Why is Jesus Special? [Archive]

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 06:32

Willamena

14-02-2005, 06:40

since you are so sincere

jesus came to earth as a MAN not as a god. he was fully human. as a human he agreed to DIE for the sins of others. dying sucks. he did suffered and died willingly as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of wretches like you.

many people feel that that kind of sacrifice is special.
But he didn't really, did he? He didn't really die.

Or perhaps I'm confused on the whole symbolism of the three days at Easter time thing.

Slinao

14-02-2005, 06:49

But he didn't really, did he? He didn't really die.

Or perhaps I'm confused on the whole symbolism of the three days at Easter time thing.

he died and went to "hell" or a better word, Sheol. Where he revealed himself to those lost before him, and saved them in their death. Then, having taken all sin, but did no sin, the rules were broken, and he returned to earth to tell of what happened. Then he entered into heaven, and took his holy form and revealed once more and then departed to return again.

he was innocent of sin, but carried all sin, so all sin was washed away because it couldn't stick to him.

Neologica

14-02-2005, 06:50

Well, sure. But there have been plenty of other humans who have done the same.

But he was ressurected...so in the end the only sacrifice was a few days of pain.

I'm sorry for being so thick-headed, I can tell there's something I'm just completely missing here... It's just that others have suffered far more than Jesus did in order to help others. Take PoW's who don't talk, say in WWII in Japan or Germany. They sacrificed for others and endured torture so much worse than crucifixion over a much longer period of time, and weren't even martyised.

Why is Jesus' death so special? Why was he ressurected? If that was his fate all along, why is it even significant?

Grant you, the PoW's sacrifices are great indeed, but their sacrifices had the goal of protecting their allies and what not. Jesus' sacrifice was similar in that he is protecting us, except on a massive scale. Jesus died so that when our physical body dies, we will not have to endure an ETERNITY of pain and suffering. Take for instance a dentist pulling all your teeth out, a doctor drilling a hole in your head, having you intestines ripped out, your eyes gouged, the thought that your family and loved ones are being tortured or have been murdered. Now, keep in mind, our minds cannot even begin to tap the amount of pain and suffering that awaits in hell. This is what Jesus saved you from, and this is why His death is so special.

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 06:53

Jesus' sacrifice was similar in that he is protecting us, except on a massive scale. Jesus died so that when our physical body dies, we will not have to endure an ETERNITY of pain and suffering. Imagine a dentist pulling all your teeth out, a doctor drilling a hole in your head, having you intestines ripped out, your eyes gouged out but not dying from it and having to endure that pain forever. This is what Jesus saved you from, and this is why His death is so special.
I've got the what down. What I'm trying to understand is the why and the how.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 06:55

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.
Good question. What did Jesus sacrafice? He was flesh, but became god, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent and remained so. It looks to me like he got a huge promotion, and for what? A few hours of pain, and a few days in hell (and we don't know that he wasn't staying in the Hyatt Regent and making Satan his bitch while he was down there). If I KNEW for a fact that if I were nailed to a tree and then given immortality, omniscience, and omnipotence, I'd DEMAND to be IMMEDIATELY nailed up.

The Lightning Star

14-02-2005, 06:57

Hes special because he is holy in two religions!(Islam and Christianity).

What other person is a central feature in two or more religions? Well, besides Abraham...and god.

MissDefied

14-02-2005, 07:03

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 07:06

I've got the what down. What I'm trying to understand is the why and the how.

The why would be love. While God cannot stand sin, He also is not too interested in being seperated from us for eternity. So He sent Jesus to die as a sustitute.

As for the how, if you mean what did they do to Him about 2000 years ago, then it included being whipped and crucified. And Roman crucifixion is generally considered to be the worst death penalty ever devised by man. If you're talking about how Christ was able to use Himself as a substitute for us, then I'm not entirely sure. There are vaious metaphors and stories used to explain it (substitute punishment, paying a debt), but the whole mechanics involved are never fully explained. But they don't need to be. I don't know how most of my own body works, but I still trust that it does, and I don't dwell on it. By the same token, I trust Christ for my salvation, even if I don't understand it all.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 07:07

Because his teachings were so good, seriously, read the New Testament. However most have forgotten what he said, and say that Jesus hates gays and Jews. Some say that Jesus would kick Saddams ass, no really, someone actually said that a few years ago.

Jesus was a great person, noone remembers it now except for the select few.

Yep, Jesus was such a great guy.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:29
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

Luke 9:59
And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

John 2:4
Jesus saith unto her (his mother, Mary), Woman, what have I to do with thee?

This was used to burn witches:
Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

In Matt 15:22-26 Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs."

A mean man who says some nice things does not make for a nice man. Geoffrey Dahmer has said lots of nice things in his life, but I don't think anyone would argue that he is actually a nice guy and should be followed.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 07:09

since you are so sincere

jesus came to earth as a MAN not as a god. he was fully human. as a human he agreed to DIE for the sins of others. dying sucks. he did suffered and died willingly as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of wretches like you.

many people feel that that kind of sacrifice is special.
A sacrafice means that you give something up. The only thing Jesus gave up was his human life in exchange for becoming a GOD. That's not a sacrafice. It would have been a sacrafice if he spent the rest of eternity being tortured in hell.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 07:13

Grant you, the PoW's sacrifices are great indeed, but their sacrifices had the goal of protecting their allies and what not. Jesus' sacrifice was similar in that he is protecting us, except on a massive scale. Jesus died so that when our physical body dies, we will not have to endure an ETERNITY of pain and suffering. Take for instance a dentist pulling all your teeth out, a doctor drilling a hole in your head, having you intestines ripped out, your eyes gouged, the thought that your family and loved ones are being tortured or have been murdered. Now, keep in mind, our minds cannot even begin to tap the amount of pain and suffering that awaits in hell. This is what Jesus saved you from, and this is why His death is so special.
But he didn't sacrafice anything. Further, isn't god omnipotent? If god is omnipotent, then why was Jesus' sacrafice necessary? Why is hell necessary? Why is ANY form of evil necessary?

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 07:15

Hes special because he is holy in two religions!(Islam and Christianity).

What other person is a central feature in two or more religions? Well, besides Abraham...and god.
I think you just answered your own question. :p

I'd also like to add Moses to that list. :cool:

Greedy Pig

14-02-2005, 07:18

Well first there's the sin factor. Everybody has sin.

And based on Judaism, how they cleanse themselves of sin, is through the sacrifices that happens every year in the Temple of Jeruselam. They have something like 5 sacrifices, one of them is the Sin sacrifice, where the head priests would make a sacrifice to God and ask for forgiveness for a year of sin. And Jesus was finally the final sacrifice, Once and for all.

Since it took one man(and a woman) to bring in Sin into this world, it takes Jesus to take it out to those who believe in him.

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 07:20

Well, for starters, most of the industrialized world has based their system of measuring time on when he was born/died. (The whole BC/AD thing). That's got to count for something.
Maybe it's because in the fourth century or so after his death, the leader of the Holy Roman Empire, which was the biggest piece of real estate in the civilized world at the time, decided to embrace the beliefs of the Christian cult instead of feeding them to the lions because he thought it would be a good politaical move. It was a pretty high-powered merger.
I know the history. This is a question of christiology.

The why would be love. While God cannot stand sin, He also is not too interested in being seperated from us for eternity. So He sent Jesus to die as a sustitute.
What? Why did Jesus have to die for us to get closer to God?

As for the how, if you mean what did they do to Him about 2000 years ago, then it included being whipped and crucified. And Roman crucifixion is generally considered to be the worst death penalty ever devised by man.
And by whom, praytell? You know very little if you think the Romans were bad. The first thought to come to mind is Japanese crucifixion, which includes the attachment to a cross, then there are very highly trained experts who stick as many spears through you as possible without killing you. Something like 16 or 18 was the highest recorded, if I recall. And don't even get me into Chinese torture.

If you're talking about how Christ was able to use Himself as a substitute for us, then I'm not entirely sure. There are vaious metaphors and stories used to explain it (substitute punishment, paying a debt), but the whole mechanics involved are never fully explained. But they don't need to be. I don't know how most of my own body works, but I still trust that it does, and I don't dwell on it. By the same token, I trust Christ for my salvation, even if I don't understand it all.
Well, that doesn't work for me. I insist on knowing the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry behind the workings of the body. I am not satisfied with half-assed trust, I want understanding.

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 07:29

What? Why did Jesus have to die for us to get closer to God?

And by whom, praytell? You know very little if you think the Romans were bad. The first thought to come to mind is Japanese crucifixion, which includes the attachment to a cross, then there are very highly trained experts who stick as many spears through you as possible without killing you. Something like 16 or 18 was the highest recorded, if I recall. And don't even get me into Chinese torture.

Well, that doesn't work for me. I insist on knowing the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry behind the workings of the body. I am not satisfied with half-assed trust, I want understanding.

A) Jesus had to die because we had been seperated from God ever since Adam's sin. Bridging that gap was something that people couldn't do on their own.

B) True, I don't know a whole lot about various torture methods. But crucifixion ranks up there pretty high. Some victims took up to 3 days to die.

C) So do you also insist on knowing exactly how everything works on your car before you drive it? Or how the electricity gets generated before you turn on the lights? Nobody knows everything, so there is going to be an element of trust somewhere along the line. That's what Jesus is asking from us. Trust.

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 07:32

But he didn't sacrafice anything. Further, isn't god omnipotent? If god is omnipotent, then why was Jesus' sacrafice necessary? Why is hell necessary? Why is ANY form of evil necessary?

He did sacrifice. He went from being God to be being human, then subjecting Himself to a human death, and a pretty painful one at that.

As for God's omnipotence and evil, a possibility for evil must exist for good to exist. True love is not possible unless it is possible to not love. God is looking for loving people, not robots. That is all we'd be if He used his power to save us without a choice involved.

Filowfe

14-02-2005, 07:34

There are a number of reasons why Jesus is considered special...

To most Christian groups, Jesus is the son of God...and God himself...
Being part of the Holy Trinity... God The Father, God The Son (Jesus) and God The Holy Spirit...

Because he was concieved by the Holy Spirit but born of a mortal woman, Jesus was both a Divine Being and a Mortal Being...

Unless your Orthodox, in that case Jesus was completely divine...

Hence why it is called the Mystery Of The Holy Trinity... How could God be one being yet he is of three? As mortals we are not wise enough to find the answer to this mystery....yet...

Spiritualy, he was at constant odds with choas and evil...guiding the people to God and eventually forfeiting his mortal life in order to open the gates of heaven to us...

Historically he plays a different role...

Jesus Christ helped spread a new culture and ideology... Though Christianity was outlawed and it's followers killed, it later became the inspiration of modern law (The Justinian Code) as well as the rapid advancement of European Society...

Jesus is also one of the top five prophets in Islam, and his teachings are also the basis of many aspects of TRUE Islamic culture and law...

At any rate...Jesus had to have been one of the most influencial people the world has ever known... Helping to launch the world on the road to more civilized times....

Ninjadom Revival

14-02-2005, 07:37

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.
Jesus is God in the form of man. Despite his divinity, he made himself fully susceptible to the pain of mortals so that he could suffer and die for his people. That is why, smart aleck.

Incenjucarania

14-02-2005, 07:38

...How is the Trinity a 'mystery'?

Any Dungeons and Dragons player has had their fill of triple and even more multitudinal deities.

Filowfe

14-02-2005, 07:40

...How is the Trinity a 'mystery'?

Any Dungeons and Dragons player has had their fill of triple and even more multitudinal deities.

It's called a mystery because as of yet no still knows how God can be one being...

But is of three parts...

God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit...

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 07:44

A) Jesus had to die because we had been seperated from God ever since Adam's sin. Bridging that gap was something that people couldn't do on their own.
But why?

B) True, I don't know a whole lot about various torture methods. But crucifixion ranks up there pretty high. Some victims took up to 3 days to die.
Oriental torture methods include extensive physical and psychological toture, and much of the time the victims were artificially kept alive so that the torture could be prolonged. Though, the largest difference is the aweful psychological abuses...

C) So do you also insist on knowing exactly how everything works on your car before you drive it? Or how the electricity gets generated before you turn on the lights? Nobody knows everything, so there is going to be an element of trust somewhere along the line. That's what Jesus is asking from us. Trust.
Touché. Though I do indeed happen to know how electricity is generated, I admit I know very little about cars. Trust is naturally requisite. If a person insisted on knowing everything, nothing new would ever some out. Chemists have to trust the physicists and the biologists have to trust the chemists, and the ecologists the biologists, and so on. However, what isn't alright is to say just trust that it is that way, that no-one knows why. I'm sorry, but i'm not basing facts on millenia-old texts. But I don't want to get into that, I'm still at a loss why it is that Jesus was necessary and why it is that his sacrifice was so great and influential.

Kaserne Schwarz

14-02-2005, 07:45

why are people so cynical?

Meh... i walk into my grandfather's house and it is an obviously religious home. My pop has two very large statues in his living room. One is of the Virgin Mary... the other is of Jesus nailed to the cross.

The purpous for my comments? why is it that in western civilisation Jesus and Our Lady are of white european origin... walk into St.Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, Australia... and take a look around... white as a racial rank is still existant. Both Jesus and Mary were Jewish and of middle European origin... why are they white... no really? i wonder... i want to know why white is so glorified...

Oh yeah... as for why Jesus is so special... i think the other people have summed that up fairly well... Jesus was... and always will be the seed of Our Lord God... he died for US... for u... for me... for old joe who drinks a kegg a night...

Please... if you have a white jesus in your home... please pull out the old brown crayon...

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 07:47

Jesus is God in the form of man. Despite his divinity, he made himself fully susceptible to the pain of mortals so that he could suffer and die for his people.
But why? Why did he do that? And I'll just ignore your bit insolence...

Lord Silverstrike

14-02-2005, 07:49

is it possible that jesus did what he did for purely selfish reasons to further the agenda held by him and his old man?

someone said haysoose was without sin yet he took all the sin upon himself.. now how does a guy do that - even a god-styles guy... sin aint a tangible thing you can pick up and slop all over your toga.. or throw over ya shoulder liek a continental soldier - how was this sticky miracle performed?

crucifixion is one of the many millions of ways to die (and the devil knows them all apparently) .. many of which result in days and days of agony... human cruelty can be quite creative in this department - surely if death is so terrible - which doesnt make sense seeing as we have been designed to die, supposedly by god - that would have been enough.. why the necessity for the crucifixion bizzo? why not just stand on a cliff and go 'hey thomas, gizza push will ya' - whats that from the cheap seats? did someone say showboating? hollywood? .. now thats not nice...

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 08:03

But why?

Touché. Though I do indeed happen to know how electricity is generated, I admit I know very little about cars. Trust is naturally requisite. If a person insisted on knowing everything, nothing new would ever some out. Chemists have to trust the physicists and the biologists have to trust the chemists, and the ecologists the biologists, and so on. However, what isn't alright is to say just trust that it is that way, that no-one knows why. I'm sorry, but i'm not basing facts on millenia-old texts. But I don't want to get into that, I'm still at a loss why it is that Jesus was necessary and why it is that his sacrifice was so great and influential.

A) Try thinking of it this way, and I know this sounds horrible. Think of a human like an amazing piece of cuisine. Then think of our sin and guilt as mold. Our attempts to be good and cover for our past deeds is like the ketchup that we put on the mold to hide it. It doesn't work. The food is still unfit for consumption. We need something stronger, like penicillin. Jesus died to give us that penicillin.

B) Modern science is based on many texts that are a few centuries old, from guys like Galileo and Newton. When we go back and check, we find that they are stil right. People go back and check the Bible, both for historical accuracy and experience in everyday life, and it still holds up. A young man about a century ago was completely sure that the Bible was false, and he set out to prove it. The more he checked, the more he became comvinced that the Bible is true. That man was Lew Wallace, who later wrote Ben-Hur. There are similar stories for guys like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. I highly recommend Strobel's books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith. And if you're looking for someone who knows how Christ's sacrifice actually works, God does. That will have to suffice, as I don't think that there is a person alive who knows, nor will there ever be.

I hope this helps. I can recomend some books if it doesn't.

Gnostikos

14-02-2005, 08:08

Jesus died to give us that penicillin.
Why did his dying give us the penicillin?

B) Modern science is based on many texts that are a few centuries old, from guys like Galileo and Newton.
Galileo and Newton were both wrong. They had the gist, but there's a lot they missed. Just like Darwin and DNA. And that doesn't amke them millenia old. Millenium =/= century/ But, again, let's not get into this. I want to understand the christological part, not on whether Christianity is right or not or any of that.

Christerelli

14-02-2005, 08:12

The purpous for my comments? why is it that in western civilisation Jesus and Our Lady are of white european origin... walk into St.Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, Australia... and take a look around... white as a racial rank is still existant. Both Jesus and Mary were Jewish and of middle European origin... why are they white... no really? i wonder... i want to know why white is so glorified...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus was more likely of Semite or Palestinian background. The only way Jesus could have been white at that point in time would have been if Mary was Roman, and that's HIGHLY unlikely. The majority of Romans that went out to backwater regions like Israel were soldiers.

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 08:29

Why did his dying give us the penicillin?

Got me. I'm a Christian, and I still don't understand it fully. All I know is that it works. Beyond that, I don't think I can help you.

The Alma Mater

14-02-2005, 08:32

Good question. What did Jesus sacrafice? He was flesh, but became god, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent and remained so. It looks to me like he got a huge promotion, and for what? A few hours of pain, and a few days in hell (and we don't know that he wasn't staying in the Hyatt Regent and making Satan his bitch while he was down there). If I KNEW for a fact that if I were nailed to a tree and then given immortality, omniscience, and omnipotence, I'd DEMAND to be IMMEDIATELY nailed up.

You capitalised the right word: if you KNEW. "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" is not really a comment I would make if I knew I was going to be resurrected and spend eternity in heaven - which to me suggests Jesus didn't know that at the time. In my interpretation of Christian doctrine he therefor died (ultimately keeping his faith: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.") for his beliefs and to save others from sin without expecting a reward.
For completeness sake: Some claim the forsaken is an incorrect translation, and should in fact be "so this is my destiny" or "for this I was spared!". Which can still be interpreted as him not knowing.

Makes him special - but not extremely special. As pointedout before PoW have made similar sacrifices for the good of their country and loved ones e.g.

Kiwipeso

14-02-2005, 08:49

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus was more likely of Semite or Palestinian background. The only way Jesus could have been white at that point in time would have been if Mary was Roman, and that's HIGHLY unlikely. The majority of Romans that went out to backwater regions like Israel were soldiers.

Jesus was more likely to have been the result of a rape by a roman soldier as mary and joeseph hadn't had sex. It's likely she claimed devine conception to cover for the shame of a rape by a roman.

Robbopolis

14-02-2005, 08:54

Jesus was more likely to have been the result of a rape by a roman soldier as mary and joeseph hadn't had sex. It's likely she claimed devine conception to cover for the shame of a rape by a roman.

You've actually hit upon an interesting point. At that time, women were not trusted to give credible answers. Mary would have needed Joseph to vouch for her so that she would be believed. Also, the disciples did themselves a major disservice when they claimed that two women were the first to report the Resurrection. Honestly, they did quite a few things to hurt their own credibility when they wrote the Gospels.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 09:04

He did sacrifice. He went from being God to be being human, then subjecting Himself to a human death, and a pretty painful one at that.

As for God's omnipotence and evil, a possibility for evil must exist for good to exist. True love is not possible unless it is possible to not love. God is looking for loving people, not robots. That is all we'd be if He used his power to save us without a choice involved.
I think you missed it. If god is omnipotent, then why does god NEED to do ANYTHING? Being omnipotent, that means he can do ANYTHING. NOTHING is beyond his ability. Why can't god create a better free will, in which there is no need for evil, we love him, and fully understand that love? If god is all powerful he can do this. If he can do this, but does not, then he is malvolent and not truly a loving god, for he planted evil and suffering for no purpose beyond his personal amusement. If he cannot do this, then god is not omnipotent and the bible is inaccurate and should not be trusted.

All this aside, where was the sacrafice? What did Jesus give up and not regain? His humanity? What is humanity when you are to become a god? Humanity at that point is a hinderance that he should have been glad to be rid of.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 09:05

At any rate...Jesus had to have been one of the most influencial people the world has ever known... Helping to launch the world on the road to more civilized times....
Yeah, the middle ages were some of the most civilized times in human history. :rolleyes:

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 09:16

B) Modern science is based on many texts that are a few centuries old, from guys like Galileo and Newton. When we go back and check, we find that they are stil right. People go back and check the Bible, both for historical accuracy and experience in everyday life, and it still holds up. A young man about a century ago was completely sure that the Bible was false, and he set out to prove it. The more he checked, the more he became comvinced that the Bible is true. That man was Lew Wallace, who later wrote Ben-Hur. There are similar stories for guys like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. I highly recommend Strobel's books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith. And if you're looking for someone who knows how Christ's sacrifice actually works, God does. That will have to suffice, as I don't think that there is a person alive who knows, nor will there ever be.

I hope this helps. I can recomend some books if it doesn't.
The bible does not hold up as an accurate historical record. There is NO record of hebrew slaves ever being held in Egypt. The town of Nazareth did not exist when Jesus supposedly lived. That's just a couple of many such points that could be made.

As far as the "atheist turned christian" stories, you'll find that most of them were "atheists" for emotional reasons. They got mad over something and walked away. They did not leave their faith for intellectual reasons. Study why people become atheists for intellectual reasons rather then "emotional atheists". Emotional atheists make for great conversion stories, but there is truly no substance to them. Emotions are easy to refute, but cold, logical reasoning is a whole different ball game.

If your faith is truly solid and unshakable, then you should be able to read "Losing Faith in Faith" by Dan Barker, question your faith and be able to reason out why you believe.

Kiwipeso

14-02-2005, 09:21

Exactly as he said, you should believe or disbelieve entirely on intellectual reasons only because there are far too many good emotional reasons behind either argument.

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 09:22

You capitalised the right word: if you KNEW. "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" is not really a comment I would make if I knew I was going to be resurrected and spend eternity in heaven - which to me suggests Jesus didn't know that at the time. In my interpretation of Christian doctrine he therefor died (ultimately keeping his faith: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.") for his beliefs and to save others from sin without expecting a reward.
Read your bible, he knew what was going to happen. He knew he was going to have to die. He also knew that he was going to return.

Luke 18:31-33
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

Trammwerk

14-02-2005, 09:29

I once heard or read - long ago - that Christ had the opportunity to call upon God, the Angels and all of Heaven to help him when he was on the Cross, but that to do so - to save himself - would have been to forfeit his ability to save humanity from it's sinful nature; if this were true, it would contribute to his deliciousness.

Vynnland, you're touching on some questions that philosophers have debated, in one form or another, for centuries. Descartes, Nietzsche, Plato... the list goes on and on. I shall attempt to use my limited knowledge/wisdom to answer some of your questions.

why does god NEED to do ANYTHING?

The use of language here is a mistake. He does not need to do anything; he does not want to do something. As I understand it, he simply does things. His "will" is the same as His "action." It's complicated, but God is supposed to be beyond seperating his action, his will, his desire and his need. He simply exists, you know? Alpha and Omega and all that shite.

Being omnipotent, that means he can do ANYTHING. NOTHING is beyond his ability. Why can't god create a better free will, in which there is no need for evil, we love him, and fully understand that love?

Another complicated question. Free will is not exactly something which is "created." It is the existence of a choice, or a series of choices. Having created the ability to choose, the only way to improve is to improve the quality of your choices. The act of the sacrifice of Christ - and so allowing you to have your sins forgiven by CHOOSING to come to Christ - would, according to Christianity, be the best thing for you. So really, Christ's sacrifice was God's way of improving humanity's lot in the universe; only, it's free will makes it so that humanity must choose.

Evil, I think, is something you misunderstand. God did not "create" evil, per se. Evil, I believe, is more a void, a place where good does not exist. God created all things, and these things were good. However, when he gave humanity the ability of free will, he gave them the ability to Not Be Good - something significantly different from Being Evil. One implies a negative attribute - the other a positive. Free Will allows you to choose between Being Good or Not Being Good - and when you are Not Being Good, you move away from God, and so do things which are against the nature/wishes of God. Humans apply the word "evil" to these actions, but this is a misnomer; it implies that is a creation, like love, and the clouds. It is not. It is a void. It is what is left when there is a "moral vacuum" in the human heart.

How would we have free will if God did not allow us to CHOOSE to understand and love him? That's taking a choice away from us; perhaps the most important one in the universe. That'd be a bit of a mistake on the part of The Most Perfect Thing Ever, doncha think?

If he can do this, but does not, then he is malvolent and not truly a loving god, for he planted evil and suffering for no purpose beyond his personal amusement. If he cannot do this, then god is not omnipotent and the bible is inaccurate and should not be trusted.

Again, God did not create evil. Evil is not an object. There is no such thing as the Presence of Evil; only the Absence of Good. There's a difference between + and -. Your presumptions rest on an understanding of evil that, I think, does not take this assertion into consideration. I suggest you think about what evil - and goodness - is, and what it means for either to be present in the human heart, and how they come about. Maybe you will be led to believe that I am false; if that is the case, please, come back here and inform me.

I might suggested you read some Descartes. He is FREAKING HARD to understand, because he wasn't a good writer [the best philosophers seem to be terrible with a pen], but if you can focus your mind well enough, you might be able to gleam some wisdom from his works. He talked a lot about the nature of God and whys and hows of Him.

Here (http://www.str.org/) is an interesting site on Christian philosophy.

I should note that I myself am not a Christian; I am an Agnostic. However, deep in my heart, I feel a need to believe. I struggle with what that means.

J-stroke

14-02-2005, 09:36

Because God sent his only son, Christ, to die for our sins. An act of utmost love. All that good stuff.

Ya and people who call themselves sane worship a god that did that. Sacrificed his own son. That's not love, that's psychosis :D

The Atomic Alliance

14-02-2005, 09:51

Everyone seems to miss the point. When he was alive, he promoted and believed in a strong code of morals which seemed outrageous to the people living in Israel/Palestine at that time.

Everyone whinges eternally, proclaiming to want peace on Earth. That's what the guy was all about: "love thy neighbour"

If you wish to ignore the possibility/concept of "virgin conception" and "son of god" out of it for just a moment, I'm sure anyone would find it hard to fault what he was actually trying to say about (the then) modern society, and how people should treat one another.

No one today can be 100% sure what his nature was (was he "truly" the son of god in a complete physical/spiritual sense, OR in a more philosophical sense, telling everyone what god wished for them (improvement of moral values/treatment of others, which by extension would improve everyones lives)

Bottom line: he was a man who had a lot of interesting things to say, and such was the impact, that he left millions of people pondering this for 2000 years (and counting, as evident by this topic on this forum)

The Alma Mater

14-02-2005, 09:53

Read your bible, he knew what was going to happen. He knew he was going to have to die. He also knew that he was going to return.

But depending on the translation you believe he wasn't *entirely* sure when he was actually being nailed to the cross. He doubted.. and then casted the doubt aside, having faith.

As said though - when looked upon objectively it wasn't that special a sacrifice.

Incenjucarania

14-02-2005, 10:02

Bottom line: he was a man who had a lot of interesting things to say, and such was the impact, that he left millions of people pondering this for 2000 years (and counting, as evident by this topic on this forum)

So did a lot of dead guys. Jesus and friends just caused a hell of a lot more wars than the Buddha incarnations.

Personally, I find the Egyptian Book of the Dead to be more interesting. Bastet is a hotty. Mrowwwrr :fluffle:

Vynnland

14-02-2005, 12:01

Another complicated question. Free will is not exactly something which is "created." It is the existence of a choice, or a series of choices. Having created the ability to choose, the only way to improve is to improve the quality of your choices. The act of the sacrifice of Christ - and so allowing you to have your sins forgiven by CHOOSING to come to Christ - would, according to Christianity, be the best thing for you. So really, Christ's sacrifice was God's way of improving humanity's lot in the universe; only, it's free will makes it so that humanity must choose.

Are you saying that god cannot create a better free will in which there is no need for sin, sacrafice, damnation, and evil in general? If god cannot create a better free will, then god is not omnipotent and the bible is inaccurate for claiming him to be so. Therefore the bible is untrustworthy. If god IS omnipotent (which is a self-contradictory attribute and cannot exist), then god WANTS there to be evil when there is no need for it. In which case, god is malvolent. There is also the possibility that someone just made all this stuff up.

Evil, I think, is something you misunderstand. God did not "create" evil, per se. Evil, I believe, is more a void, a place where good does not exist. God created all things, and these things were good. However, when he gave humanity the ability of free will, he gave them the ability to Not Be Good - something significantly different from Being Evil. One implies a negative attribute - the other a positive. Free Will allows you to choose between Being Good or Not Being Good - and when you are Not Being Good, you move away from God, and so do things which are against the nature/wishes of God. Humans apply the word "evil" to these actions, but this is a misnomer; it implies that is a creation, like love, and the clouds. It is not. It is a void. It is what is left when there is a "moral vacuum" in the human heart.

God did not create evil?

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

How would we have free will if God did not allow us to CHOOSE to understand and love him? That's taking a choice away from us; perhaps the most important one in the universe. That'd be a bit of a mistake on the part of The Most Perfect Thing Ever, doncha think?

Why can't god make a better free will that both allows us to choose to understand and love him, yet there is no evil?

Again, God did not create evil.

Again, Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Here (http://www.str.org/) is an interesting site on Christian philosophy.

Christian philosophy is an interesting thing, there is about 85,000 different brands of it, and they all conflict with each other. You would think that if god were to involve himself with a book that is to reveal him, he would write it in such a way that there could only be one possible way to understand it. If god is omnipotent, then he can do this.

I should note that I myself am not a Christian; I am an Agnostic. However, deep in my heart, I feel a need to believe. I struggle with what that means.

It sounds like you don't believe, but are afraid to let go. I am willing to bet that you hold Pascal's Wager as your spritual maxim. If so, then you have succomed to an appeal to force; a bullying tactic. Pascal's Wager assumes that either christianity is true, or nothing is true; never mind every other religion that has ever existed.

Here's the problem with "spirituality". What proof is there of anything beyond our world? Why would someone choose to believe in something that they have no proof of? Certainly you would not believe me if I were to tell you that there are smurfs in my yard. Certainly you would demand proof and scoff at me if I tell you that my proof is nothing more then a feeling. We laugh at people when they give us such evidences for anything in the world, except when it comes to religious claims. Be wary of any claim that depends on emotional evidence instead of physical evidence.

Trammwerk

14-02-2005, 22:32

Tigerrian

14-02-2005, 23:16

As a christian, i will answer this as best as i can from my point of view:

1:He was the son of God (or God in other words, just a human form of him.)

2:Jesus died to show his love to the world, to get rid of pples sins, to show how much you can show love.

3:Two ways of putting it
(1)=To take away sins
(2)=Make people think twice and become Christians (i.e. asking god for forgiveness and becoming a christian would of accomplished that.)

You picked a hard debate, quite a good one i might add.

Incenjucarania

14-02-2005, 23:23

It has been speculated that spirituality is a survival trait. Studies indicate that people who are more spiritual live longer, are healthier, are happier and more productive. Over the centuries those with tendencies towards spirituality would be favored by nature. At this point in our evolution - so the theory goes - most humans have a tendency towards spirituality, and so when we choose to step away from it (and into the cold, outstretched arms of logic), we feel a void, an emptiness and a desire. So. That's one possible reason.

Yep. People who focus too much on reality can get paranoid and generally upset (I mean, honestly, this is a pretty screwed up world. Every second of every day, someone is being raped, murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc etc etc). If you don't have a way to escape it, it can wear you down.

This is why I mildly advocate secular spirituality. Basically just meditation and allowing yourself to FEEL spiritual and one with the world without having to think you actually ARE.

The Spock method to logic, while sound, isn't all that healthy.

Gnostikos

15-02-2005, 00:51

Got me. I'm a Christian, and I still don't understand it fully. All I know is that it works. Beyond that, I don't think I can help you.
So, basically, people just say that Christ died for our sins and let us get into heaven, but don't know why his dying did that?

This is why I mildly advocate secular spirituality. Basically just meditation and allowing yourself to FEEL spiritual and one with the world without having to think you actually ARE.
If you are truly atheistic, then you do not fell "one" with the world or anything like that. Meditation has an effect that kind of feels like that, but not quite.

Chansu

15-02-2005, 01:17

1)If God is omnipotent, couldn't he have gotten rid of our sins without Jesus' death?
2)Come to think of it, isn't hell(what we were "saved" from) a tad extreme? Finate punishment for finate wrongdoing is just, but infinate punishment for a finate crime is highly unjust.

3)Yep. People who focus too much on reality can get paranoid and generally upset (I mean, honestly, this is a pretty screwed up world. Every second of every day, someone is being raped, murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc etc etc). If you don't have a way to escape it, it can wear you down.
And we need religion/sprirituality to escape from those things, because?...
I do just fine without it. 1:Nobody knows about all the atrocities that are going on at every given time. 2:Very few, if any, people think about those things all the time. Those that DO think about it a lot are generally the ones who do the most to try to correct it. 3:There are plenty of things you can do to take your mind off of things. Read a book. Watch TV(...aside from the news). Play video games(there are a TON of awesome yet non-violent games out there, if violence is what you're taking your mind off of). Listen to music. Play a sport. Get a hobby. Get a pet. Get some work you've been meaning to do done.
In short, I kind of doubt that anybody's going to become Sensui anytime soon.(kudos to anyone who gets the reference. If you don't get it, it doesn't really matter...)

Slinao

15-02-2005, 01:32

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The Cost of Being a Disciple
25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’

31“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

hmm, message about faith.

Luke 18:29
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

27Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

28Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”

29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

teaching that to give up things in the name of faith gives rewards.

Luke 9:59
And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

hmm, lets see, I think this one would be saying that don't start down the path if you are going to keep looking back and longing for your old path.

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”

5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

so he is stateing that he didn't want to interfere, but then does it anyway, making water into wine for people to celebrate with....such a bad son...

Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

statements about if you are not going to do good, then you will be punished. Talking about if you don't make good fruit, you are cast to flames, so if your frut or deed is ill, then you are punished.

if you don't spread good words, you work against the message of Christ, and if you don't gather, then you have caused others to be scattered, kinda saying that inaction is just as bad as going against...

In Matt 15:22-26 Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs."

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demonpossession.”

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26He replied, “It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.”

27“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.”

28Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

A mean man who says some nice things does not make for a nice man. Geoffrey Dahmer has said lots of nice things in his life, but I don't think anyone would argue that he is actually a nice guy and should be followed.

I've not seen anything that Jesus did that wasn't very nice. People have acted in his name, and have actually been following other things in life. They use religion as an excuse to do evil, but that doesn't make the teachings bad. If a person says he killed a person because Buddha told him too, doesn't mean that buddism is wrong, just means people don't know how to understand a message that doesn't give them mortal power.

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 03:33

Vynnland:

I'm afraid our misunderstandings are basically semantic; in part you aren't internalizing what I'm saying. A sad shortcoming of language.

You have repeated your question: God cannot create a better free will? You are speaking of free will as if it is an object, like a tree, or an emotion, like love. It is not. Free will is a term we use to describe the ability to choose between several options; it is not a faculty like intelligence which we can possess, improve, change and degrade. We are not "given" free will.. we are simply freed from being forced by God to do a certain thing.

You keep ignoring the fact that god is supposed to be omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, then there is nothing he cannot do. That means that he can create a better free will, as I have described. If he cannot, then he is not all powerful and the bible is flawed and therefore untrustworthy as a source of knowledge. If god is capable of creating this free will, but has not, then the is evil and should not be worshipped. This is sort of a play on the old paradoxical argument against the possiblity of omnipotence, "If god is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he himself cannot lift it?"

I believe that by "create evil," he means that he can cause "bad" things to happen. The same thing goes for peace; peace is not an actual object, and I think you would agree. It is a state of things; it is a series of occurances that we might ascribe to the term "peace." The same goes for "evil." We might say that murder and thievery would contribute to a state of "evil," to "evil" things happening. God does not CREATE evil. He simply creates the circumstances for evil to occur, if he so chooses.

God is all powerful. If he desires, there can be an existence where there is no such thing as evil. Since evil exists, that means he created it, since god created EVERYTHING, including the laws of physics and nature. Therefore, god created evil.

I think nearly any philosophy is interesting. It is arguable that God did not involve himself with the book any farther than inspiring the flawed mortals who interpreted His words and wrote them down. There are many who believe that God did not write the Bible - humans did. Only a portion of Christians believe the Bible is by the hand of God, and because this is a point of conflict, it is best to leave it out lest we be sidetracked from the original argument.

If god inspired the bible, but allowed it to be so flawed, then god desired for there all the evils and confusion that have resulted. If god is omnipotent, then god could have "inspired" the bible to be written in such a manner that it could not possibly be misunderstood in any way.

I know nothing of Pascal Wagner, I'm afraid; I study classical philosophy more than anything else [Plato, Aristotle, various lesser names], and have only a passing familiarity with anything beyond that era besides a few key figures.

Pascal's Wager: It states that if you were to analyse your options in regard to belief in Pascal's God carefully (or belief in any other religious system with a similar reward and punishment scheme), you would come out with the following possibilities:

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally. It is a classic application of game theory to itemize options and payoffs and is valid within its assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Here's just one refutation of Pascal's wager: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

It has been speculated that spirituality is a survival trait. Studies indicate that people who are more spiritual live longer, are healthier, are happier and more productive. Over the centuries those with tendencies towards spirituality would be favored by nature. At this point in our evolution - so the theory goes - most humans have a tendency towards spirituality, and so when we choose to step away from it (and into the cold, outstretched arms of logic), we feel a void, an emptiness and a desire. So. That's one possible reason.

Which studies? I don't know about you or anyone else, but I would like to live in a world where things are real. I do not care to live in a world of dillusions. Those who live in a world of dillusions do not live in reality, and are easily taken advantage of due to their willingness to believe something for emotional or irrational reasons. I would accept a reality in place of a dillusion every time.

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 03:34

Yep. People who focus too much on reality can get paranoid and generally upset (I mean, honestly, this is a pretty screwed up world. Every second of every day, someone is being raped, murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc etc etc). If you don't have a way to escape it, it can wear you down.

This is why I mildly advocate secular spirituality. Basically just meditation and allowing yourself to FEEL spiritual and one with the world without having to think you actually ARE.

The Spock method to logic, while sound, isn't all that healthy.

Then you are akin to a buddhist.

12345543211

15-02-2005, 03:34

However, regardless of my last post, Jesus is not special, the guy breaks into my house every night and cuts my phone line!

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 03:37

If you are truly atheistic, then you do not fell "one" with the world or anything like that. Meditation has an effect that kind of feels like that, but not quite.

An atheist can most certainly "feel one with the world". Consider Kohlberg's scale of ethical development. On level 5, one accepts the concept of the social contract. It's sort of a version of the golden rule and an acceptance of karmic law. Essentially, what we do to others, we do to ourselves and will most likely have done to us. Therefore, we choose to treat others well, because that benefits us personally and improves the lot of everyone you come into contact with.

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 03:42

I've not seen anything that Jesus did that wasn't very nice. People have acted in his name, and have actually been following other things in life. They use religion as an excuse to do evil, but that doesn't make the teachings bad. If a person says he killed a person because Buddha told him too, doesn't mean that buddism is wrong, just means people don't know how to understand a message that doesn't give them mortal power.

I never cease to be amazed at the christian's ability to make excuses and appologize away the horrible things written into the bible. Most of those are standard ad hoc arguments.

We become what we think about, whether literal or metaphorical. If there is a metaphor speaking about burning, killing, insensitivity, casting aside of others, etc., those ideas will dwell in the minds of men. Thus passages can be taken to justify burning non-christians. If god is so powerful, he should know this, to which I can only conclude that god is evil and desires us to be confused and destroying each other over the application and differing interpretations of his word.

Gnostikos

15-02-2005, 03:55

An atheist can most certainly "feel one with the world". Consider Kohlberg's scale of ethical development. On level 5, one accepts the concept of the social contract. It's sort of a version of the golden rule and an acceptance of karmic law. Essentially, what we do to others, we do to ourselves and will most likely have done to us. Therefore, we choose to treat others well, because that benefits us personally and improves the lot of everyone you come into contact with.
The only way a person can truly feel "one" with the world is through illusion. There is an interconnectedness about it, certainly, but that is different. And I have no idea why you're bringing karma, which is a Hindu and Buddhist principle by the by, since that is just silly from a logical point of view. I do treat others as I'd treat myself, but not for karmic reasons.

Slinao

15-02-2005, 05:36

I never cease to be amazed at the christian's ability to make excuses and appologize away the horrible things written into the bible. Most of those are standard ad hoc arguments.

We become what we think about, whether literal or metaphorical. If there is a metaphor speaking about burning, killing, insensitivity, casting aside of others, etc., those ideas will dwell in the minds of men. Thus passages can be taken to justify burning non-christians. If god is so powerful, he should know this, to which I can only conclude that god is evil and desires us to be confused and destroying each other over the application and differing interpretations of his word.

There are horrible things written in any people's past. Not just with the filter of religion, but as people, race, and anything else you can draw a line between. The Christian teachings can be both good and bad, right and wrong. The message behind it isn't that one of better then thou, but one of freedom and faith.

It was a message that faith was above all, that love was above the law. Everybody mistakes being christian with being a catholic. Nearly every organized religion is inherintly evil. They exsist to push their ideals, and to gain in numbers. Their clergies grow in power, and they seek it more.

Say what you will, but the Divine is beyond all mortal comprehension, and only when we pass from the known into the unknown do we truely understand.

Gnostikos

15-02-2005, 05:41

Say what you will, but the Divine is beyond all mortal comprehension, and only when we pass from the known into the unknown do we truely understand.
Then why does the Bible exist at all, if God is beyond our comprehension, why would he eeven try to make us understand.

And I find the lack of christological learning startling! How can you worship Christ if no-one even knows what he actually did?

Imperial Dark Rome

15-02-2005, 05:55

As a Satanist, I will answer this from my point of view:

1."Behold the crucifix; what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree." "The Book Of Satan" Passage 2-1 from the "Satanic Bible".

2."Jesus died for my sins. What has Satan done for me?"

"First of all, Jesus did not die for your sins. A daemon like Gandhi, Jesus, Joan of Arc, will sometimes give their life for an expressed cause, to set an example for others straining under the yoke of oppression. He was simply saying, "Look upon me. I lived life on my own terms, according to my own design, and I was willing to give my life rather than forfeit my divinity." It worked for a while, but his message of unity was seized... distorted by political opportunists... couched in lies and deception!"

"The Wheel of Life turns and cycles us through the ages of time where events are staged again and again, ad infinitum. On each corner page of history the same principle powers appear on the scene. Donning their mortal masks, they reenact the divine drama."

3."Virgin Mary" wasn't a virgin. She cheated on her husband by having a affair with a Roman soldier named "Panther".

Here are the Satanist's points of view. Have fun fighting over this subject! Mahahaha...

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

Slinao

15-02-2005, 05:56

Then why does the Bible exist at all, if God is beyond our comprehension, why would he eeven try to make us understand.

And I find the lack of christological learning startling! How can you worship Christ if no-one even knows what he actually did?

the bible is a retelling of stories, and parables. The New Testament is a writing of the students of Jesus, and gives us insight into the messages sent. Jesus also taught that any that seek will find him, and that the Spirit will guide them.

Who taught Noah and Abraham to be holy? No one, they sought and found, in faith, G-d and his message.

The Bible is of man, it is not perfect, and within it are flaws. Even Jesus said it was/is perverted, and that man can not live by only physical but spiritual as well.

I don't need man made laws to tell me the message of the Divine. "for they worship me with thier lips, but they are useless to me, for they hold to man made laws as if they were holy doctrines."

Gnostikos

15-02-2005, 06:07

I don't need man made laws to tell me the message of the Divine. "for they worship me with thier lips, but they are useless to me, for they hold to man made laws as if they were holy doctrines."
Well then why do you heed Jesus' teachings? Unless I'm missing something, you're contradicting yourself. You're saying you believe in the Christian God, but don't put faith in man-made laws? How does that work? If you feel God, then the Bible would be unnecessary and superfluous.

Slinao

15-02-2005, 06:12

Well then why do you heed Jesus' teachings? Unless I'm missing something, you're contradicting yourself. You're saying you believe in the Christian God, but don't put faith in man-made laws? How does that work? If you feel God, then the Bible would be unnecessary and superfluous.

I quoted the message of christ. Those were his words, not my own. Its not the law that is needed, Christ was strong about teaching against legalism. Its the faith of the heart that allows one to do things in the world.

the bible is given for two purposes, the old was to guid the hebrews, because they were/are meant for priesthood in heaven.

the new is given for perspective.

The bible isn't needed, so to speak. Its something to fall back on and reflect upon. The Divine is found in all things, and the only thing you have to do is search. As Paul said to the Romans. He called them religious and that even in them had an aspect of the true G-d. The unknown one.

The message of the bible is faith. The path you walk is your own. As you allow on earth, so it is allowed in the divine, and what you prohibit on earth, so too will be prohibited in the divine.

Xenophobialand

15-02-2005, 07:26

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.

Oy vey.

That question has a different answer from just about every Christian theologian that ever lived.

IIRC, Augustine described it as a case of a bait-and-switch on the part of God, whereby Satan thought, by Jesus being crucified (an especially abominable way to die for member of the Jewish faith), that he would snare an especially virtuous human from God, only to find that the Son of God himself had descended into his very realm and broken the fortress, so to speak.

Modern thinkers, of course, take the tack that God had to send Jesus, because after all, he hadn't exactly done a bang-up job with his Chosen People, and needed to send something as compensation.

Again IIRC, our current conception of the death and resurrection of Jesus owes most of it's historical debt to Anselm. His basic argument was that all men were doomed to hell for their sins (although I'm not sure if he had adopted Augustine's notion of Original Sin. If he had, it would make an interesting question of God's goodness, as the Original Sin argument is that people have no choice in whether or not they do in fact sin). Jesus paid the price for us by assuming human form, enduring human agony, and descending into hell on our behest. There is probably more to it than that, but that is the gist of the argument.

I myself am not so sure which one to accept.

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 07:35

The only way a person can truly feel "one" with the world is through illusion. There is an interconnectedness about it, certainly, but that is different. And I have no idea why you're bringing karma, which is a Hindu and Buddhist principle by the by, since that is just silly from a logical point of view. I do treat others as I'd treat myself, but not for karmic reasons.
Karmic law is not silly, because it is not reliant on anything supernatural, magical or otherworldly. What you do, you do to yourself and others will do to you. That is simply how people and societies work and karmic law is an observation of that.

Vynnland

15-02-2005, 07:36

Say what you will, but the Divine is beyond all mortal comprehension, and only when we pass from the known into the unknown do we truely understand.
Prove it. Otherwise, this is conjecture and nothing more.

Katrinara

15-02-2005, 07:51

Trammwerk

15-02-2005, 07:51

Vynnland:

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding on my part, but I would ask that before we continue this discourse, that you cease being quite so condescending. You're acting rather hostile, and such a manner is not becoming in one who would speak about such weighty issues, as it obscures the argument, and does not clarify it.

With that out of the way, I'll now try to address the points you made in your last post regarding my own writings.

You keep ignoring the fact that god is supposed to be omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, then there is nothing he cannot do. That means that he can create a better free will, as I have described. If he cannot, then he is not all powerful and the bible is flawed and therefore untrustworthy as a source of knowledge.

Again, you are misunderstanding the nature of Free Will. Before you continue to think on the matter, consider that free will itself was not created. God never said "let there be free will!", figuratively speaking. Instead he simply created Options - the ability to deviate from God's will and natural law, and to make choices based on one's own prejudices. This is not an object. Thus, a "better" one cannot be created. Certainly, better options for us to choose from can be provided, but free will is not something which can either be improved upon or degraded.

You claim that "God is omnipotent and so can do anything, including create a better free will." Perhaps. But if that is the case, then this "better free will" is beyond the capability of either of our minds to comprehend; the very nature of free will as something which describes a series of choices - or the ability to make choices - is such that it cannot be either improved or degraded. Because of this, we cannot - or at least, I cannot - fathom what a "better free will" would be. If you can create some sort of example of a better free will, please, enlighten me.

God is all powerful. If he desires, there can be an existence where there is no such thing as evil. Since evil exists, that means he created it, since god created EVERYTHING, including the laws of physics and nature. Therefore, god created evil.

I'm afraid you have not understood my previous statement, Vynnland. As I said, evil was not created. The word "evil" is a human thing, as are all words. It is simply a term, a label, used by Man to describe the Absence of Moral Good. God created Moral Good, and through Free Will, we are allowed to ignore or do away with this moral good. He did not create Evil itself as a human quality.

If god inspired the bible, but allowed it to be so flawed, then god desired for there all the evils and confusion that have resulted. If god is omnipotent, then god could have "inspired" the bible to be written in such a manner that it could not possibly be misunderstood in any way.

This presumption assumes the removal of Free Will. God did not "allow" it to be flawed. He simply allowed the mortals who wrote it to do with it what they would.

In addition, while it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to inspire the Bible in such a way as to make it so that misunderstanding is impossible, do you not think that would remove quite a bit of the spiritual development and soulsearching that the Bible asks of the reader? Consider every point of conflict in the Bible in which a man is made to search his soul for the truth. None of that would be neccessary if God made everything clear. Man's misinterpretation of the Bible is his own will, something which God cannot abridge whilst he allows the experiment of Free Will to continue. A man chooses how he will understand the word of God, something that is, I think, essential to human spirituality and intellect.

Which studies? I don't know about you or anyone else, but I would like to live in a world where things are real. I do not care to live in a world of dillusions. Those who live in a world of dillusions do not live in reality, and are easily taken advantage of due to their willingness to believe something for emotional or irrational reasons. I would accept a reality in place of a dillusion every time.

Some internet sources here (http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990901-000036.html) , here (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=435412) and here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601050117,00.html) . Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any of the actual studies online. Sorry.

Robbopolis

15-02-2005, 08:28

This thread seems to have turned into three major messages. I shall attempt to answer all.

Why Christ had to die: According to the laws of God (for lack of a better term), someone had to die to make up for the sins of the world. No human could do it, as each human would be preoccupied with dying for his own sins. So Christ died so that we would not have to.

Hell as punishment: Hell is not just a matter of punishing people who have done wrong. God's holiness does not allow Him to be around anything with a sinful nature. It should be recognized that whenever God's presense showed up around people, they tended to drop dead. See a few places in Exodus, Acts 5, and a few other spots in the Old Testement. So hell is not just a punishment issue. It is also a presense issue. God cannot have anything unholy in His presense, that is, in heaven. The only chance that we get to get our nature changed is here on earth. The demons know exactly who God is, but they are beyond hope.

Free will vs. God's power: God is omnipotent, but there is one limitation on omnipotent beings. Nothing, including omnipotent beings, can do what is logically impossible. This includes making a rock too heavy for Him to lift, squaring the circle, or making a "better" free will. Whatever sort of free will we have, there is ALWAYS the possibility for us to choose to do wrong, else it would not be free will. As such, given the population of the world, there will be people who choose to do wrong. The only way for this not to be the case is for God to violate our free will and turn us into robots. We wouldn't like that, and God respects us to much to do it.

Hopefully, this clears some things up.

Imperial Dark Rome

15-02-2005, 08:31

This is all very interesting. I'm loving reading both sides, me being not committed to any sort of religion or belief apart from 'Be Nice'. I've got a question, and I'm not trying to be snarky here, how exactly did Jesus dying help us with our sins? Is it the 'This man died for us because he believed that we're sinning, wow, that's heavy, I should repent' and 'This man died for us so I'd better not covet my neighbour's wife' type of thing?

Hopefully you read my last post in this thread. Anyway Jesus's death means nothing. Jesus (in my view) was just another idoit claiming to be "The son of God" or just "God". People still don't know which one Jesus was claiming to be. That's just one of the millions of flaws in the Christian faith.

"Satanism advocates practicing a modified form of the Golden Rule. Our interpretation of this Golden Rule is: "Do unto others as they do unto you"; because if you "Do unto others as they do unto you," and they in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration. You should do unto other as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve". "Book Of Lucifer" Passage 3-24 from the "Satanic Bible".

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

Neglatomia

15-02-2005, 08:34

He is the first jew to not worry about money! Come to think of it.... he is/was the only jew.....

Well on a more serious note...... religion came at a time when people were law less and rape was just as normal as us eating food....... the bible was created to teach people the way to act and how to help humanity in a better way. it apealed to so many populace bacause they ahd nothing and the bible said they would go to the ultimate utopia of pleasure.

Slinao

15-02-2005, 22:34

Prove it. Otherwise, this is conjecture and nothing more.

Not everything can be proven or disproven. People can neither prove nor disprove anything Divine, its supernatural, and thus beyond us. There are countless studies that have shown that keeping a positive outlook on things, and positive thinking helps people over come things they normally wouldn't, but how does it work? Can it be proven, or is it 'proven' because its the popular belief that it does?

You ask for proof to be given for you to accept, yet from posts that you have made, you will refuse any 'proof' others bring. You won't allow any biblical texts to be used, though you have used them to reference your own statements, and took them rather out of context.

No person can ever change another's mind, all they can do is show things from a different view, and allow the other person's intellect and understanding to take the information, and make a decision about it. Its the gift of having a mind of our own and free will, we don't follow because there is no other way, or that we are ordered to, its by choice and understanding that we accept things in our minds. Its true for every form of 'faith', be it in science, nature, humans, etc.

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2005, 22:47

Jesus is God in the form of man. Despite his divinity, he made himself fully susceptible to the pain of mortals so that he could suffer and die for his people. That is why, smart aleck.

If he MADE himself able to feel the pain, then he only suffered self-inflicted hurt?

Also - he rose from his own grave....

So, he was "special" because he was a Masochist Zombie?

You Forgot Poland

15-02-2005, 22:59

Cause he, uhm, does the . . . Cause Jesus, uh . . . There's the thing that he does . . . the whatchacallit?

If only Jesussaves were around, I'm sure he could remind me what Jesus does.

Grave_n_idle

15-02-2005, 23:05

Cause he, uhm, does the . . . Cause Jesus, uh . . . There's the thing that he does . . . the whatchacallit?

If only Jesussaves were around, I'm sure he could remind me what Jesus does.

That's easy.

Jeses "Saves".

In fact, I think he was at the teller next to me, in the bank, the other day... so, I guess it must be true. :)

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 00:44

Vynnland:

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding on my part, but I would ask that before we continue this discourse, that you cease being quite so condescending. You're acting rather hostile, and such a manner is not becoming in one who would speak about such weighty issues, as it obscures the argument, and does not clarify it.

I am discussing this without emotion. I have no dogma, so I have no emotional investment. If you view me as being hostile, then I would say that you are projecting that upon me.

Again, you are misunderstanding the nature of Free Will. Before you continue to think on the matter, consider that free will itself was not created.

God created EVERYTHING, including the laws of physics and free will. Read some of that christian philsophy. Christians say such things as "without god, there is no such thing as 'logic', and god can make the illogical logic and the llogical illogical if he so desires. If he can do this, then he can create a better free will.

You claim that "God is omnipotent and so can do anything, including create a better free will." Perhaps. But if that is the case, then this "better free will" is beyond the capability of either of our minds to comprehend; the very nature of free will as something which describes a series of choices - or the ability to make choices - is such that it cannot be either improved or degraded. Because of this, we cannot - or at least, I cannot - fathom what a "better free will" would be. If you can create some sort of example of a better free will, please, enlighten me.

Better free will: We have choice, but there is no need for evil in order for us to understand and appreciate love.

I'm afraid you have not understood my previous statement, Vynnland. As I said, evil was not created. The word "evil" is a human thing, as are all words. It is simply a term, a label, used by Man to describe the Absence of Moral Good. God created Moral Good, and through Free Will, we are allowed to ignore or do away with this moral good. He did not create Evil itself as a human quality.

I gave a biblical passage that said that god created light, dark, good and evil. Why are you going to arbitarily reinterpret that to fit your current paradigm?

This presumption assumes the removal of Free Will. God did not "allow" it to be flawed. He simply allowed the mortals who wrote it to do with it what they would.

In that case, god is not TRULY interested in revealing himself to us. If he were truly interested in revealing himself, then he would have inspired the bible to be written in such a way that it could not possibly be misinterpreted or confusing. Yet, that's not what we see. We see a book that has brought about 85,000 different sects of belief that all believe themselves to be correct and everyone else to be incorrect.

In addition, while it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to inspire the Bible in such a way as to make it so that misunderstanding is impossible,

If god cannot do that, then he is not omnipotent. To an omnipotent being, there is NOTHING that cannot be done.

do you not think that would remove quite a bit of the spiritual development and soulsearching that the Bible asks of the reader?

This is another place that a better free will can come into play.

Consider every point of conflict in the Bible in which a man is made to search his soul for the truth. None of that would be neccessary if God made everything clear. Man's misinterpretation of the Bible is his own will, something which God cannot abridge whilst he allows the experiment of Free Will to continue.

You just mentioned something else that god cannot do. Remember, god is omnipotent.

A man chooses how he will understand the word of God, something that is, I think, essential to human spirituality and intellect.

To a certain extent that is true. I don't think that's true for the majority of theists. I think that most people who are born into a catholic household in Mexico have almost no choice but to be a catholic. I think that most people born into a sunni muslim household in Iran have almost no choice but to be sunni muslims.

Some internet sources here (http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990901-000036.html) , here (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=435412) and here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601050117,00.html) . Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any of the actual studies online. Sorry.

I suspect such results revolve around things like meditation and fellowship, two things that non-theists don't get in such the formal way that devout theists get.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 00:56

This thread seems to have turned into three major messages. I shall attempt to answer all.

Why Christ had to die: According to the laws of God (for lack of a better term), someone had to die to make up for the sins of the world. No human could do it, as each human would be preoccupied with dying for his own sins. So Christ died so that we would not have to.

The laws of god? God set up Adam and Eve to sin, which they did. So he's going to sacrafice himself, to himself to appease himself for a law that he made, which someone broke at the beginning of time. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous law to me.

Further, I thought the bible said, "the inequities of the father shall not fall upon the son." I guess god excludes himself from that and feels perfectly fine with holding me personally reponsible for what Eve did in the garden.

Free will vs. God's power: God is omnipotent, but there is one limitation on omnipotent beings. Nothing, including omnipotent beings, can do what is logically impossible. This includes making a rock too heavy for Him to lift, squaring the circle, or making a "better" free will. Whatever sort of free will we have, there is ALWAYS the possibility for us to choose to do wrong, else it would not be free will. As such, given the population of the world, there will be people who choose to do wrong. The only way for this not to be the case is for God to violate our free will and turn us into robots. We wouldn't like that, and God respects us to much to do it.

I am glad to see that you have conceded to the logical impossibility of omnipotence and that god is not and cannot be omnipotent. Now, your problem is the bible itself, because the bible claims that god is omnipotent.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 01:02

Hopefully you read my last post in this thread. Anyway Jesus's death means nothing. Jesus (in my view) was just another idoit claiming to be "The son of God" or just "God". People still don't know which one Jesus was claiming to be. That's just one of the millions of flaws in the Christian faith.

"Satanism advocates practicing a modified form of the Golden Rule. Our interpretation of this Golden Rule is: "Do unto others as they do unto you"; because if you "Do unto others as they do unto you," and they in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration. You should do unto other as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve". "Book Of Lucifer" Passage 3-24 from the "Satanic Bible".

Posted by Satanist, Lord Medivh

This perpetuates a cycle of violence. The "satanic golden rule" is being vigorously applied in all parts of the world that are experiencing never ending violence. These places aren't advancing and cannot advance until someone decides that there has been enough violence. If Ghandi had sought this path, India would surely still be a part of the british empire.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 01:04

Not everything can be proven or disproven. People can neither prove nor disprove anything Divine, its supernatural, and thus beyond us. There are countless studies that have shown that keeping a positive outlook on things, and positive thinking helps people over come things they normally wouldn't, but how does it work? Can it be proven, or is it 'proven' because its the popular belief that it does?

You ask for proof to be given for you to accept, yet from posts that you have made, you will refuse any 'proof' others bring. You won't allow any biblical texts to be used, though you have used them to reference your own statements, and took them rather out of context.

No person can ever change another's mind, all they can do is show things from a different view, and allow the other person's intellect and understanding to take the information, and make a decision about it. Its the gift of having a mind of our own and free will, we don't follow because there is no other way, or that we are ordered to, its by choice and understanding that we accept things in our minds. Its true for every form of 'faith', be it in science, nature, humans, etc.

This is a very long and breathy of saying that you CAN'T prove it. Therefore your claims have no more grounds to be believed then the claim that smurfs life in my yard. If you have faith, fine, that's your faith. But, don't be surprised when I don't share your faith and call it irrational, because it IS irrational by your own admission.

Queen Charlie

16-02-2005, 01:07

I'm sorry, but seriously doubt that someone could live for 33 years without sinning once, son of god or not, as a kid he didn't know that, he never lied to his mom, or did something bad?

FutureExistence

16-02-2005, 01:09

I am glad to see that you have conceded to the logical impossibility of omnipotence and that god is not and cannot be omnipotent. Now, your problem is the bible itself, because the bible claims that god is omnipotent.
Please show me these verses from the Bible that state, unequivocally, that God is omnipotent in the way that you define Him to be.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 01:32

Please show me these verses from the Bible that state, unequivocally, that God is omnipotent in the way that you define Him to be.

I love this, an atheist is going to quote the bible to a christian. Of course, I end up doing an awful lot of this. Such as life is sometimes.

Jeremiah 32:27
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?

MATTHEW 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelations 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Slinao

16-02-2005, 05:36

This is a very long and breathy of saying that you CAN'T prove it. Therefore your claims have no more grounds to be believed then the claim that smurfs life in my yard. If you have faith, fine, that's your faith. But, don't be surprised when I don't share your faith and call it irrational, because it IS irrational by your own admission.

if you use the bible as proof against the faith and its believers, then I can use the bible to 'prove' my points. There is no proof to say that I am wrong, and there is no proof to say that you are wrong. You can argue out of the bible, and so can I, but to what end would that serve? To show that you don't hold the same views as I do? I think that point has already been made.

Its like asking for proof that the nearest star to us is made of burning fire, and someone says that its just a bunch of floating torches held by giant smurfs. The smurf theory would be dismissed because it isn't 'logical' to science, and yet there is not true way to proove it eitherway. We lack the ability to view the stars close enough to know if they are like our own sun. We draw conclusions based on observations, and they are constantly changing as people find the new 'right direction'.

Science uses its books based on observation and practice, and religion has its books of observation and practice. They are all based around a core of believers that build upon the study of others, and they all change with the ages. They conflict with eachother and yet once worked together. They are different schools of thought, where one is knowledge from man's eyes, and one is knowledge from the divine.

There isn't enough open mindedness in this world for science and religion to hold hands anymore. Both sides feel they are the 'right' ones, and neither will give an inch. They have entrenched themselves, and thats where it all ends, each striveing to get as many people behind them, in an eternal struggle to 'win'

Gnostikos

16-02-2005, 06:15

IIRC, Augustine described it as a case of a bait-and-switch on the part of God, whereby Satan thought, by Jesus being crucified (an especially abominable way to die for member of the Jewish faith), that he would snare an especially virtuous human from God, only to find that the Son of God himself had descended into his very realm and broken the fortress, so to speak.
So Jesus was a Trojan horse?

Karmic law is not silly, because it is not reliant on anything supernatural, magical or otherworldly. What you do, you do to yourself and others will do to you. That is simply how people and societies work and karmic law is an observation of that.
Really? So if I flip someone off, someone else will flip me off? If I eat a person, another person will eat me? If a hawk eats a pidgeon, will another bird eat the hawk? Karmic law is present nowhere. Anthropology and sociology have not proven that at all.

Free will vs. God's power: God is omnipotent, but there is one limitation on omnipotent beings. Nothing, including omnipotent beings, can do what is logically impossible. This includes making a rock too heavy for Him to lift, squaring the circle, or making a "better" free will. Whatever sort of free will we have, there is ALWAYS the possibility for us to choose to do wrong, else it would not be free will. As such, given the population of the world, there will be people who choose to do wrong. The only way for this not to be the case is for God to violate our free will and turn us into robots. We wouldn't like that, and God respects us to much to do it.
Well then God is not truly omnipotent. He seemed perfectly willing to defy his own laws with a parthenogenic and hydrophobic human, splitting a sea, and all of the other miracles present in the Bible. So, yes, he can break his own laws, I'd say. Also, these verses would be disproven:Jeremiah 32:27
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?

MATTHEW 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelations 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Not everything can be proven or disproven.
In science, everything can be proven sooner or later. If it can never be proven or disproven, then it is not worth our while to examine it.

There are countless studies that have shown that keeping a positive outlook on things, and positive thinking helps people over come things they normally wouldn't, but how does it work? Can it be proven, or is it 'proven' because its the popular belief that it does?
First of all, I doubt the innumerability of studies. Secondly, apparently you are unaware of psychosomatics.

You ask for proof to be given for you to accept, yet from posts that you have made, you will refuse any 'proof' others bring. You won't allow any biblical texts to be used, though you have used them to reference your own statements, and took them rather out of context.
Because the Bible is not a reliable historical text. If you use the Bible to prove God, then your logic is circular.

No person can ever change another's mind, all they can do is show things from a different view, and allow the other person's intellect and understanding to take the information, and make a decision about it.
You also are apparently unaware of propaganda.

Its the gift of having a mind of our own and free will, we don't follow because there is no other way, or that we are ordered to, its by choice and understanding that we accept things in our minds. Its true for every form of 'faith', be it in science, nature, humans, etc.
So sorry, but what? That last statement made no sense whatsoever.

Science uses its books based on observation and practice, and religion has its books of observation and practice.
It's just that religion is outdated and science isn't. I don't mean to be insulting anyone's faith here, but what is presented in the Bible is archaic.

They are different schools of thought, where one is knowledge from man's eyes, and one is knowledge from the divine.
But man may only acquire knowledge through his own eyes. Any other belief is, in my opinion, highly delusional.

There isn't enough open mindedness in this world for science and religion to hold hands anymore. Both sides feel they are the 'right' ones, and neither will give an inch. They have entrenched themselves, and thats where it all ends, each striveing to get as many people behind them, in an eternal struggle to 'win'
If you can provide any evidence that Genesis in any way correlates with actual geological and biological prehistory, then you might be right.

But, back on topic, I think I have figured it out. The only explanation anyone has given as to why Jesus had to do what he did was that he was a Trojan horse for Satan.

Robbopolis

16-02-2005, 08:30

The laws of god? God set up Adam and Eve to sin, which they did. So he's going to sacrafice himself, to himself to appease himself for a law that he made, which someone broke at the beginning of time. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous law to me.

Further, I thought the bible said, "the inequities of the father shall not fall upon the son." I guess god excludes himself from that and feels perfectly fine with holding me personally reponsible for what Eve did in the garden.

I am glad to see that you have conceded to the logical impossibility of omnipotence and that god is not and cannot be omnipotent. Now, your problem is the bible itself, because the bible claims that god is omnipotent.

Mark 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Power isn't going to cut it. As I said, an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible. That does not make omnipotence an impossiblity. I suppose God could change the rules of logic so that He could square a circle, but then He would be making the universe illogical. Do you really wnat to do that? Arguing about God would then be pointless, as argument is impossible without logic.

And I will address the old "making a rock so heavy He can't lift it" issue. The argument itself is flawed. You're just playing around with definition of infinite, for which you should be made to sit through a very boring math lecture on the subject for a year. Can God make a rock any size that He wants? Yes. Can God lift anything He wants? Yes. God cannot make something too hard for Him to do. It is not an issue with God's power. Rather, it is an issue with logic.

God did not "set up" Adam and Eve to sin. Free will precludes the possiblity of doing wrong. We are not free unless there is a choice availible for us to make. In order for us to choose to do good (which God wanted), there must be an opportunity to do evil. Let's say that a parent tells a child to stay out of the cookie jar. Do we blame the parent when the child takes a cookie? Granted, I'm trivializing the issue, but the analogy stands. We cannot blame the lawgiver when the law gets violated.

As for the above passage, God is saying that the guilt from the sin of one generation would not fall on the next. He is not talking about eh effects. Just talk to any psychologist about the effects that various things, like abuse or alchoholism, have on the kids of the perpetrator. Effects get passed down, even if guilt does not.

Kelleda

16-02-2005, 08:49

Well, the best argument I could come up with was that he and Moses used guns to conquer the Romans.

Honestly though, I'm thinking it's more of the need for the religion to have a go-to guy on Earth, make it sort of a people's religion, that sort of thing (seeing as how people's religions tend to do better than those without (see Christianity, Islam, Hinduism (though I suppose Vishnu/Rama/Shiva did the go-to thing verself), Buddhism (more a philosophy than a religion, but still); and the only reason the Olympian faith sort of faded was because it was pressed out of urban life by the Roman throne). I know, not the doctrine-based argument you're looking for, but this, I suppose, will have to do.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 09:28

Really? So if I flip someone off, someone else will flip me off? If I eat a person, another person will eat me? If a hawk eats a pidgeon, will another bird eat the hawk? Karmic law is present nowhere. Anthropology and sociology have not proven that at all.

You sound like a fundamentalist; you're taking it too literally. Most societies have some form of the idea of karma. Some call it the law of sowing and reaping, but it essentially karmaic law. Karmic law goes something like this:

"When you perform good deeds, that is a reflection of who you are and shapes who you will become.
When you perform evil deeds, that is a reflection of who you are and shapes who you will become.
Those who are good are treated as such by their peers.
Those who are evil are treated as such by their peers.
That is the way of karma."

Do you understand now? It is not a literal 1:1 ratio that the universe magically balances in perfect equality. Your thoughts and actions shape who you are to become, and those around you react to who you are accordingly. "Good" people have a lot more sympathy and societal support then "evil" people.

It's good to be skeptical, but you're being skeptical to a point of being dogmatic about it.

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 10:10

Power isn't going to cut it. As I said, an omnipotent being cannot do the logically impossible. That does not make omnipotence an impossiblity. I suppose God could change the rules of logic so that He could square a circle, but then He would be making the universe illogical. Do you really wnat to do that? Arguing about God would then be pointless, as argument is impossible without logic.

Exactly, but many christian appologists are forced to argue that god created logic and may not only susped it, but change it so that he could make a square circle. Of course, this is merely conjecture, but it is necessary for a being that has any "omni" attribute.

Also, your second sentence described why omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute.

And I will address the old "making a rock so heavy He can't lift it" issue. The argument itself is flawed. You're just playing around with definition of infinite, for which you should be made to sit through a very boring math lecture on the subject for a year. Can God make a rock any size that He wants? Yes. Can God lift anything He wants? Yes. God cannot make something too hard for Him to do. It is not an issue with God's power. Rather, it is an issue with logic.

I didn't see any answer to the conundrum here. All I see is an avoidance of an answer.

God did not "set up" Adam and Eve to sin. Free will precludes the possiblity of doing wrong. We are not free unless there is a choice availible for us to make. In order for us to choose to do good (which God wanted), there must be an opportunity to do evil. Let's say that a parent tells a child to stay out of the cookie jar. Do we blame the parent when the child takes a cookie? Granted, I'm trivializing the issue, but the analogy stands. We cannot blame the lawgiver when the law gets violated.

Adam and Eve were set up for several reasons:

1. God could have created a better free will that allows choice, but does not allow the existence of evil. If god cannot create this better free will, then he is not omnipotent. If he can, but does not, then he is evil.

2. God placed the fruit of knowledge and tree of life in the garden with no other purpose then to tempt man.

3. Man could not have understood that it was wrong to eat of the fruit, because man did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil. To know that eating the fruit was wrong, requires the knowledge of good and evil.

As for the above passage, God is saying that the guilt from the sin of one generation would not fall on the next. He is not talking about eh effects. Just talk to any psychologist about the effects that various things, like abuse or alchoholism, have on the kids of the perpetrator. Effects get passed down, even if guilt does not.

The effects are directly put upon man by god. If god is omnipotent, then there is no need for ANY punishment. Therefore god is punishing everyone for something that someone else did and is violating his own scripture by holding the son responsible for the inequities of his father. Otherwise, god could hold just Adam and Eve responsible. He could have allowed man back into the garden and simply banished the two individuals who broke the rules (that they didn't understand that it was wrong to break).

Greater Yubari

16-02-2005, 10:16

Why Jesus is special?

He isn't, but he had a damn good marketing campaign behind him.

Grarap

16-02-2005, 10:18

I see it simply like this. Jesus wasn't the son of God, just a mortal Jew who did great deeds. I feel that Christianity shouldn't revolve around a single man's death, but praise and worship life and the good man they base their faith on.

Men of Kent

16-02-2005, 10:37

It does seem to me that over the centuries quite a lot of innocent young ladies were giving birth to the children of God!

May I add :-

Guatama Buddha - born of the virgin Maya arong 600 'BC'

Quirrnus - an early Roman saviour, born of a virgin

Attis - born of the virgin Nama in Phrygia around 200 BC

Indra - born of a virgin in Tibet aropund 700 BC

Adnois - Babylonian god, born of the virgin Ishtar

Krishna - Hindu Deity, born of the virgin Devali around 1200 BC

Zoroaster - born of a vigin 1500 - 1300 BC

Redhead's pointing out of Mithras (born in a stable on 25th December) is a particularly awkward one for Christians - Mithras doctrines include baptism, a sacramental meal, a belief in 'immortality' etc - he was also saviour god who died and rose again to act as a mediator between Man and God, had a resurrection (celebrated around Easter) and portended a Last Judgement day involving Heaven and Hell !! During its ceremonies, the supplicants used candles, incense and bells.

But for a tiny twist of contrived Roman fate, nice families would be today driving off to Sunday Worship with 'Mithras loves You' stickers in their cars

Vynnland

16-02-2005, 11:14

Guatama Buddha - born of the virgin Maya arong 600 'BC'

"His wife Mayadevi was beautiful as the water-lily and pure in mind as the lotus. As the Queen of Heaven, she lived on earth, untainted by desire, and immaculate."

Which part of this says that Mayadevi was a virgin?

Grave_n_idle

16-02-2005, 18:24

Well first there's the sin factor. Everybody has sin.

I don't.

Prove I do....

UpwardThrust

16-02-2005, 18:27

I don't.

Prove I do....
He cant (though an axiom of his faith is that everyone starts sinfull ... what a depressing way to go through life)

Grave_n_idle

16-02-2005, 18:29

UpwardThrust

16-02-2005, 18:38

Grave_n_idle

16-02-2005, 18:39

He cant (though an axiom of his faith is that everyone starts sinfull ... what a depressing way to go through life)

Well, axiomatically, the concept is flawed.

If one assumes that we are discussing "Original Sin", then THAT debt was paid in the blood of the lamb.

If one assumes we are discussing the 'sinful' nature of sex - then I don't see how the divine commission to multiply can co-exist with a state of sin...

Whereas, if the assumption is that everyone WILL sin... well, that's not the same at all... and he/she has NO evidence of my 'sin'... if I had any.

Grave_n_idle

16-02-2005, 18:41

Lol nice looks like Jesus is a copyright infringement :-P

See if you can't google an image of "Serapis".... even the modern popular image of what Jesus might have looked like, is stolen.

FutureExistence

16-02-2005, 20:13

I love this, an atheist is going to quote the bible to a christian. Of course, I end up doing an awful lot of this. Such as life is sometimes.

Jeremiah 32:27
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?

MATTHEW 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelations 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Thanks for the references (The Mark one is Matthew, actually, Matt. 28:18).

My basic point is the same as Robbopolis. You've set up a straw man by holding to your narrowly-defined definition of omnipotence, and use that narrow definition to support the rest of your case against Christianity.

I believe God can do everything that is not inherently self-contradictory; He cannot do a thing and not do the same thing at the same time. I believe that God did not invent logic, but that logic is one aspect of the inherent order within God's own personality.

Therefore, your Jeremiah reference does not worry me, as a self-contradiction is not a "thing", so God can't do it (same with the Matthew 19 ref.).
The Matthew 28 reference is a translation issue. The King James has "power", but the New American Standard Bible (Updated), the New International Version, the Good News Bible, and even the Message have "authority" instead, and I don't believe Jesus has authority to carry out inherent impossibilities.
The Revelation reference is similar. KJV has "omnipotent", but NASU, NIV, Good News all have "Almighty", which I think is the Greek translation for either "Sabaoth" ("hosts", as in "the LORD God of hosts") or "Shaddai", which is "almighty", neither of which require the kind of "omnipotence" YOU insist God has (the Message has "Sovereign-Strong", which is quite nice).

We can talk about KJV vs. other versions if you like, but you can't just pick one English translation to prove a biblical point.

Gnostikos

17-02-2005, 00:24

You sound like a fundamentalist; you're taking it too literally.
So I'm being a fundamentalist by assuming you meant what you said. My bad. The thing is, that though I understand that you meant it more figuratively, if it isn't present universally, a law like that isn't present at all.

Karmic law goes something like this:

"When you perform good deeds, that is a reflection of who you are and shapes who you will become.
When you perform evil deeds, that is a reflection of who you are and shapes who you will become.
Those who are good are treated as such by their peers.
Those who are evil are treated as such by their peers.
That is the way of karma."
Which would be wrong. Sure, it'd be nice, but it's just preposterous if you actually think about. The whole basis of capitalism and the whole reason communism won't work is partially because karma is not present. To give one example, there are have been psychopaths who do terrible, unthinkable things to people. Yet it is never suspected because they are so amicable on the outside, and seem like pleasant people. Oft times, this is not even found out until post mortem. If a businessman cheats people out of money and becomes rich, typically nothing bad will happen to him.

Your thoughts and actions shape who you are to become, and those around you react to who you are accordingly. "Good" people have a lot more sympathy and societal support then "evil" people.
Ahh, I see what you're missing now. You don't seem to understand that people are treated according to how they seem. Not how they are. To think that society is not rife with façades, lies, and deceptions is to be incredibly naïve.

It's good to be skeptical, but you're being skeptical to a point of being dogmatic about it.
Why yes, I believe I am. I constantly question everything. Not to be arrogant, but that is one reason I have such huge stores of knowledge at such a young age, I have an insaitable need to know. And without questioning something, you can never be sure whether you know it or not. Questions are the basis of knowledge.

Guatama Buddha - born of the virgin Maya arong 600 'BC'
I guess it depends on who you ask. As Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, though there are religious sects, there are Buddhists who do not believe in anything supernatural. And parthenogenesis in humans is certainly a supernatural occurance without a macromutation.

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 00:30

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.

Because He took your place and mine and suffered the penalty for the sins of every human being that ever lived to offer us the choice to accept His sacrifice in our place so that we don't have to experience eternal seperation from the Father. With out His propitiatory sacrifice Lucifer's argument that God demands that which cannot be done or must be done out of fear, is true. But Christ, by living a sinless life and in taking our sins upon Himself, being equal to God's law, has the power and moral authority to forgive sins, while being both entirely just and entirely loving.

Gnostikos

17-02-2005, 00:32

But Christ, by living a sinless life and in taking our sins upon Himself, being equal to God's law, has the power and moral authority to forgive sins, while being both entirely just and entirely loving.
Ok, but why? Why can't God just say "Let man be closer to me" without sending down Jesus and all that?

Sumamba Buwhan

17-02-2005, 00:36

Jesus rides the short bus?

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 00:40

Ok, but why? Why can't God just say "Let man be closer to me" without sending down Jesus and all that?

He can't do that without violating His law, which essentially says, Love the Lord your God with everything that you are and your neighbor as yourself or you cut yourself off from me eternally (death). The only way for the universe to live in peace an harmony is to abide by that law. The only possible end for a violation of that law is eternal death/seperation from God/the source of life. In Christ's death in our place, all of us having sinned in some way or another, God made a way of escape from that penalty without negating the validity and necessity of that law to the inhabitants of the universe.

Willamena

17-02-2005, 00:49

"His wife Mayadevi was beautiful as the water-lily and pure in mind as the lotus. As the Queen of Heaven, she lived on earth, untainted by desire, and immaculate."

Which part of this says that Mayadevi was a virgin?
The "Queen of Heaven" on Earth is a common title used among virgin mother goddesses in Mesopotamia and the surrounding areas. Isis, Cybele and Artemis also used it, and the title was applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.
EDIT: Also Astoreth, Innana, Diana and Demeter.

The title denotes a mother of god(s). "Virgin" in this context means that she is a creatrix, self-created, being her own mother as it were.

Gnostikos

17-02-2005, 00:56

He can't do that without violating His law, which essentially says, Love the Lord your God with everything that you are and your neighbor as yourself or you cut yourself off from me eternally (death).
I fail to see why he couldn't just pardon everyong of their sin, like the Japanese warlords did from time to time with debts. Why was Jesus necessary to do this?

In Christ's death in our place, all of us having sinned in some way or another, God made a way of escape from that penalty without negating the validity and necessity of that law to the inhabitants of the universe.
But why was that requisite? Sure, you're using semi-flowery language to explain, but you're just saying that Christ was required because God felt like it. God is not afraid of breaking his own laws at all. Parthenogenic human birth, hydrophilic humans, splitting of a sea, all those miracles. He can break the laws he's put in place, obviously.

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 01:09

I fail to see why he couldn't just pardon everyong of their sin, like the Japanese warlords did from time to time with debts. Why was Jesus necessary to do this?

But why was that requisite? Sure, you're using semi-flowery language to explain, but you're just saying that Christ was required because God felt like it. God is not afraid of breaking his own laws at all. Parthenogenic human birth, hydrophilic humans, splitting of a sea, all those miracles. He can break the laws he's put in place, obviously.

The other laws you mention are not laws that govern the peaceful existance of creation, they are not the foundation of God's immutable character that is at once both perfectly loving and perfectly just/holy. Existance is tied up in our connection with God, when we voluntarily severe our connection with the source of life (sin) only death can be the consequence. Only Christ taking that death in our place can restore what we have voluntarily given up by sin and give the opportunity to chose life again.

If God were to simply pardon sinners as you suggest, Lucifer's argument that God isn't just would be valid. If Christ, as God, didn't die to make the only possible way for an exception to the sin=permenant seperation from God=death, then Lucifer's claim that God isn't loving would be valid.

The only way for God to be perfectly just is for the requirements of His law to be met. The only way for God to be perfectly loving is to offer all life. The only way to make these two simultaneously reality is for God Himself, in the person of Christ to die.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 01:45

Thanks for the references (The Mark one is Matthew, actually, Matt. 28:18).

My basic point is the same as Robbopolis. You've set up a straw man by holding to your narrowly-defined definition of omnipotence, and use that narrow definition to support the rest of your case against Christianity.

I believe God can do everything that is not inherently self-contradictory; He cannot do a thing and not do the same thing at the same time. I believe that God did not invent logic, but that logic is one aspect of the inherent order within God's own personality.
Therefore, your Jeremiah reference does not worry me, as a self-contradiction is not a "thing", so God can't do it (same with the Matthew 19 ref.).
The Matthew 28 reference is a translation issue. The King James has "power", but the New American Standard Bible (Updated), the New International Version, the Good News Bible, and even the Message have "authority" instead, and I don't believe Jesus has authority to carry out inherent impossibilities.
The Revelation reference is similar. KJV has "omnipotent", but NASU, NIV, Good News all have "Almighty", which I think is the Greek translation for either "Sabaoth" ("hosts", as in "the LORD God of hosts") or "Shaddai", which is "almighty", neither of which require the kind of "omnipotence" YOU insist God has (the Message has "Sovereign-Strong", which is quite nice).

We can talk about KJV vs. other versions if you like, but you can't just pick one English translation to prove a biblical point.

You're trying to redefine omnipotence. The bible says that god is "almight" "all powerful" and that there is nothing that he cannot do.

om·nip·o·tent Audio pronunciation of "omnipotent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

As the bible describes god, he is omnipotent, but you are using an ad hoc argument to try to put limits on him so that he can still exist and not be evil.

BTW, this "translation" issue is yet another reason I don't trust the bible. How many versions of the bible are there? How many of them translate different words differently to completely change the meaning of certain passages? The NIV is about the worst at that, but I think you understand my direction. There is no "original bible", so we can't really check these things to find out what they REALLY mean, all we can do is make educated guesses, and there are a LOT of those that conflict with each other.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 01:50

So I'm being a fundamentalist by assuming you meant what you said. My bad. The thing is, that though I understand that you meant it more figuratively, if it isn't present universally, a law like that isn't present at all.

Which would be wrong. Sure, it'd be nice, but it's just preposterous if you actually think about. The whole basis of capitalism and the whole reason communism won't work is partially because karma is not present. To give one example, there are have been psychopaths who do terrible, unthinkable things to people. Yet it is never suspected because they are so amicable on the outside, and seem like pleasant people. Oft times, this is not even found out until post mortem. If a businessman cheats people out of money and becomes rich, typically nothing bad will happen to him.

Ahh, I see what you're missing now. You don't seem to understand that people are treated according to how they seem. Not how they are. To think that society is not rife with façades, lies, and deceptions is to be incredibly naïve.

I guess it depends on who you ask. As Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, though there are religious sects, there are Buddhists who do not believe in anything supernatural. And parthenogenesis in humans is certainly a supernatural occurance without a macromutation.

Capitalism works precisely BECAUSE karma exists. If I do something dishonest, that changes something inside of me. Those around me see that I am not being completely honest somehow. I put this out through body language, voice inflection and other things. People around me start to treat me with less trust, because I am up to something and I am not being honest and forthright about it. If customers don't trust the person they are purchasing their goods and services from, they find someone else to sell them the goods and services they want. If they catch me in my dishonesty, they stop coming to my business and patronize someone else who is more honest.

Zeichman

17-02-2005, 01:53

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.
you may want to know what a word means before you use it. Namely christological, because your use makes it clear you have no idea what it means.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 01:58

He can't do that without violating His law, which essentially says, Love the Lord your God with everything that you are and your neighbor as yourself or you cut yourself off from me eternally (death). The only way for the universe to live in peace an harmony is to abide by that law. The only possible end for a violation of that law is eternal death/seperation from God/the source of life. In Christ's death in our place, all of us having sinned in some way or another, God made a way of escape from that penalty without negating the validity and necessity of that law to the inhabitants of the universe.
God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 02:05

The "Queen of Heaven" on Earth is a common title used among virgin mother goddesses in Mesopotamia and the surrounding areas. Isis, Cybele and Artemis also used it, and the title was applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.
EDIT: Also Astoreth, Innana, Diana and Demeter.

The title denotes a mother of god(s). "Virgin" in this context means that she is a creatrix, self-created, being her own mother as it were.
You're assuming that, but it does not say that. You're also placing attributes from Greecian, Egyptian and Mesopotamic dieties onto an individual who did not live in that area. Those areas had regular commerce between them. Buddhism was originally written in sanscrit, which has little to no connection to those parts of the world that you're bringing up. Why would they share any commonality when there wasn't almost any trade, commerce or even acknowledgement of their existence.

Now, where does it say that Mayadevi was a virgin?

Glow_worm

17-02-2005, 02:16

he is special because there is a religion based on his sacrifices, and achievments, same thing can be said with star treck. dang treckies.

Glow_worm

17-02-2005, 02:22

Why would they share any commonality when there wasn't almost any trade, commerce or even acknowledgement of their existence.

Now, where does it say that Mayadevi was a virgin?
almost no trade dosent mean there was no trade, with very little trade big ideas can still be transfered to different cultures now if there was no trade or conflict or knowledge of each other then yes it would be hard for ideas to be exchanged.

Anarchoctopodes

17-02-2005, 02:26

God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.
It a bit of a catch 22, wouldn't you say :D ..

Of course Jesus suffered when he died. He was an ordinary man, for Whose :cool: sake, inteligent, spiritual, idealistic man, but made of flesh and sent wherever dead men go. I can't believe that so many smart people all over the world worship a fanatic insteed of a totem or unknown gods or..
YES, we should respect him, but to actually believe that he was god's son etc.. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy..

Glow_worm

17-02-2005, 02:28

no no your mistake is to assume that a man would never have that "special handsake" with his wife(sorry for the lame youthanism just dont wanna get in trouble(darn kids))

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 02:30

He can't do that without violating His law, which essentially says, Love the Lord your God with everything that you are and your neighbor as yourself or you cut yourself off from me eternally (death). The only way for the universe to live in peace an harmony is to abide by that law. The only possible end for a violation of that law is eternal death/seperation from God/the source of life. In Christ's death in our place, all of us having sinned in some way or another, God made a way of escape from that penalty without negating the validity and necessity of that law to the inhabitants of the universe.
God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.

Free Realms

17-02-2005, 02:32

Glow_worm

17-02-2005, 02:33

Glow_worm

17-02-2005, 02:35

HAHA, jesus. jesus was satan, and all you christians are tricked. wait... lets ask mel gibson,he might know the answer... all i know is they brainwash all the little kids in church to think, "because the bible told me so." yeah go look in a bible ( a christian one, that is.)
thats interesting remember that whole bit about a false profit what if jesus is that false profit then are we all damned, then again with gods infinite power couldnt he just stop the false profit in the first place. the whole thing is a mind game, there is no evidence to support nor disprove the bible which if you ask me is evidence in itself that stands against the bible.

GoodThoughts

17-02-2005, 02:41

It a bit of a catch 22, wouldn't you say :D ..

Of course Jesus suffered when he died. He was an ordinary man, for Whose :cool: sake, inteligent, spiritual, idealistic man, but made of flesh and sent wherever dead men go. I can't believe that so many smart people all over the world worship a fanatic insteed of a totem or unknown gods or..
YES, we should respect him, but to actually believe that he was god's son etc.. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy..

If when we refer to Jesus as God's Son we mean the actual offspring of some sexual act between God and Mary then I would agree the idea is more than a little it far fetched. If we think of Son of God as a title that helps us understand the role that Jesus played in the Revelation of God's world for that age then it makes more sense to me. Think of all of the Divine Messengers as just that Divine Messengers whose task it was to bring to earth the lastest in God's knowledge to humankind. As the Son of God Jesus could speak with the authority of God. Just as if I were to send my son on a trip and tell him that he could speak for me, that he carried with him the authority of my presence, my thoughts, my will. I could send a note that tells people that my son speaks for me and whatever he says it is as if I said it. Now if my son wanted to impress upon people the authority he was given he could say: If you have seen me you have seen my father. People might even start to confuse the two. In a sense you could even say the son and the father are one or the son is the father and be right.

Jesus was the mouthpiece of God on earth. As were all of the other Messengers such as Moses, Abraham, Budhha and today Baha'u'llah.

Free Realms

17-02-2005, 02:46

thats interesting remember that whole bit about a false profit what if jesus is that false profit then are we all damned, then again with gods infinite power couldnt he just stop the false profit in the first place. the whole thing is a mind game, there is no evidence to support nor disprove the bible which if you ask me is evidence in itself that stands against the bible.
ok, i dont care if the bible cant be disproved/proved. if you feel you have to prove your faith then so be it (seems sac-religous to me, but do as you want, i guess). but i dont belive your religion so as far as the bible and that horse hockey, i dont care. i think its a big joke ( a really funny one).

Gnostikos

17-02-2005, 02:47

If God were to simply pardon sinners as you suggest, Lucifer's argument that God isn't just would be valid. If Christ, as God, didn't die to make the only possible way for an exception to the sin=permenant seperation from God=death, then Lucifer's claim that God isn't loving would be valid.
So, let me get this strait. The only way that God can be loving is if he causes suffering in a man. You're not making sense. You keep saying that Christ was necessary to get closer to God, but never specify why that is.

Capitalism works precisely BECAUSE karma exists. If I do something dishonest, that changes something inside of me. Those around me see that I am not being completely honest somehow. I put this out through body language, voice inflection and other things. People around me start to treat me with less trust, because I am up to something and I am not being honest and forthright about it. If customers don't trust the person they are purchasing their goods and services from, they find someone else to sell them the goods and services they want. If they catch me in my dishonesty, they stop coming to my business and patronize someone else who is more honest.
So you think that the reason corporations work so well is because they're honest? I'm sorry, but that is such a child-like and innocent view of the world. To think what you do is to see the world through heavily rose-tinted glasses. The first example to come up off the top of my head is the United Fruit Company (UFCO). Look it up. In an ideal world where everyone is honest or everyone can discern dishonesty, you'd be right. But the world is not like that by any stretch of the imagination, sans yours.

you may want to know what a word means before you use it. Namely christological, because your use makes it clear you have no idea what it means.
Is that so? Christology is the study of Christianity, right? What else could it possibly mean, besides the study of Christ, which it doesn't mean but would fit here anyways. Here, let me give another example. "This is an earnest biological query." That would be a question on the study of life, if I am not mistaken. The only other word I could have used there was theological, but christological is more specific.

Rasados

17-02-2005, 03:21

ill tell you why jesus is special.

because.....

JESUS SAVES!
while everyone is just takes full damage.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 03:22

Jesus was the mouthpiece of God on earth. As were all of the other Messengers such as Moses, Abraham, Budhha and today Baha'u'llah.
There was nothing magical or otherworldly about the first Buddha (which is a title, not a name). One can be an atheist and a buddhist at the same time.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 03:23

So you think that the reason corporations work so well is because they're honest? I'm sorry, but that is such a child-like and innocent view of the world. To think what you do is to see the world through heavily rose-tinted glasses. The first example to come up off the top of my head is the United Fruit Company (UFCO). Look it up. In an ideal world where everyone is honest or everyone can discern dishonesty, you'd be right. But the world is not like that by any stretch of the imagination, sans yours.
I'm childlike? You would do business with someone who is dishonest rather then someone who is not? That doesn't make me childlike, that makes you foolish.

Gnostikos

17-02-2005, 03:36

I'm childlike? You would do business with someone who is dishonest rather then someone who is not?
You seem to be missing my point. You can not tell.

That doesn't make me childlike, that makes you foolish.
Or perhaps it makes me more aware that there are very few honest businessmen out there.

Korinzia

17-02-2005, 03:47

hey what if jesus wasnt the son of god what if he was just a man i could think of many ways that the "Miricles" happend jesus walking on water maybe there was a sand bar.

Cerealean

17-02-2005, 03:48

God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.

Because even though God is ALL POWERFUL beyond our definition of anything, God did make some promises to us in which he follows and stays true to those promises. God is PERFECT and is able to keep promises no matter what.

Meyonia

17-02-2005, 04:14

hey what if jesus wasnt the son of god what if he was just a man i could think of many ways that the "Miricles" happend jesus walking on water maybe there was a sand bar.
I'm not here to say I'm right or your wrong, I'm hear to offer my humble opinion
First off: Jesus didn't perform miracles to prove He is God; most miracles He did out of love (such as healing people).
And seccond, I have a little theory about miracles:
Wether or not some/most/all miracled defy the laws of physics, the shear staggering odds that "miracles" happened when they did, how they did, and to who; is enough to consider it a miracle in my book.

GoodThoughts

17-02-2005, 04:22

There was nothing magical or otherworldly about the first Buddha (which is a title, not a name). One can be an atheist and a buddhist at the same time.

Baha'u'llah is also a title it means, the Glory of God. No doubt that some people call themselves Buddhist and atheist. That doesn't mean that Buddha was an atheist. So much of what we know about Buddha is shrouded in the mist of history that it is difficult to make absolute statements about the religion.

Vynnland

17-02-2005, 10:20

You seem to be missing my point. You can not tell.

It's pretty easy to tell if someone is ripping you off.

Or perhaps it makes me more aware that there are very few honest businessmen out there.

That's not true, that's what Hollywood tells you, but that is not reality. Out of the thousands of corporations out there, the Enrons and Worldcoms are a minority.

Anthil

17-02-2005, 11:08

Wouldn't know. At best we only have second-hand information about him.

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 13:14

Wouldn't know. At best we only have second-hand information about him.
pfft not even second hand in most cases

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 13:16

Because even though God is ALL POWERFUL beyond our definition of anything, God did make some promises to us in which he follows and stays true to those promises. God is PERFECT and is able to keep promises no matter what.
But if he keeps a promice that by doing so causes harm then he is not all loving

FutureExistence

17-02-2005, 14:16

You're trying to redefine omnipotence. The bible says that god is "almight" "all powerful" and that there is nothing that he cannot do.

om·nip·o·tent Audio pronunciation of "omnipotent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

As the bible describes god, he is omnipotent, but you are using an ad hoc argument to try to put limits on him so that he can still exist and not be evil.

BTW, this "translation" issue is yet another reason I don't trust the bible. How many versions of the bible are there? How many of them translate different words differently to completely change the meaning of certain passages? The NIV is about the worst at that, but I think you understand my direction. There is no "original bible", so we can't really check these things to find out what they REALLY mean, all we can do is make educated guesses, and there are a LOT of those that conflict with each other.
I'm not trying to redefine the abstract concept of omnipotence. I'm saying that the concept of omnipotence that YOU hold does not accurately describe God's power.

I accept your dictionary definition of "omnipotence". I do NOT accept that the Bible describes God in those terms.

The Bible itself describes limitations on God's range of actions, limitations which spring from God's own being AND NO OTHER SOURCE. Thus, in Hebrews 6:18, it says "it is impossible for God to lie", Deuteronomy 31:6 has "the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail or forsake you" and 2 Timothy 2:13 says "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." These are only a sample.

The God described in the Bible is not omnipotent, by your definition of omnipotence. He can't lie, or break an unconditional promise. I can do both of these things, so in those areas, I am more powerful than God. This does not decrease my faith in Jesus. Medieval "definitions" of God are not as important to me as what the Bible says.

As I understand it, Islam defines Allah with your definition of omnipotence, that Allah causes everything to happen directly, and is the source of good and evil. That differs greatly from what Christianity says.

In addition to inherent limitations based on the character of God, I believe God has limited Himself for our sakes, so that He could love us, and that we could love Him back. These two types of limitation may not actually be separable.

As for translation issues, that's the reason why I haven't thrown away any of my Bibles, even if I don't use them much. I have 4 different English translations of the whole Protestant Bible, plus the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs in the Message. I mostly use my New American Standard study Bible, which tends towards a word-for-word translation, but it's worth comparing translations, particularly when specific word use is an issue, as it has been over the quotes you gave me. Translations can be faulty; most good ones admit that in the notes at the front.

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 14:21

I'm not trying to redefine the abstract concept of omnipotence. I'm saying that the concept of omnipotence that YOU hold does not accurately describe God's power.

I accept your dictionary definition of "omnipotence". I do NOT accept that the Bible describes God in those terms.

The Bible itself describes limitations on God's range of actions, limitations which spring from God's own being AND NO OTHER SOURCE. Thus, in Hebrews 6:18, it says "it is impossible for God to lie", Deuteronomy 31:6 has "the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail or forsake you" and 2 Timothy 2:13 says "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." These are only a sample.

The God described in the Bible is not omnipotent, by your definition of omnipotence. He can't lie, or break an unconditional promise. I can do both of these things, so in those areas, I am more powerful than God. This does not decrease my faith in Jesus. Medieval "definitions" of God are not as important to me as what the Bible says.

As I understand it, Islam defines Allah with your definition of omnipotence, that Allah causes everything to happen directly, and is the source of good and evil. That differs greatly from what Christianity says.

In addition to inherent limitations based on the character of God, I believe God has limited Himself for our sakes, so that He could love us, and that we could love Him back. These two types of limitation may not actually be separable.

As for translation issues, that's the reason why I haven't thrown away any of my Bibles, even if I don't use them much. I have 4 different English translations of the whole Protestant Bible, plus the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs in the Message. I mostly use my New American Standard study Bible, which tends towards a word-for-word translation, but it's worth comparing translations, particularly when specific word use is an issue, as it has been over the quotes you gave me. Translations can be faulty; most good ones admit that in the notes at the front.

One of the few who try and study the main backbone for their religion, thank you.

The problem as I see it is too many people like attributing everything good to their deity of choice rather then admitting a flaw (i.e. a lot of Christians attributing omni everything … as in the dictionary definition to their creator because they like to feel someone strong is on their side that sort of thing) even when their documentation states limitations on his or her power (therefore removing the possibility of true omnipotence)

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 14:27

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 14:30

I don;t think Jesus hates gays, but my Bible says that homosexuals won't get into heaven. He doesn;t hate Gays, he hats the homosexuality, not the person...that's the stance that I try take with all my gay/lesbian friends.

And i do have gay/lesbian friends, and i do NOT beat them in the head with a bible and tell them they are going to hell.
Where anywhere in your bible did it say JESUS had any opinion on the matter?

FutureExistence

17-02-2005, 14:34

One of the few who try and study the main backbone for their religion, thank you.

The problem as I see it is too many people like attributing everything good to their deity of choice rather then admitting a flaw (i.e. a lot of Christians attributing omni everything … as in the dictionary definition to their creator because they like to feel someone strong is on their side that sort of thing) even when their documentation states limitations on his or her power (therefore removing the possibility of true omnipotence)
Yeah, you're right, some people don't think very clearly about what they believe, or what they've been told. In my church, we've been told to accept no teaching at face value without question, but to compare it with what the Bible says, and esteem it accordingly.

I hold the truth of the Bible as an axiom in my life, which many people disagree with. I'm not interested in believing something for the sake of feeling good; I really believe that the Bible is the reliable source of knowledge about God's nature, human nature, and how we are to relate to God and each other.

I can sometimes get too worked up over these discussions, and forget that the core of Christianity is love (see Matthew 22:34-40 for this), that love is the most fundamental attribute of God (see 1 John 4 for this), and that without love, nothing counts (see 1 Corinthians 13 for this). Some other Christians seem to forget this sometimes, as well.

Jeff-O-Matica

17-02-2005, 14:34

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.

Jesus was the Son of God, and He was the son of man because his mother was Mary. His suffering mattered, because He had free will and He knew what was going to happen to Him. In spite of knowing that, He chose to die for the sins of humanity. He reconciles humans, who accept Him as their Savior, with God. At one point, Jesus asked God if God would take this "cup" or this take this burden from Him, but if it was God's will that Jesus make the decision and suffer on the cross. Jesus accepted that burden. He chose to suffer rather than to let God send legions of angels or use other means to destroy humanity.

That is as best as I can explain the answer to your question. God only knows the truth. I have faith that He has let me share as best as I can share The Good News. I recommend that you take more care in the future, however, to not show disrespect to God, Jesus or The Holy Spirit of God (The Holy Ghost). I pray that God helps you understand more and accept Jesus before it is too late for you to do so.

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 14:39

Yeah, you're right, some people don't think very clearly about what they believe, or what they've been told. In my church, we've been told to accept no teaching at face value without question, but to compare it with what the Bible says, and esteem it accordingly.

I hold the truth of the Bible as an axiom in my life, which many people disagree with. I'm not interested in believing something for the sake of feeling good; I really believe that the Bible is the reliable source of knowledge about God's nature, human nature, and how we are to relate to God and each other.

I can sometimes get too worked up over these discussions, and forget that the core of Christianity is love (see Matthew 22:34-40 for this), that love is the most fundamental attribute of God (see 1 John 4 for this), and that without love, nothing counts (see 1 Corinthians 13 for this). Some other Christians seem to forget this sometimes, as well.

Intresting ... mind if I ask what denomination?

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 14:42

Where anywhere in your bible did it say JESUS had any opinion on the matter?

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were honor your father and mother, and honor the Lord your God.

I hold that honoring God means that you follow the bible's teachings. Not the sadducitical teachings from the old tesstament so much.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

That wasn;t jesus, but one of his followers, in fact wrote the second most in the bible by volume. (Paul) He wrote this letter to the Corinthians is response to immorality that was happeneing in the church. In that time (and for most people in this time) sexual perversion falls under pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and inbreeding.

Also, God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah after the men in the city wanted to hace their way with the angels he sent. I think that rings a few bells.

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 14:44

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were honor your father and mother, and honor the Lord your God.

I hold that honoring God means that you follow the bible's teachings. Not the sadducitical teachings from the old tesstament so much.

That wasn;t jesus, but one of his followers, in fact wrote the second most in the bible by volume. (Paul) He wrote this letter to the Corinthians is response to immorality that was happeneing in the church. In that time (and for most people in this time) sexual perversion falls under pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and inbreeding.

Also, God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah after the men in the city wanted to hace their way with the angels he sent. I think that rings a few bells.

And with all that you in no way explained Jesus’ opinion on it … thanks
(and want to add a side note that honoring the bible is not the same as honoring your god)

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 14:45

Intresting ... mind if I ask what denomination?

Pronbably non-denominational....that's what i consider myself for the most part.

That's the beuty of non denominational, they don;t have a sermon plan they send out to all the churches. It encourages free thought and actual bible study, not just bodies in a church.

FutureExistence

17-02-2005, 14:48

Intresting ... mind if I ask what denomination?
I go to Bristol Vineyard, here in England, which is part of:

www.vineyardchurchesuk.com/

The website for the U.S. Vineyards is:

www.vineyardusa.org/

and Google can give you loads of other links as well. I'm pretty sure there's a statement of faith on the sites.

UpwardThrust

17-02-2005, 14:49

Pronbably non-denominational....that's what i consider myself for the most part.

That's the beuty of non denominational, they don;t have a sermon plan they send out to all the churches. It encourages free thought and actual bible study, not just bodies in a church.
While that is ideal it really is kind of hard to study the true bible without knowing Hebrew

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 14:52

I go to Bristol Vineyard, here in England, which is part of:

www.vineyardchurchesuk.com/

The website for the U.S. Vineyards is:

www.vineyardusa.org/

and Google can give you loads of other links as well. I'm pretty sure there's a statement of faith on the sites.

hmm...vineyard, i went to one here in the states for awhile. Didn;t like it....he said saoemthign to the effect of we had to cut ourselves off from the world.

Oh. And homosexuality was not prevalent in Jerusalem due to the strong religeous influence, so, unless i am mistaken, jesus was never confronted by these people or did not comment in the scriptures on the issue, so we have only hwat the rest of the scriptures say.

BastardSword

17-02-2005, 14:52

While that is ideal it really is kind of hard to study the true bible without knowing Hebrew
You do know that the Torah is based on whether you include the oral or just the written.

And the Old Testament is a lot closer than the Torah today. (too much add ons). Granted a few books were removed like the Apocyotha from Old Testament.

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 14:55

You do know that the Torah is based on whether you include the oral or just the written.

And the Old Testament is a lot closer than the Torah today. (too much add ons). Granted a few books were removed like the Apocyotha from Old Testament.

New Testament was written in greek, not many people realize that.

FutureExistence

17-02-2005, 15:10

hmm...vineyard, i went to one here in the states for awhile. Didn;t like it....he said saoemthign to the effect of we had to cut ourselves off from the world.

Sorry to hear that, we're definitely not told to cut ourselves off from the world in the Bible (1 Cor. 5:9-10 covers this), but to shine as lights (Matthew 5:16), primarily by loving one another (John 13:34-35).

Maybe you misunderstood him, maybe he was unclear, maybe he'd had a bad week, maybe he's not following Jesus. I don't know. I do know the two Vineyard churches I've been a member of (at Nottingham during university, and here in Bristol) have been really good for me.

Autocraticama

17-02-2005, 15:23

he may have mispoke, but it left a bd taste in my mouth....i'm in a nondenominational church right now.

Grave_n_idle

17-02-2005, 17:38

In science, everything can be proven sooner or later. If it can never be proven or disproven, then it is not worth our while to examine it.

Not even vaguely true, on either count.

Grave_n_idle

17-02-2005, 18:23

Thanks for the references (The Mark one is Matthew, actually, Matt. 28:18).

My basic point is the same as Robbopolis. You've set up a straw man by holding to your narrowly-defined definition of omnipotence, and use that narrow definition to support the rest of your case against Christianity.

I believe God can do everything that is not inherently self-contradictory; He cannot do a thing and not do the same thing at the same time. I believe that God did not invent logic, but that logic is one aspect of the inherent order within God's own personality.

Therefore, your Jeremiah reference does not worry me, as a self-contradiction is not a "thing", so God can't do it (same with the Matthew 19 ref.).
The Matthew 28 reference is a translation issue. The King James has "power", but the New American Standard Bible (Updated), the New International Version, the Good News Bible, and even the Message have "authority" instead, and I don't believe Jesus has authority to carry out inherent impossibilities.
The Revelation reference is similar. KJV has "omnipotent", but NASU, NIV, Good News all have "Almighty", which I think is the Greek translation for either "Sabaoth" ("hosts", as in "the LORD God of hosts") or "Shaddai", which is "almighty", neither of which require the kind of "omnipotence" YOU insist God has (the Message has "Sovereign-Strong", which is quite nice).

We can talk about KJV vs. other versions if you like, but you can't just pick one English translation to prove a biblical point.

Oh, the pleasure of debate with someone who has actually studied the material...

I have several versions of the Bible, giving different interpretations for Revelation 19:6, "The Ruler of All" (in the Weymouth NT), "The Almighty" (in the World English, the Standard Version, Young, Douay Rheims, and Darby).

The French Darby and French Louis Segond give "le Tout-Puissant", which equates to "all-powerful".

Going back to the Latin - we find the probable cause of the translation problem, since it gives "Omnipotens"... again, effectively "all-powerful".

Going back to the Greek - it isn't nearly so 'clear'.

The Greek text gives "Pantokrator", which CAN be translated as pretty much: "Almighty", "The ruler of all", or "he who holds sway over all things".

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 19:14

God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.
He can't do that without violating His perfect character and law and therefore won't for both just and loving reasons, IMO.

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 19:15

God CAN'T do that? I thought god was all powerful.

He is, but there are a host of things He choses not to do as they would be a violation of His own charater and perfect law.

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 19:22

So, let me get this strait. The only way that God can be loving is if he causes suffering in a man. You're not making sense. You keep saying that Christ was necessary to get closer to God, but never specify why that is.

God doesn't cause the suffering, we do by cutting ourselves off from Him by not behaving in a loving, peaceful and harmonious manner.

WHY: It is impossible for sin to exist in the presence of God. It is destroyed by His holiness. Only with Christ righteousness as our clothes, covering our sins, which could only be imparted to us by His death in our place, can we live in the presence of a holy God.

Personal responsibilit

17-02-2005, 19:33

Oh, the pleasure of debate with someone who has actually studied the material...

I have several versions of the Bible, giving different interpretations for Revelation 19:6, "The Ruler of All" (in the Weymouth NT), "The Almighty" (in the World English, the Standard Version, Young, Douay Rheims, and Darby).

The French Darby and French Louis Segond give "le Tout-Puissant", which equates to "all-powerful".

Going back to the Latin - we find the probable cause of the translation problem, since it gives "Omnipotens"... again, effectively "all-powerful".

Going back to the Greek - it isn't nearly so 'clear'.

The Greek text gives "Pantokrator", which CAN be translated as pretty much: "Almighty", "The ruler of all", or "he who holds sway over all things".

The limitations are chosen and a matter of God not conflicting with Himself rather than a lack of ability. Just because He has the power to do something, like tell a lie, doesn't mean He will. It can stated in ablsolute terms that He will not, because He is able to and will carry it out, not because He lacks the power to do something different.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:44

I'm not trying to redefine the abstract concept of omnipotence. I'm saying that the concept of omnipotence that YOU hold does not accurately describe God's power.

I accept your dictionary definition of "omnipotence". I do NOT accept that the Bible describes God in those terms.

The Bible itself describes limitations on God's range of actions, limitations which spring from God's own being AND NO OTHER SOURCE. Thus, in Hebrews 6:18, it says "it is impossible for God to lie", Deuteronomy 31:6 has "the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail or forsake you" and 2 Timothy 2:13 says "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." These are only a sample.

The God described in the Bible is not omnipotent, by your definition of omnipotence. He can't lie, or break an unconditional promise. I can do both of these things, so in those areas, I am more powerful than God. This does not decrease my faith in Jesus. Medieval "definitions" of God are not as important to me as what the Bible says.

As I understand it, Islam defines Allah with your definition of omnipotence, that Allah causes everything to happen directly, and is the source of good and evil. That differs greatly from what Christianity says.

In addition to inherent limitations based on the character of God, I believe God has limited Himself for our sakes, so that He could love us, and that we could love Him back. These two types of limitation may not actually be separable.

As for translation issues, that's the reason why I haven't thrown away any of my Bibles, even if I don't use them much. I have 4 different English translations of the whole Protestant Bible, plus the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs in the Message. I mostly use my New American Standard study Bible, which tends towards a word-for-word translation, but it's worth comparing translations, particularly when specific word use is an issue, as it has been over the quotes you gave me. Translations can be faulty; most good ones admit that in the notes at the front.

I've already posted a long list of scriptures that describe god as "all powerful", "all mighty" and "there is nothing god cannot do". These all clearly describe omnipotence. That is not something that can be denied within the bounds of honesty.

Now, there are scriptures that contradict god's omnipotence, but that is an internal problem with the bible contradicting itself and is something that the theist needs to worry about. I'm not a theist, so I am not worried about it. If you would like, I can post many more places in the bible where god is described as having limited power. Yet, still the bible very clearly says many places that he is omnipotent.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:48

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:51

He is, but there are a host of things He choses not to do as they would be a violation of His own charater and perfect law.
Then how is evil necessary for his perfect law to function? Wouldn't perfect law not need evil?

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:52

God doesn't cause the suffering, we do by cutting ourselves off from Him by not behaving in a loving, peaceful and harmonious manner.

WHY: It is impossible for sin to exist in the presence of God. It is destroyed by His holiness. Only with Christ righteousness as our clothes, covering our sins, which could only be imparted to us by His death in our place, can we live in the presence of a holy God.
God CAN'T be around sin? I thought god was everywhere. Further, what about all the times that god breaks his own commandments through lying and killing?

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 07:52

Then how is evil necessary for his perfect law to function? Wouldn't perfect law not need evil?
Without evil you would have no law. With no law, you would have no way to judge people. With no judging, there would be no point to existing.

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 07:53

God CAN'T be around sin? I thought god was everywhere. Further, what about all the times that god breaks his own commandments through lying and killing?
God doesn't lie. And the word used in the Ten Commandments, was murder, not kill, in the original language. Subtle difference.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:53

Without evil you would have no law. With no law, you would have no way to judge people. With no judging, there would be no point to existing.
Existence relies on the necessity to judge? How do you figure that?

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 07:54

Existence relies on the necessity to judge? How do you figure that?
Because, if everything is equal, then you have a void. Do you see an ocean or an incalcuable number of molecules, all slightly different? You see the ocean. You have no way to appreciate its parts, no way to measure them, you simply see something in its entirety, and the individual is lost.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:55

God doesn't lie. And the word used in the Ten Commandments, was murder, not kill, in the original language. Subtle difference.
Of course god lied.

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

2 Th.2:11
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

By deliberately causing people to believe things that were not true, he lied.

As far as killing/murdering goes, how do you define the two?

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 07:58

Because, if everything is equal, then you have a void. Do you see an ocean or an incalcuable number of molecules, all slightly different? You see the ocean. You have no way to appreciate its parts, no way to measure them, you simply see something in its entirety, and the individual is lost.

I'm sorry, but your explaination of why judgement is necessary to existence doesn't make any sense to me at all. It sounds like you're trying to equate the ability to differentiate different things with existence. Being in a dark room, there are lots of things you can't tell the difference between. You can't tell when the wall ends and the table begins, but they still exist regardless of your ability or inability to discern them from each other.

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 08:03

Of course god lied.

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

2 Th.2:11
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

By deliberately causing people to believe things that were not true, he lied.

As far as killing/murdering goes, how do you define the two?
God Himself does not lie. He allows others to lie, but He Himself does. The different between killing and murder is the reason, killing the guilty is acceptable, murdering the innocent is not.

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 08:03

I'm sorry, but your explaination of why judgement is necessary to existence doesn't make any sense to me at all. It sounds like you're trying to equate the ability to differentiate different things with existence. Being in a dark room, there are lots of things you can't tell the difference between. You can't tell when the wall ends and the table begins, but they still exist regardless of your ability or inability to discern them from each other.
They don't exist until you bump into them. For all other purposes, they don't. Bumping into them is the same thing as God testing you.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 08:11

God Himself does not lie. He allows others to lie, but He Himself does.

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

These all explicitly state that god directly lied to people. READ THESE SCRIPTURES. You can't deny that god lies to people and be honest when you're saying it.

The different between killing and murder is the reason, killing the guilty is acceptable, murdering the innocent is not.

In that case god is in fact a murderer. In the great flood, god killed millions of innocents. Sure, lots of sinners died, but he threw out the baby with the bath water by killing lots of children, babies, and even infants still in their mother's bellies. How about all the innocent children living in Sodom and Gamora? They hadn't raped or been rude to any travelers, but they were still killed with everyone else.

Arammanar

18-02-2005, 08:15

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

These all explicitly state that god directly lied to people. READ THESE SCRIPTURES. You can't deny that god lies to people and be honest when you're saying it.

In that case god is in fact a murderer. In the great flood, god killed millions of innocents. Sure, lots of sinners died, but he threw out the baby with the bath water by killing lots of children, babies, and even infants still in their mother's bellies. How about all the innocent children living in Sodom and Gamora? They hadn't raped or been rude to any travelers, but they were still killed with everyone else.
The spirit God sent to lie wasn't God Himself, read the Scripture. A spirit asks permission to do it.

The flood was before the ten commandments and thus the law. You can't judge someone after the fact.

Joachimstan

18-02-2005, 08:17

West Jarland

18-02-2005, 08:23

I have always found it funny that Christians believe what they do. Christianity is a Jewish religion. Jesus was a Jew. I call him Jewsus. There was no concept of once and for all atonement of sin in Judaism. Everyone was talking about being the son of god. Check out the pharisees in John! Jesus did claim to be the messiah. However, he did not really do any of the things that would make him "the messiah". No king. No unified Israel. No freedom from Rome. Also, character of god is different. For OT and NT to work cohesively and for Jesus to be God, this just doesn't work. The god of the Israelites told the Jews to have Cherem, or holy war. It was ok to rape and plunder and kill people as long as they weren't Jews. That is in sharp contrast to the whole love thy neighbor thing in the NT. The only reason Jesus was so popular was because he was counter culture. The higher-ups hated them. Christianity today is not at all what I think Jesus was trying to get accross. There have been too many people to interpret what he said so many ways.

If you want to get right down to it...
Since the gospels were written from 30-80 years after the death of Jesus, no one really knows what Jesus said. We only know what his students say he said. Keep in mind they have an agenda. They are writing to churches. They need to address cerain issues in each of them, which is why there is a little discrepancy with word usage and the approach of how Jesus handled himself. Mark's is more human with dumb disciples. Matthew looks at Jesus and saw him as more godlike figure with intelligent fishermen. John is very theological. Luke is a lot like Matthew. Mark's was first, so the other three built on that.

I don't know. It's just funny how the Bible is "inerrant" and "infallible" with things like that...

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 08:38

The spirit God sent to lie wasn't God Himself, read the Scripture. A spirit asks permission to do it.

That's not what the scripture says, it says that god lied.

The flood was before the ten commandments and thus the law. You can't judge someone after the fact.

That doesn't work, because god's law is eternal. Therefore, god is guilty of violating his own law, which makes him a sinner.

Vynnland

18-02-2005, 08:40

I thought Jesus died because the religious hierarchy of the time didnt like his techings because he was a pacifist and they wanted a more sowrd-wielding type, if you will, to lead them to freedom from roman rule...or was all that history stuff I read manifested by Satan? hmmmm....
Actually, Jesus did not come to bring peace.

Mt.10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Lk.12:51
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Lk.22:36
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Harlesburg

18-02-2005, 08:54

But he was ressurected...so in the end the only sacrifice was a few days of pain.
Ressurection so he could asscend.
Why is Jesus' death so special? Why was he ressurected? If that was his fate all along, why is it even significant?
It cleanesed the world of Sins-giving forgiveness from God to mankind.

Harlesburg

18-02-2005, 08:56

That doesn't work, because god's law is eternal. Therefore, god is guilty of violating his own law, which makes him a sinner.
God is infalliable he cannot be wrong

Zeichman

18-02-2005, 20:30

Is that so? Christology is the study of Christianity, right? What else could it possibly mean, besides the study of Christ, which it doesn't mean but would fit here anyways. Here, let me give another example. "This is an earnest biological query." That would be a question on the study of life, if I am not mistaken. The only other word I could have used there was theological, but christological is more specific.
No, Christology is the level to which one deifies Jesus. One is not "Christological", one looks at the writings of Paul and says that he has a high christology. Try looking up a word before arguing against someone about the definition.

And this thread is stupid. I don't think any of you know anything about the Historical Jesus movement other than the possible ability to name-drop the Jesus Seminar or drop a relevant verse out of context to make a point. I think it's safe to say that none of you know anything about 1st Century (particularly second Temple-era) Jewish Messiahship, given how this conversation is going.

UpwardThrust

18-02-2005, 20:32

God is infalliable he cannot be wrong
Then why make the rule that he had to break?

Riverlund

18-02-2005, 20:49

I've been wondering recently--if Jesus was an incarnation of God, then why did his suffering or "sacrifice" matter? He was the freaking son of God!

N.B. This is an earnes christological query.

As it has been explained to me, it mattered because it allowed God, a being above mortal suffering, to experience it personally. Rather than simply sending a man to suffer on behalf of man, the fact that it was God incarnate gives it meaning, because he took on the suffering as an absolution for all humankind.

Does that help?

UpwardThrust

18-02-2005, 20:51

As it has been explained to me, it mattered because it allowed God, a being above mortal suffering, to experience it personally. Rather than simply sending a man to suffer on behalf of man, the fact that it was God incarnate gives it meaning, because he took on the suffering as an absolution for all humankind.

Does that help?
But if he was omni potent you would figure there would be a multitude of ways to experience things being all powerful

The Hotness of Draco

18-02-2005, 20:59

It's funny how reading other people's points of view can really make you think of how everyone really is very different from everyone else. I was reading some of the explanations, questions, and inquiries from various people, and can only give my opinion, hoping that those who wish to understand do, and those who don't, well...don't.

Jesus was special because he was the son of God. He is a member of the Holy Trinity, that consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are all in a way, "children of God", but we can't even begin to compare ourselves to Jesus. Jesus was conceived by God, the son of God, prophet of God, messiah of God, and lover of God. He was goodness. He preached goodness. He lived goodness. And he died for us. We, we are not good people. We live in a world domniated by media and entertainment, other people, and the government. We do not go around preaching the word of God, Jesus did. I saw someone who said that WWII veterans or something like that died for others, and were in much more pain than Jesus, but they died because they were trying to KILL. Let us remind ourselves of the fifth commandment. Thou shalt not kil. See if anyone can tell me why that makes Jesus different from a soldier.

Also people, try to remember, religion is about believing in something and not questioning it. It's called FAITH!! Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Confident. You don't question something when you are confident about it. I understand that non-Christians may be trying to understand Christianity, but without being a Christian yourself, you will never be able to, not matter how hard you try.

Whispering Legs

18-02-2005, 21:17

Well, for starters, if you forgot your lunch, you can always have Jesus miracle a sandwich for you.

And, if you're at a party, and the guests drink up everything you stocked in the bar, Jesus can miracle up a keg or two.

And, if you're dead (as you might be after a long night of partying), Jesus can raise you from the dead.

All in all, a handy fellow to have around.

Silver-Wings

18-02-2005, 21:33

GoodThoughts

18-02-2005, 22:15

No, Christology is the level to which one deifies Jesus. One is not "Christological", one looks at the writings of Paul and says that he has a high christology. Try looking up a word before arguing against someone about the definition.

And this thread is stupid. I don't think any of you know anything about the Historical Jesus movement other than the possible ability to name-drop the Jesus Seminar or drop a relevant verse out of context to make a point. I think it's safe to say that none of you know anything about 1st Century (particularly second Temple-era) Jewish Messiahship, given how this conversation is going.

This is what I found in a dictionary.

Etymology: Greek Christos + English -logy
: theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ

GoodThoughts

18-02-2005, 22:19

[QUOTE=Zeichman]No, Christology is the level to which one deifies Jesus. One is not "Christological", one looks at the writings of Paul and says that he has a high christology. Try looking up a word before arguing against someone about the definition.

How can anyone have a higher or lower level of diety? Unless we are talking about the Greek or Roman gods.

The Hotness of Draco

18-02-2005, 22:55

Ok I've speant most my life researching my own faith, the faith of other denominations, many ethical theories, etc, and I can't help but notice a few flaws in the Religion thing:

1 - Noah took two of every animal into the ark. Ok, here are the problems:

Where did Noah get two penguins and two polar bears from?
What about the ducks? They can swim, so did he take them on too?
Remind me, which race built the first ships and when exactly was it?

2 - If Pride is a sin, why does God demand praise?

3 - Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not; if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good.

4 - Many Christians, full believers in Jesus Christ, discriminate against Jews and have, in some cases, killed them in the name of God...Jesus was a Jew...Jesus was God...hmmmm, makes ya think...

I see the bible not as a literal account of events, but more of a metaphorical story filled with symbolism.

Jesus himself is not what is special - it is what he represents...

True Catholic faith has no flaws..just flawed people. You can't exactly go with everything the churh has said because the Bible was not written by God, but by "followers of God". If you were really someone who practiced their faith, then you would repent for everything you just said, because faith isn't questioning God, but believing in God. As for number four, refer to my first sentence. Jesus dind't make those people do that..that is why he died..so they would see the bad in the world and try to be good.

Grave_n_idle

18-02-2005, 23:51

Because, if everything is equal, then you have a void. Do you see an ocean or an incalcuable number of molecules, all slightly different? You see the ocean. You have no way to appreciate its parts, no way to measure them, you simply see something in its entirety, and the individual is lost.

How does this relate to 'judging' being a 'necessity' for existence?

If there was only perfection without end, it wouldn't MATTER if we ahd anything to compare it against. Pain without end will hurt eternally, joy without end will be joy eternally.

Light without darkness is still light. Darkness is just the absence of light.

Perfection does not NEED an opposite to be seen as perfection.

Silver-Wings

19-02-2005, 16:37

True Catholic faith has no flaws..just flawed people. You can't exactly go with everything the churh has said because the Bible was not written by God, but by "followers of God". If you were really someone who practiced their faith, then you would repent for everything you just said, because faith isn't questioning God, but believing in God. As for number four, refer to my first sentence. Jesus dind't make those people do that..that is why he died..so they would see the bad in the world and try to be good.

Listen to me - if someone has the guts to question their own faith and, even when presented with ideas on why God could be evil or non-existsant or whatever, they still choose God - they are true believers in God. You can't just follow God - you have to ask yourself WHY you are following him/it/they. If you never question your faith you are just following him blindly. Yes this is only my opinion, and the fact is I could be wrong - don't think I'm some egocentrical twit blabbering about something he doesn't understand. As For my points regarding Noah's Ark and crap, I was joking about them. But my points regarding people discriminating against Jews in the name of the Lord - that is a flaw with religion. I did not say it was a flaw of God, but of the idea of religion! Religion has flaws like everything else in the world . As for my coment on God not choosing or unable to abolish evil, it's something I picked up whilst I study "The Problem With Moral Evil" during my time in Durham Uni - it's an interesting point, and I stand by it!

Zeichman

19-02-2005, 20:42

How can anyone have a higher or lower level of diety? Unless we are talking about the Greek or Roman gods.
Read the Gospel of Mark and forget about all the other Gospels and everything you know about Jesus. From that Gospel alone you get a picture of a very special man, not of a god. "Not even the Son knows when", and other related phrases. Jesus is portrayed, generally, as an apocalyptic prophet in Mark. Who upon the parousia will become the Son of Man spoken of in 1Enoch and Daniel. Jesus gets mad, and is described as being "curt" witha Sryo-Phoenecian woman. He has no interest in dealing with non-Jews, and his teaching is primarily parables about the Kingdom of God. Now, take a look at Matthew. Similarly, we see a picture of a God-like man. Certainly more divine than Mark's portrayal, but certainly not God. After all, blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven. Jesus' teaching now covers ethics as well as the Kingdom of God, remaining in parables. His partial miracles (see Mark 8), rudeness and crudeness are editited out. This format also follows in LUke. Only in the Gospel of John do we see a man who is "one with the Father". He no longer teaches in parables (see Matthew 13:34), and HE is the item of all his teaching.

Likewise, Paul's authentic letters (and even the pseudonymous ones) portray Jesus as part of a triune Deity.

The interesting thing is that Paul has such a high christology so early.

The relative dates for the writings are
30CE Jesus ministry and crucifixion
48-60 Paul's ministry and letters
70 CE Mark
80 CE Matthew
85 CE Luke
95 CE John

It's also important to keep in mind that the Gospels are all anonymous documents. The closest we have to any identification is that the Gospel attributed to St. John is based off the testimony of a eyewitness, a "beloved disciple".

So yes, there are different levels to which Jesus is deified. This is christology. If you want me to talk about it more, I can, but I think you get the point.

Battlestar Christiania

19-02-2005, 21:51

If you're Christian, you get a 10% discount card for Land's End merchandise and get $200.00 in coupons from several major grocery chains.

However, unless you have gathered all 151 Pokemons, you are not yet a Christian.
Mohammed was a terrorist! Ki ki ki ki ki!!!

Vynnland

21-02-2005, 08:06

Ok I've speant most my life researching my own faith, the faith of other denominations, many ethical theories, etc, and I can't help but notice a few flaws in the Religion thing:

1 - Noah took two of every animal into the ark. Ok, here are the problems:

Where did Noah get two penguins and two polar bears from?
What about the ducks? They can swim, so did he take them on too?
Remind me, which race built the first ships and when exactly was it?

2 - If Pride is a sin, why does God demand praise?

3 - Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not; if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good.

4 - Many Christians, full believers in Jesus Christ, discriminate against Jews and have, in some cases, killed them in the name of God...Jesus was a Jew...Jesus was God...hmmmm, makes ya think...

I see the bible not as a literal account of events, but more of a metaphorical story filled with symbolism.

Jesus himself is not what is special - it is what he represents...
Don't forget that the pair was only of "unclean" animals, all the others there were seven each of. Even if he did get only two of each, how did the get them on a boat that was only 900 feet long, 150 feet wide and 90 feet high?

This is NOT a literal story! This is a story about life's difficulties, and how to deal with them.

GoodThoughts

21-02-2005, 08:28

"Not even the Son knows
So yes, there are different levels to which Jesus is deified. This is christology. If you want me to talk about it more, I can, but I think you get the point.

I agree that Jesus was not God or the physical, genetic son of God. I do question your definition of Christologly. It seems different from what the dictionary offers. But, no big deal as far as I am concerned.

QahJoh

21-02-2005, 13:37

This is a story about life's difficulties, and how to deal with them.

I've never heard that exact "gloss". It's an interesting interpretation, though.

QahJoh

21-02-2005, 13:53

I have always found it funny that Christians believe what they do. Christianity is a Jewish religion.

Well, sort of. It depends how you want to define things.

There was no concept of once and for all atonement of sin in Judaism.

True. Judaism's original method for dealing with sin was through sacrifices and prayer. After the destruction of the Temple, this was no longer possible, and the emphasis switched to prayer and repentant thoughts/deeds. There's also the fact that Judaism has not historically seen mankind as a fundamentally flawed or "doomed" creature, and therefore is not in need of "salvation", per se.

Jesus did claim to be the messiah.

Or rather, the books his followers write say he did. We frankly have no way of knowing how accurate those portrayals are. After all, we're talking about trusting the same sources that say he rose from the dead and walked on water.

However, he did not really do any of the things that would make him "the messiah". No king. No unified Israel. No freedom from Rome.

Very true. (Although some Christians try to get around this by being "flexible" about how they interpret messianic prophecy. That whole "Second Coming" thing was a fantastic idea.)

Also, character of god is different.

Well, sort of. More like the emphasis is different.

The god of the Israelites told the Jews to have Cherem, or holy war.

I'm not quite sure that's right. I don't know the word for "holy war" (I assume it would incorporate the word "kadosh", or "holy"), but I'm fairly sure "cherem" means excommunication or ban. Not quite the same thing.

In any event, this is not necessarily a departure from the Christian conception of God; there have been Christian-sanctioned holy wars as well, and the presentation of Jesus in the NT is not monolithically pacifist.

It was ok to rape and plunder and kill people as long as they weren't Jews. That is in sharp contrast to the whole love thy neighbor thing in the NT.

A bit of an oversimplification.

The only reason Jesus was so popular was because he was counter culture.

Not really. A lot of Jesus' so-called "radicalism" was basically standard Pharisee doctrine. This is not surprising, since most contemporary Biblical scholars theorize that he came from the Pharisee camp. Jesus' "Love thy neighbor" thing, for instance, is an almost verbatim repition of Rabbi Hillel, who lived about 1,000 years before him, and continues to be seen as one of Judaism's greatest sages. Jesus' real departure, if the NT can be taken to be at all accurate, seems to be that he wanted to create a new kind of law codification- his Sermon on the Mount is basically a manifesto of how the old laws will be reincorporated into a new system, while still, in many respects, maintained (in fact, in some areas, Jesus goes far beyond what Jewish law requires! See Matthew.)

Again, this is not very different from the Pharisees (although perhaps in some ways more radical).

Fleshy Women

21-02-2005, 13:54

The only thing that makes Jesus any different than the crazy homeless guy on the street is that people listened to him and took him seriously. Some of you have had some good points, but most of you need to get your head out of your preacher's butt for a while.
In early Christianity, there are LOTS of fights about whether Jesus was god or human or neither. The only reason you believe like you do is because one side won out over the others. Learning about Jesus (or religion in general) is like learning anything else - look at more than one reference (in this case the Bible, which has been heavily edited over the centuries).

Yupaenu

21-02-2005, 16:24

Listen to me - if someone has the guts to question their own faith and, even when presented with ideas on why God could be evil or non-existsant or whatever, they still choose God - they are true believers in God. You can't just follow God - you have to ask yourself WHY you are following him/it/they. If you never question your faith you are just following him blindly. Yes this is only my opinion, and the fact is I could be wrong - don't think I'm some egocentrical twit blabbering about something he doesn't understand.

i'm bhuddist, but i also agree, everyone must question their beliefs.

The last crusaders

21-02-2005, 16:35

why do all the pictures show jesus as white

he was black:
1)he called everyone brother
2)he liked gospel
3)he couldn't get a fair trail

ha ha ha ah ha

jesus probably didnt exist but different stories of people who tricked others by illusions

whats up with roman catholics

in case they havent noticed the romans killed jesus

ha ha ha ah ha

Grave_n_idle

21-02-2005, 18:56

Don't forget that the pair was only of "unclean" animals, all the others there were seven each of. Even if he did get only two of each, how did the get them on a boat that was only 900 feet long, 150 feet wide and 90 feet high?

This is NOT a literal story! This is a story about life's difficulties, and how to deal with them.

Actually - there is reason to believe that there were in fact 4 of each of the unclean, and 14 of the clean animals.

Genesis 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Genesis 7:3 "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth".

7 of male and female beasts, 7 of male and female birds.

Genesis 7:9 "There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah".

"two and two... the male and the female" seems fairly clear, that there were two pairs of each of the unclean animals...

Personal responsibilit

21-02-2005, 19:07

In early Christianity, there are LOTS of fights about whether Jesus was god or human or neither. The only reason you believe like you do is because one side won out over the others. Learning about Jesus (or religion in general) is like learning anything else - look at more than one reference (in this case the Bible, which has been heavily edited over the centuries).

First, I reject the notion that the Bible has been "heavily edited". There may be a translation error here or there, but the Qumaran scrolls and their consistancy with modern translations make it pretty clear that it hasn't received any major overhauls in terms of content.

Second, there is little other history from credible sources regarding Christ. Also, the Biblical evidence comes from multiple sources just for the record.

Third, as for the divinity of Christ, I'd say John 1:1-5 & 14. spell out pretty clearly that Christ was God, though there are numerous other references for this truth as well.

The Hotness of Draco

21-02-2005, 19:12

Amen.

Grave_n_idle

21-02-2005, 20:13

First, I reject the notion that the Bible has been "heavily edited". There may be a translation error here or there, but the Qumaran scrolls and their consistancy with modern translations make it pretty clear that it hasn't received any major overhauls in terms of content.

Second, there is little other history from credible sources regarding Christ. Also, the Biblical evidence comes from multiple sources just for the record.

Third, as for the divinity of Christ, I'd say John 1:1-5 & 14. spell out pretty clearly that Christ was God, though there are numerous other references for this truth as well.

How do you account for the fact that Canonisation added several texts NOT previously considered scripturally significant, and removed several others?

Was it not supposed to be that nobody should add anything to, or remove anything from, scripture?

Regarding the Divinity of Christ... it wasn't until hundreds of years AFTER the alleged crucifiction, that it was 'decided' that Jesus was divine... you did know that, right?

Buechoria

21-02-2005, 20:15

Jesus doesn't know either.

'God, why have you forsaken me?' or something along those lines.

Personal responsibilit

21-02-2005, 20:31

How do you account for the fact that Canonisation added several texts NOT previously considered scripturally significant, and removed several others?

Was it not supposed to be that nobody should add anything to, or remove anything from, scripture?

Regarding the Divinity of Christ... it wasn't until hundreds of years AFTER the alleged crucifiction, that it was 'decided' that Jesus was divine... you did know that, right?

I know that people argued about it for hundreds of years and still are. I also know that scripture makes it pretty plain that He was God.

As for the not adding or removing, it is clever how you take that out of context when it suits your purpose. Although I don't believe it right to add to scripture or subtract from it without direct, Divine direction the likes of which I have never personally experienced, the passage that you referred to refers specifically to the book of Revelation and its prophecies, which incidentally, also support the divinity of Christ.

UpwardThrust

21-02-2005, 20:34

Grave_n_idle

21-02-2005, 21:23

I know that people argued about it for hundreds of years and still are. I also know that scripture makes it pretty plain that He was God.

As for the not adding or removing, it is clever how you take that out of context when it suits your purpose. Although I don't believe it right to add to scripture or subtract from it without direct, Divine direction the likes of which I have never personally experienced, the passage that you referred to refers specifically to the book of Revelation and its prophecies, which incidentally, also support the divinity of Christ.

It's not a matter of arguing... it was many years after the 'death of Jesus' that it was finally decided he was 'divine', rather than just a mortal man.

People argue NOW... after the 'death of Jesus', it was accepted by all that he was a prophet and a wise man... NOBODY believed he was 'god'.

So - are you now arguing that the 'adding and removing' is JUST for Revelation - as it seems to be in the text?

Or are you arguing that it applies to all of scripture, as it is considered in modern 'christian' teaching?

If it applies to ALL of scripture... why don't we discuss the contents of Enoch? The Gospel of Thomas? Mary Magdalene's Gospel?

If it is JUST about Revelation... then what guarantee is there that the text we include in our 'canon', are the true and right texts?

Pyromanstahn

21-02-2005, 21:28

'Why is Jesus special?'
He's the best con artist the world has ever seen!

Vynnland

22-02-2005, 00:58

First, I reject the notion that the Bible has been "heavily edited".
Of course it was, haven't you ever heard of the Nicean councils? These were councils held in the 4 century to decide what should be in the bible, what shouldn't, what church doctrine was going to teach, etc. There are lots of writings about Jesus that are unknown to most people and most of the writings about Jesus weren't put into the bible were destroyed. This was a political committee that essentially created the NT as we know it today. If you get a chance, read the Gnostic gospels. Those are a few of the books that the council did not destroy, and the old christian sect , The Gnostics, based their particular brand of christianity around. Interestingly enough, it reads very little like the current cannon gospels. Jesus speaks of unneccessity of having ANY organized religion and that one should come to know god on his own, churches are a waste of time and money. I'm sure you can see how the catholic church wouldn't like any speach like this.

Vynnland

22-02-2005, 00:58

Third, as for the divinity of Christ, I'd say John 1:1-5 & 14. spell out pretty clearly that Christ was God, though there are numerous other references for this truth as well.
Using the bible to prove the bible. Nice bit of circular logic. :rolleyes:

Vynnland

22-02-2005, 01:11

As for the not adding or removing, it is clever how you take that out of context when it suits your purpose. Although I don't believe it right to add to scripture or subtract from it without direct, Divine direction the likes of which I have never personally experienced, the passage that you referred to refers specifically to the book of Revelation and its prophecies, which incidentally, also support the divinity of Christ.
Huh? The bible has not ever been edited . . . except when god inspires someone to do it. You're trying to go back and change what you said in your earlier post. You said the bible has never been edited, you were shown that it has been, and now you're trying to change what you mean by edited. If THIS is truly what you had meant, why didn't you say it earlier. This is not a definition of "edited" that most people would come up with on their own.

Further, how do you know that the Nicean council was inspired by god? How do you know they weren't inspired by the desire for power? Afterall, the Vatican came out of that council, and the Vatican is and has been for 1,700 years arguably the most powerful government the world has ever known. It is a government body without borders, agents in every country, and with the highest GDP per capita in the world. The church is enormously powerful and wealthy. What makes you so sure this wasn't purposefully engineered in the council by picking scriptures that would support that structure and destroying those that didn't or even opposed it?

Zeichman

22-02-2005, 23:20

Of course it was, haven't you ever heard of the Nicean councils? These were councils held in the 4 century to decide what should be in the bible, what shouldn't, what church doctrine was going to teach, etc. There are lots of writings about Jesus that are unknown to most people and most of the writings about Jesus weren't put into the bible were destroyed. This was a political committee that essentially created the NT as we know it today. If you get a chance, read the Gnostic gospels. Those are a few of the books that the council did not destroy, and the old christian sect , The Gnostics, based their particular brand of christianity around. Interestingly enough, it reads very little like the current cannon gospels. Jesus speaks of unneccessity of having ANY organized religion and that one should come to know god on his own, churches are a waste of time and money. I'm sure you can see how the catholic church wouldn't like any speach like this.

Find ONE shred of evidence that there was ANY canonization or editing during the Council of Nicea. If you do find any, you could probably become a millionaire since no scholar knows. You may want to stop making baseless statements. There had already risen a sort-of "norm" for othodox Christianity by that point, hence the reason for the council. And what the crap "Gnostic Gospel" are you talking about that says such things? 99% of Biblical scholars, including atheists, believe that Gnostic Christianity became present about 100 AD. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, as nothing in your post is verified to be true. The fragments of pre-Nicea gospels we have of canonical Gospels are the same as they are today.

If the Church was so concerned about covering up these Gospels, then why does the intro to Luke note that there are so many Gospels? Luke is the second-to-last canonical gospel written. Seriously, go read a book about the topic rather than just making crap up and hoping people will believe it.

Vynnland

23-02-2005, 03:07

Find ONE shred of evidence that there was ANY canonization or editing during the Council of Nicea. If you do find any, you could probably become a millionaire since no scholar knows. You may want to stop making baseless statements. There had already risen a sort-of "norm" for othodox Christianity by that point, hence the reason for the council. And what the crap "Gnostic Gospel" are you talking about that says such things? 99% of Biblical scholars, including atheists, believe that Gnostic Christianity became present about 100 AD. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, as nothing in your post is verified to be true. The fragments of pre-Nicea gospels we have of canonical Gospels are the same as they are today.

If the Church was so concerned about covering up these Gospels, then why does the intro to Luke note that there are so many Gospels? Luke is the second-to-last canonical gospel written. Seriously, go read a book about the topic rather than just making crap up and hoping people will believe it.
Funny, I just googled it and got back 1,230 and 26,600 hits, depending on how I spelled "nicean/nicene". So that makes 27,830 "shreds" of evidence. That was the entire point of the Nicene councils, to figure out the official cannon of the NT and to derive from it a single church doctrine. Apparently this isn't news to anyone except you. Thus, I turn your earlier statement around on you; how about YOU stop making crap up.

Zeichman

23-02-2005, 18:56

Funny, I just googled it and got back 1,230 and 26,600 hits, depending on how I spelled "nicean/nicene". So that makes 27,830 "shreds" of evidence. That was the entire point of the Nicene councils, to figure out the official cannon of the NT and to derive from it a single church doctrine. Apparently this isn't news to anyone except you. Thus, I turn your earlier statement around on you; how about YOU stop making crap up.

You still haven't cited any shred of evidence.

I can google up info that says that they have proof of God's existence. FInd one scholarly book that indicates it. One. That's all I'm asking.

And what did you google that "proves" this conclusion?

Otherwise, feel free to keep making crap up.

James Ellis

23-02-2005, 19:39

Huh? The bible has not ever been edited . . . except when god inspires someone to do it. You're trying to go back and change what you said in your earlier post. You said the bible has never been edited, you were shown that it has been, and now you're trying to change what you mean by edited. If THIS is truly what you had meant, why didn't you say it earlier. This is not a definition of "edited" that most people would come up with on their own.

Must remember that the authors of the books in the Bible were editors themselves. They selected the material, added editorial comments, changed and adapted the traditions to suit their theology and purposes.... not only this but in the period of oral tradition between the time of jesus and the time of the writers, the traditions about jesus changed and adapted to suit the purposes of the early church.... I guess in this sense you can say that what is in the bible has been edited from what it originally was

Sumamba Buwhan

23-02-2005, 19:43

Jeus was a vegatarian yogi hindu

Personal responsibilit

23-02-2005, 19:46

It's not a matter of arguing... it was many years after the 'death of Jesus' that it was finally decided he was 'divine', rather than just a mortal man.

People argue NOW... after the 'death of Jesus', it was accepted by all that he was a prophet and a wise man... NOBODY believed he was 'god'.

So - are you now arguing that the 'adding and removing' is JUST for Revelation - as it seems to be in the text?

Or are you arguing that it applies to all of scripture, as it is considered in modern 'christian' teaching?

If it applies to ALL of scripture... why don't we discuss the contents of Enoch? The Gospel of Thomas? Mary Magdalene's Gospel?

If it is JUST about Revelation... then what guarantee is there that the text we include in our 'canon', are the true and right texts?

To be honest, there is no "guarantee" other than that which the scripture states of itself and its impact on my life. That is sufficient for my faith. If it is not for yours, I understand.

As for the potential for other inspired, post Biblical writings, Joel 2 indicates that prophecy and visions would occur among Gods people in the "latter days" which suggests to me that there could very well be further inspired writings at some point, they still have to meet the standard of agreement with previous scripture, something that portions of Thomas, MM and Enoch seem to be lacking as are the "Gnostic" gospels.

In any case, I believe the statement in Rev. about not adding or subtracting can only apply to the book of Rev. as the scripture was a cohesive whole at that point. I would suggest that it is John's attempt to underline the importance of the book and the desire that his inspired ideas not be distorted by others wishing to bend scripture to their own whim.

James Ellis

23-02-2005, 19:46

Jeus was a vegatarian yogi hindu

Eh? Jeus may indeed be a vegatarian (what's that by the way?) yogi (and what's this mean) hindu, but Jesus certainly wasn't.

Zeichman

24-02-2005, 04:46

Eh? Jeus may indeed be a vegatarian (what's that by the way?) yogi (and what's this mean) hindu, but Jesus certainly wasn't.

I personally am a vegetarian Christian, and I find it hard to believe that Jesus was vegetarian... the feeding of the 5000 (whether or not its historical), the disciples who were fishers, and in the post-ressurrection appearances in Luke and John he explicitly eats a fish. Of course, this is up to debate as to whether or not it's historical.

Vynnland

24-02-2005, 05:11

You still haven't cited any shred of evidence.

I can google up info that says that they have proof of God's existence. FInd one scholarly book that indicates it. One. That's all I'm asking.

And what did you google that "proves" this conclusion?

Otherwise, feel free to keep making crap up.
Never mind that I just provided 26,600 resources. I have researched this, you obviously have not. Go be an ass elsewhere, because you'll get nothing else from me. You have earned a special place on my ignore list for being a willfully ignorant troll. Have a nice life.

Freeunitedstates

24-02-2005, 15:43

On the day of judgement, a group of people stood together awaiting their judgement. one was a girl who had died at auswitz, another, a catholic priest killed by stalins' men in russia. another was a man killed in the rwanda genocide, etc. as they stood, the someone asked, "why are we to be judged? haven't we suffered enough?" the girl rolled up her sleeve and said, "Look, the nazi's id this to me, and i am to be judged alongside them? how dare God believe that i need judgement along with the SS men that did this to me!" another shouted, "What does he know of our suffering! he let us die at the hands of cruelty!" someone else replied, "Before He passes judgement on us, we should pass judgment on Him!" "Yes!" shouted the crowd. "Let Him know what it is like to be dragged from your home!" "YES!" "And let him know what it is like to be beaten by the guards!" "YES!" "Let him be given up by his own friends, and let him be tortured in a prison!" "YES!" "Let us sentence Him to death for false crimes!" "YES!" Then a man shouted, "LET US CRUCIFY HIM!"

The crowd grew silent.

Zeichman

24-02-2005, 16:32

Never mind that I just provided 26,600 resources. I have researched this, you obviously have not. Go be an ass elsewhere, because you'll get nothing else from me. You have earned a special place on my ignore list for being a willfully ignorant troll. Have a nice life.
Bull. You haven't bothered citing any sources. I'm a theolgy major. What're you? And you still haven't answered my question.

I love calling people on BS.

Grave_n_idle

24-02-2005, 16:35

To be honest, there is no "guarantee" other than that which the scripture states of itself and its impact on my life. That is sufficient for my faith. If it is not for yours, I understand.

As for the potential for other inspired, post Biblical writings, Joel 2 indicates that prophecy and visions would occur among Gods people in the "latter days" which suggests to me that there could very well be further inspired writings at some point, they still have to meet the standard of agreement with previous scripture, something that portions of Thomas, MM and Enoch seem to be lacking as are the "Gnostic" gospels.

In any case, I believe the statement in Rev. about not adding or subtracting can only apply to the book of Rev. as the scripture was a cohesive whole at that point. I would suggest that it is John's attempt to underline the importance of the book and the desire that his inspired ideas not be distorted by others wishing to bend scripture to their own whim.

Surely you mean, the scripture WASN'T a cohesive whole at that point?

How can you argue that Enoch doesn't agree with previous scripture? It was written before Jude, is quoted in Jude, and referenced textually by Jesus... so how can it 'not agree' with previous scripture?

For that matter - the WHOLE New Testament doesn't agree with the Old...

Personal responsibilit

24-02-2005, 18:23

Surely you mean, the scripture WASN'T a cohesive whole at that point?

How can you argue that Enoch doesn't agree with previous scripture? It was written before Jude, is quoted in Jude, and referenced textually by Jesus... so how can it 'not agree' with previous scripture?

For that matter - the WHOLE New Testament doesn't agree with the Old...

On the first point, you are correct, that was a typo on my part.

Second point, we don't know that the book of Enoch is what was being quoted, just that it was attributed to a prophecy of Enoch which may or may not be contained in the book of Enoch. When was it referrenced textually by Jesus? (It's been a long time since I read the book of Enoch so I really don't remember one way or the other as to whether or not Christ ever quoted it and I also don't know when and by whom it was written.)

As for agreement between NT and OT, I disagree. It only disagrees when a lack of proper context and perspective cause it to be misinterpreted.

Grave_n_idle

24-02-2005, 19:00

On the first point, you are correct, that was a typo on my part.

Second point, we don't know that the book of Enoch is what was being quoted, just that it was attributed to a prophecy of Enoch which may or may not be contained in the book of Enoch. When was it referrenced textually by Jesus? (It's been a long time since I read the book of Enoch so I really don't remember one way or the other as to whether or not Christ ever quoted it and I also don't know when and by whom it was written.)

As for agreement between NT and OT, I disagree. It only disagrees when a lack of proper context and perspective cause it to be misinterpreted.

Well, we have scripture dating back to at least 200BC, for the Ethiopian texts of the Book of Hanokh (Enoch), and Jude references, and quotes from what appears to be the same text.

So - either Jude quotes Enoch, or Enoch and Jude BOTH quote an earlier text, and BOTH fail to admit it.

Second: I'll have to get my digging-out-information hat on, and find some of the 'specific wording' that Jesus seems to have taken directly from Enoch. Can't think of it off-the-top-of-my-head... but I will get back to you.

As for the 'agreement' between the New Testament and the Old, they ONLY agree if you accept that Jesus is Messiah.

It's a matter of perspective...

To the Jews, the New Testament OBVIOUSLY doesn't follow.

To the christian, the New Testament OBVIOUSLY does.

Note: to me... perhaps because I am an atheist, I see no LOGICAL connection between the two 'testaments'.

Personal responsibilit

24-02-2005, 19:13

Note: to me... perhaps because I am an atheist, I see no LOGICAL connection between the two 'testaments'.

Or even if you did, who cares as whether or not they are connected has little impact on real life, at least from an atheistic perspective. :p ;)

For the most part GI, I don't see much point in arguing about this with you as it is little more than a mental exersize, which, while entertaining, has little to offer in terms of useful outcomes for either of us.

BTW thanks for the info. on Enoch, its been 10 years or so since I looked at it. Also, even if Christ used similar wording it will be hard to prove conclusively that He was quoting. Granted the inferrance wouldn't be completely illogical.

Grave_n_idle

24-02-2005, 19:19

Or even if you did, who cares as whether or not they are connected has little impact on real life, at least from an atheistic perspective. :p ;)

For the most part GI, I don't see much point in arguing about this with you as it is little more than a mental exersize, which, while entertaining, has little to offer in terms of useful outcomes for either of us.

BTW thanks for the info. on Enoch, its been 10 years or so since I looked at it. Also, even if Christ used similar wording it will be hard to prove conclusively that He was quoting. Granted the inferrance wouldn't be completely illogical.

True - it IS largely an exercise... but that is the reason I do this... I try to dig to the heart of religion (all religions, but especially 'christianity', since I've been there), to try to root out the 'truth'.

Debate is about learning, to me... about learning about the material... and about learning how to think.

All learning is useful to me... but I can appreciate that you might want to concentrate attentions elsewhere. We are cool to elave it at that.

Regarding Enoch - yes, there is an interesting inferrance... Jesus was obviously well educated in scripture, and Enoch was an extant text (whether it is accepted as 'real' is a different matter) - so it seems VERY likely that Jesus would have been aware of it, and may indeed have found some wisdom in it's pages.... which doesn't AUTOMATICALLY add any significance to the WHOLE Enoch text.

Personal responsibilit

24-02-2005, 19:28

True - it IS largely an exercise... but that is the reason I do this... I try to dig to the heart of religion (all religions, but especially 'christianity', since I've been there), to try to root out the 'truth'.

Debate is about learning, to me... about learning about the material... and about learning how to think.

All learning is useful to me... but I can appreciate that you might want to concentrate attentions elsewhere. We are cool to elave it at that.

Regarding Enoch - yes, there is an interesting inferrance... Jesus was obviously well educated in scripture, and Enoch was an extant text (whether it is accepted as 'real' is a different matter) - so it seems VERY likely that Jesus would have been aware of it, and may indeed have found some wisdom in it's pages.... which doesn't AUTOMATICALLY add any significance to the WHOLE Enoch text.

I appreciate your search for truth and rational for debate as I am actually very similar. I have a question for you. Does all truth have to be logical or provable? If so, why?

In my experience what a person believes to be "truth" can rarely be proven, particularly when it comes to religion, existance and morality. Usually it comes down to what a person choses to believe in/accept as true. Sometimes there is evidence to support a belief, but it is still nearly impossible to prove it to be "truth" IMO.

UpwardThrust

24-02-2005, 19:30

Grave_n_idle

24-02-2005, 19:46

I appreciate your search for truth and rational for debate as I am actually very similar. I have a question for you. Does all truth have to be logical or provable? If so, why?

In my experience what a person believes to be "truth" can rarely be proven, particularly when it comes to religion, existance and morality. Usually it comes down to what a person choses to believe in/accept as true. Sometimes there is evidence to support a belief, but it is still nearly impossible to prove it to be "truth" IMO.

Put it this way...

This world has hundreds of religions.. thousands, even.

So - what is it that makes ALL those cultures, even in isolation, arrive at the conclusion of 'religion'? I see, perhaps, the marker of a 'truth', somewhere. You see the face of god.

Every culture, at some point, has varying degrees of 'theology'... stages that they go through.

If you look at the bible objectively, it follows the same path... there is evidence in the Pentatauch (especially) of the polytheistic origins of the Hebew faith. There is evidence in Genesis, of the elemental/animist origins of the Hebrew faith.

So - somewhere, maybe back beyond the Mesopotamian roots, christianity, like every other religion, MUST reflect a basis.... like I said... to me, a seed of 'truth'... to you, perhaps, the face of god.

It's not really ABOUT 'logic' or 'proving'... those are mere tools.

It's about truth.

And maybe, when I find it, maybe I will see the 'face of god'... or maybe it's a snake, eating his own tail...

As UpwardThrust said, it's not the 'faith' in 'blind faith' that I have issues with.

Vynnland

24-02-2005, 22:03

Vynnland

24-02-2005, 23:00

Put it this way...

This world has hundreds of religions.. thousands, even.

So - what is it that makes ALL those cultures, even in isolation, arrive at the conclusion of 'religion'? I see, perhaps, the marker of a 'truth', somewhere. You see the face of god.

Every culture, at some point, has varying degrees of 'theology'... stages that they go through.

If you look at the bible objectively, it follows the same path... there is evidence in the Pentatauch (especially) of the polytheistic origins of the Hebew faith. There is evidence in Genesis, of the elemental/animist origins of the Hebrew faith.

So - somewhere, maybe back beyond the Mesopotamian roots, christianity, like every other religion, MUST reflect a basis.... like I said... to me, a seed of 'truth'... to you, perhaps, the face of god.

It's not really ABOUT 'logic' or 'proving'... those are mere tools.

It's about truth.

And maybe, when I find it, maybe I will see the 'face of god'... or maybe it's a snake, eating his own tail...

As UpwardThrust said, it's not the 'faith' in 'blind faith' that I have issues with.

I suspect that it has to do with dreams and fear of death.

Zeichman

24-02-2005, 23:00

How about the punch line be something like, "How about WE send HIM to hell for making us suffer when he had the power to stop it?" The crowd shouted "YES!!!"
There already is the punch-line.

OMG!!!!!!!1111 I"M T3H TROLLINGXXORZZZ!@!!!11

Grave_n_idle

24-02-2005, 23:20

I suspect that it has to do with dreams and fear of death.

Very possible.

Or just seeking a way to explain the inexplicable... like the way every culture comes up with 'fables' about how animals 'form'.

Or maybe, trying to populate a lonely world... or explain the fears in the dark, or explain why bad things seem to happen.

All possible... and that is why my search continues.

Vynnland

25-02-2005, 03:20

I say dreams and fear of death, because dreams are the only reason man has any reason to say that there is such a thing as the supernatural. When you sleep, you appear dead, you visit with dead loved ones, have supernatural powers, and return to your body.

The survival instinct is the most intense drive in all living things. We are, as far as I know, the only animal on earth that is able to think abstractly. We are also, as far as I know, the only animal on earth that knows that it will someday die. We are able to meet dead people in our dreams, which gives us the idea that there is life after death, which tells us that there is truly no death. We overcome our survival instinct and paralyzing realization of imminent death by accepting the idea that we will continue living, regardless of death.

Throw in a few other appealing ideas (such as inescapable justice, reward, immortality, etc) and you have a collection of memes that sound VERY appealing to most people.

Freeunitedstates

25-02-2005, 15:26

How about the punch line be something like, "How about WE send HIM to hell for making us suffer when he had the power to stop it?" The crowd shouted "YES!!!"

He did. on the third day, he rose to Heaven in fulfillment of the Scriptures and is seated at the Right Hand of the Lord.

Perisa

25-02-2005, 15:49

jesus came to earth as a MAN not as a god. he was fully human. as a human he agreed to DIE for the sins of others. dying sucks. he did suffered and died willingly as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of wretches like you.

many people feel that that kind of sacrifice is special.

He was fully human? I thought he could walk on water and make bread pop out of nowhere or something? And if he was so spirtually enlightened, being the human incarnation of god and what not, he KNEW where he was going after death, straight to "heaven"

Death is something compltely different for us "normal" folk.

UpwardThrust

25-02-2005, 17:28

He was fully human? I thought he could walk on water and make bread pop out of nowhere or something? And if he was so spirtually enlightened, being the human incarnation of god and what not, he KNEW where he was going after death, straight to "heaven"

Death is something compltely different for us "normal" folk.
Not to mention that if he was fully human then he was not without sin (origional sin)

Zeichman

25-02-2005, 17:29

He was fully human? I thought he could walk on water and make bread pop out of nowhere or something? And if he was so spirtually enlightened, being the human incarnation of god and what not, he KNEW where he was going after death, straight to "heaven"

Death is something compltely different for us "normal" folk.
orthodox Christianity (i.e. almost all Christians) believes that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. They believe is it blasphemy to say otherwise.

Personal responsibilit

25-02-2005, 17:55

Put it this way...

This world has hundreds of religions.. thousands, even.

So - what is it that makes ALL those cultures, even in isolation, arrive at the conclusion of 'religion'? I see, perhaps, the marker of a 'truth', somewhere. You see the face of god.

Every culture, at some point, has varying degrees of 'theology'... stages that they go through.

If you look at the bible objectively, it follows the same path... there is evidence in the Pentatauch (especially) of the polytheistic origins of the Hebew faith. There is evidence in Genesis, of the elemental/animist origins of the Hebrew faith.

So - somewhere, maybe back beyond the Mesopotamian roots, christianity, like every other religion, MUST reflect a basis.... like I said... to me, a seed of 'truth'... to you, perhaps, the face of god.

It's not really ABOUT 'logic' or 'proving'... those are mere tools.

It's about truth.

And maybe, when I find it, maybe I will see the 'face of god'... or maybe it's a snake, eating his own tail...

As UpwardThrust said, it's not the 'faith' in 'blind faith' that I have issues with.

I'd say it's just a matter of how much blindness one is willing to accept rather than whether or not there is "blind faith". I don't believe my faith is blind, but my personal experiences and God given vision, won't convince you, most likely. You will probably have to find some portion of it on your own at the very least.

Of course, on the flip side, consider the things you actually believe, is there an element of blindness in any of that faith?

NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is Jesus Special?