[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Are you asking what I believe about Christianity and what it says, or are you asking what I think as an individual watching your search for truth?[/quote]
I know what most Christians say, and am more interested in your personal view 
Well Mak, if you want to get ahead of the curve and leave any children and grandkids a dominant religion as their heritage…
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
forlife wrote:
Makavali wrote:
No one actually knows where NZ is.
I lived in NSW for a couple of years and have several Kiwi friends, so guess I’m an exception to the rule.
I’ve looked at a map, so I guess I am too.[/quote]
Oh noe! We’re open to attack now!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well Mak, if you want to get ahead of the curve and leave any children and grandkids a dominant religion as their heritage…
Muslim Demographics - YouTube [/quote]
I’d much rather raise agnostics. If I choose to become Buddhist, I’m still not teaching my kids Buddhism.
Let them figure it out.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well Mak, if you want to get ahead of the curve and leave any children and grandkids a dominant religion as their heritage…
I’d much rather raise agnostics. If I choose to become Buddhist, I’m still not teaching my kids Buddhism.
Let them figure it out.[/quote]
X2, they have to come into their own. It’s not about who’s right or wrong. It’s all about what makes sense to the individual, one has to be able to believe. I could never wrap my head around any of the others. Buddhism is the only spiritual practise that doesn’t say they’re the only way.
Good luck with your search!
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Same challenge - bring it
Don’t you agree that the god of the old testament is jealous, petty, vindictive, capricious, and cruel? He gets a much needed facelift in the new testament, thank…god.
As I mentioned in the other post - if we are to have this discussion, we need to know what the ground rules are.
Are we discussing from a position that accepts scripture as infallible? Are we discussing from a position that holds scripture is just mythology? It’s important to know the context because that affects quite a bit about the discussion.
For example, if we are going to hold that scripture is literal - that will affect a lot of the interpretations. If we hold it is figurative a lot of things - for example miracles - go out the window.
The pre-suppositions made about the bible by most people completely change how it is read and understood.
So in what context are we to discuss this?
From my perspective, the bible (and every other holy book) is an interesting cultural commentary on man’s search for meaning in the universe, but it is nothing more than that. I don’t take anything literal in any of these books.
But the more relevant question is how you perceive the bible. For example, do you believe that “god” actually commanded Israel to commit infanticide against their enemies?
[/quote]
Short answer - yes
Long answer:
The one incidence in question was God’s command to kill all of the Amalekites - a command that was disobeyed and never carried out.
i won’t go into the history of the Amalekites, but I will remind everyone that there is a principle in Bible interpretation that states all scripture must be interpreted with other scripture - you can’t hold out one passage and say - see this is bad.
lemme splain - we all know that God is portrayed as a loving God seeking all that will to come to repentance, we also know that he commanded Abraham to kill his son - but provided a way out of that command - the purpose being to prove Abraham’s character and faith.
The same can be applied here - in any battle the women and children are carted off, away from the battle. God commanded them to destroy the Amalekites, knowing Saul would disobey. As soon as they had defeated the army, the Israelites fell to looting the spoils of the Amalekites - they obviously did not destroy them all, because the Amalekites continued to be a problem for Israel.
It is also important to note that Israel was commanded to offer peace to all enemies before the battle was engaged - there were some details here that skip my mind at the moment.
with all of that said- had Sail been the man he was supposed to be, God would have provided a way to prevent the slaughter of innocent lives (lives that were not slaughtered in the actual event anyway).
So - God (being omniscient) knew Saul wold disobey, but had Saul’s character been one that would have obeyed the command - I think the outcome would have been something along the lines of the Amalekites surrendering at the peace request before the battle. - The point is not the Amalekites in this narrative - but Saul’s lack of obedience and faith.
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
It is this denial of Christ, according to scripture, that condemns all unrepentant/unsaved men to eternal damnation - as long as they deny God’s work on their behalf, they cannot accept his salvation.
What if the denial is born out of a sincere belief that Jesus was not the son of God and the Savior of the world, but at best was just another human being trying to find his way in life? What if you have read the bible numerous times, and even spent many years believing that Jesus was the Savior, only to realize later in your spiritual journey that Jesus was just a man after all?
Would a just and benevolent God condemn you based on the sincere pursuit of truth?[/quote]
OK - point of clarification - men are not originally condemned to pay for their sins because of their denial of the freely offered salvation - but for the sins that they have willfully committed.
The denial of the offered salvation - regardless of the rational serves only to confirm the original punishment for their sins.
A person can be as good as they want - but if they have ever chosen to committ a sin - knowing it was sin, they are guilty and bear that consequence.
That is the condemnation of Christ’s life - he proved that one could live a sinless life - if they chose to!
To answer your other question, NO - if Jesus was just a man, then you have nothing to worry about. There would be no punishment for sin, no benevolent or just God (at least not the biblical God)to condemn you . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
God commanded them to destroy the Amalekites, knowing Saul would disobey. As soon as they had defeated the army, the Israelites fell to looting the spoils of the Amalekites - they obviously did not destroy them all, because the Amalekites continued to be a problem for Israel.[/quote]
You’ve provided an example of a god who commands his people to kill children. When that command is disobeyed, the god then punishes his people for not following his commandment. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can this be construed as a loving god?
If god knew that Saul was going to disobey the commandment, why would he give it in the first place? It only set up Israel for punishment, not to mention being a commandment that is inherently disgusting and depraved.
Besides, you only addressed the case of the Amalekites. Here are a few more:
Numbers 21
God commands Israel to destroy the people of Bashan, including their sons, until nobody is left. In this case, unlike the Amalekites, Israel obeyed.
Numbers 31
God commands Israel to kill all the male children of the Midianites. They fail to do so and God gets mad at them, again commanding that they kill all the boys and save the girls for themselves.
Exodus 12
God himself killed all the firstborn of Egypt which certainly included many children.
Is this the kind of god you would want to worship? Definitely not someone I would voluntarily worship, even if I thought he existed.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
To answer your other question, NO - if Jesus was just a man, then you have nothing to worry about. There would be no punishment for sin, no benevolent or just God (at least not the biblical God)to condemn you . . . [/quote]
But how do you reconcile that with the belief that everyone has sinned, and therefore everyone must voluntarily recognize and accept Jesus as their personal savior in order to be saved?
I used to believe Jesus was my personal savior, but I no longer do. I sincerely believe the idea of Jesus as a divine being (or of any other god that has existed over the centuries) is mythical and nonsensical, based on my own pursuit of truth.
Would a just god condemn me for concluding that Jesus was only a man, rather than the divine savior Christians believe him to be? Why or why not?
I’m thinking of converting to this.
heres a little bit about how I think.
[quote]MaddyD wrote:
heres a little bit about how I think.[/quote]
“John Locke was not a deist. He believed in both miracles and revelation, and he regarded miracles as the main proof of revelation.”
He also was pierced in the side (by a bullet), sacrificed himself so that others would believe, and came back from the dead.
You may draw your own conclusions.
I recently came across a quote of William Hazlitt which captured well my dominant beliefs on life and death:
“Perhaps the best cure for the fear of death is to reflect that life has a beginning as well as an end. There was a time when we were not: this gives us no concern - why then should it trouble us that a time will come when we shall cease to be? I have no wish to have been alive a hundred years ago, or in the reign of Queen Anne: why should I regret and lay it so much to heart that I shall not be alive a hundred years hence, in the reign of I cannot tell whom?”
Excellent quote, thanks for sharing.
When I became agnostic, I realized for the first time that immortality might not be all that it is cracked up to be. I mean, forever is so freaking long…wouldn’t immortality turn any heaven into a hell?
That said, 100 years isn’t nearly long enough. I want at least a few centuries to enjoy life…wish I was around back in old testament days, when Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.
[quote]forlife wrote:
wish I was around back in old testament days[/quote]
I think there probably would have been a few aspects of life back then that wouldn’t have been so appealing to you (cough…Leviticus 18:22…cough).
I laid me down upon a bank,
Where Love lay sleeping;
I heard among the rushes dank
Weeping, weeping.
Then I went to the heath and the wild,
To the thistles and thorns of the waste;
And they told me how they were beguiled,
Driven out, and compelled to the chaste.
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And “Thou shalt not,” writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think there probably would have been a few aspects of life back then that wouldn’t have been so appealing to you (cough…Leviticus 18:22…cough).[/quote]
I would have lived in Greece
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
To answer your other question, NO - if Jesus was just a man, then you have nothing to worry about. There would be no punishment for sin, no benevolent or just God (at least not the biblical God)to condemn you . . .
But how do you reconcile that with the belief that everyone has sinned, and therefore everyone must voluntarily recognize and accept Jesus as their personal savior in order to be saved?
I used to believe Jesus was my personal savior, but I no longer do. I sincerely believe the idea of Jesus as a divine being (or of any other god that has existed over the centuries) is mythical and nonsensical, based on my own pursuit of truth.
Would a just god condemn me for concluding that Jesus was only a man, rather than the divine savior Christians believe him to be? Why or why not?[/quote]
But that’s just it - I don’t have to reconcile it. I do not believe that Jesus was just a man- you do. If you are right you have nothing to worry about and neither do I. If I am right - I have nothing to worry about, but you do (don’t mean that to sound as crass as it does).
I am not sure what you are asking for here.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
If you are right you have nothing to worry about and neither do I. If I am right - I have nothing to worry about, but you do (don’t mean that to sound as crass as it does). [/quote]
Pascal’s wager:
The problem is not so simple though as choosing between believing in God or not - a 50/50 wager. Rather, the betting is more like a horse race with hundreds of horses. If god exists, you need to choose the right one and only one in order to win. Choose the wrong religion, and every week you just make god madder and madder (credit goes to Homer the heretic).