it would kind of break down the omnipotence of God.
From your example -- if Bill Gates gave every dime he had and it gave every human being the ability to be cured of alcoholism once and for all, would he need to do it again?
In my opinion God would need more sons to get it right not because He isnt all powerful or anything but because humans keep messing up his plan for peace and stuff.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
God isn't like Zeus with a lot of his progeny running amuk. I'm not sure why you feel he should be like this.
I don't think he should, but the implication by the above statement is that there is some extra sacrifice involved because Jesus was his only son. Of course, I ultimately disagree with the idea that a sacrifice was made whatsoever, but it's the marginal increase in the sacrifice by emphasising "only" that gets my goat.
Then there is the question of the divinity of Christ. If Christ really is God, then it really isn't a matter of procreation.
And, it also isn't really a matter of sacrifice either.
If he wasn't, then you get back to the liar/lunatic argument in which case he wasn't really God which means that his sacrifice was ultimately kind of pointless (Biblically speaking).
I always find the liar/lunatic argument funny, because it always presupposes the bible as an accurate and truthful transcript of Jesus's statements and actions. Jesus might have been perfectly sane and never have said anything about being the son of God, and that doesn't mean that some a-hole with his own agenda did not put the message in his mouth. It's not that I have to believe that Jesus was not a liar/lunatic, it's that I have to believe that Jesus was not a liar/lunatic and nobody who recorded, transcribed, translated, or edited the bible was a liar/lunatic. That's an awful long train of humans to trust.
From your example -- if Bill Gates gave every dime he had and it gave every human being the ability to be cured of alcoholism once and for all, would he need to do it again?
Well, then Bill Gates would have sacrificed everything he had, that's worth a little respect. God sacrificed nothing; Jesus (assuming divinity) sacrificed nothing. I don't feel as though I owe them anything. If Bill Gates gave up all his money to save me from alcoholism, I'd probably have to tip my hat to the guy.
Well, then Bill Gates would have sacrificed everything he had, that's worth a little respect. God sacrificed nothing; Jesus (assuming divinity) sacrificed nothing. I don't feel as though I owe them anything. If Bill Gates gave up all his money to save me from alcoholism, I'd probably have to tip my hat to the guy.
Um i think that trying to save humanity from eternal damnation is a might bit more important than sending you to a few AA meetings. Maybe?
|
|
I also agree with sexi golem about the fact that God is supposed to be able to do anything. I mean hell if he can create an entire universe then he oughta be able to do pretty much anything you could think of. The fact that he doesnt seems to bother a lot of people. "If God is so powerful then why does he let people suffer from disease, war, famine, etc.?"
Why is it that people who keep bringing this up seem to say -- "If God can do anything, why doesn't he do what I want him to do?" Seems kind of selfish to me. Also, I am not sure how "God doesn't" seems to indicate that "God can't".
As Sexi and I have already discussed -- even if God did, I don't know that he would necessarily take the credit for it and it would therefore be because of people or circumstances, etc. instead of the power of God.
You haven't really asked any questions. You also haven't really answered any questions. You have basically said that you don't believe in God because if he did exist, then he would have solved all of man's problems. Just not sure why you are posting...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Um i think that trying to save humanity from eternal damnation is a might bit more important than sending you to a few AA meetings. Maybe?
Except we're making an analogy regarding the meaning of sacrifice to a divine being, not talking about what the sacrifice obtains.
And, for the record, I think sending me to a few AA meetings is worth more. I can actually verify that attending AA meetings will assist some people with battling alcoholism. I can't verify that anything anyone does will save anyone from eternal damnation considering that I've never known anyone to experience eternal damnation nor known anyone to save them from said eternal damnation.
But, if it makes you feel better, I just sacrificed a paperclip for your soul. Hooray! You are saved from eternal damnation. Praise be to Sebastian!!!
I've also got a nifty rock that keeps away angry fairies and a coffee cup that dragons absolutely hate.
(Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood due to Easter).
Awe thanks Sebatien its nice that you would risk your paperclip for me. Im touched!
I do admit that your right about not being able to prove that Jesus saved anyone.
|
|
I always find the liar/lunatic argument funny, because it always presupposes the bible as an accurate and truthful transcript of Jesus's statements and actions. Jesus might have been perfectly sane and never have said anything about being the son of God, and that doesn't mean that some a-hole with his own agenda did not put the message in his mouth. It's not that I have to believe that Jesus was not a liar/lunatic, it's that I have to believe that Jesus was not a liar/lunatic and nobody who recorded, transcribed, translated, or edited the bible was a liar/lunatic. That's an awful long train of humans to trust.
The question of what was sacrificed is an interesting question. I will try and get back to you on it.
What you said here I find interesting. It seems that even you pick and choose what to take from the Bible as fact/fiction. Who's to say that Jesus lived. If he did, did he die? (Since everyone dies, I assume this to be true.) How did he die? Why does/did anyone care about his death? Did he die on a cross? Why on a cross? Did the Romans kill him? What did he do wrong? According to what you are implying, these should be questions that are rather easy to answer from a non-biblical, accurate source. Because of how much of an emphasis this dude made on history, there should be (and are) other documents from the rough time frame that say something about what Jesus did/didn't do. The Bible -- especially the New Testament -- was pieced together from a lot of different sources. Many sources were excluded from the Bible for a variety of reasons (and this is getting into stuff that I don't know quite as much about). I will see if I can get a list of ancient texts that talk about Jesus if you would like. Another thing that is nice is that people keep finding ancient texts that they can keep going back to so they can see just how accurate the Bible has remained.
I will work on the "sacrifice" issue.
I also agree with sexi golem about the fact that God is supposed to be able to do anything. I mean hell if he can create an entire universe then he oughta be able to do pretty much anything you could think of. The fact that he doesnt seems to bother a lot of people. "If God is so powerful then why does he let people suffer from disease, war, famine, etc.?"Why is it that people who keep bringing this up seem to say -- "If God can do anything, why doesn't he do what I want him to do?" Seems kind of selfish to me. Also, I am not sure how "God doesn't" seems to indicate that "God can't".
As Sexi and I have already discussed -- even if God did, I don't know that he would necessarily take the credit for it and it would therefore be because of people or circumstances, etc. instead of the power of God.
You haven't really asked any questions. You also haven't really answered any questions. You have basically said that you don't believe in God because if he did exist, then he would have solved all of man's problems. Just not sure why you are posting...
I think you're missing her point. If you continiued to read you would have found:
The answer is quite simple: Supposedly God gave us freewill so we choose to let people suffer.
I would also like to refer back to my statement about how talking about religion helps people better form their ideas. It may not seem like a particular post is helping, but its not all for the thread's benefit.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What you said here I find interesting. It seems that even you pick and choose what to take from the Bible as fact/fiction. Who's to say that Jesus lived. If he did, did he die? (Since everyone dies, I assume this to be true.) How did he die? Why does/did anyone care about his death? Did he die on a cross? Why on a cross? Did the Romans kill him? What did he do wrong? According to what you are implying, these should be questions that are rather easy to answer from a non-biblical, accurate source. Because of how much of an emphasis this dude made on history, there should be (and are) other documents from the rough time frame that say something about what Jesus did/didn't do. The Bible -- especially the New Testament -- was pieced together from a lot of different sources. Many sources were excluded from the Bible for a variety of reasons (and this is getting into stuff that I don't know quite as much about). I will see if I can get a list of ancient texts that talk about Jesus if you would like. Another thing that is nice is that people keep finding ancient texts that they can keep going back to so they can see just how accurate the Bible has remained.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The bible is bound to contain accurate descriptions of historical events. But, at the end of the day, I am comfortable believing Jesus to be a liar/lunatic. The other answer (i.e., God provided the proof and method of salvation to a narrow subset of humans) is far more ludicrous than Jesus being a bit touched in the head.
I just find it funny how often that argument gets put out there, as if its a dare to people to come out and say Jesus was a nutty liar motivated by a martyr complex and not divine providence. I hear it about Joeseph Smith too (the Mormon prophet). I bet some people probably say it about David Koresh. At the risk of my eternal soul, I'd say that I find each of them to have equal probability of having received divine guidance.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I will work on the "sacrifice" issue.
Actually, the issue I'm still interested in getting a response to is how a person can come to know Christ in the absence of the Bible. I'm not talking about a Natural Law idea where the idea of God is knowable in the absence of the Bible, but where the concept of Jesus specifically is knowable in the absence of the Bible.
I will work on the "sacrifice" issue.
Actually, the issue I'm still interested in getting a response to is how a person can come to know Christ in the absence of the Bible. I'm not talking about a Natural Law idea where the idea of God is knowable in the absence of the Bible, but where the concept of Jesus specifically is knowable in the absence of the Bible.
Many belief systems have a similar savior being theme in them. Er, I'll just have to go find some examples then. I've definiteally heard of some directly, but none right off the top of my head *smiles sheepishly*
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Many belief systems have a similar savior being theme in them. Er, I'll just have to go find some examples then. I've definiteally heard of some directly, but none right off the top of my head *smiles sheepishly*
So does that mean I can pray to such other savior beings and receive salvation from the Christian God, or do I need to specifically pray to Jesus to absolve me of my sins. My understanding is that the later is required, which thus necessitates exposure to the Bible.
|
|
And, for the record, I think sending me to a few AA meetings is worth more. I can actually verify that attending AA meetings will assist some people with battling alcoholism. I can't verify that anything anyone does will save anyone from eternal damnation considering that I've never known anyone to experience eternal damnation nor known anyone to save them from said eternal damnation.
But, if it makes you feel better, I just sacrificed a paperclip for your soul. Hooray! You are saved from eternal damnation. Praise be to Sebastian!!!
I've also got a nifty rock that keeps away angry fairies and a coffee cup that dragons absolutely hate.
(Sorry, I'm in a pissy mood due to Easter).
I can understand about Easter...
Unfortunately, a lot of this boils down to this type of argument -- If I see it, I will believe it. If I don't see it, I won't believe it. Really kind of hard to argue with that. Also, if you could see it, the concept of faith would be pointless.
I have a feeling that there are a lot of things that you haven't seen but believe in -- ultimately because someone told you that it was the truth (whether it was someone you knew or a third party ie. the media -- because they ALWAYS tell the truth). For some reason this seems to be a bigger stretch for you.
I need to get a coffee cup like that...
So does that mean I can pray to such other savior beings and receive salvation from the Christian God, or do I need to specifically pray to Jesus to absolve me of my sins. My understanding is that the later is required, which thus necessitates exposure to the Bible.
Many belief systems have a similar savior being theme in them. Er, I'll just have to go find some examples then. I've definiteally heard of some directly, but none right off the top of my head *smiles sheepishly*
No Im pretty sure that in order to be absolved in the eyes of the christian church you have to pray to Jesus. Its just that Jesus is similar to many other saviors in other religions.
|
|
Actually, the issue I'm still interested in getting a response to is how a person can come to know Christ in the absence of the Bible. I'm not talking about a Natural Law idea where the idea of God is knowable in the absence of the Bible, but where the concept of Jesus specifically is knowable in the absence of the Bible.
I'm working on that one too.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have a feeling that there are a lot of things that you haven't seen but believe in -- ultimately because someone told you that it was the truth (whether it was someone you knew or a third party ie. the media -- because they ALWAYS tell the truth). For some reason this seems to be a bigger stretch for you.I need to get a coffee cup like that...
Yes and no. There are a lot of things that I haven't seen that I believe in, but they're all subject to revision upon receipt of additional evidence. I believe my father is my biological father because I look like him and my mother told me he's my biological father and he admits to being my biological father. If I got a DNA test tomorrow and found out he couldn't possibly be my biological father, I'd change my belief.
For those beliefs not based on easily measured evidence, I can use reason and logic to puzzle out what I believe to be true.
Christianity fails both tests. I can't verify it through objective methods and it makes no sense based on logic and reason. I just cannot see how Christianity can be unverisally true and yet practiced only by a quarter of the world's population. Either 3/4 of the humans on the planet are going to hell or Christ was not a divine being.
The belief in any sort of diety is a more difficult leap, but I'm much more willing to accept that possibility than I am to accept that Jesus was more than a man.
As for the cup, it's available at the paizo store. ;-)
|
|
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The bible is bound to contain accurate descriptions of historical events. But, at the end of the day, I am comfortable believing Jesus to be a liar/lunatic. The other answer (i.e., God provided the proof and method of salvation to a narrow subset of humans) is far more ludicrous than Jesus being a bit touched in the head.
I just find it funny how often that argument gets put out there, as if its a dare to people to come out and say Jesus was a nutty liar motivated by a martyr complex and not divine providence. I hear it about Joeseph Smith too (the Mormon prophet). I bet some people probably say it about David Koresh. At the risk of my eternal soul, I'd say that I find each of them to have equal probability of having received divine guidance.
I really need to get back to work...
I am not sure that I am fully understanding your logic here. Are you saying that the Bible is only 0.139% accurate? Are you saying that it is at least historically accurate? Partially historically accurate? If so, what parts? If it only partially accurate, why look at it at all? If it is 100% historically accurate, wouldn't it stand to reason that it was at least partially divinely accurate? And, again, how do you pick and choose what is accurate?
I am not sure how Jesus is put together with the other two that you mentioned. Jesus' purpose seemed to be far different than that of the other two people you mentioned. How he lived and what he taught also seemed to be rather different as well. It seems like you are saying "These two people claimed to have divine guidance and were obviously nutty, therefore anyone -- including Jesus -- who claims to have divine guidance is a nutty liar." That logic doesn't seem very sound.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am not sure that I am fully understanding your logic here. Are you saying that the Bible is only 0.139% accurate? Are you saying that it is at least historically accurate? Partially historically accurate? If so, what parts? If it only partially accurate, why look at it at all? If it is 100% historically accurate, wouldn't it stand to reason that it was at least partially divinely accurate? And, again, how do you pick and choose what is accurate?
My point is that even something that, as a whole, is inaccurate, can contain accurate statements. E.g., if I were to write "Balloon farms on Mars produce most of the world's oil, which is the most important commodity in today's economcy." That statement contains some truth and some non-truth. Similarly, most historical documents contain inaccuracies. By comparing historical documents, physical evidence, and other items, the story of the past is created. It's generally told in a narrative fashion, and thus all history is to a large degree interpretive, but there is still some truth mixed in with that story (e.g., Rome really did burn).
The Bible is not 100% historically accurate; no historical document is. How you pick and choose the accurate bits is as discussed above. If someone were to use Stephen King novels to reconstruct the history of the U.S. in the late 20th century, they could do so by focusing on the historical details of the settings and disregarding the supernatural elements. Same thing applies to the Bible.
Note that this is very different from basing your spiritual beliefs on the books of Stephen King (I believe in the Dark Tower, but not the part about drawing people into other worlds). In that instance you are picking and choosing which aspects to believe without regard to their accuracy, merely with regard to your whimsy.
Edit: Also, by your logic, if Stephen King's books are 100% accurate with regards to historical events, that should imply some accuracy as to their supernatural elements. I can't say I agree with this sentiment.
I am not sure how Jesus is put together with the other two that you mentioned. Jesus' purpose seemed to be far different than that of the other two people you mentioned. How he lived and what he taught also seemed to be rather different as well. It seems like you are saying "These two people claimed to have divine guidance and were obviously nutty, therefore anyone -- including Jesus -- who claims to have divine guidance is a nutty liar." That logic doesn't seem very sound.
Well, first of all I wouldn't go calling Joeseph Smith obviously nutty considering that his followers have as much claim to legitimacy as any other Christian sect. The point with grouping the three together is that all three had a message based on divine guidance and/or claimed divinity and had followers that believe(d) such a claim. The argument that Jesus was either telling the truth about his divine pedigree or lying/insane could be said about any of them. I'm not sure how you can differentiate yourself from those that believe the claim of the other two men. How exactly do you differentiate which one was telling the truth and which one was lying/insane? The argument is not that all who claim divinity are nutty liars (though I would agree with such an argument), it is that there is no reliable way to differentiate between those making such a claim as to who is truthful and who is not. Clearly belief is insufficient in your eyes, because the fact that people believe in the divinity of Joeseph Smith/David Koresh does not provide credible evidence for you to embrace their divinity.
|
|
My point is that even something that, as a whole, is inaccurate, can contain accurate statements. E.g., if I were to write "Balloon farms on Mars produce most of the world's oil, which is the most important commodity in today's economcy." That statement contains some truth and some non-truth. Similarly, most historical documents contain inaccuracies. By comparing historical documents, physical evidence, and other items, the story of the past is created. It's generally told in a narrative fashion, and thus all history is to a large degree interpretive, but there is still some truth mixed in with that story (e.g., Rome really did burn).
The Bible is not 100% historically accurate; no historical document is. How you pick and choose the accurate bits is as discussed above. If someone were to use Stephen King novels to reconstruct the history of the U.S. in the late 20th century, they could do so by focusing on the historical details of the settings and disregarding the supernatural elements. Same thing applies to the Bible.
Note that this is very different from basing your spiritual beliefs on the books of Stephen King (I believe in the Dark Tower, but not the part about drawing people into other worlds). In that instance you are picking and choosing which aspects to believe without regard to their accuracy, merely with regard to your whimsy.
Edit: Also, by your logic, if Stephen King's books are 100% accurate with regards to historical events, that should imply some accuracy as to their supernatural elements. I can't say I agree with this sentiment.
Ok, touche. However, if the Bible is historically fairly accurate, but nothing that Jesus said or did in the Bible is accurate, then why did he die (or why was he killed)? I take it that you believe that some dude named Jesus lived and died around the time the Bible implies.
Well, first of all I wouldn't go calling Joeseph Smith obviously nutty considering that his followers have as much claim to legitimacy as any other Christian sect. The point with grouping the three together is that all three had a message based on divine guidance and/or claimed divinity and had followers that believe(d) such a claim. The argument that Jesus was either telling the truth about his divine pedigree or lying/insane could be said about any of them. I'm not sure how you can differentiate yourself from those that believe the claim of the other two men. How exactly do you differentiate which one was telling the truth and which one was lying/insane? The argument is not that all who claim divinity are nutty liars (though I would agree with such an argument), it is that there is no reliable way to differentiate between those making such a claim as to who is truthful and who is not. Clearly belief is insufficient in your eyes, because the fact that people believe in the divinity of Joeseph Smith/David Koresh does not provide credible evidence for you to embrace their divinity.
Actually, the Bible has a "test". Simply put, the Bible says that if a person claims to be a prophet/man of God and says something in the name of God and it doesn't come to pass or is in conflict with the scriptures then they are not really from God. To my knowledge, things that Jesus said were not in conflict with the Bible and anything that might not have come true are things that are nearly impossible to document (Jesus decending into hell and so on), or things that haven't happened yet (the second coming and so on).
Jesus preached forgiveness to the Jews; only to the Jews if you want to keep in context; cannot only means that He will not violate His ethics, word, etc - the Apostles spoke to the rest of us. 7x7 means unlimited; not 49. Paraphrased you will forgive your brother 7X7 as you too will ask to be forgiven; this was offered to man, not to angels. Jesus often talks about what kind of heart a person should have and this is a big one, forgiving. There are other thing as well.
I understand where Sexi Golem is coming from I think; one could certainly read the sections of Joshua and see God in CE game terms and read the new testament and see him in LG game terms and perhaps LN in Genesis which only goes to show in my mind that we don't really understand His nature at all, which is why we call him the Triumvirate, so we try to follow the rules as given; get tired of them and make up our own; get a correction; follow the rules; get tired of them, try again to change them; get a correction; same repeated them over and over in the bible until the New Testament. As far as I found the only mention of a real hell in the bible about fire and brimstone is about the fallen angels who cannot and will not be forgiven, some people might end up there, but i doubt it; in Revelations, there is the city of God made and outside are people in agony; perhaps these are the sinners or unforgiven, to be forgiven; you have to repent; not just ask for forgiveness; repentance; do you really think the Fallen will repent? I have a hard time and I don't think I am that proud. Man's fall is that he can justify anything as right in his own heart and mind. Thank Goodness we live under Grace.
hmm I think of the bible as a primer; like what you get in elementary school; a place to start to get the basics; Christianity certainly does not stop there.
...things that Jesus said were not in conflict with the Bible
This is becuase the things that Jesus said (or some of them anyway) are in the bible.
And, technically, the bible conflicts with itself in some places. So, as you have said before, how do you know what parts to believe?|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ok, touche. However, if the Bible is historically fairly accurate, but nothing that Jesus said or did in the Bible is accurate, then why did he die (or why was he killed)? I take it that you believe that some dude named Jesus lived and died around the time the Bible implies.
I don't know why he was killed, but I don't think that it per se has to be because he claimed to be the son of God. It's just as likely he was killed because he was seen as a popular religious leader with the potential to form a Jewish coalition strong enough to repel the Romans (or at least give them a headache). The fact that he was killed isn't really evidence of anything orther than that he pissed off the Roman leaders.
Also, I wouldn't go far as to say nothing that Jesus did as contained in the bible is accurate. It's like Pope John Paul. The guy has been dead for what, two years, and he's getting miracles attributed to him. He was a charismatic leader with a great deal of respect and compassion; a good human being. People loved him, they believed his message. We know he visited various countries, we know what he said in various sermons, we know that he preached the Bible. Now it turns out that he healed disease and performed other miracles. You could easily write a biography about the Pope which includes these events and it would be 99% accurate but for the supernatural elements.
And it's not as if this doesn't happen to secular figures. Take George Washington and the cherry tree. Was there a George Washington and was he the first president of the U.S.? Sure there was. Did he actually cut down a cherry tree and then due to his honesty and integrity said "I cannot tell a lie, it was I who cut down that cherry tree." I doubt it.
And each of George and John Paul post-date the printing press. Information dissemination and recordation in the days of Jesus was a sketchy affair, at best. It's pretty easy to go from popular religious leader to divine being, particularly if an organization gets built around your teachings and has a vested interest in keeping the attention of your followers.
Actually, the Bible has a "test". Simply put, the Bible says that if a person claims to be a prophet/man of God and says something in the name of God and it doesn't come to pass or is in conflict with the scriptures then they are not really from God. To my knowledge, things that Jesus said were not in conflict with the Bible and anything that might not have come true are things that are nearly impossible to document (Jesus decending into hell and so on), or things that haven't happened yet (the second coming and so on).
Well, there's a significant number of persons that believe Joesph Smith passed the "test." Seems like it's not too hard a test to pass: say you were divinely inspired, add additional scriptures that are consistent with what you say, try not to contradict anything else.
Picture one of those annoying airport conveyor belt walkway thingies.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that people are inherently evil (damned). It's just not true.
I seem to recall that once upon a time, the JW line was no blood transfusions.
One of the things I like about Judaism: You can break the rules in a life threatening situation. God wants you to obey him, but he doesn't want you to die over dogma.
The Catholic church also once upon a time came down pretty heavy on that guy that discovered the whole "earth around the sun" deal, but have since changed their stance...
On the other hand, the Catholic church used to be okay with abortion. (It makes me laugh and cringe whenever a Christian claims God's law is immutable.)
1) I'm constantly amazed, Heath, that in moving from NY to TX I went from being a "right-wing reactionary" to being a "left-wing liberal communist" just by changing states of residence (my views are the same, but the neighbors sure aren't!).
Why do Americans think their two party system respresents the only possible political viewpoints? It's not even a spectrum, it's freaking political web. I get that myself, because I'm a socialist and a minarchist (but unlike Ayn Rand readers, I consider corporations to be a form of Red Communism), but that's a whole other discussion.
How do you believe in a religion enough to actually practice it without feeling that it's actually right.
For the same reason I'm willing to overturn my belief in evolution if contrary evidence is presented to me. Because my religions work for me, and I don't have the hubris to believe that I will ever know more than one-half of one percent of anything. You don't follow blindly because something is tradition, but neither do you automatically reject it for the same reason.
The thing about "interfaith dialogue" is that, for me at least, it helps a person flesh out their own personal beliefs. It is mostly for the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.
That's why I love this thread. And if I learn a new truth: all the better.
hmm I think of the bible as a primer
Who wants a library with only one book? Every book - every medium of art - is a bible.
Am I the only person here claiming more than one religion? The way I see it, having only one religion is like voting a straight party ticket or playing only one roleplaying system.
I'm gonna vote for option A, though I don't personally think God appears as a jerk and I'm not sure why someone would think so. I admit that God can "appear" cruel and capricious, especially in the Old Testament when He was training the Isrealites. In modern pretext,though, if holding someone accountable is being a jerk, then, yes, I guess He is to your viewpoint.
Here is my point.
Hypothetically this person described below is me. In fact not hypothetically there are a lot of people like this.
I do not break any of gods commandments with regularity. Not even the "thou shalt have no god befor me" one (they are all perfectly side by side in the trash bin). I am a good person. I go out of my way to help the less fortunate and I don't make a big show of it. I do not do it for thanks or recognition, I do good for it's own sake. My behavior is more christianly than 90% of practicing christians minus the whole god and Jesus thing.
But... I still get eternal damnation.
Meanwhile Joe D$#%$ead the wife beating child molester gets in to heaven because he found Jesus and earnestly repented just before he kicked it.
If you aren't a member of the club you don't get the benefits package. Even though the club leader has an unlimited packages and an infallable system for measuring overall worthyness. Sorry no memership card, no benefits.
The christian god can appear cruel and capricious. This incarnation has the added bonus of being petty. If the system above is not tthat of an ass. Please show me how that is possible.
Just for clarification I'll restate the context of this post. This is concerning religions that have a "actively worship X, or you burn" policy. I am not making the generalization that all religions have this belief structure.
Also;
Sebastion great points.
Sebastion,
are you asking why Jesus was killed; officially, it was the charge of treason and raising an army against Rome; very few crimes in Rome call for crucifiction, but treason is one and the crime is nailed above the head of the persecuted. His read INRI which is king of the jews who already had a king named Herod. The Roman Empire was very harsh on insurrection and consider it treason. It was also treason not to bow to the Roman dieties which were the official religion of the time until Constantine so that is how many Christians were charged as well as with cannibalism.
That is what the secular stuff says and I have most of it at home in books from all my history classes - Rome was one of my specialities before I turned to the history of technology.
Hope this answers a few q's
hmm Sexi Golem; that just is not right; for your example. God has said; He is a just God; what your are describing is not justice. Being a Catholic; we are taught that the person you described goes to Purgatory, but regardless; the person in your example will get a chance to proclaim or deny XP and that will seal his fate on way or the other; we are commanded to pray for those in purgatory for their souls; that they may and will gain the eternal reward in heavon. I pray at every single graveyard I pass, I pray for any and all in purgatory that they may see God. The abuser in your example; he did repent; but has no treasures in heavon; and will be the least of the children of god. The first person in your example has many treasures stored in heavon and will not be among the least; he only needs the last step to proclaim XP.
Eternal damnation is for fallen angels; consider this; if got forgets you; ie your not written in the book of life; you no longer exist; you are not tortured; you just are not and never were. I am not real sure what hell is, but my research seems to point to it being alone; completely alone within yourself with no grace, no love, no charity, no forgiveness; only hate, anger; self loathing; and other abuses, but this does not last for long subjectively; even in so called hell; God knows your name. He forgives over and over and over and over ad infinitum as any father would to his errant little children.
Have you ever asked youself why the Bible; the Koran, and other great religious texts were written; what is their purpose; What does the bible demonstrate about man? What is the purpose of the old testament? Why is the new testament so different if it is the same diety? These answers might be hidden; but they are very simple and very clear if you can just find them; wisdom is to be loved, charished and yearned for.
Kirth (and any other Buddhist who wishes to respond), I was wondering if you could explain to me who you think Buddha was. What I mean is - he was a man, right? Or is he/was he a diety? If so, how does he "match up" with Yahweh (Jehovah)? Do you pray to him and is he capable of answering your prayers?
I'm just trying to puzzle all this out because I interpreted some of your earlier posts to say that one is supposed to kinda "figure out" the path of enlightenment and then act accordingly. If so, what's the point of having/needing a leader? And what happens when you die? Do you believe there is an afterlife?
Just seeking insight into your faith.
|
|
Sebastion,
are you asking why Jesus was killed; officially, it was the charge of treason and raising an army against Rome; very few crimes in Rome call for crucifiction, but treason is one and the crime is nailed above the head of the persecuted. His read INRI which is king of the jews who already had a king named Herod. The Roman Empire was very harsh on insurrection and consider it treason. It was also treason not to bow to the Roman dieties which were the official religion of the time until Constantine so that is how many Christians were charged as well as with cannibalism.That is what the secular stuff says and I have most of it at home in books from all my history classes - Rome was one of my specialities before I turned to the history of technology.
Hope this answers a few q's
Since I really haven't looked into any "secular stuff" on this (and really need to), did the Romans really take credit for killing Jesus? I was under the impression that Roman government didn't want to have anything to do with his death because of how popular he had become. Basically, this is new information to me and I would like to know where this information comes from. If you have that, please let me know.
Believing Jesus is God does not make you a Christian - believing Karl Marx was a 19th century philosopher doesn't make you Communist, does it? Professing Christianity and not doing as Jesus teaches just makes you a hypocrite.
we are taught that the person you described goes to Purgatory,
And, to give an example from a non-Christian "join-or-die" faith: In Islam hell is, for all purposes, purgatory. Even the greatest and most vile heathen goes to heaven eventually (from what I understand).
Kirth (and any other Buddhist who wishes to respond), I was wondering if you could explain to me who you think Buddha was. What I mean is - he was a man, right? Or is he/was he a diety? If so, how does he "match up" with Yahweh (Jehovah)? Do you pray to him and is he capable of answering your prayers?
I'm just trying to puzzle all this out because I interpreted some of your earlier posts to say that one is supposed to kinda "figure out" the path of enlightenment and then act accordingly. If so, what's the point of having/needing a leader? And what happens when you die? Do you believe there is an afterlife?
Just seeking insight into your faith.
It depends, really. Some groups hold that Buddha was nothing more than a teacher, someone who was needed to be an example on the way to enlightenment. Others beleive that Buddha gained divinity at the same time as enlightenment, but it is not as emphazised as it is in Christianity with Jesus; the teachings are more important than the man. Mahayana Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism too I think) actually has a number of "demigod" Bhoddisatvas who each represent an aspect required in the quest for enlightenment, though I admit to not knowing very much on that subject.
As I explained in a earlier post; this is not what the Catholic church teached about purgatory; it is mearly a waiting place or time or period where someone awaits the development of his heart toward good or evil; they are those who are close and can be saved by our prayers as they go either toward God or not.
about the Romans; Roman law states that no land controlled by Rome has any foreign policy ie cannot make allianced with others, but may self govern their peoples as long as they send certain provisions to Rome; also within this is that they may not convict anyone of a capital offense that call for death without the approval of certain Roman officials; Pilate being the Govenor has that position, though the Eastern Tribune and the Emperor could have intravened but would not do so unless the offender was a Roman; hence, why Paul was sent to Rome as he was a Roman and by law could demand trail before the Emperor. The Romans could not find anything to convict Jesus with as a capital offence, but they did find him guilty of breaking several laws so they scourged him as the law required and seized certain property. After that he became a political prisoner as to dangerous to release as they feared riots whereas the Sanhedrin and the Scribes had paid agitators; so the Roman Govenor, fearing revolt, signed a charge of treason against the state of Rome; as it was really no big deal to the Romans; from the writing of various Roman soldiers, officials; govenors, and generals; and even in the Senate; Judea; as it was called was a very hated place; the peoples unreasonable and hot headed, uncivil and unrulable; they had actually voted later to finally just send the armies of the empire to just exterminate everyone in the entire region as they were so sick of the same crap we are dealing with today in that same region, but then a local power struggle arose and they had an internal civl war instead. There are two hated placed to the Romans; you can tell by where they had to maintain garrisons; as they really only maintained three foreign garrisons in force; Egypt, the Rhein Valley, and Judea and they didnt hate Egypt where all their foodstuffs came from after Hannibal killed all of the farmers in Rome proper.
Kirth (and any other Buddhist who wishes to respond), I was wondering if you could explain to me who you think Buddha was. What I mean is - he was a man, right? Or is he/was he a diety? If so, how does he "match up" with Yahweh (Jehovah)? Do you pray to him and is he capable of answering your prayers?
I'm just trying to puzzle all this out because I interpreted some of your earlier posts to say that one is supposed to kinda "figure out" the path of enlightenment and then act accordingly. If so, what's the point of having/needing a leader? And what happens when you die? Do you believe there is an afterlife?
Just seeking insight into your faith.
In the Buddha's teachings, he's pretty clear that he is NOT "God" as described in Christianity, et al. Rather, he discovered a method to reduce (or, in his case, totally remove) the suffering that is a part of life for almost everyone. He spoke of "inter-being," the idea of non-separateness of everyone and everything... so, if you prefer, "he" and "you" and "I" and "God" are, at a deeper level, all the same thing... but for some of us, on a superficial level, our egos prevent us from realizing it.
A lot of variant sects around Asia ascribe gods, demigods, etc., but those are not central to the tenets of Buddhism; they're more like add-ons.
I interpreted some of your earlier posts to say that one is supposed to kinda "figure out" the path of enlightenment and then act accordingly. If so, what's the point of having/needing a leader? And what happens when you die? Do you believe there is an afterlife?
When learning to fix cars, it's a lot easier if you can study from someone who already knows how, or at least from a manual. It's much trickier to figure it out for yourself, although that's what the Buddha did (which is why we name the religion after him). "This life" and "the afterlife" are more ego games; illusions, if you prefer. They're meaningless distractions, from a pure Buddhist standpoint, and drop out of the equation when one directly perceives the "inter-being" of reality as it is.
In the Buddha's teachings, he's pretty clear that he is NOT "God" as described in Christianity, et al.
Let me clarify that the Sutras obviously don't mention the Judeo-Christian God; Buddhism predates Christianity by a wide margin. What I mean is that there is no concept of a "Supreme Being" as a separate entity.
Okay...I think I understand. The only thing left sorta unresolved in my mind is prayer. I guess if we all co-exist or inter-exist or whatever, then there's no need to pray, right? You just meditate as a way to further your own journey of enlightment? What do you do when you have a problem that's beyond your capability to handle? Or when you *need* something (be it physical, emotional, psychological, whatever)?
... Hypothetically this person described below is me. In fact not hypothetically there are a lot of people like this.
I do not break any of gods commandments with regularity. Not even the "thou shalt have no god befor me" one (they are all perfectly side by side in the trash bin). I am a good person. ...
But... I still get eternal damnation.Meanwhile Joe d~~@~ead the wife beating child molester gets in to heaven because he found Jesus and earnestly repented just before he kicked it.
I'm sorry but your complaint seems completely illogical to me so I'm unsure whether you sincerely are seeking a response or if you're just on this thread to "stir the pot".
You've stated quite clearly and strongly that you don't personally believe a God exists (and therefore, no Jesus, no salvation, no Hell, etc) and that anyone who *does* believe such things is a fool or worse. Therefore, why do you complain about a possible future (eternal damnation of your soul) which you do not even believe is capable of happening (for numerous reasons!)? If there's no God then there's no reason for you to worry about what some "deluded" individuals who *do* believe in such a ridiculous character also believe is going to be your fate.On a related note, you said that even if you were willing to believe that God does exist, you think he's a complete jerk (and worse) and would certainly refuse to acknowledge or submit to His authority. So again, we're back to the "why do you care about something you insist you don't care about" question. If you are saying that even if God exists, you defy Him then there's your choice - you made it! You should also accept whatever possible consequences that choice brings with it.
You seem to indicate that Christians are stupid. Stupid for believing in the afterlife; stupid for believing in eternal reward/punishment; stupid for trusting that they will be spared that punishment; stupid to believe the God sent His Son to save us; stupid for even believing a loving & perfect God exists and we're part of his plan. So you've established that you want absolutely nothing to do with such wierdos and their ridiculous beliefs. Then why are you acting jealous over the rewards they believe they will receive but you may be denied? Why do you care where you would "rank" in an organization that you hold in nothing short of complete disdain? This makes no sense.
Bottom line: if there's no Hell then there's no reason to be angry that some people (who you have no respect for anyway) think you're going there.