Originally Posted by Silveraura Making a statement about how many Christians feel it's their obligation to convert anyone they feel needs saved, is not a stereotype. That's a generalized statement.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
That's why I wrote supposed authors But I agree with what you're saying here.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
Divine author? Who? When did the apostles become divine?
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't think you understood what I said.
Because, just because someone is free to choose what they want to doesn't mean that they will fail, which is exactly what he just said "When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail." Which implied that simply because we have free will, we will fail to follow God. This is a ridiculous argument which goes back to the fact that if it is a supreme perfect being, evidence for his existence should be the easiest thing. If a God did not want us to fail at following him, he would provide solid evidence, much better than A) a 2000 year old book of questionable character, and B)"trust me, I know what I'm talking about". A perfect all knowing God would know exactly what would convince me of his existence, and whether or not I pay attention to it or not has nothing to do with it (that whole argument that Christians like to use "god is speaking to you, you just don't want to accept it nonsense"), once again, an all powerful all loving all knowing god would know how to capture my attention and shouldn't have to resort to signs and riddles and televangelists.
I don't think it implied that at all. He didn't say that having free will means that you will fail, he said that He knew that they would fail. Think of it in terms of every event, every decision ever made splitting reality into two or more dimensions, where each dimension represents the results of each outcome. He knew that we would fail because He knew that this would be the reality in which someone failed. Statistically, it was possible for us not to fail, but we did, and He knew that it was going to happen. I'll try to explain it again if you still don't understand.
Second, His job is not to convince you to believe in Him. I'm pretty sure that everything is written ambiguously and he does those signs and riddles on purpose, because it means more for you to believe in something that logically doesn't make sense to believe in, or whatever, than in something that is sure and proven. That is to say that He refrains from proving himself because faith in Him for no reason other than you believe is more valuable than doing as he says because you know he exists. I had this better worded while I was at work but I don't like quoting multiple posts and writing long responses on my phone.
Divine author? Who? When did the apostles become divine?
How many times do I have to repeat that there are Christians who believe that the bible was either written directly by God or more commonly by God through man?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
I don't think it implied that at all. He didn't say that having free will means that you will fail, he said that He knew that they would fail. Think of it in terms of every event, every decision ever made splitting reality into two or more dimensions, where each dimension represents the results of each outcome. He knew that we would fail because He knew that this would be the reality in which someone failed. Statistically, it was possible for us not to fail, but we did, and He knew that it was going to happen. I'll try to explain it again if you still don't understand.
But even still, why would a perfect God create us purposely to fail? Couldn't he have just fixed the rules at the start without having to go through this elaborate nonsensical plot of questionable credibility?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
Second, His job is not to convince you to believe in Him.
Yes it is. 'God' is the one saying that if I don't believe in him, he'll send me to be tortured for an eternity. 'God' is the one telling me that I need to do things that I feel are morally wrong. If 'God' wants me to do any of these things, 'God' needs to give me a good reason to rather than 'trust me'.
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
I'm pretty sure that everything is written ambiguously and he does those signs and riddles on purpose, because it means more for you to believe in something that logically doesn't make sense to believe in, or whatever, than in something that is sure and proven. That is to say that He refrains from proving himself because faith in Him for no reason other than you believe is more valuable than doing as he says because you know he exists. I had this better worded while I was at work but I don't like quoting multiple posts and writing long responses on my phone.
Nah, I don't think so. Substitute 'believe in God' with 'jump off a bridge'. You need to 'jump off a bridge' because if you don't, you are morally repugnant and you'll suffer for an eternity. You've got to give me a better reason to jump off that bridge other than threats and spooky language.
There is no good reason for anyone to base their life on faith. There are much better structures out there that don't involve relying on an imaginary friend, and potentially getting you into dangerous situations you wouldn't normally get into without it.
If I decided to start punching children in the face because I wholly believed the leprechaun in the pink jump suit said it was a good idea, would that be a valuable trait to have? No, you'd think I was nuts, and I'd probably be committed.
Granted, there are Christians who do good things because they believe God told them to, but how about all those people who do nasty things because they believe God told them to, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church, or people who kill their children because they felt God told them too, or even recently with the whole 'rapture' fiasco where a woman decided to slit her children's throats to spare them from the rapture?
Can't we just do good things without having to attribute it to a God?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
Beats me.
Maybe someone can explain this. And no I'm not trolling. I'm dead serious about this.
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Nope. I just got done saying that there are Christians that do indeed do good things, but I point out that there are many who do very bad things that might not have if religion weren't in the equation. Religion is not necessary to do good, so why not ditch it entirely?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
You see that? There it goes. It's my point, it's gone and you missed it.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by MasterM I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
Beats me.
Maybe someone can explain this. And no I'm not trolling. I'm dead serious about this.
Delve into early Christianity, there were many different Christian practices around that time, and it wasn't uncommon to find different sects of Christianity who did not preach the divinity of Jesus, and some were even very accepting of other religions around the area. It wasn't until the church started to formulate the 'official' version which included deciding if Jesus was divine or merely another prophet, and of course any of the other small sects that did not practice the 'official' version or who were from other religions were labeled as heretics.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
@MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question, here's the answer with scripture references to prove it.
It doesn't take a "sect" to answer this question, the answer is in the Bible.
Originally Posted by MasterM I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
Firstly God IS a spirit. A spirit that happens to be everywhere at once, including all time.
A spirit is the type of being that God is, the original Spirit that created everything else. Time didn't even exist before God.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." - John 4:24 KJV
Jesus was *a son.* The son of the flesh, and so is called the "only begotten son of God" by the well quoted scripture John 3:17
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - John 3:17 KJV
This *son* or Jesus, was flesh:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14 KJV
You'll notice that the phrase "the Word" here is used synonymously with Jesus, interesting.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 KJV
So Jesus is *the Word*, and *the Word* is God. The Word became flesh,and the Word was God. So God became flesh. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, or flesh that was controlled by God if you prefer. The body of Jesus was possessed by God.
Jesus Talking- > "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." - John 5:43 KJV
So wait! Jesus came in his father's name?! That means that the father's name is also Jesus!
Later Jesus tells one of his disciples that he is the Father:
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" - John 14:9 KJV
So not only is Jesus the name of the Father, but Jesus himself IS the Father. The flesh that Jesus/God indwelt was simply the physical manifestation of God.
God created a body so he could come to Earth in the form of a man, and go through the same things we as humans do, but at the same time refusing to sin so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for the world's sin. Of course he knew all this when he created us.
It's important to note that we as humans are not just simply flesh, but we also have a spirit/soul. That's the *real* us, but it's in constant battle with our flesh which has wants and desires that sometimes go against better judgment, or God's law. People who give into their flesh are one's who steal, kill, and basically do whatever they want regardless of others, and God's law.
Of course those who believe we are basically good, and are just simply perverted by our society will disagree. For those people I ask where did this society that "perverts" us come from if these "good" humans created it? The answer to the question is in the question itself, so it should be an easy answer.
This scripture from 1 Timothy ties all up nicely:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
Originally Posted by MasterM It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
I assume you're talking about the following scripture:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" - Matthew 27:46 KJV
After reading all of the above this question has an easy answer just by thinking about it.
Since the Father and Jesus are one and the same, and Jesus was flesh that God was indwelling then it wasn't God crying out to himself, it was the flesh crying out to the Spirit.
Remember that Jesus took on the sin's of the world. Sin separates us from God, and since the flesh took on our sin's it felt that separation from God. The flesh could no longer feel God which is why it cried out.
"4.Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." - Isaiah 53:4-5 KJV
Remember it's our flesh that makes the decisions (our brain) but there is a part of us that isn't physical and that's our spirit/soul. We were created in the image of God, which is why the *real* us is the same type of being that God is, a spirit. We can either make a decision to follow the Spirit or follow the flesh, but of course since we are locked in our human bodies (till we die) we still have to follow flesh in some cases, like to eat, drink, sleep, ect.
Only when we get to heaven will we be able to totally and completely follow after the Spirit's wants and desires. (To worship God)
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk @MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question
Once again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. Sorry I used history to explain the answer, instead of nonsensical ambiguous ramblings from desert madmen.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk @MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question
Once again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. Sorry I used history to explain the answer, instead of nonsensical ambiguous ramblings from desert madmen.
Well, at least he supported it by bible references, which is a lot more than many christians do (unless it involves Leviticus 20:13)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Nope. I just got done saying that there are Christians that do indeed do good things, but I point out that there are many who do very bad things that might not have if religion weren't in the equation. Religion is not necessary to do good, so why not ditch it entirely?
The fact of the matter is that for some people, it's the only thing that works. Don't know why, but for some people it is. And my problem was with your pointing out bad people more often than good, saying there is no good reason to base a life on faith [in a possibly non-existent being], such and such. I don't do good things because my religion tells me, and I don't avoid bad things because my religion tells me not to, I just avoid doing the things they say not to do (within reason, for example I don't go and protest outside abortion clinics because abortions are their decisions, not mine) and do the things they tell me to do (like go to church, not like protesting abortion or anything). And as far as what I said about him being ambiguous on purpose, I'm pretty sure that is how I was taught, and when you say "You've got to give me a better reason" that's fine if you need a better reason, you're just not likely to get one.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
You see that? There it goes. It's my point, it's gone and you missed it.
Look, you could have used any other sort of thing as an example, like "moving to the desert" or "building a giant tower" or anything that doesn't sound negative and dangerous, so my question is why did you choose "jump off a bridge"? As far as it goes in my life, it amounts to not having sex before marriage, not killing people, going to church once a week, praying every night, and confessing sins. Nothing extraordinary, nothing difficult, no terrible sacrifices of my time or energy or anything. Also, it is no individual Christian person's place to declare who or who isn't going to go to heaven, as it isn't their decision.
Advertisement
Post Reply
But I agree with what you're saying here.
Edited by UrbanMonk
