God- discussion of any Godly/religous issues.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I meant the "Religious PEOPLE who misinterpret th e Bible" part.

With the billion or so Christians out there, and the very small minority that are actually dangerous... Most people know not to follow the violent bits, and that's a GOOD thing.

hahaha, I was just watching something about the WBC... Crazy...Crazy...Crazy... Nor do i wish to be grouped with...those...

 

Really, they are extremely hateful. They speak of loving everyone yet they hate Catholic, blacks, jews, gays and "f + ag enablers". Not to judge, but I think they will rot in the deepest pit of hell while the gay people will be in heaven.

[Romy]

I meant the "Religious PEOPLE who misinterpret th e Bible" part.

With the billion or so Christians out there, and the very small minority that are actually dangerous... Most people know not to follow the violent bits, and that's a GOOD thing.

 

The reason I asked for that, is that the fact that they don't follow the 'violent bits' does not mean they don't misinterpret the Bible. From what I've seen, the Bible encourages some behaviours that are not morally accepted (today), and the fact that some (or even most) ignore these parts technically means that they're the ones to misinterpret the Bible.

[Saru Inc]

I mean, in my life personally Religion has made me very happy, Religious PEOPLE who misinterpret th e Bible and then spread that filth like its the truth makes me life a veritable hell.

 

Care to elaborate on that?

 

 

I see interpreting the Bible, or any literature for that matter, as a glass empty\glass full scenario. You read the verse, and any past or present thoughts or ideas obviously influence what you get from the verse. So you might see a verse that says "Respect the holy day on Sunday" and think 'oh well since we only have to respect one day out of seven, lets make extra care to follow all the rules." I, however may say "well its only one day, I guess its not important, because if it was then surely we'd have to respect more than one day."

 

TO each his own, yada yada, they can both have their beliefs as their interpretations of the verse. However, now you and me want to spread our knowledge, or more so our take on the verse, and preach as if thats what the verse says. So instead of me saying "well I think the verse is saying to pay some attention to Sunday, but not much." Instead, I say: "The Bible states that you need not revere the Sunday as much as Romy, but however the Bible clearly states that you need only to acknowledge that the day is holy. And that is all."

 

Then the meaning gets more diluted and changed and spread and people start fighting over the implications, meanings, time period when the verse was written that no one really realizes what the verse even says:

 

"Respect the holy day on Sunday"

 

Anyways, in reference to my life, my mom *shamefully* admitted to being a [bleep] hag back in High School, and also some guy she really loved came out of the closet. So while I don't know for sure, I'm gonna take a gander that those experiences leave her with an axe to grind, and so while she may truly believe God hates gays, she exacerbates that thought into the idea Gays harbor the spirit of the AntiChrist. And she tells people that, like the Bible explicitly says it.

[Romy]

Well, how else could you interpret that verse? The only one way is that God forbids homosexual relations.

 

And that's just a tiny immoral verse (tiny compared to others).

 

Some verses state rules regarding slaves, that openly means slavery is okay. Others do the same for war, others encourage revenge, etc.

 

 

 

Inonsistencies are also a problem.

-You shall not murder, yet going to war is something God both commands and allowes.

-You shall not steal, yet plundering is okay after wars and such.

 

And that's from a person whose been far from the bible for quite a while, I'm certain others could find more immoral verses/inconsistencies.

 

 

I'm thinking those who do not misinterpret the Bible are to blame for making your life "a veritable hell", and those who do are the "good" ones.

[Skeptical]

I know a kid who has a disease that will kill him before he turns 30, and likely before 25.

 

There is no god. If there was, I would be calling for anarchy now, anyway.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Well, how else could you interpret that verse? The only one way is that God forbids homosexual relations.

 

And that's just a tiny immoral verse (tiny compared to others).

 

Some verses state rules regarding slaves, that openly means slavery is okay. Others do the same for war, others encourage revenge, etc.

 

 

 

Inonsistencies are also a problem.

-You shall not murder, yet going to war is something God both commands and allowes.

-You shall not steal, yet plundering is okay after wars and such.

 

And that's from a person whose been far from the bible for quite a while, I'm certain others could find more immoral verses/inconsistencies.

 

 

I'm thinking those who do not misinterpret the Bible are to blame for making your life "a veritable hell", and those who do are the "good" ones.

In the Old Testament you shall not murder is applied only to your fellow countrymen. Killing anyone else is not considered wrong in the OT unless they are peaceful aliens in the land. That's why if you read the New Testament Jesus says your neighbor is anyone when preaching basically instead of the provincial idea of the countrymen. You must also remember when reading the OT and comparing to the NT, yes the OT is a source of wisdom but Jesus fulfilled God's instructions through His sacrifice of Himself and therefore the OT has been modified by Jesus's final revealing of last revelations. That's why several times in the NT it says Jesus was unlike the scribes [religious scholars], because he spoke with authority [i.e. only God has authority in deciding was is ultimately just and since Jesus was God He had this power, unlike the mortal scribes].

 

Secondly, you mention do not steal. Israel had to instate the "ban" on things they captured in war, were you take what you had spent in the war and destroy everything else that is in excess. It is clear in the earliest book of the Bible, Genesis, as Abraham is offered things and he only takes what he spent and lets the Canaanites he teamed up with take the rest after they invited him to take his share. Also, a king of Israel (I don't recall whom) profits from a war, and as a result he is killed for his disobedience to God's commandment. So their "plundering" is compensation. However if you are referring to the modern state of Israel, yes they are quite vicious and sack other countries and take their land for their own will and continue creating settlements outside their zone even after they promised to stop. Ooops, did I say that out loud?

 

There's also the belief that revelation continued and evolved and more was revealed til Jesus, and our understanding of said revelation changes til today. They are not inconsistencies. Rather changes and evolutions in method of thinking. A process of evolution, such as even our own evolution from a small mammal to homo sapiens, was a process of changes to structure. We cannot say evolution was incosistent, because quite frankly I don't even know if that makes any sense at all.

 

For gays, the people who say they will burn in hell for being gay because God hates them, I say they are evil and wrong. First of all, in the NT it says you'll be judged 7x for judging your neighbor. Plus God loves everyone, including the gays. It is an evil act to say the gays are damned. Plus if you use Sodom as an example God hates gays, that's not why he destroys Sodom. It because Sodom in the story is filled with 100% sinners and they try to harm peaceful foreigners who turn out to be angels, so God waits til Lot and family leaves Sodom and then he obliterates it.

 

As for slavery, as I said Jesus completes scripture's "contract", He is Word and He brings the New Law.

 

 

And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

[tortilliachp]

 

 

And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

 

Logically then (not my opinion, just continuing your own logic to its ultimate conclusion), life on earth is meaningless and in extention so are our lives and existance on earth. Why are there then ethical codes we should abide by, they have no meaning! why not murder, when life is meaningless? why not steal, when the physical holds no value? In this setting, why has then any god even created a non-eternal existence, before the "true life"?

 

(back to my personal reflections) This apparent fundemental contradiction cannot be explained by the use of logic. religion requires faith, logic as a way of knowing is obsolete, thus it is no wonder there are so many "infidels": there is no reason why we should believe, unless we believe. Those of faith therefore remain of faith, those without faith remain non-believers and any discussion is futile.

 

The arguably "missionary" goal of these discussions is also obsolete both in the religious, and the atheist, agnostic or deist perspectives. We cannot change what we truely believe any more than we can choose our everyday likes and dislikes. Morally speaking (this holds a prerequisite of non-evil dieties), those who don't believe cannot be punished for not believing, as they cannot choose to believe. Also, those who do believe in religion cannot be punished in an atheist, agnostic or deist perstpective: holding our own views, if their beliefs are true or not, is inconsequential. The only thing that matters is living a good life.

[Alg]

The only thing that matters is living a good life.

Agreed fully. There isn't enough time to spend it all pleasing a God through reverence and prayer when there's life to be lived. Especially since that life can be used to clean it up for the next generation... We've got 80 years at most. Might as well make them count.

[fakeitormakeit2]

 

 

And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

 

Logically then (not my opinion, just continuing your own logic to its ultimate conclusion), life on earth is meaningless and in extention so are our lives and existance on earth. Why are there then ethical codes we should abide by, they have no meaning! why not murder, when life is meaningless? why not steal, when the physical holds no value? In this setting, why has then any god even created a non-eternal existence, before the "true life"?

 

(back to my personal reflections) This apparent fundemental contradiction cannot be explained by the use of logic. religion requires faith, logic as a way of knowing is obsolete, thus it is no wonder there are so many "infidels": there is no reason why we should believe, unless we believe. Those of faith therefore remain of faith, those without faith remain non-believers and any discussion is futile.

 

The arguably "missionary" goal of these discussions is also obsolete both in the religious, and the atheist, agnostic or deist perspectives. We cannot change what we truely believe any more than we can choose our everyday likes and dislikes. Morally speaking (this holds a prerequisite of non-evil dieties), those who don't believe cannot be punished for not believing, as they cannot choose to believe. Also, those who do believe in religion cannot be punished in an atheist, agnostic or deist perstpective: holding our own views, if their beliefs are true or not, is inconsequential. The only thing that matters is living a good life.

You are wrong in your own extension of my statement, and it is not my opinion but an extension to what I said in a twisted fashion. I said it was not effected by God. We are suppose to enjoy this life, yes. But we cannot act without order. And the reason we are suppose to not kill murder and steal is not because we please God. My moral code would not change tomorrow if I found out through scientific proof God does not exist tomorrow. You are suppose to act in a respectful and kind manner to others for your love for others. Physical is not meaningless, it just not directly affected by if there is a God or not other then the Prime Move. Yes, faith is needed to believe in religion, but as I said respect should be out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we fear damnation, that defeats the point of love, because if you love out of fear then you do not truly love.

 

And your statement of faithful remain faithful and non-believers remain without faith is also wrong. A firm believer can be shaken by an event in their life, as well as a non-believer can obtain faith. Furthermore, if any atheist is a good person and they do acts of kindness and they try to follow conscience as best they can, then they know God. They may not accept that there is such an apparition of God, but they are wise and filled with wisdom, and being filled with wisdom is God's will which they pursue.

 

And you're quite provincial minded. Discussion is not [always] about winning converts. The trading of information is both enjoyable and applicable in life. Learning more about those around you and mindsets. Learning different perspectives and having an open mind and hearing the words of others. Everything does not have to be about win or lose, can't a discussion be for the simple fact of discussion?

 

The only thing that matters is living a good life.

Agreed fully. There isn't enough time to spend it all pleasing a God through reverence and prayer when there's life to be lived. Especially since that life can be used to clean it up for the next generation... We've got 80 years at most. Might as well make them count.

And doing an action of kindness, such as cleaning the world up so that our children may enjoy the world, is a greater prayer then any words able to be spoken. Pray is not the dictionary definition of it.

"Your daily life is your temple and your religion" A prayer would be to help that little old lady to her car. To be blasphemous would be to beat that new kid up because he didn't "know his place".

[tortilliachp]

but as I said respect should be out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we fear damnation, that defeats the point of love, because if you love out of fear then you do not truly love.

 

Again, you quote opinion. You reaffirm your previous statement with a new prerequisite. My conclusion on what you said is completely valid, but you may mean something else. Even with your modification to your original statement, you state that the reason we should act morally is because that's the right thing to do. You have not answered the point I've raised, which is following your logical argument to its logical conclusion by applying your exact same logic uniformly. You defend a God killing an innocent person, unless life is meaningless that is an unfair thing for god to do. God is therefore not just, fair or good and you are back at square one. you must apply your logic unilaterally, you cannot have logical exceptions to your argument, then you have reduced your argument to an opinion, valid only for you under your conditions. You have not evaluated your own logic, only applied your emotive beliefs: you feel a just God can kill at random and still be just. you have not given a logically satisfactory piece of evidence to support that. Thus you have reinforced my conclusion that you have to believe in your arguments for them to hold true. that is not manipulation, rather, accepted good discussional technique.

 

If you mean that there are arguments for why we must act morally that do rely on belief for them to hold true, please present them :) Thus far, it seems to me, you disagree without citing a reason, or unltimately agree.

And your statement of faithful remain faithful and non-believers remain without faith is also wrong. A firm believer can be shaken by an event in their life, as well as a non-believer can obtain faith. Furthermore, if any atheist is a good person and they do acts of kindness and they try to follow conscience as best they can, then they know God. They may not accept that there is such an apparition of God, but they are wise and filled with wisdom, and being filled with wisdom is God's will which they pursue. Sorry for not being clear enough. yes, belief may change, but at any given point in time, all those who do not believe in God need to heed no parts of your moral argumentation. you have not provided any reason why they should believe, unless they already believe at that point in time. again, you reaffirm my argument in your clarification: if you disagree with my statement, you have not given a reason for why. It seems to me you do not wish to accept the implications of my statement. I can accept that, but then i ask your honesty in stating "that's not what i believe, but i can't really give a reason for it" You deserve your own self-honesty, as do we.

You say we must be externally affected to change from a stance of belief, to none-belief. I concur. Therefore, we cannot be held accountable for not believing. We do not hold the power to decide for ourselves if we believe or not. I cannot say to myself: "today I am going to start believing in God". A simple lie-detector test would show that I don't, although I may wish to believe as ferverently as humanly possible. Therefore, any just god cannot judge believers or non-believers differently, but that's NOT what the Bible says, nor what all the major Churches say.

 

Christianity does not suggest that "by living good lives, we know God, and can thus find salvation" This article gives a decent overview from as neutral a stance as i think you're going to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Christianity As may clearly be seen, the generally accepted Christian sense of salvation is two-part: 1) belief in Jesus Christ 2) living a sin-free life. Both of those conditions MUST be completed for salvation. That is what the bible says, although your personal beliefs say otherwise. Are you therefore Christian? That's a really difficult question, isn't it? Common christian interpretation suggests that those who do not believe, even if they were born before Christ, will not recieve salvation. Your beliefs have a very different basic tennent on something that is of such important to the whole identity of the whole religion. I have no idea what a scientist would classify you as, do you consider yourself christian?

Other religions like Buddhism, however, have a concept of salvation without believing in that religion. Christianity and Islam do not. Following the "God" which is the topic of this thread: Judaism is the only of the three monotheistic religion that suggests salvation without belief.

 

And you're quite provincial minded. Discussion is not [always] about winning converts. The trading of information is both enjoyable and applicable in life. Learning more about those around you and mindsets. Learning different perspectives and having an open mind and hearing the words of others. Everything does not have to be about win or lose, can't a discussion be for the simple fact of discussion?

 

The posts in this thread are persuasive, not reflective in nature. Thus, i would argue the purpose of most of the posters in this thread is one of persuasion. Of course a discussion can exist for the discussion itself, however that does not seem to be the purpose of most posters in this thread. I am not talking about the general situation, but this specific topic and how it has developed. If you respond to the logical arguments presented logically, or assert that your arguments are indeed based on faith to function, you learn more about your own views from the discussion, as do we. As it is now, there has been little progression as people's perspectives aren't really changing. Why would they change over an internet debate anyway, we're all knowledgeble, reflected persons after all.

 

 

 

your use of the word "prayer is interesting. your personal connotations, as long as you're aware that they are personally related to you, and not universal have profound effects. The effects on the religious interpretation of all your day-to-day actions, as presented in the bible, are totally transformed by this interpretation. in a sense i guess you could say , everyone prays to God every day, whether we intend to, would like to, or not? hmmm.... I need some time to think about that!

 

I'm curious to know if any of this post alters any of your perspectives on your own faith? I'm also really looking forward to a clarification of some of the things discussed above, or any questions you have, if i'm unclear anywhere.

[fakeitormakeit2]

but as I said respect should be out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we fear damnation, that defeats the point of love, because if you love out of fear then you do not truly love.

 

Again, you quote opinion. You reaffirm your previous statement with a new prerequisite. My conclusion on what you said is completely valid, but you may mean something else. Even with your modification to your original statement, you state that the reason we should act morally is because that's the right thing to do. You have not answered the point I've raised, which is following your logical argument to its logical conclusion by applying your exact same logic uniformly. You defend a God killing an innocent person, unless life is meaningless that is an unfair thing for god to do. God is therefore not just, fair or good and you are back at square one. you must apply your logic unilaterally, you cannot have logical exceptions to your argument, then you have reduced your argument to an opinion, valid only for you under your conditions. You have not evaluated your own logic, only applied your emotive beliefs: you feel a just God can kill at random and still be just. you have not given a logically satisfactory piece of evidence to support that. Thus you have reinforced my conclusion that you have to believe in your arguments for them to hold true. that is not manipulation, rather, accepted good discussional technique.

 

If you mean that there are arguments for why we must act morally that do rely on belief for them to hold true, please present them :) Thus far, it seems to me, you disagree without citing a reason, or unltimately agree.

And your statement of faithful remain faithful and non-believers remain without faith is also wrong. A firm believer can be shaken by an event in their life, as well as a non-believer can obtain faith. Furthermore, if any atheist is a good person and they do acts of kindness and they try to follow conscience as best they can, then they know God. They may not accept that there is such an apparition of God, but they are wise and filled with wisdom, and being filled with wisdom is God's will which they pursue. Sorry for not being clear enough. yes, belief may change, but at any given point in time, all those who do not believe in God need to heed no parts of your moral argumentation. you have not provided any reason why they should believe, unless they already believe at that point in time. again, you reaffirm my argument in your clarification: if you disagree with my statement, you have not given a reason for why. It seems to me you do not wish to accept the implications of my statement. I can accept that, but then i ask your honesty in stating "that's not what i believe, but i can't really give a reason for it" You deserve your own self-honesty, as do we.

You say we must be externally affected to change from a stance of belief, to none-belief. I concur. Therefore, we cannot be held accountable for not believing. We do not hold the power to decide for ourselves if we believe or not. I cannot say to myself: "today I am going to start believing in God". A simple lie-detector test would show that I don't, although I may wish to believe as ferverently as humanly possible. Therefore, any just god cannot judge believers or non-believers differently, but that's NOT what the Bible says, nor what all the major Churches say.

 

Christianity does not suggest that "by living good lives, we know God, and can thus find salvation" This article gives a decent overview from as neutral a stance as i think you're going to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Christianity As may clearly be seen, the generally accepted Christian sense of salvation is two-part: 1) belief in Jesus Christ 2) living a sin-free life. Both of those conditions MUST be completed for salvation. That is what the bible says, although your personal beliefs say otherwise. Are you therefore Christian? That's a really difficult question, isn't it? Common christian interpretation suggests that those who do not believe, even if they were born before Christ, will not recieve salvation. Your beliefs have a very different basic tennent on something that is of such important to the whole identity of the whole religion. I have no idea what a scientist would classify you as, do you consider yourself christian?

Other religions like Buddhism, however, have a concept of salvation without believing in that religion. Christianity and Islam do not. Following the "God" which is the topic of this thread: Judaism is the only of the three monotheistic religion that suggests salvation without belief.

 

And you're quite provincial minded. Discussion is not [always] about winning converts. The trading of information is both enjoyable and applicable in life. Learning more about those around you and mindsets. Learning different perspectives and having an open mind and hearing the words of others. Everything does not have to be about win or lose, can't a discussion be for the simple fact of discussion?

 

The posts in this thread are persuasive, not reflective in nature. Thus, i would argue the purpose of most of the posters in this thread is one of persuasion. Of course a discussion can exist for the discussion itself, however that does not seem to be the purpose of most posters in this thread. I am not talking about the general situation, but this specific topic and how it has developed. If you respond to the logical arguments presented logically, or assert that your arguments are indeed based on faith to function, you learn more about your own views from the discussion, as do we. As it is now, there has been little progression as people's perspectives aren't really changing. Why would they change over an internet debate anyway, we're all knowledgeble, reflected persons after all.

 

 

 

your use of the word "prayer is interesting. your personal connotations, as long as you're aware that they are personally related to you, and not universal have profound effects. The effects on the religious interpretation of all your day-to-day actions, as presented in the bible, are totally transformed by this interpretation. in a sense i guess you could say , everyone prays to God every day, whether we intend to, would like to, or not? hmmm.... I need some time to think about that!

 

I'm curious to know if any of this post alters any of your perspectives on your own faith? I'm also really looking forward to a clarification of some of the things discussed above, or any questions you have, if i'm unclear anywhere.

You're quite interesting to discuss with. It is a pleasure and honor to discuss with you.

 

I do not defend God's killing of innocent people as He does not kill the innocent, nor does He kill at all. As I said, He does not do physical intervention but spiritual. That's why Jesus came to fight with a tongue of fire instead of torches of fire and swords against the common belief that the Messiah would be a warrior. The Israelites saw God as a god who lobbies for their own interests. But the change of the God of Israel in scripture is not because God changes His mind how to act, rather the reception and revelation of God is changed within the minds of the people. Let me present an example. John is a kind person. But he is unfairly blamed for something he didn't do by Bob. However, after time passes Bob does not question if John did Action X anymore, but he sees that he's a nice kid and his opinion of him changes. John is unchanging, but the clarity of Bob's view solidifies.

 

I find nothing wrong with a non-believer. If they accomplish the same introspection of conscious and pursuance of justice, then there is no difference between the believer and non-believer. You cannot force belief of God upon someone. But as I said, In a sense you follow God if you exert a strong following to your own conscience because it is God's gift of our own ability to judge therefore that means you're utilizing a gift of determining the right and wrong given by God. You are incorrect in your assumption that you must believe in Christ for salvation, I am unaware with every sect of Christianity but I am part of the largest grouping (catholic) and this is untrue. I do not know which, but Protestants [and extremely fundamental Catholics, even to the extent were they go against Magisterium] believe "solo scriptirium' (Scripture alone) and faith can save a person. Some even speak of pre-destination, etc. No, that's against Catholic teaching. It's too complex to go into the whole system of Catholic belief foundations, but they're different.

 

I am part of a special Church rite of Catholicism called the Maronites, followers of a 4th century monk who expressed tolerance and help for all, including the pagans (unheard of at the time). I am very learned in Catholic teachings as well as Maronite teachings and I have had the privilege to learn differently from a bishop at one point (who in the Catholic Church has what is called Magistarium which is teaching authority). Anyway, the ultimate goal of the creed I follow is not to covert everyone to the same religion. That would make things easier but...No, that is not it. Rather the goal is the journey itself, towards fraternity, charity, love, peace, clarity, wisdom, guidance. The abandonment of God will make you lose salvation, yes. But abandonment of God in the sense of turning away from your judgment to follow what you want to do regardless if you feel it is wrong. Therefore, you damn yourself. Salvation is given to everyone, as God gave everyone grace, not just Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or Theists. Everyone.

 

I do consider myself a Christian, a Catholic [follower of the guidance of the Bishop of Rome] and a Maronite [follower of the guidance of Maroun and his successor, the Patriarch of Antioch]. I am a Soldier of God. Now that might sound crazy extremist but that's not the context that is meant. God's weapon is not the sword [or nuke in this time, hahaha] but the tongue, heart and helping hands. My allegiance is to do my duty to God as his soldier, to console the sad, help the needy and sacrifice my own resources to those who do not have, regardless of their belief of religion. Sure, I may trip up sometimes, I may fall [faceplant]. But I have not failed. Holiness is the journey, not being perfect, and one has not failed until they completely and finally abandon what they've followed as their understanding of right. That also requires us to continue introspection and ask ourselves 'what do I truly believe is right?'

 

As for the reasons of needing to follow our beliefs if we have them? "Do not oppress the song-bird of heart in a cage of fear". One must express their own beliefs, and it is human nature. One who believes but does not act contradicts himself and he truly must not believe in whatever belief this may be if he cannot act on it. Without the adherence to some code of law, secular or not, there would be no order and also you should follow as you believe, otherwise one would be cowardly and if one does not follow what they believe, then what is left of them?

 

As for my thought of prayer, yes it is rather unique. But I am not the only one who holds this idea. I had to contemplate to myself one day after I had found God (I believed there was no God), what is prayer? After thinking about it I reached that conclusion. Prayer is not the simple repeating of words that have no meaning to us. It is our personal conversation with God. This includes our own acts of kindness and God's response can be seen in our own acts as well as others, and nature. I must have been influenced by Eastern thought [i read a lot of philosophy], as my favorite philosopher who also happens to be from the same religion I converted to held a like opinion. I guess it must be considered my own personal understand of revelation.

 

This discussion has not altered my perspectives but it has made me reflect on my beliefs and my development, and for that I must thank you infinitely for as it was a priceless gift. It has also caused me to realize the theological difference there is between my people (eastern church) and the conventional local thought (western church).

[Romy]

In the Old Testament you shall not murder is applied only to your fellow countrymen. Killing anyone else is not considered wrong in the OT unless they are peaceful aliens in the land. That's why if you read the New Testament Jesus says your neighbor is anyone when preaching basically instead of the provincial idea of the countrymen.

Really? There's not one Rabbi I met in my life that claims that to be true, and I've met more than enough. It clearly says "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13)

And if that's not enough- Wikipedia says:

"Jewish law views the shedding of innocent blood very seriously, and lists murder as one of three sins (along with idolatry and sexual immorality) fall under the category of yehareg ve'al ya'avor, meaning "One should let himself be killed rather than violate it."[41] Jewish law enumerates 613 Mitzvot, or commandments, including prohibition of murder and a number of other commandments related to the preserving of human life and administration of justice in cases of shedding of innocent blood."

 

Secondly, you mention do not steal. Israel had to instate the "ban" on things they captured in war, were you take what you had spent in the war and destroy everything else that is in excess. It is clear in the earliest book of the Bible, Genesis, as Abraham is offered things and he only takes what he spent and lets the Canaanites he teamed up with take the rest after they invited him to take his share. Also, a king of Israel (I don't recall whom) profits from a war, and as a result he is killed for his disobedience to God's commandment. So their "plundering" is compensation.

Oh, stealing is okay then, as long you're only taking what you spent. Amazing, and to think I thought the Bible was immoral.

 

However if you are referring to the modern state of Israel, yes they are quite vicious and sack other countries and take their land for their own will and continue creating settlements outside their zone even after they promised to stop. Ooops, did I say that out loud?

You and I both know my stances regarding that, and I've continuously explained that very specific part to you. I'm not going to explain it again- Because it's off-topic, because I'm pretty sure it will lead to a long off-topic discussion, and because that specific statement of yours, after knowing my stances in the matter, seems immature and only in the purpose of teasing.

 

There's also the belief that revelation continued and evolved and more was revealed til Jesus, and our understanding of said revelation changes til today. They are not inconsistencies. Rather changes and evolutions in method of thinking. A process of evolution, such as even our own evolution from a small mammal to homo sapiens, was a process of changes to structure. We cannot say evolution was incosistent, because quite frankly I don't even know if that makes any sense at all.

And I thought the word of God was eternal.

But alright, I'll follow your line of thought. So, according to you, moralities and immoralities, even those spoken of in the Bible, are affected by the time they're applied. Hmm... I don't see what has changed in society that would mean homosexual acts were wrong once and are now okay.

Either homosexuality is just wrong according to your God, in which case I'd have to say, your God doesn't make much sense (sexual orientation, I think you'll agree, is not a matter of choice, and as such, disallowing it or calling it a sin is plainfuly dumb), or those 7 or so verses stating homosexual acts are wrong, are wrong, which would seriously endanger the Bible's credibility.

 

For gays, the people who say they will burn in hell for being gay because God hates them, I say they are evil and wrong. First of all, in the NT it says you'll be judged 7x for judging your neighbor. Plus God loves everyone, including the gays. It is an evil act to say the gays are damned. Plus if you use Sodom as an example God hates gays, that's not why he destroys Sodom. It because Sodom in the story is filled with 100% sinners and they try to harm peaceful foreigners who turn out to be angels, so God waits til Lot and family leaves Sodom and then he obliterates it.

It doesn't matter if what they're doing (judging them) is a sin or not, because the facts are that homosexuality is unjust according to the Bible. So it may be that they should not judge them, but the bottom line is that God would judge them. And as I stated earlier, since sexual orientation cannot be choisen, God judging it would not even make him humane, it would make him less than that.

 

I could also argue that murdering and committing homosexual acts are both sins- and sins for which you should be killed. So, judging any murderers is wrong in that manner. You should kill them without judging. Just like gays.

 

 

As for slavery, as I said Jesus completes scripture's "contract", He is Word and He brings the New Law.

You see, I never understood that. Jesus, supposedly, came by, decided there's a reason to share the NT with the world, at the same time said that Christians should not ignore the words of wisdom spoken of in the OT, as those are the words of God, yet ignoring parts of it is okay? What makes one part of the OT applicable to Christianity, and another not?

 

And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"- Epicurus.

 

In other words, how comes that, for example, a Christian who goes to church every sunday, who prays to God almost constantly, who never sins and is basically the perfect Christian, could die of illness at young age? I'm not saying that specific person discussed was a perfect Christian, or even a Christian, I'm discussing the certaincy of such a case to have existed- Why?

[Romy]

Discussing it is fun nonetheless :).

[Alg]

Discussing it is fun nonetheless :).

And the best way to learn

[fakeitormakeit2]

In the Old Testament you shall not murder is applied only to your fellow countrymen. Killing anyone else is not considered wrong in the OT unless they are peaceful aliens in the land. That's why if you read the New Testament Jesus says your neighbor is anyone when preaching basically instead of the provincial idea of the countrymen.

Really? There's not one Rabbi I met in my life that claims that to be true, and I've met more than enough. It clearly says "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13)

And if that's not enough- Wikipedia says:

"Jewish law views the shedding of innocent blood very seriously, and lists murder as one of three sins (along with idolatry and sexual immorality) fall under the category of yehareg ve'al ya'avor, meaning "One should let himself be killed rather than violate it."[41] Jewish law enumerates 613 Mitzvot, or commandments, including prohibition of murder and a number of other commandments related to the preserving of human life and administration of justice in cases of shedding of innocent blood."

 

Secondly, you mention do not steal. Israel had to instate the "ban" on things they captured in war, were you take what you had spent in the war and destroy everything else that is in excess. It is clear in the earliest book of the Bible, Genesis, as Abraham is offered things and he only takes what he spent and lets the Canaanites he teamed up with take the rest after they invited him to take his share. Also, a king of Israel (I don't recall whom) profits from a war, and as a result he is killed for his disobedience to God's commandment. So their "plundering" is compensation.

Oh, stealing is okay then, as long you're only taking what you spent. Amazing, and to think I thought the Bible was immoral.

 

However if you are referring to the modern state of Israel, yes they are quite vicious and sack other countries and take their land for their own will and continue creating settlements outside their zone even after they promised to stop. Ooops, did I say that out loud?

You and I both know my stances regarding that, and I've continuously explained that very specific part to you. I'm not going to explain it again- Because it's off-topic, because I'm pretty sure it will lead to a long off-topic discussion, and because that specific statement of yours, after knowing my stances in the matter, seem immature and only in the purpose of teasing.

 

There's also the belief that revelation continued and evolved and more was revealed til Jesus, and our understanding of said revelation changes til today. They are not inconsistencies. Rather changes and evolutions in method of thinking. A process of evolution, such as even our own evolution from a small mammal to homo sapiens, was a process of changes to structure. We cannot say evolution was incosistent, because quite frankly I don't even know if that makes any sense at all.

And I thought the word of God was eternal.

But alright, I'll follow your line of thought. So, according to you, moralities and immoralities, even those spoken of in the Bible, are affected by the time they're applied. Hmm... I don't see what has changed in society that would mean homosexual acts were wrong once and are now okay.

Either homosexuality is just wrong according to your God, in which case I'd have to say, your God doesn't make much sense (sexual orientation, I think you'll agree, is not a matter of choice, and as such, disallowing it or calling it a sin is plainfuly dumb), or those 7 or so verses stating homosexual acts are wrong, are wrong, which would seriously endanger the Bible's credibility.

 

For gays, the people who say they will burn in hell for being gay because God hates them, I say they are evil and wrong. First of all, in the NT it says you'll be judged 7x for judging your neighbor. Plus God loves everyone, including the gays. It is an evil act to say the gays are damned. Plus if you use Sodom as an example God hates gays, that's not why he destroys Sodom. It because Sodom in the story is filled with 100% sinners and they try to harm peaceful foreigners who turn out to be angels, so God waits til Lot and family leaves Sodom and then he obliterates it.

It doesn't matter if what they're doing (judging them) is a sin or not, because the facts are that homosexuality is unjust according to the Bible. So it may be that they should not judge them, but the bottom line is that God would judge them. And as I stated earlier, since sexual orientation cannot be choisen, God judging it would not even make him humane, it would make him less than that.

 

I could also argue that murdering and committing homosexual acts are both sins- and sins for which you should be killed. So, judging any murderers is wrong in that manner. You should kill them without judging. Just like gays.

 

 

As for slavery, as I said Jesus completes scripture's "contract", He is Word and He brings the New Law.

You see, I never understood that. Jesus, supposedly, came by, decided there's a reason to share the NT with the world, at the same time said that Christians should not ignore the words of wisdom spoken of in the OT, as those are the words of God, yet ignoring parts of it is okay? What makes one part of the OT applicable to Christianity, and another not?

 

And someone having a disease that will kill them when they're 30 has nothing at all to do with God. It is not a curse and it is not a sign He doesn't exist. It's a sign that our own disposable physicality is not effected by God rather our immortal soul.

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"- Epicurus.

 

In other words, how comes that, for example, a Christian who goes to church every sunday, who prays to God almost constantly, who never sins and is basically the perfect Christian, could die of illness at young age? I'm not saying that specific person discussed was a perfect Christian, or even a Christian, I'm discussing the certaincy of such a case to have existed- Why?

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

[Romy]

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

 

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here.

 

3. Meh.

 

4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely?

 

5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." Gene Roddenberry

 

It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires.

 

6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays".

 

7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery.

 

8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically?

 

Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient.

 

 

Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right."

A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect?

If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative?

[Alg]

If there is an all-powerful, all knowing being out there, what are we doing claiming to understand his/her/its motives? It's illogical to assume that something with that much power follows any kind of rules other than his/her/its own or our standards for morality.

 

Our morals are more or less devoted to preserving our species (Killing is wrong, for example) and keeping society ordered (Stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, and so on). A being that is all powerful and all knowing does not have that to worry about if it is the only one of its kind.

[fakeitormakeit2]

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

 

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here.

 

3. Meh.

 

4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely?

 

5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." – Gene Roddenberry

 

It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires.

 

6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays".

 

7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery.

 

8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically?

 

Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient.

 

 

Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right."

A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect?

If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative?

1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer.

4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God.

5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity.

6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful.

7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus.

8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will.

 

And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc.

 

God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil.

 

And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well.

 

And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask.

[Saru Inc]

If there is an all-powerful, all knowing being out there, what are we doing claiming to understand his/her/its motives? It's illogical to assume that something with that much power follows any kind of rules other than his/her/its own or our standards for morality.

 

Our morals are more or less devoted to preserving our species (Killing is wrong, for example) and keeping society ordered (Stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, and so on). A being that is all powerful and all knowing does not have that to worry about if it is the only one of its kind.

 

 

Well, is it ireally that far fetched for us to understand the motives of something with that much power, if he\she\it told us what they were? Also, I don't claim to know even a minority of God's motives\thoughts\ways of working. But I'm ok with that, no one is ever going to know everything about everything.

[Romy]

[hide]

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

 

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here.

 

3. Meh.

 

4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely?

 

5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." – Gene Roddenberry

 

It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires.

 

6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays".

 

7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery.

 

8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically?

 

Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient.

 

 

Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right."

A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect?

If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative?

1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer.

4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God.

5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity.

6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful.

7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus.

8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will.

 

And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc.

 

God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil.

 

And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well.

 

And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask.

[/hide]

 

1. I never thought or assumed that you're Jewish. As far as I've got to know Judiasm and Christianity, they have the same God- Jehova. If Jehova was ever wrong during the OT 'era', he was wrong for you too.

 

4. I'll explain my point here through slavery. If an author wrote rules regarding slavery while being 'divinely inspired', then that author gave us the closest thing to the 'word of God'. I could see, perhaps, slight changes of God's original intent, but the idea itself- rules regarding slavery- was something God intended to present, this way or another. If the word of God is eternal, then God allowes slavery, period.

 

5. Controlling our own desires? Why would a certain amount (approximately 8%) of humans be born WITHOUT the desire to 'reproduce'? I could understand, perhaps, the concept of protected sex as a sin, maybe some other sexual actions considered sin. I could understand that because these are actions of people who still have the desire to "mate" with the opposite sex. They have the 'ability' to want to fulfil God's desires.

But gays don't have that. Why would a person ever be created with the opposite of God's desires?

 

6. If such a scenario, of a murderer who is holy, or even very holy, is possible- Why did Jesus himself say it's okay to kill a murderer?

Wikipedia- "The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, “Do not murder.”[46] Jesus also tells a parable in which a king justifiably destroys a group of murderers.[47] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, come from the heart."

And- "The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[48] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of “bearing the sword.”[49] One criminal on the cross contrasts his death as due punishment with Jesus’ death as an innocent man.[50] When Jesus appeared before Pilate, both Pilate[51] and the crowd[52] recognize the principles of bloodguilt. There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[53]

 

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[54] The profession of soldier is portrayed in a noble light when the Apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesians to “put on the full armor of God.”[55] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[56] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurion’s servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[57] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay."

 

7. I could be wrong about what the sign said, but I can gurantee the sign existed, I can gurantee the bus company or w/e supplied us with the time. Just like I said on #4, the rules of slavery may not be God's specific intent, but the idea itself, the idea of supplying us with rules regarding slavery, is something God did intend to do.

 

"Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today."

Yes, but if they were inspired by God to supply such rules, then God wanted them to. Just like you said, God's word is eternal.

 

Also, I didn't "jump to extremes"- What else could it be? It's either God inteded to supply those rules, or he didn't. If he didn't, the authors made it up.

 

8. "The initial creation was out of love for humanity."

Love for humanity? How can God (or anyone for that matter) love something that doesn't exist?

 

"And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc."

 

There's nothing to comperhend, you didn't give me a satisfying explanation. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one to refuse to even comperhend that paradox.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll explain it slowly.

God is omniscient. That means God is all-knowing. All knowing means God knows everything. The future, by that definition, is something God already knows, and have known forever. If God, or any other being/creature/whatever, knows the future, then that means the future is set. You were bound to commit specific sins long before your grand-grand-grandfather was even born, it was decided whether or not you'll go to Heaven aswell. Pre-destination is something that can't not exist if God is omniscient. That also cancels the concept of free will- If someone was bound to be a murderer before he was even born, what's the point of punishing him for that?

Unless you give me a satisfying explanation that would cancel this one, the paradox stands unsolved.

 

"And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well."- Well, that could be tilted towards further explaining my previous point. Here, you're relying on logic. You admittedly say that God couldn't destroy evil, because that's a side effect of free will.

Well, I'm certain that if you will be able to explain that paradox from my previous point, you'll say something along the lines of an entity that is above logic, et cetera.

If God is above logic, wouldn't that mean he could, unlogically, allow free will and the lack of evil at the same time?

 

"if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied."

I never said it means God liked it, I said he allowes it. Don't misquote me.

I'll explain it here for the third time. Whether the rules supplied regarding slavery are God's specific words, or the way humans grasped his words, doesn't matter, because either way, it means God atleast once related to slavery, and he wouldn't have if he didn't allow it. The only other possible scenario is that the authors made it up. Unless you can find a third scenario that eliminates both, these are your options.

 

"First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers."

We're not physically discussing it, you get a chance every time you start typing a response. As I had explained 2 sentences ago, unless you can supply a third scenario that eliminates both others, these are your options. Feel free to disregard the options I gave you if you know of one.

 

"Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask."

No you didn't...

[fakeitormakeit2]

[hide]

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

 

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here.

 

3. Meh.

 

4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely?

 

5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." Gene Roddenberry

 

It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires.

 

6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays".

 

7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery.

 

8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically?

 

Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient.

 

 

Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right."

A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect?

If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative?

1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer.

4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God.

5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity.

6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful.

7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus.

8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will.

 

And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc.

 

God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil.

 

And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well.

 

And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask.

[/hide]

 

1. I never thought or assumed that you're Jewish. As far as I've got to know Judiasm and Christianity, they have the same God- Jehova. If Jehova was ever wrong during the OT 'era', he was wrong for you too.

 

4. I'll explain my point here through slavery. If an author wrote rules regarding slavery while being 'divinely inspired', then that author gave us the closest thing to the 'word of God'. I could see, perhaps, slight changes of God's original intent, but the idea itself- rules regarding slavery- was something God intended to present, this way or another. If the word of God is eternal, then God allowes slavery, period.

 

5. Controlling our own desires? Why would a certain amount (approximately 8%) of humans be born WITHOUT the desire to 'reproduce'? I could understand, perhaps, the concept of protected sex as a sin, maybe some other sexual actions considered sin. I could understand that because these are actions of people who still have the desire to "mate" with the opposite sex. They have the 'ability' to want to fulfil God's desires.

But gays don't have that. Why would a person ever be created with the opposite of God's desires?

 

6. If such a scenario, of a murderer who is holy, or even very holy, is possible- Why did Jesus himself say it's okay to kill a murderer?

Wikipedia- "The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, Do not murder.[46] Jesus also tells a parable in which a king justifiably destroys a group of murderers.[47] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, come from the heart."

And- "The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[48] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of bearing the sword.[49] One criminal on the cross contrasts his death as due punishment with Jesus death as an innocent man.[50] When Jesus appeared before Pilate, both Pilate[51] and the crowd[52] recognize the principles of bloodguilt. There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[53]

 

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[54] The profession of soldier is portrayed in a noble light when the Apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God.[55] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[56] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurions servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[57] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay."

 

7. I could be wrong about what the sign said, but I can gurantee the sign existed, I can gurantee the bus company or w/e supplied us with the time. Just like I said on #4, the rules of slavery may not be God's specific intent, but the idea itself, the idea of supplying us with rules regarding slavery, is something God did intend to do.

 

"Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today."

Yes, but if they were inspired by God to supply such rules, then God wanted them to. Just like you said, God's word is eternal.

 

Also, I didn't "jump to extremes"- What else could it be? It's either God inteded to supply those rules, or he didn't. If he didn't, the authors made it up.

 

8. "The initial creation was out of love for humanity."

Love for humanity? How can God (or anyone for that matter) love something that doesn't exist?

 

"And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc."

 

There's nothing to comperhend, you didn't give me a satisfying explanation. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one to refuse to even comperhend that paradox.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll explain it slowly.

God is omniscient. That means God is all-knowing. All knowing means God knows everything. The future, by that definition, is something God already knows, and have known forever. If God, or any other being/creature/whatever, knows the future, then that means the future is set. You were bound to commit specific sins long before your grand-grand-grandfather was even born, it was decided whether or not you'll go to Heaven aswell. Pre-destination is something that can't not exist if God is omniscient. That also cancels the concept of free will- If someone was bound to be a murderer before he was even born, what's the point of punishing him for that?

Unless you give me a satisfying explanation that would cancel this one, the paradox stands unsolved.

 

"And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well."- Well, that could be tilted towards further explaining my previous point. Here, you're relying on logic. You admittedly say that God couldn't destroy evil, because that's a side effect of free will.

Well, I'm certain that if you will be able to explain that paradox from my previous point, you'll say something along the lines of an entity that is above logic, et cetera.

If God is above logic, wouldn't that mean he could, unlogically, allow free will and the lack of evil at the same time?

 

"if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied."

I never said it means God liked it, I said he allowes it. Don't misquote me.

I'll explain it here for the third time. Whether the rules supplied regarding slavery are God's specific words, or the way humans grasped his words, doesn't matter, because either way, it means God atleast once related to slavery, and he wouldn't have if he didn't allow it. The only other possible scenario is that the authors made it up. Unless you can find a third scenario that eliminates both, these are your options.

 

"First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers."

We're not physically discussing it, you get a chance every time you start typing a response. As I had explained 2 sentences ago, unless you can supply a third scenario that eliminates both others, these are your options. Feel free to disregard the options I gave you if you know of one.

 

"Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask."

No you didn't...

1. Firstly, as a small theological technicality, Jehova I find to be a mistranslation and German attempt to add vowels to YHWH since in middle eastern languages vowels are implied and they tried to combine Adonai and YHWH to get the incorrect name Jehova. A more accurate (but Arabic corruption) of YHWH I've heard is Yahuwaha.

 

And the God is the same. But as I said, the authors did not physically come into contact with the actual God until Jesus, therefore they had speculations of God's expectations and tried to think of how God is, that is why the OT is retained as a book of wisdom but not a book of law. Again, there will be Protestants who probably disagree with me, but I am not a Protestant nor have I taken the time to study indepth Protestant thought foundations.

 

4. As I was saying, there is divine and physical knowledge. Divine inspiration means they got through to a bit of divine knowledge but did not have even a small fraction of it. Just because they were divinely inspired does not mean they could defy logic. They did not automatically see the future, etc. An interesting discussion occurred when we were discussing the divinity and humanness of Jesus. He had 100% divine knowledge because He was part of the Trinity and thus had power to give new commandments directly. But was Jesus able to know the words of the scripture without education of them? And I answered quickly and surprised everyone no. The understanding of scripture and ability to issue commands would come naturally to Jesus. But scripture is a worldly book, which is compromised of human knowledge. Because Jesus was also fully human, he did not have the ability to know physical knowledge that he was never presented with.

 

So God did not allow slavery, simply people did. There were many things in the OT in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus goes the Scripture tells you X but I tell you Y. In the book of Isaiah if you would like me to source Scripture says that God would speak but they would not understand. We are imperfect finite beings. We will make mistakes. We can easily be shortsighted. Plus slavery was more of a secular thing then it was religious, don't think of it in terms of 1700s America, rather more then a contract for playing off debt. I'm not justifying it but it wasn't a horribly pressing issue of the day that was obviously immoral and it was being justified by saying God allows it.

 

6. "Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." That is from an encyclical by a Bishop. There is no distinction between the sexual orientation of a person and therefore it is incorrect to say someone is a homosexual therefore they will burn. The homosexual actions are what is the sin though. God does not also intend to have children born with a leg but it does occur and a physical intervention would affect our free will. Now it would be wrong of this minority of people with a leg to chop someone else's leg off just so that they must get a leg , therefore they must sustain from doing so.

 

In no way do I think homosexual is violent or effecting other people at all. But in the Catholic understanding, if you are a Catholic you are suppose to remain chaste as a part of your vocation. You might be thinking well we aren't talking about priests. The purity of chastity in the Catholic Church is only lost when (1) it is outside marriage [or if you really want to stretch it, having sex with someone you don't love], (2) in an act of sodomy. With this understanding, homosexual actions are wrong. God did not intend to make a homosexual a homosexual, but that's how his or her chemical balance was formed. The point of following chastity also creates a life style of inner peace and control [this is all under the assumption one if a Catholic.] Other then the preservation of marriage, the Church cannot tell non-believing homosexuals to actually adhere to a chaste lifestyle because the Catholic law is something that should be followed in the Church as opposed to in the state, which I will explain in my next point.

 

7. Please see #4 where I talk about the two types of knowledge, etc. It is not God's intention to enslave others.

 

8. Because it goes back to God being a being outside of time, therefore He loved creation before He created it since He is timeless, and it existed, was existing and will exist before He created it. This element would require the belief in God.

 

And you didn't have to explain to me your supposed paradox, I'm not thick, I very well understood what you meant. I think you were trying to tease me by saying you'd explain it slowly like I'm mentally slow or a loon.

 

God's knowledge of the future does not make it set. It means God knows what is going to happen. The murderer made the choice to kill. You're also judging this murderer by assuming he'll receive punishment by God. Perhaps his internal conflict and sorrow is enough? Christianity is all about salvation and repentance and forgiveness to those willing to accept forgiveness. Sorrow can only be decided by the murderer, thief, rapist, etc. God knows what you'll do, it doesn't mean He determined it. Since He is outside of our time, He sees all time at once. He knows what will happen from beginning to end, but it doesn't mean he determined it. It is comparable to walking the path of a mountain as opposed to the person who has the whole mountain in sight. This also explain the provincial mindedness of the Jews who wrote the laws of slavery as they only were looking at their immediate time and not the grand picture, although they could not as could not being finite beings in this time. If God had not given us free will, then why didn't He just give us the Bible of His own creation in our hands? If God is good how is there evil? It is free will. And no, since evil is a product of free will but the removing of evil it is the limiting of our own free will which would be a violate of God's gift of free will.

 

Anyway, you are understanding divine inspiration like a fundamentalist. God did not actual say to the person, hey such and such. First of all, to reach canonization of a divinely inspired document, it is a process not just writing it down. Secondly, divine inspiration is a spanning term over the books of the Bible and are inclusive of the morals. The secular rules are human fabrications. And there is no place in the Bible that say The LORD said about slavery X or YHWH your lord says Y about the practice of slavery. It just has writings of slavery by a group of nomads trying to understand God.

 

And yes, I did answer these question. What you ask me in return to my answers are answered simply extensions of the original answer.

[tortilliachp]

 

You're quite interesting to discuss with. It is a pleasure and honor to discuss with you.

 

I do not defend God's killing of innocent people as He does not kill the innocent, nor does He kill at all. As I said, He does not do physical intervention but spiritual. That's why Jesus came to fight with a tongue of fire instead of torches of fire and swords against the common belief that the Messiah would be a warrior. The Israelites saw God as a god who lobbies for their own interests. But the change of the God of Israel in scripture is not because God changes His mind how to act, rather the reception and revelation of God is changed within the minds of the people. Let me present an example. John is a kind person. But he is unfairly blamed for something he didn't do by Bob. However, after time passes Bob does not question if John did Action X anymore, but he sees that he's a nice kid and his opinion of him changes. John is unchanging, but the clarity of Bob's view solidifies.

 

I can see a fundemental difference between our outlooks on life from this. thanks for clarifying! I believe refraining from intervening (letting someone die) amounts to murder. That's my opinion. But in your view, that wouldn't really matter anyway, as our earthly lives seem meaningless, to a degree. Is it about time for a second saviour, to change the reception and revelation of God within the minds of the people today? There seem to be a growing group of people who find the bible increasingly irrelevant due to the historical context in which it was made, and the increasingly wideining interpretations that need to be made to fit new moral questions. The bible says nothing on cyber-life, modern technology, abbortion, medicine, pollution, socialism or nationalism, imperialism, consumerism etc. etc.

 

The hebrew bible was composed between the 14th and 5th centuries before Christ (if my memory does not fail me). The new testament followed 500 years later. After that we've gone an unprecedented 2000 years with very little contact, and almost no updates in text. The king James bible (as a translation) is also on the verge of being outdated, requiring a more modern english translation to remain accessible to everyone. How and when will we recieve our next canonical message from God, and why has it gone at least a thousand years since last time?

 

I find nothing wrong with a non-believer. If they accomplish the same introspection of conscious and pursuance of justice, then there is no difference between the believer and non-believer. You cannot force belief of God upon someone. But as I said, In a sense you follow God if you exert a strong following to your own conscience because it is God's gift of our own ability to judge therefore that means you're utilizing a gift of determining the right and wrong given by God. You are incorrect in your assumption that you must believe in Christ for salvation, I am unaware with every sect of Christianity but I am part of the largest grouping (catholic) and this is untrue. I do not know which, but Protestants [and extremely fundamental Catholics, even to the extent were they go against Magisterium] believe "solo scriptirium' (Scripture alone) and faith can save a person. Some even speak of pre-destination, etc. No, that's against Catholic teaching. It's too complex to go into the whole system of Catholic belief foundations, but they're different.

 

Ah. My understanding of Catholicism is very different, especially as the lessons and prerequisites of the council of Trent from the 16th century, right after marthin Luther and the reformation century. The general result was that salvation was not defined as in the protestant view "justification by faith alone" BUT the summit clearly outlined a belief in God and the trinity of Jesus as a prerequisite for salvation. That remains the official position of the catholic church to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Catholicism#Individual_salvation

 

To my knowledge, this duality of catholicism and general protestantism both requiring active belief in God for salvation, does in fact require faith for salvation in the wide majority of christianity. (thank goodness for having a good religion subject in school).

 

I am part of a special Church rite of Catholicism called the Maronites, followers of a 4th century monk who expressed tolerance and help for all, including the pagans (unheard of at the time). I am very learned in Catholic teachings as well as Maronite teachings and I have had the privilege to learn differently from a bishop at one point (who in the Catholic Church has what is called Magistarium which is teaching authority). Anyway, the ultimate goal of the creed I follow is not to covert everyone to the same religion. That would make things easier but...No, that is not it. Rather the goal is the journey itself, towards fraternity, charity, love, peace, clarity, wisdom, guidance. The abandonment of God will make you lose salvation, yes. But abandonment of God in the sense of turning away from your judgment to follow what you want to do regardless if you feel it is wrong. Therefore, you damn yourself. Salvation is given to everyone, as God gave everyone grace, not just Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or Theists. Everyone.

 

But the Catholic tradition outlines justification and sanctification as two aspects of the same thing. only justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that one is not sentenced to death at God's eternal judement. Are Maronites different in that respect?

 

I do consider myself a Christian, a Catholic [follower of the guidance of the Bishop of Rome] and a Maronite [follower of the guidance of Maroun and his successor, the Patriarch of Antioch]. I am a Soldier of God. Now that might sound crazy extremist but that's not the context that is meant. God's weapon is not the sword [or nuke in this time, hahaha] but the tongue, heart and helping hands. My allegiance is to do my duty to God as his soldier, to console the sad, help the needy and sacrifice my own resources to those who do not have, regardless of their belief of religion. Sure, I may trip up sometimes, I may fall [faceplant]. But I have not failed. Holiness is the journey, not being perfect, and one has not failed until they completely and finally abandon what they've followed as their understanding of right. That also requires us to continue introspection and ask ourselves 'what do I truly believe is right?'

 

This is indeed the beauty of most practitioners of religion: they live ethical lives to a large degree. Of course there are exceptions, and non-religious people who do the same thing. It is also important to reflect actively on ethics, whatever shape or form they take, for all people. I think every theologician, philosopher and moralist agree to that.

 

As for the reasons of needing to follow our beliefs if we have them? "Do not oppress the song-bird of heart in a cage of fear". One must express their own beliefs, and it is human nature. One who believes but does not act contradicts himself and he truly must not believe in whatever belief this may be if he cannot act on it. Without the adherence to some code of law, secular or not, there would be no order and also you should follow as you believe, otherwise one would be cowardly and if one does not follow what they believe, then what is left of them?

 

Yes, that argument rings true. What I meant was beliefs requiring these same beliefs to ring true. Let me give a completely unrelated example: To be afraid of the cookiemonster, i must believe in its existance. To believe in it, i must be afraid of it, as it will steal my cookies when i'm not looking! Thus, if i do not believe, neither can I worry about the cookiemonster. Then, as you say, if i do believe, only then can i choose not to give offereings to the cookiemonster, as he desires when he presents notes in my sister's handwriting wanting homemade goodness to refain from destroying me! (this is not meant to poke fun at religion at all. I really struggled finding a good example, because all those i came up with could be taken the wrong way.) the conclusion is therefore that I have to believe in God to be able to be a sinner, which seems kind of strange? As you have stated previously in the post, God is just, and does not punish those incapable of believing (which in my mind is everyone who does not believe, there's nothing they can do to change their beliefs after all...).

 

The thing with domestic law, that in my mind should seperate it from religious decree is that it has to be based on the universal rights of all individuals (as outlined by the UN preferably). Therefore i have a hard time comparing the two. If you have a different view, that would probably be an interesting discussion too!

 

As for my thought of prayer, yes it is rather unique. But I am not the only one who holds this idea. I had to contemplate to myself one day after I had found God (I believed there was no God), what is prayer? After thinking about it I reached that conclusion. Prayer is not the simple repeating of words that have no meaning to us. It is our personal conversation with God. This includes our own acts of kindness and God's response can be seen in our own acts as well as others, and nature. I must have been influenced by Eastern thought [i read a lot of philosophy], as my favorite philosopher who also happens to be from the same religion I converted to held a like opinion. I guess it must be considered my own personal understand of revelation.

 

I've done some thinking since yesterday, and i'll outline my main thoughts on your definition of prayer, or my understanding of it. Unless you actively praise God while performing a good deed, it is not then a prayer, right? because if the action itself is a prayer, without the reflection upon your God, you are simultaneously praising other dieties. In particular, the classical eastern religions, especially buddhism, and some verieties of hinduism, practice good deeds as praise of their gods. Thus, if i've understood your definition of prayer correctly, you "pray" to these other gods simoultaneously, which is in direct violation of Deuteronomy 5.8-9 (part of the ten commandments) "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,"

 

This discussion has not altered my perspectives but it has made me reflect on my beliefs and my development, and for that I must thank you infinitely for as it was a priceless gift. It has also caused me to realize the theological difference there is between my people (eastern church) and the conventional local thought (western church).

 

Hehe, i think we talked past eachother again. by perspectives i mean exactly what you outline: the context in which the same beliefs ring true, but with a new insight.

[Flyingjj]

You know, nothing in this topic is really new to this forum. I may regret posting this link, as this topic was once the bane of my existence, but it has plenty of interesting beliefs on the subject: Massive God topic, read at your own risk

[fakeitormakeit2]

[hide]

 

You're quite interesting to discuss with. It is a pleasure and honor to discuss with you.

 

I do not defend God's killing of innocent people as He does not kill the innocent, nor does He kill at all. As I said, He does not do physical intervention but spiritual. That's why Jesus came to fight with a tongue of fire instead of torches of fire and swords against the common belief that the Messiah would be a warrior. The Israelites saw God as a god who lobbies for their own interests. But the change of the God of Israel in scripture is not because God changes His mind how to act, rather the reception and revelation of God is changed within the minds of the people. Let me present an example. John is a kind person. But he is unfairly blamed for something he didn't do by Bob. However, after time passes Bob does not question if John did Action X anymore, but he sees that he's a nice kid and his opinion of him changes. John is unchanging, but the clarity of Bob's view solidifies.

 

I can see a fundemental difference between our outlooks on life from this. thanks for clarifying! I believe refraining from intervening (letting someone die) amounts to murder. That's my opinion. But in your view, that wouldn't really matter anyway, as our earthly lives seem meaningless, to a degree. Is it about time for a second saviour, to change the reception and revelation of God within the minds of the people today? There seem to be a growing group of people who find the bible increasingly irrelevant due to the historical context in which it was made, and the increasingly wideining interpretations that need to be made to fit new moral questions. The bible says nothing on cyber-life, modern technology, abbortion, medicine, pollution, socialism or nationalism, imperialism, consumerism etc. etc.

 

The hebrew bible was composed between the 14th and 5th centuries before Christ (if my memory does not fail me). The new testament followed 500 years later. After that we've gone an unprecedented 2000 years with very little contact, and almost no updates in text. The king James bible (as a translation) is also on the verge of being outdated, requiring a more modern english translation to remain accessible to everyone. How and when will we recieve our next canonical message from God, and why has it gone at least a thousand years since last time?

 

I find nothing wrong with a non-believer. If they accomplish the same introspection of conscious and pursuance of justice, then there is no difference between the believer and non-believer. You cannot force belief of God upon someone. But as I said, In a sense you follow God if you exert a strong following to your own conscience because it is God's gift of our own ability to judge therefore that means you're utilizing a gift of determining the right and wrong given by God. You are incorrect in your assumption that you must believe in Christ for salvation, I am unaware with every sect of Christianity but I am part of the largest grouping (catholic) and this is untrue. I do not know which, but Protestants [and extremely fundamental Catholics, even to the extent were they go against Magisterium] believe "solo scriptirium' (Scripture alone) and faith can save a person. Some even speak of pre-destination, etc. No, that's against Catholic teaching. It's too complex to go into the whole system of Catholic belief foundations, but they're different.

 

Ah. My understanding of Catholicism is very different, especially as the lessons and prerequisites of the council of Trent from the 16th century, right after marthin Luther and the reformation century. The general result was that salvation was not defined as in the protestant view "justification by faith alone" BUT the summit clearly outlined a belief in God and the trinity of Jesus as a prerequisite for salvation. That remains the official position of the catholic church to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Catholicism#Individual_salvation

 

To my knowledge, this duality of catholicism and general protestantism both requiring active belief in God for salvation, does in fact require faith for salvation in the wide majority of christianity. (thank goodness for having a good religion subject in school).

 

I am part of a special Church rite of Catholicism called the Maronites, followers of a 4th century monk who expressed tolerance and help for all, including the pagans (unheard of at the time). I am very learned in Catholic teachings as well as Maronite teachings and I have had the privilege to learn differently from a bishop at one point (who in the Catholic Church has what is called Magistarium which is teaching authority). Anyway, the ultimate goal of the creed I follow is not to covert everyone to the same religion. That would make things easier but...No, that is not it. Rather the goal is the journey itself, towards fraternity, charity, love, peace, clarity, wisdom, guidance. The abandonment of God will make you lose salvation, yes. But abandonment of God in the sense of turning away from your judgment to follow what you want to do regardless if you feel it is wrong. Therefore, you damn yourself. Salvation is given to everyone, as God gave everyone grace, not just Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or Theists. Everyone.

 

But the Catholic tradition outlines justification and sanctification as two aspects of the same thing. only justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that one is not sentenced to death at God's eternal judement. Are Maronites different in that respect?

 

I do consider myself a Christian, a Catholic [follower of the guidance of the Bishop of Rome] and a Maronite [follower of the guidance of Maroun and his successor, the Patriarch of Antioch]. I am a Soldier of God. Now that might sound crazy extremist but that's not the context that is meant. God's weapon is not the sword [or nuke in this time, hahaha] but the tongue, heart and helping hands. My allegiance is to do my duty to God as his soldier, to console the sad, help the needy and sacrifice my own resources to those who do not have, regardless of their belief of religion. Sure, I may trip up sometimes, I may fall [faceplant]. But I have not failed. Holiness is the journey, not being perfect, and one has not failed until they completely and finally abandon what they've followed as their understanding of right. That also requires us to continue introspection and ask ourselves 'what do I truly believe is right?'

 

This is indeed the beauty of most practitioners of religion: they live ethical lives to a large degree. Of course there are exceptions, and non-religious people who do the same thing. It is also important to reflect actively on ethics, whatever shape or form they take, for all people. I think every theologician, philosopher and moralist agree to that.

 

As for the reasons of needing to follow our beliefs if we have them? "Do not oppress the song-bird of heart in a cage of fear". One must express their own beliefs, and it is human nature. One who believes but does not act contradicts himself and he truly must not believe in whatever belief this may be if he cannot act on it. Without the adherence to some code of law, secular or not, there would be no order and also you should follow as you believe, otherwise one would be cowardly and if one does not follow what they believe, then what is left of them?

 

Yes, that argument rings true. What I meant was beliefs requiring these same beliefs to ring true. Let me give a completely unrelated example: To be afraid of the cookiemonster, i must believe in its existance. To believe in it, i must be afraid of it, as it will steal my cookies when i'm not looking! Thus, if i do not believe, neither can I worry about the cookiemonster. Then, as you say, if i do believe, only then can i choose not to give offereings to the cookiemonster, as he desires when he presents notes in my sister's handwriting wanting homemade goodness to refain from destroying me! (this is not meant to poke fun at religion at all. I really struggled finding a good example, because all those i came up with could be taken the wrong way.) the conclusion is therefore that I have to believe in God to be able to be a sinner, which seems kind of strange? As you have stated previously in the post, God is just, and does not punish those incapable of believing (which in my mind is everyone who does not believe, there's nothing they can do to change their beliefs after all...).

 

The thing with domestic law, that in my mind should seperate it from religious decree is that it has to be based on the universal rights of all individuals (as outlined by the UN preferably). Therefore i have a hard time comparing the two. If you have a different view, that would probably be an interesting discussion too!

 

As for my thought of prayer, yes it is rather unique. But I am not the only one who holds this idea. I had to contemplate to myself one day after I had found God (I believed there was no God), what is prayer? After thinking about it I reached that conclusion. Prayer is not the simple repeating of words that have no meaning to us. It is our personal conversation with God. This includes our own acts of kindness and God's response can be seen in our own acts as well as others, and nature. I must have been influenced by Eastern thought [i read a lot of philosophy], as my favorite philosopher who also happens to be from the same religion I converted to held a like opinion. I guess it must be considered my own personal understand of revelation.

 

I've done some thinking since yesterday, and i'll outline my main thoughts on your definition of prayer, or my understanding of it. Unless you actively praise God while performing a good deed, it is not then a prayer, right? because if the action itself is a prayer, without the reflection upon your God, you are simultaneously praising other dieties. In particular, the classical eastern religions, especially buddhism, and some verieties of hinduism, practice good deeds as praise of their gods. Thus, if i've understood your definition of prayer correctly, you "pray" to these other gods simoultaneously, which is in direct violation of Deuteronomy 5.8-9 (part of the ten commandments) "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,"

 

This discussion has not altered my perspectives but it has made me reflect on my beliefs and my development, and for that I must thank you infinitely for as it was a priceless gift. It has also caused me to realize the theological difference there is between my people (eastern church) and the conventional local thought (western church).

 

Hehe, i think we talked past eachother again. by perspectives i mean exactly what you outline: the context in which the same beliefs ring true, but with a new insight.

[/hide]

1. I'm not a big fan of the King James version but that's just me. In my religion we read from what is called the Pe[cabbage]to(a), it is the Bible in Aramaic, talk about ancient. Nonetheless, just because something is ancient does not mean its lesson are confined and not expandable. True, the OT was the last CANONICAL message of God, but not the last. The last of revelation was revealed with Jesus. But our personal revelations can continued and we must identify that people wrote the Bible, and it is our own commonality as mortal, finite, imperfect humans that we can draw links to the authors.

 

Rather then translate it (which is the point of reading the Bible directly out of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic), the ideal circumstance would be to know the language and interpret it because translation changes meaning. Practically that is not possible for everyone, especially people who aren't lingual. We shouldn't translate it anymore as the actual meaning grows further and further from the point when we do so, so we should rather use a new understanding rather then a new text.

 

2. As for belief being a prerequisite for salvation in Catholicism is effey. For many years it was actually more generally accept that a good non-believer was saved by Jesus's death as well, but recently closer inspection of original text has some theologians questioning if a non-believer can be saved now. As you know, I'm against the latter notion.

 

3. Different Church rites are allowed to have different theologies as long as they retain the central dogmas. I've attended private Catholic schools for the last 14yrs or so, I thought this was the same for both but it might not be.

 

4. In the Bible, Jesus clearly states several times to apply your morality to life, but to keep Church and state separate. Although he does not outright say so, he does say many things, such as give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

5. Deuteronomy and Exodus's Commandments preceded the Jewish belief that YHWH is the only god, and even though other people don't know it, their gods are YHWH too. Since God is just and helping others is just it extols the God of justice and kindness. Since there is only one God, praise is only given to Him. The worship of idols has to be explicit, like oh I worship Og, who is YHWH's enemy. We have many different names for the same God. In my own religion he is called Aloho, Allah, YHWH, LORD and God. Another worshiping of idols would be the abandonment of doing what is right, to pursue making as money as possible by disregarding others.

 

Rejection of God can be done by atheists who have not rejected him before. I.e. one who abandons justice for self interest.

[Alg]

You know, nothing in this topic is really new to this forum. I may regret posting this link, as this topic was once the bane of my existence, but it has plenty of interesting beliefs on the subject: Massive God topic, read at your own risk

Consider this the abridged, updated version :lol: