Adventurer
-
Posts
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Adventurer
-
-
^
The Red vs. Blue debate wasn't a valid argument for the reason that you seemed to be making stuff up, taken from this guy's criticism:
[hide]
[/hide]Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic.Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record.
Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.
2. Hmm...I'm editing my above post because I thought of an issue. Maybe I'll just post it here instead:
[hide=long quote of myself]Hmm, wow. This is convincing but problematic because what you're trying to prove is that God made man's decisions for him, which means that HE, not man, created sin for mankind, which goes against pretty much everything I've ever learned about God being holy, good, etc.
I do have a bit of problems with the verses, which I've posted. Also, I'm wondering if "predestined" is an inaccurate translation of the original Greek. I know of at least one significant difference between the two, where it tells parents about disciplining kids (don't remember where).
Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.
Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers. My Bible teacher has taught me about God-man relationships that: God initiates, man responds, God responds back. In this verse, I see predestined could literally mean predestined, or could mean something like planned-in-advance. Man, if only we could see the Greek, the original version to be sure that it isn't just language difficulty.
Ephesians...same thing as Romans. [hide][/hide]
By the way, how would divine intervention (aka miracles) fit into your theory?
3. Meh :|
-
[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]
[/hide]"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [...]" (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB)
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB)
"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB)
You seem to have been skirting this statement of mine.Please show me the location of the statement that I have been "skirting."
(Btw, I never referred to non-Christians as side effects. I think you did actually, using my term which referred to hell, btw. STOP ASSUMING STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Also, please don't provoke people like you seem to be wanting to: "your reaction is exactly what I'm hoping for". Please be polite and objective, or leave, Paper.)
I was not provoking him. I said that to show him that I am on the same side as he is. He thought that I was a Christian because I was arguing from the Christian point of view.
1. Hmm, wow. This is convincing but problematic because what you're trying to prove is that God made man's decisions for him, which means that HE, not man, created sin for mankind, which goes against pretty much everything I've ever learned about God being holy, good, etc.
I do have a bit of problems with the verses and the word "predestined", but take it as a comment for now and not an argument. I need to get some information for myself before I can give one.
- Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.
Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers. My Bible teacher has taught me about God-man relationships that: God initiates, man responds, God responds back. In this verse, I see predestined could literally mean predestined, or could mean something like "called". Man, if only we could see the Greek, the original version to be sure that it isn't just language difficulty.
Ephesians...same thing as Romans.
Also, I have a problem with your view because (editing...nvm, posted this part on my next post)
2. You never actually seemed to respond to my theory of free will, but disregard that for now.
3. Ok. Your comment about his response read like it was almost a gloat, so yeah. If you didn't mean anything, then I'll take your word for it.
- Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.
-
[hide=Rahiendaishar]
[/hide]Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic.Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record.
Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.
Ok, but the argument has advanced a bit further. You might want to respond to the current argument, which is on the same subject.
-
Man, this thread's going so fast now. I won't be able to answer each individual thing now =P.
Oh, and please be careful to be objective and calm everybody. We've gotten too far for flames to kill this. Also, PLEASE hide your long quotes; it's hard to see what YOUR points are with the HUUUGE quotes filling your posts
The two things I will respond to seem to be the main subjects right now:
[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar & Warri0r (Warri0r, my idea of free will is for you to consider too)]
I am arguing for this to be correct assuming the Christian God exists. I personally think that it is despicable, and I hope that the Christians who read this thread will, at the very least, become doubtful of their conceptions of what their God is and does.
The non-believer is part of the environment that enhances the believer's belief to a higher level, or what Christians call "true love." God designed these background characters of sin so that his believers would have a catalogue of experiences that would bring them up to God's desired standards.
[/hide]First of all, *I* am an agnostic, so I will be one of the many riding the first-class train to hell ;)
God sacrificing non-believers is not martyrdom in the Christian sense (everything I write in this thread assumes that the Christian God exists and Christianity is the right religion). Jesus martyred himself as a believer, so he would be considered a martyr by biblical standards. The billions of non-believers are, as certain posters in this thread put so cruely, "side-effects."
Again, your outrage and inference that God is selfish is exactly the reaction I am hoping for.
Your opinion of God relies on your belief that God makes people WITHOUT a real choice, thus, I will address your belief and not this opinion.
For your thingy of "non-Christians" are "side-effects".
You are assuming that God made humans without any real choice because he knew fully the consequences of making each human, that each one would do something if he was made, right? I.E. everything is arbitrary.
My response:
Alright. I know what you've been saying, so here's what we differ upon. DOES MAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE CHOICE? Yes, or no? Does he retain the capability to choose within time, or no?
I'm arguing that yes, man does choose within the bounds of time. The fact that God knows what he'll do does not affect his unique choices is what I'm saying. It's like you setting a mouse in a maze and knowing what it will do; you predict its actions, but it still makes the choices itself.
Knowing one's actions does not amount to making the actions themselves. Do you find this plausable or not? You seem to have been skirting this statement of mine.
(Btw, I never referred to non-Christians as side effects. I think you did actually, using my term which referred to hell, btw. STOP ASSUMING STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Also, please don't provoke people like you seem to be wanting to: "your reaction is exactly what I'm hoping for". Please be polite and objective, or leave, Paper.)
-
Gah, I was just about to go to sleep.
[hide=warri0r45]
[/hide]1) I don't want god to do anything for me. I'm not demanding anything. I just wouldn't mind if he did show himself to me so I could know he exists.
2) I can accept that's what you/christians believe. The important thing I'm trying to get out of this is if you see hell as a place of misery and pain or merely an absence of god. If it's the former, I put forth a suggestion as to why it's unjeust for me to go to hell.
3) I know it wasn't meant for me. You ask for people not to generalise christians yet you don't reciprocate the gesture. You insinuated that atheists have selfish morals and deny god as if we somehow know deep down inside that he's real. Neither of these things are true for most atheists I know of.
1. Hmm...well, ok. I really can't claim to know how he works, but the only time that's happened that I know of is with Saul. Maybe you'll see him like that if he wants you to, but you probably won't. I won't make any argument out of this unless you want me to.
2. Absence of God, mainly. I'm not so sure about the whole thing of pain, although the Bible likes to mention it a lot. I think the importance of it is that it's an abscene of God though, if you want MY personal thoughts on it.
3. Whoops, really? Sorry, I retract the statement. Thanks for pointing that out and keeping it flame-free (ftw).
Goodnight.
-
First of all, try to get all the perspectives. Talk to both your parents individually, and maybe even try to get them to talk to each other about it while you observe.
-
[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]
[/hide]Are you implying that he's keeping the choice away from you? You can still pick, which you obviously picked up upon with the blue me.
Read the whole debate, all the way to the end. Don't stop at the part that you agree with.
There WAS LOVE AND FREE WILL ever since Adam! Adam was once perfect, and he had two choices: obey, or eat the fruit (FREE WILL).
God is the omnipotent creator. When he made Adam, he also made all of Adam's future choices.
Oh, and PLEASE do not assume any arguments for me. You are not me. I'm me. Make some points, but DO NOT argue FOR ME.
You are probably still too young to look past your emotions, but I encourage you to do as I did, even if only in your mind. The process of internally refuting yourself dates back to those ancient philosophers, and it is still the best way to refine your arguments. If it makes you feel better to not have your name involved in my post, you can think of blue as "christianity and islam" and red as "other beliefs."
I did read it all. Did you see my responses to your other points?
Two things: that very statement contradicts itself, and more importantly, making a person and KNOWING all his choices doesn't mean that you make them for him. Besides, the Bible shows choices being available for the PEOPLE to make inside of time. Knowing does not equal causing.
No. You are wrong in this case. You said that I was hypothetically saying that "Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands...etc. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I AM ARGUING AGAINST THAT. Besides, you're arguing with me, not your internal imaginary opponent. You made a big mistake by assuming some arguments up for me. My emotion didn't influence this either.
Goodnight (in a few min. I'm having a midnight snack)
Edit: Goodnight. No offense to you and your respectable argument, but I think that your respectable argument is flawed. Please take the time to make sure that your argument is not biased and check to see whether it assumes that I've said something I haven't actually said.
Thanks
-
[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]
Yes, you are wrong. When we discuss what something is, no matter what the thing is, we must include evidence that would contradict, nullify, or cancel certain aspects of it.Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.
Let me break this down for you and save 2 more pages of text. I'm red and you're blue.
The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine?
The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it.
You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer.
God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer.
But God could have just made all of us Christians.
God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love.
But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.
Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants.
In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love.
There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent.
It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.
I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one.
[/hide]First of all, I thought he was being tried for blasphemy. He MEANT for this to happen too, so it was not a side-effect; it was fulfillment of prophecy for Messiah + his own decision.
Are you implying that he's keeping the choice away from you? You can still pick, which you obviously picked up upon with the blue me. You also seemed to have ignored everything I said about how MAN MESSED HIMSELF UP. MAN SINNED WITH HIS CHOICE. HE ATE THE FRUIT!!
Yup about the robots.
For your last point: You assumed too much about an argument I never made. Also, I think YOUR statements are wrong. You're stating that God basically made people without choice, which contradicts the creation of man itself.
There WAS LOVE AND FREE WILL ever since Adam! Adam was once perfect, and he had two choices: obey, or eat the fruit (FREE WILL). God loved Adam and Eve even before they sinned, seeing as he chose to spend time with them and stuff (part of any good relationship). He also would've loved them if they hadn't disobeyed. Thus, I think that both love and free will were there and your argument is totally void.
Oh, and PLEASE do not assume any arguments for me. You are not me. I'm me. Make some points, but DO NOT argue FOR ME.
[hide=warri0r45]
[/hide](1) Yes I would... Then I could be a believer and go to heaven. If I'm a sinner and that becomes apparant, why would I be upset about that? I would be glad that I had realised truth.
(2) Sorry, I think I did respond to your post. My point was there is no justice in an eternal punishment for finite crimes, no matter how bad those crimes may be. Add to that the fact that any crimes coming from me would be miniscule and you've effectively just tortured and executed me for stealing candy. Unjust, is what I'm saying here.
(3) Please, don't assume that by lacking faith I'm rejecting your god as if he were real. I don't know that at all and I don't assume he is then reject him based on that. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that atheists have selfish ideals either. Not true.
(Thanks for the numbering)
1. You want God to come personally to you before you die so that you can see him as though he was a person in front of your physical eyes? Before I answer, I really want to make sure that's what you're asking.
2. I think you missed my point. My point is: you sinned and marred your soul into imperfection. When you die, your soul faces two paths: perfect heaven, or imperfect hell. Because you're not perfect, there's only one alternative. Again, it's not about how finite your crimes are in how they affect others; it's about how they have marred YOUR soul. If you DID understand that, I'm not sure exactly what you're telling me.
3. Disregard this :lol:. It was meant for Hume, not you.
-
I kind of think that this is a mind-over-matter thing. While the mind is limited in some ways, it can have some pretty significant effects on the body.
-
Oh geez, this is moving much faster now. It's going to be hard to keep up with my schoolwork/sports.
Continuing off the discussion so far...
I don't find that unfair at all. I find the idea that some hold of hell being an eternal agony unfair. And I wouldn't be opposed to being in the presence of god. If there comes a time when that actually happens, I welcome it.You wouldn't welcome it if you suddenly realized how filthy your sins made you compared to utter perfection. It's a bit different than you think (no offense to you, though you're obviously mature enough to understand what I mean). Also, could you state why it's unfair? I made a big post for you on that and other things. Did you read it?
[hide=kelem_ryu]
[/hide]Pretty much. Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "For God has set eternity in the hearts of man. "Believing in god and accepting the teachings of Jesus is a "metaphysical" necessity for the soul to be in a healthy state. As long as you don't the soul will suffer. Like it is a necessity to eat healthy and keep in shape. Otherwise your body will suffer. Nobody complains about this, or think it's unfair in any way. So maybe love and faith is nourishment for the soul and Jesus kindly points out that "fact" (fact in the sense of this interpretation). Different gods might contain too much sugar or fat and aren't healthy. You may eat them, but it will harm you in the long run.We need God to be healthy in the long run of eternity.
The Islamic judgment of good vs. bad only applies to people who are already Muslims. Christians and people of other faiths (or no faiths) automatically go to hell. This directly parallels and contradicts Christianity.Ok? I just suddenly realized that you're contesting Islam and Christianity in "who's right". Isn't this off-topic a bit? We're discussing what Christianity is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that way
About the "burn" or "Jesus" problem you have with Christianity: Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obsessing over the thing that people go to hell if they refuse to accept God's gift. No. Christianity is about: People fail, God loves them and gave them a choice, and they can go to heaven, but if they ultimately choose to not accept, THEN they go to hell. That's not THE point of Christianity; it is a side-effect of REFUSING Christianity.
Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.
[hide=deejay]
[/hide]None of us can know everything, or have all the answers. That's where faith comes in. In fact, I doubt any sane person would become a real Christian without being touched by Jesus. His love is hard to understand at all, let alone without actually experiencing it.Inside every person soul is a gap. A gap that can only be filled by Jesus. Everyone is looking for a way to fill that gap. We find temporary ways to patch it up for a while. Some people think Islam is the way, some thing it's Buddhism, some think it's atheism. In the end, the gap can only be filled by Jesus' love.
My Bible teacher taught me that "God initiates (starts the converation), you respond, God responds back."
For your gap thing, Ecclesiastes 3:11 - For God has set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
We are reliant on God for our eternal existence (soul)
[hide=Hume]
[/hide]I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it.What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?
Atheism - "No + God". Directly or indirectly, it seems to be a rejection of God. Lack of faith can be one factor, but selfish ideals are one of the things that can BLIND people to any such faith. Also, your "you need to reject something that is real" is correct, although to some atheists, Christianity IS just an idea.
I really don't think the Bible is the only factor. Assume that people really DO need God. Wouldn't this lead people to God anyways, if it IS a necessity for a soul?
...man...that was a lot of stuff. Did I miss something? (I left insane's discussion for insane to answer.)
Edit: 4 PAGES OF NO FLAMES!!! :
GOOD JOB, PEOPLE.
-
[hide=vanomai]
[/hide]The thing is, I never understand what exactly about the Bible people find errenous.Have you heard of creationism?
What in the world? They're using wikipedia as a source? That in itself makes the argument questionable. The sources just aren't strong enough evidence.Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. ;) Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1]
My apologies about the link; its arguments are weak and one-sided. Here is a more professional article. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, I'm simply showing interpretations and contradictions which are often questioned by Bible critics.
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbi ... ctions.htm
Also, Jewish knowledge of things back then was a bit skewed without science.And therein lies the problem. The Bible is supposed to be inerrant (without error) and inspired by the omniscient God. If God is all-knowing, why do scientific and historic errors exist in the Bible? If God is all-knowing, why would he not know science and history?
It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.That's not what Christianity's about.
According to the Bible, this is exactly what Christianity is about.
Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)Yes, I have. I don't know much about it myself though, just that it is under heavy fire.
Yeah, thanks for the link anyways. As for your new one, some of the examples are problems with numbers being off by one zero, others have different number problems, etc. but it gives a few good points.
Gen 2:17 - Maybe the fruit caused physical death, but the spiritual death came from the sin caused by Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's command of "don't eat that fruit".
James 1:13 - uhh...my Bible says "tested", not "tempted". I guess tempt was a synonym for tested?
Gen 6:20 - I think God's request for 7 of "clean" animals was for sacrifices. I don't quite understand what the contradiction is though.
Gen 32:30 - I'm not sure. I guess the only thing to say is that Moses was a bit mistaken. Maybe he didn't quite see God himself but thought he did? I don't see what difference this would make, but oh well.
As for Mark 16:15-16, that's part's true, but doesn't cover the entirety of the thing. All it states is that believing = saved and not believing = burn.
[hide=warri0r]
So the aim is to accept the grace of something we can't know of so we can avoid an outcome that's assumed. Here's a hurdle for me. It would make much more sense if the outcome of 'sin' was actually known rather than assumed based on the dictated word of a book, which itself takes faith to accept.On the sin issue, we're sinners because of the actions of adam and eve, right? So as a consequence of others actions and my very existance, the choice of my parents to copulate, I'm damned to hell unless I accept an idea which I can't know of. You can probably see these hurdles I'm faced with here.
You can spin this with words to make god sound decent and forgiving, but one wonders why I need to be forgiven in the first place. Why do I need permission not to exist in misery for eternity if my worst crimes are firtsly finite, and secondly within some of the commandments and all state enforced laws? I would have thought this is harsh.
Then there's the interpretation that hell is merely being in limbo 'without god' until judgement day. Is this a more accurate interpretation of the bible in your opinion?[/quote[/hide]
Yeah, I suppose it would be easier to believe if you could see hell. It wouldn't make a happy scene though.
Yeah, I've wondered about that myself. I really don't know, but I'll try to find an answer to that. I think that's one for the philosophers.
You need to be forgiven because you sinned? I dunno. Even if the passing on of sin is just a metaphor, you've still sinned, right? Think of just one, and there you go. Now for your two-part question:
It's not so much about the effect of your sin on others (I think), but on yourself. You're not perfect; you've sinned. Have you learned about one's soul? A big part of it is that it's eternal, and if it's marred by sin, then it's marred eternally because human power can't save you. That's what Jesus is for. (while on the subject...I think heaven was the norm until Lucifer sinned against God. I think that's when hell was made to punt him out. This means that perfection is the norm, but since people are not perfect, there's only one other alternative for a sinful soul)
...and I don't quite understand the second part so I don't want to give a bad answer.
If you're looking for a detailed explanation of hell, I can't give you one. I can give you two stories that might help explain it though.
[hide=Matthew 25]
The Parable of the Ten Virgins
"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
[/hide]
[hide= Luke 16]There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' [/hide]
Heh, you're straining all my knowledge.
Goodnight for today (9/9)
-
[hide=assassin_696]
[/hide]What Christianity is about almost entirely depends on which particular denomination you subscribe to. I'm sure I don't have to talk about the different ways of interpretating the Bible, none of them is anymore vaild than any other.I think one thing common to every denomination of Christianity though is the idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without that, it's largely nothing. Whether or not Jesus even existed is another matter.
The problems within Christianity arise largely because the Bible taken at face value makes numerous glaring contradictions. In one passage Jesus is a mild, peaceful human rights advocate, and in the next he's ranting about eternal fire and doom for all those who reject him.
I won't turn this into an argumentative thread, but a lot of atheists get stick from Christians for supposedly thinking all Christians are fundamentalists. I know the difference between a liberal and fundamentalist Christian, and I don't have anything against either per se, but I think that there are more deep seated foundations of Christianity which are common to all denominations no matter how you twist it, which are "not right".
Namely:
- Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.
The doctrine of blood sacrifice.
The doctrine of atonement.
The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.
The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.
These are not features that just belong to one denomination, they are central tennants of Christianity, but they are in my view, deeply wrong.
I think that there's a lot of historical evidence for Jesus, although it doesn't prove as much about whether he was a regular guy or not.
What is this false picture of the world?
What exactly do you mean by blood sacrifice? The animal sacrifices aren't a part of Christianity, so do you find a problem with Jesus dying?
What do you not like about atonement?
Eternal reward/punishment is based on "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." They just CAN'T get to heaven without God, and thus will go to hell.
Could you elaborate on the impossible tasks and rules?
Thanks for your response.
You say that I should accept Jesus or burn in hell, but a muslim dude would say that I should accept allah or burn in hell. Aren't you guys stepping all over each other on this issue? Maybe one of you should change the rules on this and let the other one have the "burn in hell" concept.What? We both think that we're right. What you seem to be doing is grouping all religions as "religions". That's like grouping religions and atheism as "worldviews" and expecting atheism to have an organized following.
I guess we are stepping over each other on the issue if you mean that we're both trying to say that we're right. The whole thing between Islam and Christian's heaven/hell is very, very different.
Christians can ONLY get to heaven through accepting Jesus as LORD and SAVIOR, which means that they accept what he says and follow him.
From what I understand of Islam, it's how much good vs how much bad you have that lets you into heaven or not. If you do more good than bad, you're in. If you do more bad than good, you're out.
See the difference?
Also, you're taking it wrong. Christianity doesn't say "accept or burn". It says, "For all have fallen short of the glory of God" and "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life."
It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.
That's not what Christianity's about. Christianity is about, "You're a sinner, but God loved you so much that he gave his only son so that YOU can be forgiven and go to heaven."
It's totally different.
Take Genesis 1 (The Old Testament) for example: Day-Age creationism only appeared when science contradicted the Bible's writings. Many Christians feel that the Bible is without error. When errors are discovered by the scientific community, interpretations of the text need to change for the Bible to remain "inerrant".I've heard of this happening before, but from a different point-of-view. The thing is, I never understand what exactly about the Bible people find errenous.
1. What in the world? They're using wikipedia as a source? That in itself makes the argument questionable. The sources just aren't strong enough evidence.
2. Are the guys interpreting this as "the star moved along in the sky"? The magi were astronomers; they could probably use the star to reach Jesus's hometown assuming that the star really did point out where it was.
3. [this is a matter of historical stuff that I, a high-school junior, don't really know how to argue against]
4. ...or maybe their world didn't reach quite to the western hemisphere and stuff. I'm not too sure of this either, so don't quote me on this, but I think the Jewish world might not have been all that big. Also, translation errors do happen from Greek to English.
5. Biology wasn't really around back then. They couldn't have taken that part into consideration, I think.
6. Rhetorical question, yeah. That doesn't guarantee that birds are worthless either. It ONLY says that humans are worth more than birds. Their argument really fails, sorry. It assumes something that isn't implied.
7. ....what...This is just stupid. It's like expecting the people to be scientifically adept at that time. Also, the "heart" can refer to something along the lines of "soul" if I remember correctly.
8. Uhh...no. This is taking the thing out of context again. Such weak arguments!! The lady that was being healed had faith that Jesus had the power to make her better, which he did. Thus, he commended her.
9. Uhh...no. This is one of those things that you need to not take literally, because if you look in history, Jews thought this due to lack of scientific knowledge, and Matthew was...a Jew :| . Nowadays, we know better.
10. So? If God is real, which the Bible assumes him to be, then this wouldn't be impossible. Science cannot prove or disprove spiritual/supernatural/etc stuff. It's a part of the definition of what science is.
11. [see above]
12. Another assumption made by the site's author. It does not say that God makes them die; it says that God watches every sparrow. Should he intervene directly for every sparrow?
I'm going to stop here. There are a lot of them, and I don't want to answer all of them. Many of these arguments against the Bible are very weak and don't take any of the historical literal context of the old Jews.
Oh yes. The English version of the Bible DOES have a few translation errors. Also, Jewish knowledge of things back then was a bit skewed without science.
- Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.
-
Gordan, the guy was saying that Jesus used symbolic Parables to illustrate his points. His good/bad thing was about Islam
warri0r, I think this is how it works. The entirety of the Old Testament is pretty much like Jewish history, so it would be meant to be taken seriously. The New Testament is pretty much the same thing.....wait...now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I can think of anything symbolic. Could you give me an example?
-
Adventurer, perhaps you could help me clear something up -
The Bible: do christians (as in the majority, or as in what they are supposed to believe) see it as literal truth or as partly symbolic?
I think that most of it is literal (don't quote me on it; this is from personal experience). For example, weird stuff like Jonah and the Whale, miracles, Moses parting the Red Sea, are taken literally. However, I know that some don't take it that way. My dealings with fellow Christians has been limited, so I'm not sure.
Also, the subject of creation is under debate among Christians too.
^"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.
or Allah.
That seemed like a slight against Christianity. I won't comment further as I don't know what you mean by this.
I also know that many Christians believe that no matter what you do throughout life, as long as you repent for your sins (through praying), and follow in Jesus, you go to Heaven.That's based more on the Catholic belief. Hence why it is to be considered by some as a "lazy" religion. (not based on my opinions)
Ah ha! That's a very good thing to bring up.
Yes, many Christians believe that. However, what is repentance? Is it saying, "I'm sorry" and just going and sinning again? Nope.
There are a few problems with that view. For example, Jesus covers this in Matthew 7 with the parables of tree-bearing fruit and the wise and foolish builders.
[hide=The Parables]
[/hide]Matthew 7:18-23A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Matthew 7:24-28
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
What do these mean? Actions speak louder than words. What is the point of repentance if you just sin again? Nothing but hypocracy (sp?). Jesus himself says that he'll deny them, meaning that those types of people never really did accept him anyways.
So you might wonder what it means to accept Jesus, and for what they should accept him then. Well...
[hide=The Verses. Pay attention to the last one]
Luke 9:23 - Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.Matthew 11:29 - Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Romans 6:15-18 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã
-
^
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.
-
]To everybody: Don't make this into another one of those threads discussing whether the Bible's right or not. That isn't the point of the thread. This is to clear up what Christianity is about through discussion
Why wouldn't you encourage them? Since it's true that non-believers go to hell, shouldn't they be warned as loudly as possible so that they will change their heathen ways?You're going to hell, you sinner!! Repent or burn!! Accept Christ or die!!! You're nothing without God, only fuel for the fire!! You're a dirty sinner!!
...yeah.
Anyways, John 3:16 - So God so loved the world that he sent his only son to die so that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life. That's pretty much the focus. It's all the difference between saying, "Jesus, THE SON OF GOD, came to take one for ya 'cause he loves ya" and "You're going to hell, so join us or burn."
Those things in the bible were choosen to be put in about 1800 years ago. Well after any authors died. You see the new church leaders needed to write their stuff down so they could have a printed word of God. They basically took what they liked and placed it into one book, like they did for mostly every book. Thats what my pastor told me onceI didn't learn much about this myself, but I'm pretty sure that the exclusions were contrary to the rest of the Bible. I can't really offer examples of this since it's been a while and I'm not that scholarly =P.
[hide]
[/hide]Well I'm a Catholic and I am quite annoyed at the fact that a lot of people who flame christians believe that everyone is a fundamentalist. The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.Evolution or creation? the answer i believe is both. In Genesis, the "days" that god created earth were symbols, based on the Israeli work schedule. work for 6 days, rest on sunday. These days represent the time it took for god to create the earth. While some days can have lasted an hour or so, other days might have actually been over 60 million years. Evolution can have taken place in one "day" of creation. Plus, God is not restricted by time. He resides in eternity. Time is irrevelant. everything could have happened instantaneously, but to convert it to time would be impossible without symbolism.
There are a lot of examples of symbolism in the bible. plus, the bible had dozens of different authors. While one phrase in Paul's letters may be controversial, you can't use that to say the whole bible is wrong. different authors use different styles. While evangelists like Mark may have more accurate historical events in the life of Jesus, the Book of Revelation was made entirely out of symbolism. Revelation has no relevence to the end of the world, contrary to popular belief. In Greek, Revelation means the Re-veiling. In Greek, Apocalypse means the un-veiling. Plus, the Jewish tradition of unveiling the bride before marrying goes back to the bible stories. What do these 3 points mean? Revelation is not about the end of the world. its about god's marrying to his bride, the church. Its about the christian persecution in AD 90, where the emperor and his brutal assistant were repeatedly referred to as a demon and a demon's assistant who made others worship him in Revelation.
In conclusion, the bible has more symbolism then you think. You can say that some things dont make sense, but its simply because the symbolism is very elastic in meaning. It just seems like its repeatedly ignored to be symbolism and more of a "flame christians here" manual.
Sorry, what? What exactly is this post for? We're discussing Chrisitianity, not flaming. Also, I understand that you're upset with the stereotypes with Catholics, but that's taking this thread off topic a bit.
To atestarossa: Yup, thanks for pointing out that Christianity is different from other religions in that Jesus is the way to heaven and not "working to be good enough for heaven"
warri0r, could we not make an Evolution vs. Christianity war? Those tend to degrade very quickly, and besides, this topic's to discuss what Christianity's really about.
-
Lol, nice. I love the irony when the kq just ko's them all.
(I don't get the MacGyver one though)
-
^
That looks exactly the same as mine. It just has fluffier wording.
Ok then I'm sorry for sounding biased I didn't know what way to put it. And also sorry for not providing examples for my last statement, but I'm was never saying I hated catholicism I just don't agree with some of their teachings.That's ok. I never said that you hated it either. However, priests making mistakes, Catholics sinning, etc. aren't good examples of their teaching. I really don't know much about Catholicism, and I don't want to get into the gritty little details of denominations (I consider Catholicism a denomination), so maybe start your own topic to discuss Catholicism.
P.S. Jesus said (in Mark 2:17), "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
P.S.S. Please use the Hide feature on your superlong quotes please. It would make reading through the thread easier for other people. Maybe quote only the last response too, instead of including all the responses of everybody else in the quote too.
-
Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.
So you don't believe in that second part?
I wasn't saying that I don't believe in them; I was stating that those are not THE focus of Christianity.
For example, I would not encourage somebody with a megaphone shouting at people that they're going to hell or that they're immoral.
Christianity is a very broad subject...I doubt you'll get everything you want to know out of this thread.Probably, but this thread isn't as much for me as it is for our off-topic forum. I'm trying to clear a lot of the Christian stereotypes and prejudices here.
Well I'm just trying to say that catholicism is still a very corrupted religion I mean some of their priest have sex with boys that is just plain wrong.Let me teach you something about arguments/discussions. If you provide examples to prove an idea, you must use representative examples which can represent the people you talk about as a whole. Your argument is biased in that it only puts up mistakes that a few corrupt people have made. That does not and cannot mean that Catholicism itself is bad.
-
I don't think I can answer most of your question, but for the poop thing:
Isn't biomass lost at every level because of energy needs and isn't some of it also used in growth/repair?
-
I think the censored cussing might've been playful sarcasm.
To artist: You might want to do several things to improve.
1. Learn basic art technique and theory
2. Learn basic human anatomy
3. Learn how to use computer image program things to improve your art's quality.
I'm not sure how you could find #1 and 2, but it would help you a lot.
-
Well, ok. I'm not sure what Catholicism's old mistakes have to do with this though. I don't want to make two discussions here with one about Christianity and one about Catholicism because that would be confusing and messy.
However, I'll comment that I'm unsure of Catholicism's teachings. From what little I know, some Catholics seem to hold a different focus than what Christianity in general seems to hold.
P.S. Thanks for the correction. The thing is that Romans 6:11 (For in the same way, count yourself dead to sin but alive in Christ) is a very familiar reference to me, more than John 3:16 =P
-
[hide]
[/hide]Christians can not catch a break with me really. Shortened down (since it's late).Those who follow the Bible literally hold what i see as prejudice beliefs a well as the nievity to follow an ancient document and trust their interpretation of it to be correct.
Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.
Really though, for each it comes down to the fact that i do not think divine revelation is anyway to gain truth (or that it is even possible). I'm an empiricist, and i'd challenge any Christian that their fundemental beliefs come from epiricism as well. I think we are all empiricists, just some of us are clouded by this divine revelation.
What is empiricism?
Also, could you give an example of the pick and choose thing? It's hard to comment on your argument if there's only a conclusion.
As for the Jesus thing, you're EXACTLY right. From what I've studied, Christianity is different because it's all based on God's love. Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life.
-
DO NOT TURN THIS INTO "IS CHRISTIANITY RIGHT OR WRONG?" THE POINT OF THIS TOPIC IS TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSIONS ABOUT CHRSITIANITY. THAT MEANS THAT YOU DON'T START ANOTHER "THE BIBLE" THREAD. THE LAST ONE WENT UP IN FLAMES
Rules of discussion here:
-Please give an idea and ELABORATE to MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR
-Negative views are welcome. However, KEEP OUT THE FLAMING. KEEP your OPINION as objective and CALM as possible
-FLAMING IS NOT DISCUSSION
-This is NOT an ATHEISM VS CHRISTIANITY thread. This is to help people understand Christianity (in response to the recent religion flame wars)
-Please HIDE LONG QUOTES for ease of reading
Hello everybody. I have seen a lot of Christianity/Atheist threads pop up then erupt in flames hours later. Now, I was wondering why this happens. Obviously, atheism isn't an organized worldview type thing; it simply is a general worldview that God does not exist, hence the name.
In stark contrast to this understanding of Atheism, there is a lot of haze about what Christianity really is, and what it and Christians are about. I would like to know what the world of TIF thinks about Christianity, and I will check maybe once a day and respond to these ideas.
Just to clarify what the CORE beliefs are, here's the Apostle's Creed which states pretty much all the CORE beliefs:
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the universal Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Btw, no flaming. If you have a negative opinion, please share it, but make it as objective as you can. Don't fill it with overly emotional fluff.
What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)
in Off-Topic
Posted
Thanks mirror, but I still haven't gotten around to answering Paper's last points.
Reb, how would that work?