Fishlips,
Maybe I missed but what exactly do you believe? Naturally in terms of theology and religion. I’m lost with you right now. With the last post you don’t believe in the trinity, immortal soul and any form of hell…is that about right? Does this make you a Jehovah’s Witness? Not sure where you stand or where you’re getting your ideas.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Pukie, If it tastes like bread and wine in your mouth, why would God make it taste like anything else in your stomach? The transubstantiation is a mystery. I never asked you to believe this. It’s a mystery because it’s accepted by faith, not by any means of human rationalization.
[/quote]
So you believe it because you’ve been told you have to believe it; whether it actually happens or not?
I’ve always wonderer why all religions need to have “magical occurences” to try and show how great and special they are. Virgin births, walking on water, matter transmutation, etc. Is the message in and of itself too boring to stand without those ridiculous and stupid artifices? Primitive people might have bought that crap, but how anyone now can believe that the host is anything but bread once it hits your stomach for digestion is beyond me.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Um… Good try but no. Pukie’s lack of faith is a religion in it of itself. He has his own dogmas and whether he expresses them or not is beside the point.[/quote]
Why don’t you list a few of those dogmas?
Believers always get to that fallacious argument given a little time “Believing in nothing is still a belief”. Yeah, right.
Is eating nothing a good meal?
Maybe you could get paid nothing for your work? It is still pay, after all.
Lack of belief is not a belief system; it is the absence of one.
Left alone I’d wouldn’t think of god at all… Unfortunately, in this day and age, you can hardly step out in public, watch TV, surf the web or read the news without having some variation of god shoved in your face.
I’m pretty sure you don’t spend a lot of time wondering about Santa Claus. You do get to see/hear/hear about him every year when stores everywhere trot him out to celebrate your savior’s birthday. Young kids are even led to believe in the reality of Santa.
Should I then assume that you believe in Santa because at some point in your life the “notion” of Santa is in your thoughts?
The way you relate to Santa is pretty much the way I relate to god. A boring make-believe character. You, luckily, get about 10 months of reprieve between episodes.
Even luckilier, Santa has little or no bearing on law, politics and other assorted human issues. Religion gives no such reprieve.
I see your jokes are as solid as your other arguments.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Exactly. Being born into a religion doesn’t make it right. Nor does a complete conviction in it’s rightness as it’s possible to be sincerely wrong.[/quote]
But you do agree that for the very large majority of all believers, that’s what determines their religion?
Using part of a religion to justify the religion is circular reasoning… both for the sake of argument, let’s hear it.
Again, to accept your proof, I must first concede the existence of those entities… Let’s pretend.
So God, noticing a problem with a proliferation of philosophies, decides to add to the confusion?
Those people who held philosophies in opposition to God for whatever reason (maybe they were born into them?) now are not simply holding wrong ideas, but in addition cannot even understand the language of those who kept the right idea?
Does that really strike you as the best solution to the problem? It seems that confusing the languages would be something Satan would enjoy more than God.
Glad you asked. I think that many religions share similar concepts because as people and cultures evolved, many religions “borrowed” stuff from one another. You didn’t want your religion to be less “magical” than your neighbor’s religion, right? Who’d follow a god of peace, when you can get a god of peace that can also walk on water and raise the dead?
I also find it interesting that Christians will point out things that other religions have “borrowed” from their own; but all seem unaware of their own plagiarism of earlier religions. Many religions are hundreds and even thousands of year older than Christ; they have notions of “bad places” (Hell), the afterlife, right vs. wrong stuff, trinity gods, virgin births, etc.
You remind me of the joke that Pope John Paul II was let down by Heaven because it is not as lavish as the Vatican. (See stellar, now that’s funny!)
I think that there is no such thing as “The Truth.” The truth to you might not be the truth to someone else. There are very few axiomatic truths when it comes to the human experience.
This can be readily seen with “hot button” issues. The death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulations, stem cell research. All those issues can be argued from both sides, and either side can appear “true” depending on your values.
Abortion, for example, do you value the life of the unborn child or the freedom of the mother? Is it better to force the mother to birth an unwanted child? Or should we kill the embryo early? Death penalty: does a thirst for revenge outweigh the possibility of error? Is it dissuasive to other criminals? Is killing an innocent now and then acceptable? And so on.
Another, more relevant example: The Roman Catholic church and its stance on birth control. Because they value “the sanctity of life”, the only acceptable form of birth control is abstinence. Now, I guess they haven’t seen my wife, but there no way I could abstain from having sex as much as possible with her. If it weren’t for the pill, I’d have 20 starving kids instead of two well-fed ones.
In countries where the RC Chruch is strong, people do not use birth control. They produce more kids than they can feed and raise (that abstinence thing is really hard). A lot of those kids will die from illness or malnutrition. Birth control still occurs, only it’s nature that takes care of it through famine and disease. Now, is opposing birth control right? Where’s the truth here? Does God prefer us to prevent unwanted pregnancies (he made us smart enough to develop the pill; better, he made our bodies so that it is possible to create easy birth control… Research “the male pill” for contrast.)
Anyway, I’m digressing pretty far. But the gist of it remains that for many human spheres, there simply is no such thing as “One Truth”. You have your values, and they guide you in what’s right or wrong. Different values would lead to different choices.
It’s also refreshing to find a reasonable believer who’s open to discussion. Overuse of Scripture™ and bold text is not an adequate substitute for thought.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.
Especially the good parts like the dashing of babies on rocks or the boiling of little kids; or feeding yet other children to bears because they laughed at a prophet.
Great sense of humor that Yahweh.[/quote]
Fishlips will defend those verses that you allude to with the free will trump card. But I don’t think that you will buy it. For if men, women, and bears have free will, then Fishlips would have to admit that his “god” just simply sits on his very high chair, observing “poor kids being abducted and raped”, bears mauling kids who like to tease, one desperate and deceptive woman persuading another desperate woman to eat her own child, and babies being spiked like footballs.
Fishlips accused me of being “sick” because I said that God causes such things to happen. But his “free will” defense does not get his god “off the hook.” The God of the Bible causes those men for whom Christ did not die to hate His glory, oppose His gospel, and persecute His people that He may justly punish them. All those who hate the true and living God, whether they be religious or irreligious, moral or immoral have this one thing in common: They both say with one voice that if God has mercy on all those for whom Christ died, and hardens all those for whom Christ did not die, then He cannot find fault with them since they could not resist His will to harden them for destruction. The good news of the gospel is that God promises to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Since the blood of Jesus actually atones, and since He is a Savior who actually saves, all those for whom He died will go to heaven. And all those for whom He did not died will go to hell.
Certain sinners will go to heaven because Christ died (was punished) for their sins. And certain sinners will go to hell to be justly punished for their sins, since their was no sacrifice of Christ for them. This is what the faith of God’s elect believes.
To use an illustration: Picture a lifeguard on his high chair watching a little boy drown. Perhaps he may shout a few words of advice and tell him to exercise his free will. After all, it was of his own free will that the boy went into the surf. The lifeguard did not push him in nor interfere with him in any way. The guard merely permitted him to go in and permitted him to drown. Would Fishlips dare conclude that his “god”, this “lifeguard” thus escapes culpability?
Anyways, here is one verse (for now, I suppose) that Pookie alluded to:
“Then he (Elisha) went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths” (2 Kings 2:23-24).
Mocking this prophet of God was not a laughing matter, but a punishable offense,and God punished these mockers. He punished these youths with the inexorability of the divine justice they thought so lightly of.
Would Fishlips or anyone else who asserts “free will” say that God merely “allowed”, or “permitted,” these bears to exercise their freedom? Or rather, did God actively cause these bears to maul some kids?
And what about these youths mocking Elisha in the first place? Did God cause them to mock as well? Yes. You mean to tell me that God punished these youths for the very thing He caused them to do? Yes. Then why does God find fault with these youths, for they could not resist His will to mock if He was causing them to mock His prophet in order to destroy them by means of some angry female bears.
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.” So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens. You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? (Romans 9:17-20)
[quote]doogie wrote:
In the end I think there is probably a god. A god who is good and not vain. A god who has given us free will and minds to seek fact (not superstition). I think the God in the bible is weak, vain, and cruel, and not worthy of worship.[/quote]
Much zeal is shown for the freedom of man’s will, little jealousy seems to be left for the freedom of God’s will. Men insist that it is unjust and tyrannical in God to control their wills, yet see nothing unjust, nothing proud, nothing Satanic in attempting to fetter and direct the will of God. Man, it seems, cannot have his own foolish, vain, weak, and cruel will gratified, unless the all-wise, Omnipotent God will consent to relinquish His!
"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35)
“For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses”(Joshua 11:20).
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
In your haste, you also neglect to realize that Orthodox Christians are able to actually prove what’s currently being practiced & taught in their local church with the Orthodox Church of an earlier era or place through the reading of manuscripts, epistles, councils, and orally transmitted evidence.[/quote]
Tell me how “orally transmitted evidence” from thousands of years ago can be “proven” completely correct.
Let’s make sure we agree on the meaning of “proof.”
Proof: Factual evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.
I guess another Reformer is now among us.
Pookie,
I don’t agree with you but I like your way of posting your ideas.
It’s interesting that you, an atheist, would feel as though most of USA’s decisions are based on religion and I as a Christian think the opposite; that most decisions are made by the ungodly.
I see the gay marriage issue as one to strike a nerve in religified people to get them to vote. In my ignorance I haven’t seen or heard too much more of this issue since the election…but that’s not the purpose of this thread.
In “defense” of my belief in G-d…I can’t explain G-d anymore than you can explain where laughter comes from…unless you can?
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Fishlips will defend those verses that you allude to with the free will trump card. But I don’t think that you will buy it. For if men, women, and bears have free will, then Fishlips would have to admit that his “god” just simply sits on his very high chair, observing “poor kids being abducted and raped”, bears mauling kids who like to tease, one desperate and deceptive woman persuading another desperate woman to eat her own child, and babies being spiked like footballs. [/quote]
I’d find the idea of a “hands-off” god who’d simply create the universe and then let it be easier to swallow than the interventionist character from the Bible. But then, such a hands-off god is simply a way to explain (for now) the creation of the universe and we don’t really need a complex “godlike” entity for that, so we’d simply abstract him away and be left with a universe that simply is.
Anyway…
In the verse cited, it’s not even a question of free will; the children get mauled by the bears following a curse uttered by the prophet in the name of god. God basically massacres 42 kids to appease his prophet’s anger. Making fun of someone is, after all, a mortal offense punishable by death. Who could find that unreasonable?
As for the rest, the notion of free-will granted by an omniscient god leads to illogical conclusions. Are you really free to choose your action if some god already knows beforehand what every which one of those actions will be? How can you choose differently than what god already knows will be your choice?
At birth, when passing out those souls, god already knows the whole life path of the “free-willed” soul and might as well throw them in Heaven or Hell directly and dispense with the 70-years physical existence.
If you want true free will, God has to lose omniscience. You can’t have that, because once omniscience gets the axe, omnipotence follows not long after (because that too, leads to weird situations). Eventually, the all-loving part goes (the problem of evil/natural disasters) and then god is not so godlike anymore. He might even need a creator himself.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Exactly. Being born into a religion doesn’t make it right. Nor does a complete conviction in it’s rightness as it’s possible to be sincerely wrong.
But you do agree that for the very large majority of all believers, that’s what determines their religion?
[/quote]
Of course. How many times I’ve heard ‘I was born a Catholic(or whatever) and I’ll die a Catholic!’ Why do you think certain parts of the world are completely dominated by one religious influence?
[quote]
The bible gives an explanation that hits all the right cords regarding the reason we have all these religions.
Using part of a religion to justify the religion is circular reasoning… both for the sake of argument, let’s hear it.[/quote]
Keep in mind, are you interested in a viable answer(the truth I dare say) or are you going to discard it based purely on the fact it came from a ‘religious’ source?
[quote]
Whose purpose do you think it serves to have a million choices out there regarding worship and religion, God’s or Satan’s?
Again, to accept your proof, I must first concede the existence of those entities… Let’s pretend.[/quote]
True. Then again to believe a single word anyone or anything says that’s not obviously apparent requires you have a good reason to believe them/it i.e. why should I believe the bible?
[quote]
No better way to obscure the truth than to throw out a whole pile of options. Instead the bible shows that the ancient city of Babel(Babylon)was a centre of religious ideas/philosophies in opposition to God. There, you may recall, God confused their languages and the inhabitants left the city spreading out from there - taking their religious ideas and customs with them. In their new locations their ‘religions’ evolved.
So God, noticing a problem with a proliferation of philosophies, decides to add to the confusion?
Those people who held philosophies in opposition to God for whatever reason (maybe they were born into them?) now are not simply holding wrong ideas, but in addition cannot even understand the language of those who kept the right idea?
Does that really strike you as the best solution to the problem? It seems that confusing the languages would be something Satan would enjoy more than God.[/quote]
Interesting way of looking at it. Unfortunately being at work I can’t confirm my memory is completely accurate but I do remember the people of that city were somewhat united in their efforts to build a tower to the heavens(don’t know what they were thinking, will research more details later). To think of current events, if a core of insurgents were found working together in Iraq would it be best to leave them together or scatter them?(I know you will say to do something much worse…) Probably a pathetic illustration but it comes to mind at the moment. Scripture speaks of no one in that city having the ‘right idea’. Again, I’ll reacquaint myself with the account when I get home.
[quote]
But they all came from a central source. Why do you think, as has been brought up earlier on this thread, that so many religions seem to have a number of basic ideas that are pretty much the same? A trinity god, an immortal soul, a place of eternal punishment etc. All untrue ideas taking centre stage in most religions, not just corrupted ‘Christian’ ones - and all with a pagan source opposed to God.
Glad you asked. I think that many religions share similar concepts because as people and cultures evolved, many religions “borrowed” stuff from one another. You didn’t want your religion to be less “magical” than your neighbor’s religion, right? Who’d follow a god of peace, when you can get a god of peace that can also walk on water and raise the dead?
I also find it interesting that Christians will point out things that other religions have “borrowed” from their own; but all seem unaware of their own plagiarism of earlier religions. Many religions are hundreds and even thousands of year older than Christ; they have notions of “bad places” (Hell), the afterlife, right vs. wrong stuff, trinity gods, virgin births, etc.[/quote]
That plagiarism is evidence of the fact that those ideas are not truly Christian. I love that you bring these things out. We’ve made this point before on this thread. Many other religions had triune gods, Hell-like places, virgin births, the afterlife, the practices of virtually all the ‘Christian’ holidays eg. Christmas, Easter etc. These practices were melded with bible teachings over time and share no part in Christianity.
[quote]
Does that even resemble the simple form of worship Jesus was trying to teach people? A lot of meaningless tradition and pomp. Many of the original Christians who had converted from Judaism had to be counselled about the necessity to leave completely behind the Jewish form of worship with all its grandeur because they really liked the ornateness(even a word?) of the Jewish way rather than the simple and humble worship of the Christians.
You remind me of the joke that Pope John Paul II was let down by Heaven because it is not as lavish as the Vatican. (See stellar, now that’s funny!) [/quote]
Good one!
[quote]
And finally…the compelling effect of truth. Think about the reality of the world. How often is the truth really embraced by the masses? Truth most often meets with ridicule and, many times, violent opposition. It’s true of almost any area of life. Think about what most people believe about nutrition and training. Does it appear the masses have it right? No, they’d rather listen to someone who tells them what they want to hear rather than the truth. BUT, to those genuinely humble, honest, and hungry to know the truth, to them it is truly compelling when they find it/hear it and it changes their lives giving them the answers they’ve so longed for and that makes everything make sense.
I think that there is no such thing as “The Truth.” The truth to you might not be the truth to someone else. There are very few axiomatic truths when it comes to the human experience.
This can be readily seen with “hot button” issues. The death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulations, stem cell research. All those issues can be argued from both sides, and either side can appear “true” depending on your values.
Abortion, for example, do you value the life of the unborn child or the freedom of the mother? Is it better to force the mother to birth an unwanted child? Or should we kill the embryo early? Death penalty: does a thirst for revenge outweigh the possibility of error? Is it dissuasive to other criminals? Is killing an innocent now and then acceptable? And so on.
Another, more relevant example: The Roman Catholic church and its stance on birth control. Because they value “the sanctity of life”, the only acceptable form of birth control is abstinence. Now, I guess they haven’t seen my wife, but there no way I could abstain from having sex as much as possible with her. If it weren’t for the pill, I’d have 20 starving kids instead of two well-fed ones.
In countries where the RC Chruch is strong, people do not use birth control. They produce more kids than they can feed and raise (that abstinence thing is really hard). A lot of those kids will die from illness or malnutrition. Birth control still occurs, only it’s nature that takes care of it through famine and disease. Now, is opposing birth control right? Where’s the truth here? Does God prefer us to prevent unwanted pregnancies (he made us smart enough to develop the pill; better, he made our bodies so that it is possible to create easy birth control… Research “the male pill” for contrast.)
Anyway, I’m digressing pretty far. But the gist of it remains that for many human spheres, there simply is no such thing as “One Truth”. You have your values, and they guide you in what’s right or wrong. Different values would lead to different choices.
It’s great to have you and doogie on this thread. Funny that your names would be so close.
It’s also refreshing to find a reasonable believer who’s open to discussion. Overuse of Scripture™ and bold text is not an adequate substitute for thought.[/quote]
I shall address the remaining points when I have more time. Till then…
[quote]pookie wrote:
It seems to me that a perfect, infallible God would find a better way to inspire man than to allow such a proliferation of religions. If there really was “One Truth”, wouldn’t that truth be so compelling that men would find themselves unable to resist it?
As it is, you need churches and clergy and a whole bureaucratic apparatus just to try and preserve whatever version of God you imagine is the right one; as do all other religions.
How can your infallible God fail so miserably at the simple task of SHOWING ALL MEN which fucking church IS THE RIGHT ONE?!
[/quote]
First, a little disclaimer: I want to say that when I use ALL CAPS it is to emphasize. It is NOT equivalent to internet yelling. If I want to yell, I will use the more common and time honored exclamation point.
Pookie, you make some good points. And I will try to address some of them. Yet, I don’t think that you care enough about it to read my entire post, and thus this post will be mainly to those more religious, yet just as blind regarding the only ground of salvation as the irreligious and unconcerned partying fornicating types are.
Okay, let’s get into some verses that speak of the true church, and we will contrast it with the false church.
Psalm 149: (1) Praise Jehovah! Sing to Jehovah a new song, His praise in the assembly of the saints.
A true church is an assembly of SAINTS. What are SAINTS? They are ones who have been SANCTIFIED. Ephesians 5:25-27:
Ephesians 5: (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf, (26) that He might sanctify it, cleansing [it] by the washing of the water in [the] Word, (27) that He might present it to Himself [as] the glorious assembly, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things, but that it be holy and without blemish.
The church is made up of those whom Christ loves and for whom Christ gave Himself up. And the church is a sanctified, cleansed, washed, holy, unblemished body. Does that mean that members of the true church never sin? No - it means that all members of the true church are clean by virtue of the merits of the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. This is the same thing as saying that they are SAINTS. The Roman Catholics would want us to believe that SAINTS are people who were a lot better and did more wonderful things than an average Christian. The truth is that EVERY Christian is a saint. (Of course, none of the Roman Catholics who call themselves Christians are true Christians.) We who are true Christians have ALL been sanctified by the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. Every Christian, whether they have been saved for two hours or 60 years, is fully sanctified and fully entitled to all of God’s blessings, including final glory.
Now we contrast this to the false church. The false church is made up of people who have not been sanctified. They are not saints. They do not believe the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.
Now because the true church is made up of people who believe the true gospel, we see something else about the true church in 1 Timothy 3:15:
1 Timothy 3: (15) But if I delay, that you may know how to behave in the house of God, which is [the] assembly of the living God, [the] pillar and foundation of the truth.
The true church is the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH. You can be sure that where the true church is, you can find the TRUTH. In fact, the way to find a local assembly that is part of the true church is to see if this assembly believes and proclaims the TRUTH. The false church believes and proclaims the LIE. When you are searching for a true assembly, you should find out whether or not this assembly believes and proclaims the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE.
Do they VALUE this gospel to the point of judging by it? Do they believe that universal atonement is a false gospel and that all who believe universal atonement or any other false gospel are lost? If they don’t, then they are not a true assembly of Christ; instead, they are what God calls a “synagogue of Satan” in Revelation 2:9. They are a synagogue of lies, and you are to avoid such an assembly.
A true church is one in which there is thanksgiving and praise to the true God. The thanksgiving and praise comes from a heart that believes that God’s grace, manifested in the work of Christ, makes the only difference between heaven and hell. Those who are members of the council of the upright know that the work of Christ demands and ensures their salvation, and they praise God together for His amazing grace. The false church gives thanks to their god and their christ, but they give thanks for making it possible for them to come to Christ of their own free will. Many of the modern churches are rocking with so-called praise, and they sing and shout and clap their hands and dance to their god, but it is a false god.
All who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception worship a false “christ.” In stark contrast, those who worship the true Christ, believe that His death on the cross demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented. If just one person ended up in hell for whom Christ died, then the gospel would be meaningless and the cross of Christ made of no effect:
“For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one glories and boasts in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God.
Think about this: If one believes that Christ died on the cross for those who end up in hell anyways, then what does this person believe the power of God to salvation is? Obviously not the cross. The power of God TO salvation, would obviously be THAT which makes the ultimate difference in salvation. In the aforemention view, it is the work of the sinner. In the Biblical view (1 Corinthians 1:18), it is the work of Christ alone.
[quote]Croooz wrote:
It’s interesting that you, an atheist, would feel as though most of USA’s decisions are based on religion and I as a Christian think the opposite; that most decisions are made by the ungodly.[/quote]
Well, it’s not just the USA, but yes, a lot of religions gets mixed in your politics. Sometimes it’s for benign issues, like gay marriage or the pledge of alliegeance, or whether your currency should read “In God we trust” or not…
Your president admits, proudly, that he “knows” Jesus and that he feels God guiding his decisions. I find that somewhat scary. I’m not sure if it was better when Reagan would consult his astrologer. Hopefully, his aides and the rest of the cabinet are there to really “guide” him. He seems like a simple man to convince…
You’re probably right about the issue of gay marriage. I find it a non-issue myself; what do I care if two men or two women wish to pledge their lives to one another.
I’d say laughter is the involuntary reaction to a sudden unexpected outcome. When we’re pleasantly surprised, we laugh. When we’re unpleasantly surprised, we shit our pants.
I’m not sure that is a valid explanation for a belief in God. There’s plenty of stuff that’s mysterious and hard to explain; can we use that to justify any belief held against reason?
Yeah I guess that is a piss poor explanation. It’s used out of context so basically didn’t prove a thing.
Ahh well back to the drawing board.
Anyhow, your line of reasoning is in line with what’s being labeled as post-modernist theology. Basically there are no absolute truths and everything is relative. Basically fullblown Nietzshe carrying a bible.
If you ever feel led to join one of the Christian social clubs look for a post-modern church…seems to right up your alley.
Pookie, Stellar, Fishlips, Extol, et al,
Just wanted you guys to know that I think this has been a fascinating and really, really long debate. Both sides have made some excellent points and rebuttals while keeping the majority of it civil. Good job, all of you.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
True. Then again to believe a single word anyone or anything says that’s not obviously apparent requires you have a good reason to believe them/it i.e. why should I believe the bible?[/quote]
Ideally, we’d find a common ground where were both in agreement, and work from there.
It’s not like they would’ve reached “the heavens” anyway. Even with modern engineering, the CN Tower in Toronto is less than 2,000 feet.
Well, from their point of view, they’re trying to rid their nation of infidel invaders. But I don’t have a solution for Iraq; at this point it’s probably better to stay the course and hope that with elections, a consitution and an elected government, they won’t fall back to being a dictatorship or a an islamic theocracy like Iran.
Capture the insurgents, put them in jail and give them fair trials (ie, not a charia law tribunal). That’s the model we’d like them to emulate.
It seems to me to be more of a convenient story to answer those who question the proliferation of religions.
Instead of saying, “Well, religions are the invention of men, nothing more.” the clergy can say “All those religions are God’s Will. Read this story about Babel and the hubris of mankind and see the fate that awaits those who question the faith…”
Er… Are you saying that you’re Christian, but do not believe in an afterlife? Virgin births and solstice celebrations are pretty insignificant points of dogma; but I thought that eternal life was pretty much a sine qua non of Christianity.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Exactly. Being born into a religion doesn’t make it right. Nor does a complete conviction in it’s rightness as it’s possible to be sincerely wrong.
But you do agree that for the very large majority of all believers, that’s what determines their religion?
Of course. How many times I’ve heard ‘I was born a Catholic(or whatever) and I’ll die a Catholic!’ Why do you think certain parts of the world are completely dominated by one religious influence?
The bible gives an explanation that hits all the right cords regarding the reason we have all these religions.
Using part of a religion to justify the religion is circular reasoning… both for the sake of argument, let’s hear it.
Keep in mind, are you interested in a viable answer(the truth I dare say) or are you going to discard it based purely on the fact it came from a ‘religious’ source?
Whose purpose do you think it serves to have a million choices out there regarding worship and religion, God’s or Satan’s?
Again, to accept your proof, I must first concede the existence of those entities… Let’s pretend.
True. Then again to believe a single word anyone or anything says that’s not obviously apparent requires you have a good reason to believe them/it i.e. why should I believe the bible?
No better way to obscure the truth than to throw out a whole pile of options. Instead the bible shows that the ancient city of Babel(Babylon)was a centre of religious ideas/philosophies in opposition to God. There, you may recall, God confused their languages and the inhabitants left the city spreading out from there - taking their religious ideas and customs with them. In their new locations their ‘religions’ evolved.
So God, noticing a problem with a proliferation of philosophies, decides to add to the confusion?
Those people who held philosophies in opposition to God for whatever reason (maybe they were born into them?) now are not simply holding wrong ideas, but in addition cannot even understand the language of those who kept the right idea?
Does that really strike you as the best solution to the problem? It seems that confusing the languages would be something Satan would enjoy more than God.
Interesting way of looking at it. Unfortunately being at work I can’t confirm my memory is completely accurate but I do remember the people of that city were somewhat united in their efforts to build a tower to the heavens(don’t know what they were thinking, will research more details later). To think of current events, if a core of insurgents were found working together in Iraq would it be best to leave them together or scatter them?(I know you will say to do something much worse…) Probably a pathetic illustration but it comes to mind at the moment. Scripture speaks of no one in that city having the ‘right idea’. Again, I’ll reacquaint myself with the account when I get home.
But they all came from a central source. Why do you think, as has been brought up earlier on this thread, that so many religions seem to have a number of basic ideas that are pretty much the same? A trinity god, an immortal soul, a place of eternal punishment etc. All untrue ideas taking centre stage in most religions, not just corrupted ‘Christian’ ones - and all with a pagan source opposed to God.
Glad you asked. I think that many religions share similar concepts because as people and cultures evolved, many religions “borrowed” stuff from one another. You didn’t want your religion to be less “magical” than your neighbor’s religion, right? Who’d follow a god of peace, when you can get a god of peace that can also walk on water and raise the dead?
I also find it interesting that Christians will point out things that other religions have “borrowed” from their own; but all seem unaware of their own plagiarism of earlier religions. Many religions are hundreds and even thousands of year older than Christ; they have notions of “bad places” (Hell), the afterlife, right vs. wrong stuff, trinity gods, virgin births, etc.
That plagiarism is evidence of the fact that those ideas are not truly Christian. I love that you bring these things out. We’ve made this point before on this thread. Many other religions had triune gods, Hell-like places, virgin births, the afterlife, the practices of virtually all the ‘Christian’ holidays eg. Christmas, Easter etc. These practices were melded with bible teachings over time and share no part in Christianity.
Does that even resemble the simple form of worship Jesus was trying to teach people? A lot of meaningless tradition and pomp. Many of the original Christians who had converted from Judaism had to be counselled about the necessity to leave completely behind the Jewish form of worship with all its grandeur because they really liked the ornateness(even a word?) of the Jewish way rather than the simple and humble worship of the Christians.
You remind me of the joke that Pope John Paul II was let down by Heaven because it is not as lavish as the Vatican. (See stellar, now that’s funny!)
Good one!
And finally…the compelling effect of truth. Think about the reality of the world. How often is the truth really embraced by the masses? Truth most often meets with ridicule and, many times, violent opposition. It’s true of almost any area of life. Think about what most people believe about nutrition and training. Does it appear the masses have it right? No, they’d rather listen to someone who tells them what they want to hear rather than the truth. BUT, to those genuinely humble, honest, and hungry to know the truth, to them it is truly compelling when they find it/hear it and it changes their lives giving them the answers they’ve so longed for and that makes everything make sense.
I think that there is no such thing as “The Truth.” The truth to you might not be the truth to someone else. There are very few axiomatic truths when it comes to the human experience.
This can be readily seen with “hot button” issues. The death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulations, stem cell research. All those issues can be argued from both sides, and either side can appear “true” depending on your values.
Abortion, for example, do you value the life of the unborn child or the freedom of the mother? Is it better to force the mother to birth an unwanted child? Or should we kill the embryo early? Death penalty: does a thirst for revenge outweigh the possibility of error? Is it dissuasive to other criminals? Is killing an innocent now and then acceptable? And so on.
[/quote]
Without going into each of your questions I believe we are thinking of truth in two different ways. I am not referring to the right or best decision in a matter. I mean truth in it’s absolute sense. On matters such as either God exists or he doesn’t. We live on earth or we don’t. I mean questions that have a DEFINITE truthful answer to them regardless of who we are and our personal beliefs or opinions. As the X-Files would say ‘the truth is out there.’ Everyone wants to know the truth. There IS truth but when that’s recognized people start debating whether it can be known. That’s another matter.
The bible makes no mention of birth control and Christians are not obliged to have children. They actually get their ideas on birth control from the bible character Onan. After the death of his brother Er, Onan was instructed by his father Judah to perform brother-in-law marriage with Tamar. This was with the express purpose of ‘raising up offspring’ for his dead brother. He would have no right to have relations with her otherwise. Of Onan’s response to Judah’s command, we read: “Onan knew that the offspring would not become his; and it occurred that when he did have relations with his brother’s wife he wasted his semen on the earth so as not to give offspring to his brother. Now what he did was bad in the eyes of Jehovah.” (Gen. 38:8-10) The case of Onan’s being one that involved selfish disregard for the purpose of brother-in-law marriage cannot be used to condemn birth control.
[quote]
Anyway, I’m digressing pretty far. But the gist of it remains that for many human spheres, there simply is no such thing as “One Truth”. You have your values, and they guide you in what’s right or wrong. Different values would lead to different choices.
It’s great to have you and doogie on this thread. Funny that your names would be so close.
It’s also refreshing to find a reasonable believer who’s open to discussion. Overuse of Scripture™ and bold text is not an adequate substitute for thought.
I shall address the remaining points when I have more time. Till then…[/quote]
You need to disassociate almost everything you know about ‘Christianity’ as it is certainly not based on the bible. Falsehoods that have been taught in the name of the bible have tainted your view of it.
Question for consideration till I return: Does the bible teach that God knows everything ahead of time?
Discuss…
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Pookie, you make some good points. And I will try to address some of them. Yet, I don’t think that you care enough about it to read my entire post, and thus this post will be mainly to those more religious, yet just as blind regarding the only ground of salvation as the irreligious and unconcerned partying fornicating types are.[/quote]
Partying fornicating types? I does not sound that bad to me…
[quote]Okay, let’s get into some verses that speak of the true church, and we will contrast it with the false church.
Psalm 149: (1) Praise Jehovah! Sing to Jehovah a new song, His praise in the assembly of the saints.
A true church is an assembly of SAINTS. What are SAINTS? They are ones who have been SANCTIFIED. Ephesians 5:25-27:
Ephesians 5: (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf, (26) that He might sanctify it, cleansing [it] by the washing of the water in [the] Word, (27) that He might present it to Himself [as] the glorious assembly, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things, but that it be holy and without blemish.[/quote]
The only part of that that resonates with me is the one about husbands loving their wives.
So they’re sinning Saints? Does the fact that a member of the church might try to abstain from sin play any role? Or is he held in the same regard as an inveterate (or simply weak willed) sinner who is also a member of the church. Both are Saints because Jesus washes away all sin?
If you’re trying to confuse me, you’re doing a good job.
I think you should clarify which Christians are true Christians and which aren’t. My mom, who’s a devout Catholic Christian, will sure be surprised when I inform her that she’s not really a Christian…
Isn’t that a kind of loophole? What if I lead a life of sinning (or partying fornicating) and, once on my deathbed, convert a little before death. Do I get the same “final glory?”
Well, I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t believe he was saved by his belief in Jesus… or didn’t believe in the gospels as witnessing to the life of Jesus.
Am I missing something?
We’re back right where we started. All churches, all religions claim themselves to be True. They can all back it up with scriptures, dogma, doctrine, etc. The finer points vary, but no one follows “a false church” of his own accord.
To put it another way: You reject all churches but yours. Of the tens or hundreds of Christian churches in existence, you claim yours as the Only True One and reject all others as false.
I simply reject one more than you do.
[quote]1 Timothy 3: (15) But if I delay, that you may know how to behave in the house of God, which is [the] assembly of the living God, [the] pillar and foundation of the truth.
The true church is the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH. You can be sure that where the true church is, you can find the TRUTH. In fact, the way to find a local assembly that is part of the true church is to see if this assembly believes and proclaims the TRUTH. The false church believes and proclaims the LIE.[/quote]
That may be; but they call the LIE “TRUTH”. More, they do not do it out of malice or willful deception, they actually believe the LIE (well, from your point of view) to be the TRUTH. Your TRUTH is probably the LIE to them.
Just so I can research a bit, could you clarify how your church identifies itself?
Is there not middle ground between “a church of saints” and a “synagogue of satan?” Extremes and absolutes tend to exclude a lot of people very quickly.
Wouldn’t a church of an all-loving God tend to be as inclusive as possible? God can’t enjoy delivering multitudes to Satan, can he?
But they are completely convinced of the contrary. If, through their actions, they manage to do good; to help their fellow men; if they still accomplish charitable works, are they still condemned to Hell because they are a “false” church?
[quote]All who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception worship a false “christ.” In stark contrast, those who worship the true Christ, believe that His death on the cross demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented. If just one person ended up in hell for whom Christ died, then the gospel would be meaningless and the cross of Christ made of no effect:
“For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).[/quote]
More extremes and absolutes: “If just one…” The rigidity seems a bit stiffling to me.
Isn’t that a free pass for sinning? Since personal effort is of no relevance, why should I try for a “righteous” life when I can party with the fornicators and still be saved?
A person who lead a good life, caused no harm to others, helped his fellow men as much as possible would still go to Hell if he holds the belief that Jesus died for all men? A lifetime of good actions holds no value; it is his flawed belief that condemns him?
Whereas a criminal, child-raping, wife-beating, squat-rack-bicep-curling asshole who believes “that God’s grace, manifested in the work of Christ, makes the only difference between heaven and hell.” will get to Heaven?
I’m confused… don’t actions speak louder than words?
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Without going into each of your questions I believe we are thinking of truth in two different ways. I am not referring to the right or best decision in a matter. I mean truth in it’s absolute sense. On matters such as either God exists or he doesn’t. We live on earth or we don’t.[/quote]
I contend that some truths lend themselves to this kind of axiomatic conclusions, but others simply do not.
Again, I contend that on some matter, mostly those involving concepts like life, justice, good, evil, etc. Truth is relative to the values you hold dear.
Some people would die to remain free. Others would accept having their freedom limited if it means they get to live longer… Where’s the truth here? Which of life or liberty trumps the other? Is life without liberty worth living? How good is liberty if you’re dead?
There’s enough stuff in the Bible to argue for or against on just about any issue. The book of Leviticus is quite useful for anyone who wishes to curtail freedoms and restrict behaviors; other parts are readily used to support said behaviors. Here too, it seems that the “truth” is colored by the opinions and values you have on the issue at hand.
Well, I’ve read the Bible and some parts of it do a pretty good job of tainting it by themselves. The old testament is filled with massacres, plagues, “thou shalt not” and “surely be put to death.”