Only One Truth

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
How do I know that Apostolic succession is a genuine dogma?
(1) The Apostles themselves urged all Christians to stand fast in all traditions of the Church, whether by their word or by their epistle.
Fishlips wrote:
You’ve quoted this scripture, and it seems only this one scripture to support your whole idea of the importance of extra info known by the apostolic successors. Where do you obtain the idea that this scripture is saying or implying that their ‘word’ was any different than their epistles? By your own admission, the epistle were sometimes written because the apostle could not physically be present so why would their writings be any different than what they wanted to say in person?[/quote]

Do you need the Bible to keep smacking you in the face with the importance of oral tradition to make you understand? If the Bible clearly expresses something once, it should be good enough. How convenient it would be for you to sweep this scripture under the rug, but unfortunately for you, that can’t be done.

I’ll keep quoting 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Timothy 3:15. Why? Because it shows that the Bible wasn’t meant to be the sole authority on scripture as you falsely assert, the Church was. Secondly, the writings of the Apostles were not to comprise the entire basis of the Christian Faith as you falsely assert, but their orally transmitted messages in addition to their written scriptures were.

There’s no way around this and you know it Fishlips. You can come up with 999 excuses and 99 pages worth of commentary to try and substantiate your stance on these issues, but you’re stuck. You either have two paths: continue in heresy or start researching what the early Church taught & practiced. Simple as that.

POST 1

[quote]pookie wrote:
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.
Fishlips wrote:
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.[/quote]
POST 2

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
And before you judge how ridiculous it was for Jews to follow a “bureaucratic apparatus”, reflect upon how a hierarchy existed in Judaism in the Old Testament (ie. the high priest). The Apostles were no different. They became the bishops who elevated presbyters in the Church to cater to the needs of the faithful. To call the holy traditions of the Jews meaningless as well as those which the Apostles passed on to the faithful is inexcusable.
Fishlips wrote:
Those were pookie’s words.[/quote]

Fishlips, you can pin the tail on the donkey, but from the above posts you clearly respond to pookie’s notion in an agreeable fashion. You yourself infer to the hierarchy of clergy as meaningless tradition and pomp. Those weren’t pookie’s words, they were yours. No offense, but don’t be a snake in the grass that needs to get stomped on.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
You either have two paths: continue in heresy or start researching what the early Church taught & practiced. Simple as that.[/quote]

where can i find such cheap ammo. Looks like you got enough for armagedon. get your butt to work. laters pk

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Again, each time I have included scriptural evidence you have made no comment on it then later make comments like this. ‘Early church’ is nebulous as far as time is concerned. Before the apostles were even gone the falling from truth was being predicted and observed within the early church as is evident in Paul’s words, ‘I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.’ Acts 20:29,30 and the apostle John wrote: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort.” 1 John 2:17-19[/quote]

No offense, but the falling away the Apostles Paul and John were referring to were heretics like you. The heretics that sprung up later from within the Church were the Arians, the Nestorians, the gnostics, etc. They were dealt with accordingly by means of excommunication so that the Truth of Orthodox Christianity would be preserved in the Body of Christ (to which you do not belong).

[quote]
So by the time 325 and the council of Nicea had rolled around, the ‘early church’ was full of ‘twisted things’.[/quote]
Really? That’s so funny that you should claim this because the same Church which convened at the Council of Nicea also compiled the Bible which you so fervently glorify and announce is the sole basis of your faith.

So which is it?
(1) Either the Orthodox Christian Church at the Council of Nicea still functioned by the power of the Holy Spirit and your assertion that the Church fell away by 325 is wrong,
OR
(2) the Orthodox Christian Church was corrupted and the councils it convened at 325 AD through the next ~50 years lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit and their compilation of scriptures is deficient and thus not inspired by God…

Two options. Pick one. Then either convert to Orthodox Christianity or stop preaching that the Bible is a Divinely inspired text.

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
where can i find such cheap ammo. Looks like you got enough for armagedon. get your butt to work. laters pk[/quote]

I’m on my way now. Half-pound burger with 2 servings pasta & 3 glasses of water while easily blasting away the claims of heretics (in a loving tone, might I add) and I’m good to go.

Hold down the fort while I’m gone.

Peace bro!

Not sure if anyone has been searching but has anyone found a site which speaks derogatorily of the Orthodox Church?

I found where the heresy of Jesus not being G-d was attempted to be squelched but I have yet to find any site which says anything against the Orthodox Church. Can anyone help me out?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Being born in the fallen state is also interesting. Because Eve made a wrong decision, all humanity was cursed. All her descendents for all generations are born with the the mark original sin (except Mary, if I recall correctly).
[/quote]

This is the Roman Heresy of the immaculate conception. In the middle ages, the Romans came to view sex as a necessary evil which passed original sin to the next generation. As a result they concluded that Mary was CONCEIVED immaculately-without the sin of sex-it was suggested by some Romans that God took her father’s sperm out when they slept and implanted her mother.

The Orthodox never viewed sex as evil, and original sin was a condition of being born into a fallen universe with fallen matter.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I will further debate some of the response that have been given since last night, but I don’t have enough time this morning.

I was wondering which teachings,traditions and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church does the Orthodox faith reject? Since the RCC is the church with which I am most familiar (a few generations ago, its influence in Quebec was nearly absolute.)[/quote]

  1. We don’t believe that the Pope is the embodiment on Christ of earth and that he is infallable. The Romans have changed their theology to read that Christ has three modes of existence: The Eucharist, with the father in heaven, and in the person of his vicor on earth-the Pope. The last of these was changed from: as his body, the church around 1200. We believe that the final decision of theological interpretation should come from councils with a representative from EACH local church. The popes up until 1054 all stated that councils had superior authority to the pope but in 1054 they made the pope the final authority.

  2. They view sacraments as being magical or supernatural, while we view them as being real, while earthly things are FALLEN or simply types of the real types.

  3. In 1200 they started to disallow married priests claiming that the priest needed to be married to the church.

  4. They invented Purgatory out of the idea that your sins and good deads somehow mathematically balance out.

  5. They see the church as a kind of antenae for contacting God, while we see the church as being part of Heaven.

  6. They see original sin as meaning that all humans are born GUILTY, while we see it as meaning that all humans are in a physically handicapped state because the universe has fallen.

  7. We do not view fasting and going to church as sins if you fail to do them. They are the spiritual exercise and work of Christians. They have come up with absolute minimal fasting laws and holy days of obligation which you must perform.

  8. They encourage “emotional” meditation such as the rosary where you try to FEEL and experience Jesus pain and suffering on the cross. We do not believe in emotional meditation.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Yes. Suppose there’s a daughter that enjoys perfect health as she was created until she goes out, fornicates, and contracts the HIV virus. All of her children and every continuing generation thereafter will continue to be plagued with the HIV virus unless they stop reproducing.[/quote]

While I understand the analogy you’re trying to make; I’d like to point out that the chance for a child to be born HIV positive from an infected mother is 25%. It is quite possible for the next generation to be HIV free.

For those who do contract the virus in utero; HIV itself will usually insure that they stop reproducing, by killing them before they get to reproductive age.

Chlamydia infection in infants born of infected mothers is around 15%…

But analogy understood.

Whatever the scenario; it is still the will of God that all men suffer for Eve’s unwitting mistake. You portray God as an innocent bystander, powerless to save his “fallen” creation when He is the one who, being the author of that creation, made all the rules. Your “God the Physician” his only offering a cure to a disease of His own making.

A “God the Pusher” whose first hit was free, all others must pay would seem more fitting.

By the way, sorry if my responses appear in backwards order, I’m reading from the last page back…

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
To use the term “borrow” carries a strong connotation. There may be similarities yes, but that doesn’t mean that any aspects of one religion were actually borrowed from another (as you alluded to in the dogma of the Holy Trinity).[/quote]

[quote]On a later post I cited:
[i]Just because Hindues fast and the Jews fast also, would you say that the Jews are copying the Hindues?

Just because agnostics pray and the Buddhists pray also, would you say that agnostics are copying the Buddhists?

Just because Santarians sacrifice chickens, and the Luciferians sacrifice chickens also, would you say that Santarians are copying Luciferians?

Just because the Native Americans believed in many gods and spirits, would you say they’re copying off Shintoism?[/i]

I believe there are qualities of God that people search for in their hearts which they attempt to cultivate. After all, that is where God reveals Himself to mankind - in the noetic faculty and not the mental. Recognizing this, it is more appropriate to say that in man’s quest for God, some features of God are revealed. Two people on opposite corners of the earth can have two different experiences and classify them in the same way, or they can have the same experience each and classify it in two different ways. It doesn’t necessarily mean they copied from one another. Discerning which features are true and which features are false is what makes all the difference. That is not to say that man sees another’s religion and copies principles and adopts them to his own theology - at least not in the case of Orthodox Christianity.

Also, I’m dissuaded from classifying Orthodox Christianity as a religion; it is not a religion established by men, it is a Faith revealed to mankind directly by God. If you wish to call it anything besides a Faith, call it a metaphysical science.

Thanks and peace be with you.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a reference I had that showed some concepts (or dogmas) first appearing in some religion and then, from that point on, being repeated in other faiths throughout history. Unfortunately, I can’t find it… I’ll update when I do locate it.

Some examples where specific numbers (like 3 or 7), virgin births and “eating” part of God. The compelling part was that once such or such concept appeared somewhere, it suddenly spread to many other faith within a few tens or hundreds of years; This “cross-pollination” generally followed the wars and various invasions that would take place, these event putting together people of different faiths who, apparently, exchanged ideas.

Meanwhile, I found this site:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/index.html

Which I find interesting for those who want to learn more about the world’s religions.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Whatever the scenario; it is still the will of God that all men suffer for Eve’s unwitting mistake. You portray God as an innocent bystander, powerless to save his “fallen” creation when He is the one who, being the author of that creation, made all the rules. Your “God the Physician” his only offering a cure to a disease of His own making.

A “God the Pusher” whose first hit was free, all others must pay would seem more fitting.[/quote]

pookie, I don’t perceive God as being powerless in this scenario. “Ok, so Eve sinned and man inherited a fallen state”. Let’s look at the positive aspect to this - we’ve eaten from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil and can make appropriate decisions based on her disobedience; not that her disobedience was righteous, but that we now know good from evil. Furthermore, we have an opportunity in Jesus Christ to be salvaged from the impending doom of original sin. God does not will for our destruction - he wills for our salvation. He became a man so we could become like Him. He suffered with us! He didn’t inject us with a virus, we injected ourselves. He’s there handing out the cure for any who’re ready to receive it as He softly bestows His grace upon us in efforts of bringing us closer to Him through our own voluntary compliance. God actively participates in man’s redemption! He’s not simply a bystander. When we call out to Him, He listens and reacts.

If God was powerless, He wouldn’t have had Jesus Christ walk across our earth, die and plunge into Hades to conquer the powers of sin and death. He trampled Death by death. That’s power, that’s authority.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of the Orthodox Christian Church.

In God’s will for all creation to be spiritually salvaged, even for Satan, He does not annihilate this once prized angel because He has compassion for him also. Perhaps by allowing us to struggle, He shows his once favored angel, “look at My creation of mankind who fights to know Me and fights to enter into the Paradise you came to loathe in your jealousy of them. Turn from your iniquities Lucifer, and you too shall be redeemed!” There’s a heavenly host of angels & demons witnessing every act that plays out here on earth. God wills for the salvation of all creation and not just humanity.

Had God been a powerless bystander, He would not have warned Eve against eating from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil. Had God been a powerless bystander, He would not introduced a cure for all of Eve’s future generations. He does not infringe upon our will. He allows us to maintain our personality and will; God did not produce us like robots to control with a remote control. He gave us minds, he gave us hearts, and now we have knowledge. It is these components which we must configure to be spiritually uplifted once again. The decision is ours. He promises that He shall be there step-by-step to provide His assistance. A powerless bystander wouldn’t do that.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Again, I think obedience is the key here. I whistle to my cat and she runs to me, without knowing if it is good or evil for her to do so. She just obeys.[/quote]

You’ve trained a cat? I might start believing in miracles right there.

Animals obey once they’ve been trained. I don’t recall the passage where God trains Adam and Eve to obey.

I find it a bit odd that you must resort to asking Adam and Eve to act like obedient animals to try and keep the story afloat. Are you conceding the illogic of asking someone to do the right thing before they know of right and wrong?

Well, no training; no understanding of right and wrong… even with just the Tree being available, they might have eaten of it out of innocent curiosity. But in addition, Satan, with all of his capacities intact is allowed to interact with them to try and convince them to eat of the Tree.

When Eve fails the test, God is angry and throws them out indicating that they’ve just condemned all future generations to endure the same hardships they will.

Mentioning that little factoid beforehand might have influenced that “obedience” test a little.

I’d rather we did get tangled up in the whys, since that’s where all the incongruities and illogisms occur.

A perfect God needing to test his “perfect” creation? They were perfect at that stage, right? Created in His perfect image.

Shouldn’t the concept of “testing” be completely meaningless to One who is perfect? What need to test can there be when perfection is assured? The only way this can hold any logic is if God is fallible. Powerful and knowledgeable, but still capable of mistakes. Only then is “testing” a worthwhile endeavor.

That’s a perfectly possible scenario, because the mother cannot be sure of the obedience of her kids. She’s not perfect and neither are her kids. “Testing” them will give her useful indications on whether they’re learning her lessons.

At that point, they didn’t know that doubting God was evil/wrong.

Not knowing evil, how could they recognize and reject its prince? Did they even understand that “lies” were possible? All their interaction with God had been with a truthful being.

…and a doom-doom here, and a doom-doom there, E-I-E-I-O.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

The problem with not believing in God is that you don’t worry much about the devil either…

[quote]I’m fighting hard not to let Satan score a win on me. I got my sights set on Jesus Christ and the heavenly kingdom. To each their own though.

Peace be with you.[/quote]

While I believe your chosen path to be misguided, you seem to derive serenity and inner strength from it. If it works for you, I can respect that.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Meanwhile, I found this site:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/index.html
[/quote]
I viewed that site to glance over its model for Christianity, and I need to mention that the tree of churches is erroneous. For instance, the Arians were part of the Orthodox Christian Church until 325 AD. Their faith was named after the Orthodox Christian bishop Arius of England who fell into heresy and began proclaiming that Jesus Christ was merely a creation of God and not God Incarnate. After Arius was excommunicated, his followers formed their own church and called themselves Arians. The model depicts that Arians sprouted on their own accord rather than the fact that they were excommunicated outside the Body of Christ (although this is made clear upon reading the caption on Arians). I’m not very fond of the model - it should be more accurate in its graphical expression. I know, I know, I’m nitpicking

Another error I caught was that Emperor Theodosius made Orthodox Christianity the legal religion of the Roman Empire in ~380 AD, but St. Constantine the Great accomplished this feat in 325 AD. I haven’t analyzed the rest of it in detail, but just wanted to throw in my two cents of caution. Thanks nonetheless - I’ve bookmarked the site as a basic reference for world religions.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I viewed that site to glance over its model for Christianity, and I need to mention that the tree of churches is erroneous.[/quote]

If you wish to inform them of their errors, you can contact them here:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/redept/form.shtml

[quote]pookie wrote:
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…[/quote]

I’m curious as to what exactly is your criterion for judging something “good, evil, etc.”? What is your standard for judging what is just, good, or evil? In other words, how do you KNOW that something is just, good, or evil? To whom or what do you appeal to bolster your position that something is just, good, or evil? It seems that with your particular(I’m guessing atheistic or agnostic) view, murder or rape should be as easy to commend as to condemn. I don’t see how you can consistently commend or condemn anything.

You said: “Truth is relative to the values you hold dear.” Do you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth?

The whole “truth is relative” position is self-refuting because according to it, you cannot consistently condemn ANYONE for ANYTHING, for they are just doing what is “true for them.”

[quote]pookie wrote:
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.[/quote]

Right. Many people pervert and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. One reason for this is that they do not start at the axiom of Scripture. They say Scripture is not sufficient, and certainly they will come to different conclusions if they have a different starting point.

“And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him;
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

[quote]pookie wrote:
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.”[/quote]

And speaking of plagues:

“Israel also came into Egypt, And Jacob dwelt in the land of Ham. He increased His people greatly, And made them stronger than their enemies.”

“He turned their heart to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants.”

“He sent Moses His servant, And Aaron whom He had chosen. They performed His signs among them, And wonders in the land of Ham” (Psalm 105:23-27).

Note that God, through the psalmist says, “He turned their heart to hate His people.” God caused (i.e., turned) the heart of the Egyptians to hate His people Israel in order to muliply His wonders (the ten plagues) and to destroy the Egyptians. At the end of the day, BOTH the Egyptians and the Israelites knew who was the LORD.

God, in order to multiply the ten plagues, hardened the heart of Pharaoh. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to display His power in Pharaoh. Will anyone say, “We have power too, we have the power of free-will”? God turned the hearts of the Egyptians. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God raised up Pharaoh in order to dash Him to the ground as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22). Perhaps Pharaoh also thought that he was given free-will. Yet what Pharaoh mistakenly thought was conciousness of free-will, was in reality, unconsciousness of Divine determinism.

“For He said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity.” (Ex. 33:19) So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God.
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.” (Ex. 9:16) 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? Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations” (Romans 9:15-24).

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Again, I think obedience is the key here. I whistle to my cat and she runs to me, without knowing if it is good or evil for her to do so. She just obeys.
pookie wrote:
You’ve trained a cat? I might start believing in miracles right there.

Animals obey once they’ve been trained. I don’t recall the passage where God trains Adam and Eve to obey.[/quote]
pookie, I never claimed to know it all. I respect your intrigue, but I just want to mention the obvious: There are concepts in theology and science that we can contemplate from here till next year and not be even one step closer to the actual truth or reason. All I know is what I believe happened in the Garden of Eden as recorded in the Bibe. Anything more than this is just sheer speculation on my part. I take the Biblical accounts by faith. I’m sure God could’ve installed an electric fence around the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, or positioned some vicious pitbulls to guard it, but He didn’t. In His infinite wisdom, only He knows why…

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pookie, I don’t perceive God as being powerless in this scenario. “Ok, so Eve sinned and man inherited a fallen state”. Let’s look at the positive aspect to this - we’ve eaten from the Tree of knowledge of good & evil and can make appropriate decisions based on her disobedience; not that her disobedience was righteous, but that we now know good from evil.[/quote]

Didn’t you previously state that God would’ve allowed partaking of the Tree in time, when Adam and Eve were ready?

If so, then we gained nothing. A&E simply learned earlier what they would’ve learned anyway if they’d been patient.

It still doesn’t make sense. Creation, temptation, tests, failings, redemption, salvation… why so many games?

That God inspires no awe in me. I am moved a lot more simply by contemplating the images from the Hubble telescope: http://tinyurl.com/drccg

I don’t mean to offend you, but I find the God of the Bible, especially of the Old Testament to be so prosaic in comparison to the sheer beauty and mysteries found in nature.

[quote]DISCLAIMER: The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of the Orthodox Christian Church.

In God’s will for all creation to be spiritually salvaged, even for Satan, He does not annihilate this once prized angel because He has compassion for him also. Perhaps by allowing us to struggle, He shows his once favored angel, “look at My creation of mankind who fights to know Me and fights to enter into the Paradise you came to loathe in your jealousy of them. Turn from your iniquities Lucifer, and you too shall be redeemed!” There’s a heavenly host of angels & demons witnessing every act that plays out here on earth. God wills for the salvation of all creation and not just humanity.[/quote]

Theater to accompany the games. Great.

Our courts, fallible and human, do not condemn people who cannot understand their actions. If you can’t distinguish right from wrong, you’re not held responsible for your actions. To act otherwise is deemed cruel. Yet a being of infinite wisdom cannot see that?

How you can’t see that story as simply an old creation fable is a mystery to me.

Neither would an all powerful God (in the sense of letting the situation deteriorate to that point in the first place). A divine “oops” moment if you will.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Perhaps God was testing their obedience; a test that if Adam & Eve successfully passed, God would’ve manifested a more blissful union between Himself and them.
pookie wrote:
A perfect God needing to test his “perfect” creation? They were perfect at that stage, right? Created in His perfect image.

Shouldn’t the concept of “testing” be completely meaningless to One who is perfect? What need to test can there be when perfection is assured? The only way this can hold any logic is if God is fallible. Powerful and knowledgeable, but still capable of mistakes. Only then is “testing” a worthwhile endeavor.[/quote]

Pardon this analogy (and thanks for slicing & dicing my previous one and not stumbling over STD stats), but let’s say that a powerlifter snatches 225 with clean form. His form is perfect. Now let’s say he wants to snatch 315 but manages to do so with imperfect form. Well, now there’s a level of conditioning he must achieve (whether mental, immunological, emotional, or physical). Same story with Adam & Eve. They were perfectly made in God’s image, but their mission was to continue developing beyond this relative level of perfection. That’s what the Tree of knowledge of good & evil represented. Even further away in the Garden of Eden was the Tree of Life.

These trees symbolized higher spiritual levels of increasing degrees of union with God; degrees that Adam & Eve would inevitably encounter. Being that Adam & Eve attempted to encounter union with God in a greater level than they were capable of handling, they were spiritually injured like our powerlifter trying to snatch 405 who barely managed 315. In the fallen state, Adam & Eve were now imperfect, not even able to snatch 225 as they previously could in Paradise because they suffered from spiritual injuries. Fear not though, because with Jesus Christ’s Incarnation, and the internal struggle for perfection, any human can rejuvenate their spiritual health and come to eat from the Tree of Life and not be injured. Kind of like our powerlifter on roids who can now snatch 495 perfectly

Peace be with you.

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
I’m curious as to what exactly is your criterion for judging something “good, evil, etc.”? What is your standard for judging what is just, good, or evil? In other words, how do you KNOW that something is just, good, or evil?[/quote]

Evil: Causing unnecessary harm, pain or anguish.

Good: Whatever I want, as long as it is does not cause “evil” as defined above.

Also, whatever right I wish for myself (for example, control over my own life); I also extend to all other human beings. I consider every man and woman to be equals. (Something that very few religions seem to be able to concede.)

Rape: While rape might be what the rapist wants; it causes harm, pain and lasting anguish to its victim. Hence, it is “evil”.

Murder: Murder in self-defense or to save another’s life can be justified. Murder for murder’s sake is wrong. I’m an atheist, not a psychopath.

On a lighter note:

Sex: Between consenting adults, with appropriate precautions taken against unwanted pregnancies and/or diseases: Do As Thou Wish.

Mind you, I am monogamous and faithful to my wife (we’re not married, but I find the term “girlfriend” not to convey the right picture about the relationship), so disease is not an issue. We use birth control so that we have kids when we feel ready for them (2 so far…) and sex as often as we want or can. Guilt free too.

There are many absolute truths in mathematics. But like I said before, if you’re dealing with more abstract concepts, I don’t think you can establish absolute truths. At least not in the way you can in mathematics.

You’re leaving half of the equation. Some truth are relative to the values you hold dear. I hold dear not doing “evil” as defined above; hence, any “truth” that goes against those values is not “true”.

I can (and do) condemn those that do evil as I see it. And I can be consistent since my values don’t change randomly.

Jim Phelps goes around with his bunch of lunatics with his “God Hates Fags” posters… Do you condemn him or support him because he claims to be following the LORD’s word?

Axioms are self-evident truths. I’ve yet to see one in Scripture. What you mean is Dogma. Axioms because we say so!

So at that point the Egyptians did not have free will as promised by God?

How can nobody see all these constant contradictions?

These are stories, tales, fables, mythology. It is not a factual recounting of actual events.

Some parts and some “actors” have basis in history, but to paraphrase late-night TV dramas “the events depicted are fictitious, any resemblance to actual events are strictly coincidental.”

Yes, God vs. The Pharaoh. I wonder what odds the bookmakers gave on that match.

You don’t find a story about God fighting his own creatures a bit weird?

snip, snip, snip.

It there still a point being made? You’ve gone from a valid question to just throwing scripture at me. I’ve got the book at home, thanks.
[/quote]

I want to say that I see eating of the tree of knowlege as a symbol for choosing self will over God’s will, which not only was the original human sin, but also the sin of Satan. In time, God planned to JOIN human beings with him. In this sense humans were made to become DIVINE something that not even the angels would achieve.