The universe seems to be self-designing, in an intelligent manner. Maybe the solar system is so perfect in order for humans to live here, so the universe can experience it's awareness in the material world of time and space.
We are just projections of that awareness.
The solar system is like a teaching device, and our ancestors who built Stonehenge and the great pyramid new this.
Why do you speak so highly of our universe, when you have nothing to compare it to?
It is like the abused child, who refuses to say he is abused. His life is all he knows. He thinks that is the way it is supposed to be.
Altruism serves when reason is refused.
Why are people so afraid to take responsibility for their own lives. Are we that weak and insecure, that only Marshal Matt Dillon can save us? The people of Stonehenge and the Pyramids knew nothing. They both sacrificed human lives to the gods. The Egyptians, when embalming saved the internal organs for the after life, but threw away the brain.
I have no idea how your response has anything to do with my topic.
At has to do with questioning your assertion that the universe is obviously designed (self or otherwise) because it allowed us to exist.
Maybe the really well designed universe would have done a little better than us. Or not had to create a trillion stars just to get one planet able to sustain life.
No it doesn't. It may have built itself, but there doesn't appear to be an intelligence behind it.
Highly unlikely and wasteful.
No - they didn't and it isn't. We are learning all on our own it seems.
Actually it's not perfect for humans. For most our hour history glaciers kept us from moving far from Africa. The history of human migration is directly related to this ice age, yes we are still in it.
Our Sun came along very late in the universes history and is a particularly fast burning star that continues to heat up and will eventually put the earth out of the "sweet spot" and to close to a hot star to contain any life at all, all the while other stars with planets have been burning since near the begging of time and will continue in a constant manner long after the earth is engulfed by the Sun.
But in the mean time, have a good time cause the sun can shine everyday.
The people who built stone hedge and the great pyramids didn't even know how many planets there were in our solar system.
You make statements that have no basis in fact, but rather an ethereal representation of wishful thinking. The universe is matter and exhibits no signs of being self aware or a living organism. I cannot, however, say that your view is impossible, as I do not possess a universal intelligence to categorically say you are wrong. At the same time, your position, is simply speculative and wishful, as there is a god and through this god, there is purpose and design and now I feel better.
Your depiction of the solar system, a perfect order, leaves the impression that you have visited many other systems and have made a comparison study.
Time exits because of E=MC2 or time is the expenditure of energy and an intelligent mind to perceive and measure, All this is relative to us and our current abilities, but not necessarily a true measure of time, but it works for us, so far. All things change (evolve) all the time. That is the only constant.
All is a teaching device and we are the teachers and we are the students. All that we perceive to exist, we have defined. We, through our capacity to reason, have built a foundation of knowledge, possibly dating to 200,000 years. We continue to build that knowledge base, but to assert that the builders of Stonehenge were capable of some great knowledge, is simply without foundation.
We are the only known animal with the capacity (reason) to ask a question and we have only us to provide an answer and many times we are wrong, but we keep asking.
I would think, that the worst thing that we can do, as a reasoning life form, is to understate and under value that talent. One of the ways to do that is to ascribe to some spiritual or omnipotent power.
I didn't mention God at all.
But you are right, it is only speculation.
Your assertion that the universe is a self designing and creative power alludes to the existence of an omnipotent intelligence, god or god-like.
The universe itself is conscious. We are part of that awareness.
So you think it's like we are part of a big brain?
Only inasmuch as we are conscious and part of the Universe. That does not make the Universe conscious, any more than I am able to function as a red blood cell.
More like sensory organs. The eyes and ears of the universe.
Seems rather far fetched to me. 13.8 billion years of being blind and deaf. Not very intelligent if you ask me.
Maybe 13.8 billion years is just a blink of the eye for the universe.
All we are is just bags of well-ordered colonies of bacteria with self awareness. How do we know those individual bacteria don't have some level of self-awareness? Just different levels of awareness, all the way up, and all the way down.
We are fairly sure they don't, because they don't act like they do. Still - as you say - we don't know, but if we apply some reasonable portion of this consciousness, we will come to the conclusion that this scenario makes very little sense.
Maybe 13.8 billion years feels like 13.8 billion years to the Universe. We will likely only survive for the blink of a Universal eye, so I find it all rather outlandish.
I find the idea of a Big Bang from nothing rather outlandish.
If you think it was from nothing, clearly you do not understand it - therefore your assessment is faulty. Try doing some more research. But making something up to fill the gap in your knowledge is what religion does.
The Big Bang is just a theory, not a fact. I choose to make my own assumptions. Just like Darwinian evolution is only a theory, if it's even that.
Yes - like gravity is a "just' a theory. lol Try doing some research.
I research these things all the time.
You're problem is you believe anything that scientists tell you, whether or not it has any validity. Make your own assumptions for a change of pace. It's funner than being spoon stuff other people make up.
Sorry - if you think the Big Bang was from nothing you have not researched it properly.
I have a serious question regarding your assertion. I don't understand the reasoning behind the concept of an inanimate object (the universe) which has no consciousness--and I REALLY don't understand where it would have come FROM. That is the biggest point I take issue with when anyone claims there is no God, or at the very least no "starter force" or "intelligence" behind the existence of our reality. It is not logical, in my mind, to even suppose that something came into existence from nothing and for absolutely no reason. Does that make sense? Thanks!
Actually the big bang theory doesn't say all this came from nothing. Only people who believe in a God say God made all this from nothing, like magic. For some reason they are not bothered the where God come from or why God suddenly after being around alone forever decided to make a universe for us and why he would place us in a rather crappy place in the universe? There are plenty of things that happen for no reason at all, in the universe and right here on earth. Why do we need other galaxies? Why do we have natural disasters? Why are there guinea worms? But do we solve all of these questions by inventing a God without explaining where the God comes from? Do we then make an exception for God needing to be created?
You don't understand that inanimate objects are without consciousness?
The FROM seems to have been a singularity.
That is 2 entirely different statements.
No one is suggesting that the Universe came from nothing although we are gaining a greater understanding of what nothing means.
No reason? There needs to be a reason - a human understood reason? Please explain.
Actually that first bit is a typo--I meant how can an inanimate object HAVE a consciousness. The matter that became the everything that is had to have come from somewhere. Where? Things do not just spontaneously appear. Are YOU comfortable with there being no reason? If our existence has no reason, if there is no purpose, what's the point? What's the point of anything--let alone being kind, caring about people or "doing the right thing." If there is no reason, no purpose, why bother doing anything but that which suits us alone?
Actually, they do. There are lots of subatomic particles that do just that, and disappear as well.
So things do not spontaneously appear. Can you prove that? But - if they don't - what made your "intelligence" appear? You "totally sold out to god" you?
Right, it had to come from somewhere. It's called the singularity.
"Things do not just spontaneously appear" Yet you would have us believe your God has simply always been there, can you find anything else in the universe that has always been there? Further, things do just spontaneously appear.
As for the rest of that, if you can't find a reason to be kind to others besides pleasing your God, I'm sorry.
The solar system is perfect so that we can live here? Than why do bacteria outnumber us by a phenomenal amount? Our planet's surface is 75% under water and of that water only a tiny percentage of it is safe for us to drink. So most of the planet's surface is hostile to human life, not to mention asteroids within our own "perfect" solar system that cause mass extinctions and have the potential to wipe out human life. The Universe is indifferent to us specifically although it may favor life (we won't know until we finally put our pettiness and small-mindedness aside and get off this rock together).
Don't get me wrong, the fundamental forces of nature have created some awesome complex and harmonious systems but I don't think it's all for humans. I'd much rather think that we are here to give the Universe meaning, than to think that the Universe is here to give us meaning. As Carl Sagan put it, we are a way that the Cosmos can know itself, we a part of nature not apart from it. In some ways this destroys the notion that we are somehow special, fed to us by countless superstitions and religions, it erases that anthropocentric assumption about the Universe and yet it also erases the religious notion that we are somehow wicked and incomplete.
We are made of stardust and that makes us all at once insignificant and unique. It tells us that the Universe is indifferent but that the Universe is also somehow capable of creating life, that life itself is an expression of the forces of nature. The Earth, the Galaxy, the Cosmos, they will not coddle us, they will not heal us, they will not answer our prayers but they will not punish us, they will not curse us and they will not force their will upon us. Our destiny as a species is our own, we are free.
Isn't that similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in one of his books?
How is it wasteful? Maybe there are many solar systems like ours, built to perfection, with intelligent creatures not so much unlike we are.
We know for a fact there are millions that don't, and that's just the ones we can see from here. So how is that efficient?
I didn't say it was efficient. Maybe the Universe doesn't care about that.
Whatever it takes.
Yeah. I'm just making suggestions. I don't claim to know anything.
13.8 billion years just to produce us? Seems wasteful to me.
But the solar system is far from a perfect place for life. You have it backwards; evolution has created as near a perfect animal for the environment as possible - not the other way around.
As far as the solar system being perfect; it is a violent place, and one day another dinosaur killer will hit the earth. Or perhaps a comet, or a wayward planet passing through this part of the galaxy. Or a giant solar flare might scorch the earth, something just a little bigger than we see every now and then. No, our solar system is not particularly friendly to life, and our planet has "died" several times in the past. We just think it is because of our extreme short sightedness and memory.
When a volcanic explosion causes an ice age that prevents humans from moving freely for hundreds of thousand of years it becomes obvious the universe wasn't designed for us.
You unwittingly speak God's truth in your post, Wilderness!
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail. Isaiah 51:6
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Matthew 24:35
Oh dear - seems the Lord contradicted itself again. Heaven is a short term gig and the righteous will have nowhere to hang with Jesus. When is this happening again?
No contradiction, RA. The present heavens and earth must be destroyed before God creates the new heavens and earth. And "heavens" was a word used for skies and outer space, not just the "highest heavens" where the Lord dwells.
The "highest heavens" exist in sprit. All things originate from/in spirit. Unless this is accepted nothing can be understood. If spirit is invisible there is no proof, so they say… but what about the evidence of electricity which is invisible? Electromagnetic radiation used in TV, Radio and Cell Phones cannot be seen. There is energy behind the manifestation of the universe and it is therefore self-designing and self-sustaining on a constant level... as we are.
What nonsense. Electricity is not invisible. Radio waves can be measured. "Therefore" and "obviously'? Look them up.
Yes, God can be measured.
(VERY excellent question, BTW!)
I have proof. I will leave it at that.
She left it at that because she has nothing. What do you call someone who is purposely saying something they know is untrue to promote their religion?
The receptors are in one's own being... through intuition. That you do not perceive God is the fault of your own refusal to to acknowledge possibilities.
Can't help you there.
Each to their own.
BTW, I do not preach/promote any religion.
Why would I spill the beans?
They are precious.
yes, I have beans!
You think I am keyboarding for my health?
No, you are attempting to mislead people for your faith/religion/Jesus/God.
consciousness is consciousness. Our consciousness is a whit of the Entire Amount. We can unify our consciousness with the E.A. through becoming aware of it. How? Through meditation. There are techniques. There are those who teach them and know "Christ" Consciousness. Among them is Jesus. Another, Krishna.
Look it up!
But, keep the dogma out of it.
I don't believe you have any beans. I have no idea what you are keyboarding for - care to explain?
Just to share possibility that there is a means to prove God to oneself. The means will not be discussed here by me.
That is my whole point! There is a way to perceive the reality of God directly! One can be open to that possibility, if one wants… one does not have to be.
...whatever one wants.
I agree, Kathryn. God is Spirit, and the highest heavens, his dwelling place, are in the spiritual rather than the natural realm. For us to be with him and experience him in full, we will need the new spiritual bodies that he has promised us when we rise again, just as Jesus Christ rose and was given a new spiritual body.
Truth is Truth. Krishna taught Arjuna the same.
I wonder if Cat is open to the idea of worshiping Krishna. As the story goes he had 16,100 wives.
I assume they were women devotees who he did not have sex with.
"There is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Corinthians 8:6)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
"The same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him." (Romans 10:12)
Nice quotes. Got anything from actual research or observations? Something that is not plainly PR trying to convince a gullible public without producing any factual evidence?
I was answering Rad Man's question; I wasn't attempting to offer "evidence" of the Lord.
You could have simply said no, I'm not interested in Krishna. This would have shown me you were thinking rather than searching for an answer in an old book.
So you wanted a mere preference or opinion (as if that's worth anything), but I gave you the Truth that won't let me accept Krishna or any other false god / idol.
That's what I thought, but she says she can experience heaven and the experience tells her that the story of Krishna is real. At least from what I can gather.
So we have the heavens = at least 3.
We have heaven = when we get new bodies (well, not me of course).
And sometimes heavens = sky.
Is that about right?
Oh wait… At some point in time everything will be gone, but the words of the bible will somehow continue.
The translated term heaven / heavens in scriptures is interchangeably used for skies, solar system, and the dwelling place of the Lord. But if the "highest" heaven(s) or "third" heaven(s) is specified, then the reference is absolutely for the dwelling place of the Lord.
No one can see God the Father while in the flesh. When we leave this flesh and are in the spirit, or perhaps when we are transformed and have spiritual bodies like Jesus', then we will be able to see the Father face-to-face. Those who saw the highest heaven were probably in the spirit (John says he was in the spirit and Paul was uncertain whether it was in the spirit or body). Still, they didn't yet see God the Father (the description in Revelation indicates it was Jesus on the throne seen by John). Once we die, our spirits will immediately be with the Lord (the man on the cross was told he'd be with Jesus in Paradise that day; we're told that to be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"). Still, the new spiritual bodies may await the rapture when the dead in Christ are raised first, and then those still alive are transformed. I don't know if seeing the Father also awaits this time; perhaps it is Jesus our Lord we're immediately with when we die.
The current state and order of things will one day be gone. Even after this "heaven (s)" and earth pass away, the Word will remain. The Word is Jesus Christ, who we're told in Scriptures is the Word in the flesh. He is eternal and he gives eternal life to all those who call on him and put their hope and trust in him. For us he will create the new heavens and new earth, just as he promised - "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create" (Isaiah 65:17-18); "Then I saw 'a new heaven and a new earth', for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Revelation 21:1)
There's hope yet even for you, Rad Man, so maybe you will have a new spiritual body after all. You haven't breathed your last breath here, so God alone knows...
Well, thanks for the concern Cat. I like the last part where you tell me God alone knows after giving me all kinds of information that you claim are facts. If God only knows that why do you pretend to know anything?
I only know what God has revealed through the Word and the Spirit. All the information I gave you regarding heaven/heavens, spiritual bodies and such, he himself provided us. He has not revealed to me (or any of us as far as I know) the ultimate destination of any human still living. So I honestly say, I do not know the end for you. You have breath yet in you, so there is yet hope as far as I can see.
But the bible clearly states that God appear in front of Abraham at least twice.
"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless."…"When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him."
You said no one, why is that? Is there an issue between you and the spirit?
The Spirit and Jesus Christ are God, they are the Lord. However, they are not the Father. We do not see God the Father while in the flesh. As far as I know, if someone on earth sees the Lord/God, it is God in the form of Jesus, the representation of the Father.
So is this a lie then?
"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless."…"When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him."
It's not a lie. Jesus IS God. He is God manifest. Abram / Abraham saw God - Jesus Christ, who has been with God from the beginning.
If Jesus is god manifest, how was it not possible to see god in the flesh if Jesus existed?
God was very rarely seen prior to the revelation of Jesus Christ likely precisely because he had not yet been revealed and given to the world. Once he was revealed / given to us for salvation, he was seen in the flesh by many. Since the time he died, rose and took his place in heaven, he is primarily experienced through the promised Holy Spirit. Soon Jesus will be returning to earth and will draw all who are his to himself. Notice it won't be God the Father coming for us; he'll still be on his heavenly throne, just as he always has been. We will be drawn up to our Lord Jesus, who is God manifest. It is Jesus Christ (with those who are his) who will rule and reign here on earth during the "thousand year reign". And the new heavens and new earth will be created.
I just made up that Jesus is God? You think even theoretically that God the Father came off his throne and appeared to Abraham? Jesus Christ is God revealed to us. As it's written: "He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness...No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (John 1:2-5, 18) The Holy Spirit is present throughout the earth and within believers. Jesus Christ is God manifest; He is Immanuel, which means "God with us". Funny what you find funny, Rad Man.
Yet Jesus referred to "His Father."
And on the cross, He called out to his Father, "Why have you forsaken me?"
Good point. Some want to have it both ways, they are one, but we will treat them as three, yet they are one. She says no one can look at God, then when we show her scripture that says someone did, she says it was Jesus which isn't God but is, even though it was thousands of years before Jesus was birthed. Why again did he have to align all those Hebrews and control the breading if Jesus could come down anytime he wants anyway? So, when it's convenient it's God and when it's not they are three separate beings. They like the idea of believing in one God, but want to believe in many. The mind is an odd thing.
Rad Man, Kathryn, Jomine:
God is ONE. You are one, but you have a body, a mind, soul, spirit. So the Great I AM is God (Father), and also God in the flesh / God with us (Son), and also God as Spirit (Holy Spirit). They are all ONE God in THREE FORMS. Not really so hard to understand as people make it. And no we have NO desire to worship multiple "gods", but only the ONE TRUE GOD. Praise God for being our Father, our Mediator and our Helper!
The physical human cannot look upon God the Father. But it can look upon God in the flesh / God with us - that is, Jesus Christ. It can also experience God through the Holy Spirit. God existed in his various forms from the beginning. It was God's plan to come as a man, share in our humanity, live the perfect life we could not, suffer and die for our sins, and make atonement for the sins of the world. He could not just come anytime and in any way because God is Truth and His Word cannot be violated but must come to pass just as he has promised. God ensured that he came from the line of promise and fulfilled the multitude of prophesies about him.
You don't seem to be making much sense. Are you okay because that sounds like a bunch gibberish.
I guess it would sound like gibberish when listening with physical ears rather than spiritual ears. The things of the Spirit are understood through the Spirit. Do you have any genuine interest in spiritual matters with a heart to understand, or are you purely set on coming against the things of God?
Cat, it is as simple as proving god exists to get anyone who uses some common sense to believe in god. The Bible is not proof, and most people on here I have seen who claim they have had spiritual experiences and such with god show minor signs of insanity. I wouldn't trust a teacher to teach me facts if they are certifiably insane.
It might be a little more complex to prove your specific god exists and all others are false, but baby steps and all.
I think you're close, Link, and despite your comments about our sanity (or lack thereof), my feelings toward you remain positive. I don't personally mind being called insane - I am absolutely willing to appear insane or even a fool for my Lord and Savior. I think perhaps you are genuinely interested and would LIKE if someone could give you the evidence you seek. One day all the evidence will be undeniable, but how to get to the place of seeing BEFORE physically seeing...
If I'm not mistaken, you said you didn't want us to say we were praying for you. I understand it can come across as condescending. But because I believe Love (that is, God) is close by, I'd like to ask your permission for the believers to ALL pray fervently for you.
You can pray for me all you want, I never said you couldn't. What I asked is not to be told that you are praying for me, which I still stand by. To say that you are implies you are on a superior path than me, and that I am wrong in whatever I have chosen to follow. As you can imagine, being told that I am wrong as if it were fact without any logical reasoning behind it doesn't exactly strike the right chord with me. Also, since prayer has actually been proven to do absolutely nothing outside of making you feel good, in my eyes you are not really doing anything to even attempt to change my or anyone else's mind.
And I do agree that maybe someday the answers will be revealed, however do not be disappointed if they are not the answers you were expecting. There is just as equal a chance for some other religion to be true than yours, or that none of them might be right. Keep that in mind.
That is not what the scriptures say. I thought making stuff up as you go along was against the rules. Not so?
Ah - so Jesus' physical body did not actually rise then? More proof that the bible is flawed.
Still waiting for the scripture you promised me.
Ah - sorry - you said "heaven" singular.
But go ahead and quote me the scriptures that back up your claim and show me the scriptures that differentiate and explain what you just said. Otherwise it sort of looks like you are making this up as you go along, in order to make false claims about what the bible says. Isn't that against the rules?
Examples of these different uses of the term "heavens" (especially the plural use) can be found throughout the Scriptures (certainly isn't me just making it up as I go along). Here's an example of "heavens" being used to describe the skies and this area - Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The verses regarding the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt 24:3, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) can be and also are sometimes translated as "Earth and sky will pass away, but it is certain that my words will never pass away." The same idea is given us in 2 Peter 3:7, in which he does use the plural "heavens" - "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." Isaiah 51:6 (in my initial post) also uses the plural term "heavens", as does Ephesians 4:10, which says: "He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens."
Isaiah 40:26 gives an example of the term "heavens" used to describe the solar system: "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."
Isaiah 42:5 speaks of the plural "heavens" and seems to be referring to both the skies and the solar system - "This is what God the LORD says-- the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it."
The dwelling place of God, often called the highest heavens or the "third heaven", exists in the spiritual realm. Examples where this heaven is mentioned in Scriptures are: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 "I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows-- was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell." In Revelation 4:1-3, John tells of his experience in the highest heavens, where he went in the spirit, and saw the throne of God with Jesus there - "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven..."
How odd that there is physical items in this spiritual realm.
Now we have three heavens huh? And we have something "higher than all the heavens." Interesting.
So when it is singular it is heaven where the Invisible Super Being lives, but when it is heavens it is the sky, but not the other heavens. So heaven is going to be destroyed. No wonder you guys are so confused.
Jesus' "spiritual" body had form and shape, could eat and touch, etc. It had its own different, better glory.
We have various uses of the term "heavens" - the skies, the solar system, and the place where God himself dwells / paradise (the "highest" heaven/heavens).
Singular or plural does not appear to be used to distinguish between the heavens, but rather the "highest" or "third" heaven is used to specify God's dwelling place.
The earth and skies / universe will be destroyed, and God will create new heavens and earth for us.
Right, so Jesus got a new better spiritual body that we could see and touch, but the rest of those that go to heaven will be different right, because our bodies stay on earth and we get new bodies that can't be seen or touched. Yea, I remember reading where Paul wrote that. Pure fantasy, just stuff he was making up. Do babies get little baby bodies? Poor old people, spend eternity in an old body. Can you make up some answers for me?
Actually we're told in Scriptures (by Paul) that the new spiritual bodies will resemble Jesus' new spiritual body. Just as our first bodies were created to be like the first natural man Adam, so also our new bodies will be like the firstborn spiritual man Jesus Christ. So we too will touch, eat, etc.
Whether or not there will be "babies" in eternity I don't know (not sure about all those who God took to himself as babes). Maybe those who went as babies are highly esteemed because they were never corrupted here on earth, so that it is really a blessing in disguise (though we are all cleansed and made pure, it may be particularly honorable never to have been corrupted). But I am certain there will be no one who appears elderly because aging is a decaying process. We will be perfected and unblemished. No more disease, sickness, aging; no more pain or sorrow. It's unknown if we'll still be males and females or we'll all be sexless, but we will no longer "marry" / have sex.
Where in the Bible does it say we won't have sex in heaven? Or are you just making things up as usual?
If she is not making it up then she is repeating stuff others made up. Paul made up that spiritual body stuff along with stuff about slaves and women should be happy in their place.
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Matthew 22:30
"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Mark 12:25
Don't need to. It says nothing about sex. Period.
Sex and "marriage" are linked in God's view, as it's written: Don't you realize that the person who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her? God says, "The two will be one." Corinthians 6:16
I interpret it to mean that we will be like bonobos. No marriage and lots of sex. No worries, be happy. No guilt.
We are told that within we can find heaven, and I agreed with that. Now we are being told that the best thing about this life will be gone in heaven. What next, no stand up comedians?
Why would humor cease? You can see the temporal need and reason for sex / marriage. If I were a saleswoman type, I'd leave out the part about sex / marriage being just for here. But I'm the truth-seeker type, so sorry to break the news to anyone who didn't know.
So there will still be stand up comedians? Will they do it for money?
The Word and the Spirit say nothing about comedians of any kind. But God created humor. Humor is a positive thing that appears to have purpose outside the temporal (unlike procreation). All this that goes beyond what we've been told is just speculation by any of us.
Sooooooo humor has more of a place in heaven than procreation. And sex.
Life on earth is the time for procreation. From this life, God will populate eternity.
Procreation is the not the same as sex. Makes sense, somewhat, to say that procreation would not matter in heaven, but sex is for pleasure and fun. Are we not allowed pleasure and fun in the paradise of heaven?
Sex was made especially pleasurable and fun to ensure we procreate. We'll have more pleasure and fun in Paradise and Eternity than we can even now imagine.
So something that transcends the best sex anyone has ever had, currently has, or will ever have, will replace sex in the afterlife.
Cool beans. Still sounds like a convenient load of crock, but cool beans nonetheless
Can you imagine an eternal best ever imaginable organism ever? The stories just get better and better. They will promise anything.
Meditation is the opposite of… You can bring the energy up or down. Up to reality, down to illusion.
Enlightenment is completely up to us.
Like angels in heaven? What are they like? Who has been there to see them? I like who they reference things no one has ever seen. Do angels have bodies as well?
People have seen angels here on earth. Some while sleeping (like Joseph), some while awake (like Mary and the Shepherds who were told the good news about Jesus' birth). Their appearance on earth as angels appears very rare and usually linked to an extremely important event (like the birth of Jesus). In our day people most often report seeing them when sick or in danger. In Scriptures and in the testimonies of people now, the angels glow / are bright, look like young men, have wings... They produced fear in people, but immediately let people know they needn't be afraid.
Angels can take the form of humans and may not be recognized as angels. Many people testify that they saw young men present when someone was about to harm them, and these young men were what scared the attackers away, only to later discover that no "young men" were there. Or the attackers indicate they stopped because they saw "young men" appear when no people were actually there.
I've seen the Holy Spirit (bright light accompanying other nonvisual events), seen a vision of Jesus (as a silhouette surrounded by light in a doorway), repeatedly seen a vision of nostrils when the Spirit is breathed onto/into me, seen demons (a mass of hundreds hovering overhead), but never seen an angel (as a recognizable angel anyway).
Why are marriage and sex exclusive to each other?
They're not in human eyes; they are in God's eyes. You "marry" those you have sex with.
So god, who has absolute 0 need to have sex, is more concerned about sex than humans are.
Any way to run that by me again, but actually have it make sense?
God has no need to eat, but he's concerned about the food you eat; he has no need to sleep, but he's concerned about your sleep. He cares for us. Sex was created by him for specific purposes, just as everything was created by him. So it is all his concern because we are his concern.
You sure you are not making this up as you go? Sex is for fun.
The "fun" aspect is the motivator. The purpose is procreation. Making it fun ensures we keep doing it and thus keep procreating.
I wouldn't theorize about whether there's sex in heaven, but Jesus made a point of telling us there would be no more marriage (linked to sex for God) and we'd be like the angels in this regard.
Didn't angels come down to earth to mate with women and have babies?
If Percy Jackson is anything to go by anyway.
Fallen angels did procreate with women, likely by taking on the form/body of a human (all angels can present as humans). This was a perversion of their position. The children of God (all of us who accept our right to become his children) will be like the angels "in heaven" regarding marriage / sexual matters, not like the fallen angels who are no longer in heaven. And God's children will all have spiritual bodies, not be taking on the form of natural humans.There will be no one in a natural human body at that time, and the fallen angels will be destroyed along with Satan.
How odd that you are so certain that there is no sex in heaven. Makes me not believe any of your claims. Thanks for pushing me away from Christ by making stuff up.
Well done. Your master must be very pleased with you.
Do you deny that you are already "away from Christ"?
If Jesus had not said there would be no marriage in heaven and we would be like the angels in heaven in this regard, then I would not assume there was no sex or marriage in heaven.
That's just your interpretation. You don't know how God sees things.
No sex? I thought you said it was heaven. So in your version of heaven some are held in higher esteem for eternity because of nothing they did or didn't do. Kinda like a class system?
I know, no sex in heaven sounds like a bummer to a lot of still young/youngish, hormonal people with healthy sex drives. Enjoy life on earth; some pleasures are just for here. If you live to a very old age and/or ever lose your sex drive, it may not sound like such a negative thing (or at least not AS negative). Without a body designed for sex and procreation, it won't be missed. What we will be designed for and what we'll experience is beyond our imaginations, but the God who created so much magnificence here on earth has promised that those who trust in him "will not be disappointed".
I wasn't speaking from the Word or the Spirit regarding a special honor for those who died as babies; just considering that it might be an honor never to have been corrupted here on earth. We do know there are rewards and honors in heaven for all good done, and even for experiences sometimes outside our control (e.g., being murdered because of our faith).
No one gets murdered for their faith. Plenty of us have been murdered for not having the faith though.
Did you seriously just say that no one gets murdered for their faith, RA? When people right now are literally being murdered for their faith?
There was clearly an intelligent design behind the creation of the universe. There is clearly an intelligent design to all life in this universe. Isn't it about time we recognized that God could use science and divinity to create everything in existence?
Because the universe adheres to laws. The laws of physics.
Cause and effect is one of these laws of the universe. Nothing can come from nothing. There must be a "cause." This is where the argument for an intelligent design behind the universe applies. God is the intelligent force which "caused" the universe to come into being and it is only through these universal laws that everything in existence continues. God created these laws when he created the universe.
You don't know if there was a cause, you don't know what the cause was if there was a cause, so you have no way of determining what or who caused or didn't cause anything. When a star goes super nova there is a cause, but no intelligence behind the cause, just physics. There is a cause for rain and snow, but no intelligence behind the cause, just physics. We don't know if there was a cause that started the universe and if there was a cause it very well have been a natural cause like rain and snow and the death of a star. Simply stating God done it doesn't get us any closer to an answer, but perhaps it makes some feel better.
"Nothing can come from nothing."
What did God use for His raw materials, then?
"Everything that exists is the result of a "cause."
You're quite a ways behind in the world of physics; it is well understood now that there is NOT a cause for everything.
"However, an intelligent designer with the power to create could cause this to happen."
Here you are correct, but there is a whole universe between "could" and "did". To date there is no evidence to support that "did".
Everything that exists is the result of a "cause." Something had to bring it into being or cause it to happen. Where did stars originally come from? They had to be the direct result of a cause. Simply stating that God did this does give us a direction or an intelligence behind the creation of all things.
I believe you must start at the beginning and work your way forward in time. One big bang does not necessarily cause a universe to come into being. However, an intelligent designer with the power to create could cause this to happen. I think it is a matter of expanding our minds enough to accept an entirely new concept of god altogether, and therefore an entirely new theory of how the universe came into being.
Actually not everything in the universe has a cause. Sub-atomic particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Because we don't know what was before the universe (can there be anything before time) we don't know there was any intelligence that caused the universe or if there was even a cause. Once again there are many things that don't have intelligence behind their cause and there are many things that have no cause, so there is no point in assuming the universe has an intelligent cause. It's like finding a fallen tree and assuming big foot pushed it over.
Interesting. What caused the intelligent designer then?
Expand your mind enough to answer this please.
Has ANYONE ever seen something spontaneously appear? And my intelligence appearing--that's kind of the point. Everything has an origin. Flowers make seeds that make more flowers. Where did the first flower come from?
Elizabeth, what you're doing right now is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. In other words, you can't imagine how all of this could just happen, therefore it must have been created by an intelligence or a god. I'm sorry, but logical fallacies do not work in discovering truth.
If you don't understand how it could happen, can u ask if you've ever considered taking a cosmology or physics or biology class to help you understand these complicated concepts?
Sub atomic particles Do pop in and out of existence all the timewith no tall reason. It's been observed repeatedly. There is also this new study out of Cambridge : http://m.mic.com/articles/88441/cambrid … om-nothing
Lastly, let me try to explain something. Even if the big bang ISN'T the right model, and science had to stay from scratch - that does not mean that creation is true by default. Creation had never been and can never be proven, tested or demonstrated. It's not a theory, it's an assertion with no explanatory power or evidence to support it, and it cannot just "win" by default.
Yet, you claim your God has no origin. You are making a logical fallacy.
Where did all of the genetic material for all life on this planet come from? A happy accident? Why is it so intricate, so delicate, so specific, and so full of pertinent information? Billions of years of time did not and could not bring forth this genetic material. Nothing comes from nothing. There had to be an impetus and this is where God came in.
That's still the argument from ignorance and begging the question while throwing in a blind assertion with no backup evidence.
Here's the thing. You can't expect people to have to be able to provide an alternative explanation when YOUR explanation hasn't been proven. There is no demonstrable, observable, testable evidence to prove that life on earth - or anywhere else in any form - was created, and even if there was, you have to make a gigantic leap from it being created to it was created by a specific god - coincidentally the one that I believe in.
Yet you claim your God comes from nothing. No one says the universe came from nothing except those who believe in God. Do we assume waves or ripples in water were brought by intelligence? We understand there are natural causes for these things, why should there not be a natural cause for the universe?
Why is being a happy accident such a problem? Why does the symmetry of everything in this world have to have a SPECIFIC reason to exist?
I find people who absolutely HAVE to attribute the creation of the universe to any one specific deity, energy, whatever it is, to lack the will power to accept that everything could in fact have been a complete accident.
Think of it this way, if intelligent design is true, then everything mankind has achieved over the millennia has had a guiding force behind it, we were not actually responsible for any of our achievements. Is that a problem? Not entirely, provided the intelligent creator had a visible (non deniable) role in everything. You could view it as a parent guiding their kid. But that isn't the case.
On the other hand, if everything happened by accident...do you realize the significance in that? At that point, we came from nothing (definition of which varies) and have achieved amazing things, all on our own.
Im all for either scenario in the end, but since it seems intelligent design, from a specific deity at least, does not seem likely, I will back the second scenario until proven otherwise.
The very idea that DNA just sprang into existence defies common sense and logic! I am attributing this creation of life to a higher power and you can call him or "it" whatever you like. I believe it is intelligent energy. All things in existence are made from this same energy and energy can't be destroyed but it can be transformed into something else. By the way, I am not referring to a "biblical" god. I am speaking of an entirely new concept of god. A god who can combine science and divinity.
God, or this intelligent energy I am speaking of existed outside of time and space. He existed not in a place but a "state of being" without time. He or It existed before the creation of the universe. He contained the power, the energy, and all of the elements in the universe. He consciously chose to create a universe using this energy which caused time to come into existence. God then let the universe unfold and develop on its own.
How do you prove any of that to be true? Saying it doesn't mean anything, and to say that your God is somehow outside of space and time while nothing else is is called special pleading. It's another logical fallacy.
And that is interesting and all...for a theory.
Unless you can prove it as fact?
It's not a theory. At best, it's a hypothesis. At worst is a baseless assertion.
But - as things do not spontaneously come into being - where did it come from?
Not one of you can prove anything you have put forth here in this forum. Can you? The truth is that the universe abides by one set of laws that all things in existence adhere to. In other words, science is the basis for my theory concerning a Supreme Being. And if you are speculating that it was a "singularity" that caused the universe to begin then you are also assuming that this singularity exited in the vacuum of space where there was NO TIME. This is my assertion.....That God existed outside the realm of time until he chose to create the universe.
You're the one that's making one claim after another. You were asked for proof. Are you going to provide any? Why don't you ask for proof of the singularity from the people who suggested it, like you were asked for proof of your assertions that you seem either unwilling, or more likely unable, to provide? If your only evidence for your claims are logical fallacies, then there's no reason to consider or accept your claim. I've made no positive claims on the beginning of the universe. You, however, most certainly have, and you have the burden of proof - scientifically, if you claim it to be a scientific theory - to back up your assertion with evidence or else it falls.
I guess it escaped your notice... But you cannot prove your claim either. Either that, or for some odd reason you have neglected to do so when you made your initial claim (claim, not hypothesis) as well as when you were asked for proof.
I hope the gun you used to shoot yourself in the foot wasn't a shotgun.
This is one of the reasons we exist....To question our existence, isn't it? No one has all the answers to this question unless they are the creator or they have figured out the equation for how the universe began. I am making this claim based on my personal experience and my understanding of a higher power. After all, we are all the sum total of our life experiences and what we believe to be true or untrue. It is only through exchanging ideas that we can learn and grow, it is not through closing our minds to new information.
Personal experiences are poor bases to use for anything, especially when you are claiming something as fact. Why? Because personal experiences, most of the time, cannot be exactly reproduced. That, and every single person has a different personal experience, even when its the same event.
And to cover the even more...intriguing flaw I find in this...what understanding of a higher power do you hold that scientists (religious and non religious) all over the world searching for the answer to our existence seem to be lacking? If you cannot prove that this higher power exists for you to have an understanding of, then your entire concept holds absolutely no merit whatsoever. You ended worse off than when you started.
But I do agree with you in not closing our minds to new information. Im not sure how asserting that an intelligent creator clearly made everything with nothing to really back that up goes along with your closing sentence, but I do agree.
This thread is killing me. It's fun to watch people makes claims about things they really have no way of having any knowledge about, but still pretend that their claims are facts.
This is what it sounds like.
"No, the universe was made by a giant unicorn outside space-time who had some bad cabbage and farted us into existence. We can't see the invisible giant unicorn because he is like invisible electricity", wait it's dark in here… Let me go flick on a light and then I'll get back to my brightly lit 27" monitor. Okay that's better.
No contradictions here.
Everyone is the sum total of "personal experiences."
We are all a product of our childhood, our education, our political views, our religious beliefs, etc. This is what molds us into who we are as human beings. And so, I say that personal experience is the basis for all that we are. We are all not going to collectively believe in anything. We are all different and unique. I am saying that in my search for the truths of the universe and god I have found answers to my questions. You clearly have a point of view based on your personal experience and your point of view is every bit as valid as the next person, isn't it? You can't write people off just because they have differing opinions than you, especially when they are bringing an entirely new idea out into the open.
What does that have to do with your irrational, contradictory claims of majick?
I can only assume that means that you understand that what you say is irrational, but you are going to continue to be irrational because that was how you were raised? I was raised to be irrational as well, even told Santa exists, then I grew up.
Personal experiences are the last thing to use when claiming fact. I can say I saw a shadow in the woods. Does that give me the right to correctly assume that the shadow was Bigfoots cousin twice removed?
And again, you say you have found the answers but have continued to neglect not only what those answers are but how you even got them to begin with.
The only person being irrational and writing others off is you.
I'm going to have to agree with you on that one.
I also agree with you insisting that one should not believe in anything unless one has proof!
If you had proof you would show it. So - you are not being honest when you say you are sharing "possibilities," then?
The rising population is evidence of heaven being found within.
The Holy Grail.
Cat, you have no spiritual ears. You and I have the ears on our heads. And while to you it may seem that I'm against all things God, that is your indoctrination talking.
If all is physical and nothing spiritual to you, do you even acknowledge your own spirit within? Or do you understand only "parts" but not the whole (you can see trees, but no forest). Do you think it's true our spirits even have a very small weight that can be measured when we die (this I've read, but don't know for myself).
So you do not consider yourself against God (since you do not know or acknowledge God, then let's say the "idea" of God)? Would you at least acknowledge that you're against the Word/Bible, against the Christian faith, against the "idea" of the Holy Spirit, against faith expressed through prayer, and so on?
I think most non believers are simply "against" people like you sticking your religion at them. Perhaps this is simply beyond your understanding. Maybe if you opened your mind just a little you would be able to grasp such a simple idea? Do you even acknowledge your ability to reason? Or are you so blinded by the idea that you must believe without thinking it through. No - spirits do not have a small weight that can be measured when you die - this is another religionist lie to fool the gullible.
Would you consider yourself against thinking and reason? Or would it be fair to say that you are against people thinking instead of believing without thought? Perhaps against the "idea," of reality? Perhaps you simply hate that other people can reason?
Define spirit? Do you mean spunk?
A doctor did once claim that but it has never been repeated or verified.
Holy cow, you still after all this time don't get it. I am not the devil and not evil, I simply don't believe any Gods exist. You have been indoctrinated to think that if anyone doesn't believe they must be evil and believe in God but be against him.
The definition of spirit is "the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul".
I'd seen others saying the doctor's claims had recently been replicated, but didn't want to make any conclusions about it without further research.
I didn't say anything about you being evil and wasn't attempting to imply such. I'm also not saying you deep down believe in God. But regardless, you have shown great opposition to the things of God. Some atheists who are interested in spiritual topics are interested because they're still searching and seeking, some don't believe anything conclusively yet but desire to, etc.. You seem motivated to discuss spiritual matters for the sole purpose of destroying the faith and leading people to what you've concluded is superior thinking and reasoning and morality.
Or, he seems motivated into getting people to actually think about the painfully obvious contradictions and immoralities of the christian faith, which I feel he has said a number of times over the course of a few months if not years.
But insisting he wishes to destroy faith altogether is good to...
The Christian faith specifically / primarily.
You mean the same Christian faith that essentially dominates the United States, to the point where it has an impact on laws, and probably has the most members world wide?
Have you not noticed how the majority of religious questions/forums here on Hub Pages have to do with Christianity?
Here's some interesting facts:
About a third (32%) of the world's population identify as or are considered Christians (it is the largest religious group).
Christianity is the "most evenly spread religion, present in all regions of the world, while Hinduism is the least global with 94 percent of its population in one country, India".
The bible is not only the number one bestseller every year, but it vastly outsells the following top books combined.
According to the International Society for Human Rights, up to 80% of acts of persecution are directed at people of the Christian faith.
I understand Rad Man's desire to attack Christianity (and above any other religion), and I actually think there exist reasons for it beyond even his/your understanding.
"According to the International Society for Human Rights, up to 80% of acts of persecution are directed at people of the Christian faith."
Have you ever wondered why? Perhaps because above all other religions Christianity insists it must ignore Matt. 7:12 and convert the world, even to the point of violating local laws by doing so? Or is it simply because "persecution" to Christianity means non-Christians demand they keep it to themselves instead of forcing it on everyone around?
As far as "persecution" I'd have to say the Muslims are at the top of the pile, albeit by their own religion.
I know many reasons why Christians receive up to 80% of the persecution.
Matthew 7:12 says to treat others as you want to be treated. Personally, I want the truth, so when we speak truth to others, we are treating them how we want to be treated.
This wasn't persecution as defined by Christians, but as defined by the International Society of Human Rights. It includes things such as imprisonment, attacks, death, etc. You saying the Muslims are "at the top of the pile" doesn't make it so.
Well that explains it. A lack of respect for the truths held by others, you truth is no more true than anyones else's just because you say so.
So true, Rad Man, it is certainly not more true just because I say so. It is more true because HE says so. We don't make up our own truths, but follow only his truth as best we can as fallible humans. You'll find slight variations based on our humanity and what has/hasn't been revealed, but we seek his truth - the truth of Jesus Christ - and do not make up our own. His truth is from everlasting to everlasting.
I see, we can only get to the truth if someone has written it down. No thinking for ourselves. The Muslims as you know don't feel the same way you do about Jesus and they have a holy book. Both can't be right, if one is wrong both may be wrong. BTW, HE hasn't said anything, we are waiting for that.
I don't think you got the message about treating others as you would want to be created, If you would not want others forcing their religious beliefs in your mouth and if your book says you should treat others with respect then you should be doing just that, rather than taking the arrogant stand that your truth is right and they should want it.
We only get to the truth through the Holy Spirit, who is the One who guides us into all truth. All that is written in the Scriptures was inspired by the Holy Spirit (written and translated by limited humans, yes), so the Spirit will never contradict the essential message that is in the Scriptures. The Word is living and active - changing hearts and lives for people all around the world. Many have "books"; that isn't important. There is only ONE Holy Spirit and ONE living Word of God.
Actually I don't mind at all when people tell me about their religions or try to "convert" me. In fact, if they truly believe it is the truth and do NOT share it with me, I find that offensive. I don't see confidence as arrogance. I do see drawing our own conclusions from our own limited thoughts, imaginations, experiences and such as arrogance. Relying on the Holy Spirit for truth is the most humble stand you can take, and being confident in that truth is nothing but faith in the One we know.
And there you were saying you don't have divine knowledge. How arrogant of you to claim to know truth. Not humble at all.
No, I said what I have divine knowledge of is rather limited. It relates to the truth and character of God, the accomplishments of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as well as the divinity of Jesus, and such.
I think it is wonderful that you know the truth. Rather arrogant of you though - don't you think?
What you claim as divine is what is written in a book most of which is fiction.
But Mohammed's divine knowledge tells us that you are wrong and he has a book, supposedly written by him. Have you written any books that have prophesies like the Quran does?
"Have you written any books that have prophesies like the Quran does?" God's children do not add to his words, but await the second coming of our Lord.
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. (John 1:12)
Your second paragraph contradicts your first.
Vishnu or Baal is god, so if one receives either of them are they god's children or do they have to accept your opinion regarding god to be god's children?
By the way what do children mean in this context?
Anyone who receives the Lord and believes in his name has the right to become his child (John 1:12). But the children will NOT continue in sin, but rather having been made righteous by the Lord, they will now be recognized by their righteousness (1 John 3:10). No contradiction; just spiritual understanding needed.
Vishnu or Baal are NOT the One True Living God, but are nothing but deceptions or false "gods". Believing or receiving falsehood, which is of Satan, will get a person farther not closer to God. To take hold of their right to become God's child, they will need to believe on the name of the One and Only God of the universe. We can align our "opinions" with God's Word and Spirit, in which case we will know and speak truth, or we can count on ourselves and our own useless opinions and generally miss the spiritual truth.
"Children" in this context means those "adopted" by God our Father; those "born of the Spirit"; those who are the brothers and sisters of the "firstborn" Jesus Christ. As children we are "heirs" and will receive all God has promised, including the new spiritual bodies that will be like the new spiritual body Jesus had upon rising from the dead and taking his seat beside the Father.
Are you "righteous"?
You cannot even out obvious contradictions with more quotes. The previous one has nothing to do with righteousness and other has nothing to do with belief. That is not resolved by the above quotes either. One need to be both righteous and believe the name or either alone is enough is that to be answered.
The story about judgment, jesus is not asking whether anyone believed him or not but only about helping others.
The followers of baal and vishnu says the same about your god, so what is the difference?
Even your bible say that yahweh is the son of High god (elyon).
According to muslims you are believing a false god and you are far away from god, according to their god's words and their opinion aligned to their god's word. So you are missing the spiritual truth?
Does "spirit" means 'in accordance with what you believe?
So jesus is adopted son of god?
If he is a "loving" god why is he not "adopting" every one?
We are "righteous" THROUGH Jesus Christ. We have no righteousness of our own, but are made righteous through him. The Holy Spirit within us does not allow us to gleefully continue in any kind of sin, but will convict and cause to repent, so that the follower of Jesus will gradually be conformed into the likeness of Jesus.
Truth is revealed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is Truth. People (including me and anyone of any religion or lack thereof) can say whatever they want and it doesn't make it true. But when HE (the Holy Spirit) guides you into all truth, then you yourself will know the truth. If you earnestly seek him, he will be found by you.
Jesus is not the adopted son of God - he is the One and Only begotten Son of the Father (God in the flesh; God "with us"). We who receive our rights to become his children are adopted by God and become co-heirs.
Do you not find it loving for God to INVITE ALL to become his sons and daughters through the redeeming work of his Son/Himself on the cross? Should he force into his family those who reject him and the family?
"God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." 1 John 4:9-10
So you are righteous and without sin?
Means your opinion is the truth and those whose opinions differ from you don't have spirit?
So jesus is the product of sexual union with god and...?
It is not loving not to accept into happiness.
Through Jesus Christ I am "righteous and without sin". That is, my sin has been washed / atoned for, so that I bear it no more. I am currently being transformed into the likeness of Jesus.
Truth IS, whatever our opinions about it are. If we align ourselves with that truth, which comes from the Lord, rather than following either our own imaginations or inaccurate human teachings, then we will have and speak truth.
Jesus is not the product of any sexual union, but rather God through the Holy Spirit placed the Seed
within the womb of the virgin Mary.
Oh so you are holy!!!
Can you see that you are contradicting?
So truth is your opinion.
Ok understood. So spirit put the sperm in mary's womb, but is it like a test tube baby or artificial insemination? If latter why the bible says that Jesus was the first of the creation?
This Holy Spirit of which you speak is also referred to as the super-ego. We all have one, but some of us understand that it's simply part of our mind and not some some magical connection with God. That's why it can't give you any information you don't already have. Look up super-ego and you'll see it matches the description you've given. I've noticed that people who are a slave to the super-ego are often also a slave to the sub-conscious.
The superego is a limited concept related to the conscience and learned social standards ("the part of a person's mind that acts as a self-critical conscience, reflecting social standards learned from parents and teachers").
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He is with God (and knows the mind of God), He goes into the world, and God has placed Him within believers as the promised Comforter and Counselor. While he does convict of sin and act as Counselor (similar to the superego God placed within us), His role is far greater: He empowers, gives abilities/gifts not otherwise had, gives knowledge not possessed, guides us into all truth even beyond what we've been taught by humans, seals us in the truth, comforts, gives peace, joy and hope...
The superego cannot give us joy and peace, it does not comfort, it does not empower or give spiritual gifts. God's Holy Spirit within us does give us these things and more.
You are mistaken when you say the Holy Spirit can't give us information we do not already have. Spirit-filled believers are often told of a need they were unaware of, instructed to pray about something specific they had no knowledge of, etc. (which is then later confirmed in the natural). The Spirit is the One in control, not us, and he gives knowledge as he determines. When you demand a sign from your own spirit of unbelief (such as being told your address) you are demanding something we have not been given (nor do we expect to be given). The Holy Spirit is not our puppet and God does not give signs on demand. Even prayer for the healing of people (which you claim doesn't work) may be best left at the direction of the Holy Spirit. If he tells us to pray for the healing of a particular person, then we should pray just as instructed. Otherwise perhaps we should pray simply for His presence and His will to be done (Not fully sure and perhaps a Spirit-filled believer can help me on this one).
The superego does have a very important function and we can see that God placed it within us for very specific and very essential reasons. Indeed, the superego declares with all of creation that any ideas about the universe happening without design and purpose are absurd and unbelievable. The superego is far too purposeful, meaningful, brilliant and magnificent to come about without One who in all wisdom has determined its need and designed it to function within us.
What I say is always from Holy Spirit you know, the holy spirit has a special preference for me.
The spirit obviously hate you or anyone who do not agree with me!!!
I understand the point you're trying to make, but your own words would show the lies within your sarcastic statement because they contradict the Holy Spirit's unchangeable characteristics - God is love and his Spirit hates no person.
What you are trying to say is that it contradicts your unchangeable opinions?
If the spirit doesn't hate why does it fail to reveal itself to the majority of humans?
He reveals himself to all who will receive him. The invitation is open to ALL.
Sorry, but that's your super-ego talking. It demands attention from your ego and hides things in order to get that attention. It tells you to look good to others by going to church or praying and it makes sure you look holy to others. It will bring you joy and will let you know when you are about to do something that will make you look bad in the eyes of others.
Sound familiar? Upon reading these words you super-ego will cause you to dismiss them as words from satan or some such nonsense and it enjoys it's control over your ego. It won't give up it's lie easily, but your connection to God can't supply any information you don't have because there is no connection.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap. I don't look good to others, I don't even consider that a noble goal, and I am often compelled to say exactly the things that will NOT make me look good (you know I've made people on here consider me insane). You want to paint me as one who goes to church and prays to appear to others (and self) as holy and good. Well, you're speaking to the wrong person, because while my focus is on my Lord, I can't get it "right" in human terms - miss lots of church, forget even to pray at meals, etc. My joy does NOT come from "image". I haven't found anyone worth impressing here on earth. Everything here is fleeting and brings no real joy; my joy comes from my Lord.
Many are told of needs they know nothing about, given a word or direction from the Lord, and so on, all of which are then verified in the natural.
More super-ego stuff. "Many are told of needs they know nothing about" "my joy comes from my Lord"
I am however sorry your husband or your children arn't worth impressing, that is sad indeed.
Well, this seems to be where she stole her opinion on super ego from (at least some of it anyway).
http://sophmoet.wordpress.com/2014/01/2 … elf-image/
Direct cut and paste. Google - for when you don't know anything and need to cut and paste a quick response.
Ha, from someone who claims to have multiple psychology degrees. Sad, live an entire life being fooled by your own mind without a person alive to connect with because your mind tells you that you only need what it's selling.
You didn't see this "you know I've made people on here consider me insane"?
The sad thing about fundamentalists is that they think lying or forcing someone (like the isis does) is upholding truth and god/holy spirit is with them when they do it. Not sure whether to laugh or cry.
You are all free to make your own decisions; no one is forcing you to do anything. Those who speak the truth offer it to you to take or leave. Jesus Christ is Truth. You can receive or reject him, that is up to you.
You are not speaking any truth but simply speaking your opinion. Truth does not mean in accordance "with bible" but in accordance "with fact". You quote the spirit to get authority and shirk responsibility. But your 'spirit authority' works only with christians not with someone who recognize it as your voice.
Jesus nor anything in bible is truth but fiction purported as truth. It is no different from any other faith books.
Truth will always be in accordance with the Word and the Spirit. I'm not interested in having authority (I dislike having authority over others, just as I detest them having authority over me; I understand that authority is not a bad thing, just not my thing). I'm not clear on what you think I should be "taking responsibility" for.
Truth is always in accordance with fact, kindly check the dictionary. Word (I think you mean jesus) and spirit are ancient superstitions created by human priests. Simply quoting the bible or say what you say is in accordance with bible doesn't make it truth.
When you say your words are from spirit, you are quoting the authority of spirit. As there is no spirit that reveals itself to you or anyone, you are using it to give legitimacy to your words. Even if you say a thousand times that your words are from the spirit, no it is not, it is only your word. Probably what you say is from the bible but then it means you have only the ancient ignoramuses to quote from and you are stating their opinions as yours and nothing else, that again doesn't make it truth.
RA, Rad Man: If you made an inaccurate statement about the simplest of words, such as "block" for example, I'd likely give you the definition in quotes and speak about it, just as I did for superego and how it relates and is different than the Holy Spirit. Why would you two even be hypocritical or accusatory about this? All you're doing now is showing your desire to attack and criticize.
No I'm not attacking or accusing you of anything. I'm just showing you that this holy spirit connection you claim to have can be explained with simple psychology. I'm not accusing you of lying at all, I think you really think you have that connection, but that doesn't mean the connection is there. I'm sure as you read this your super-ego is trying to find away around the truth it hides from you, but it's time to look deep and allow your ego to control your super-ego as it should.
In our day it is a popular idea that the ego should control the superego (though not using those words). So people "create" their own truths, come up with their own definitions, develop their own ideas of right and wrong and so on.
It is God who placed the "superego" tendencies and the conscience within us. He intended for us to know the Truth. Not our own self-designed truths from our own imaginations, but His Truth. People across time and place tend to have very similar morality when it comes to the basics, though we are easily corrupted and perverted by our own lusts, demonic forces, evil teachings and the like.
As we mature, we want to rely more directly on Him, not any people and not our own imaginations, for ultimate Truth and direction.
"People across time and place tend to have very similar morality when it comes to the basics"
That simply is not true. Every culture feels that; that their moral structure is the "right" one, and all differ. "When in Rome do as the Romans do" reflects this all too well.
"When in Rome do as the Romans do" reflects the differences on a more superficial level. The basics (e.g., don't murder the innocent, don't steal, etc.) are remarkably similar in most times and places (You may want to take an anthropology course if interested). But it is true that there will always be exceptions and the influences of other things (such as things taught by demons).
Hmmm, seems as though a short while back many thought keeping slaves was ethical?
I don't know if they did it because they thought it was ethical or simply because they could and they wanted to. Maybe it was their "id" taking over. Murderers often agree that murder is unethical and thieves often agree that theft is unethical.
They used their holy books to tell them what was ethical, just as you do. Which would mean that the writers of the bible were not ethical at all. If funny that every holy book creates laws for slavery, but none say it's immoral. The OT, NT, Quran and the book of mormon. Perhaps this is an indication that the writers were simply greedy men.
Slavery was a way of early life (I personally find it disgusting). The revelation of Jesus Christ was that the slave is our brother/sister.
Which of these ethics within Scriptures should I disagree with: that love is supreme and fulfills the entire law; that we should care about others as ourselves and treat them the way we want to be treated; that we should act justly; that we should be honest; that we should not cheat others or oppress them; that mercy triumphs over judgment; that we should care for and give to those in need; that we should love truth; that we should love mercy...
I know, I know, you have issues with the punishment for sins - death, which is commanded throughout the Law. I don't care for it either. Praise God he has died in our place on the cross and we may now live forever in his presence!
Slavery was a way of life? Really? So was murder, but God made laws about that. Made laws about incest and homosexuality and all kinds of things but nothing preventing slavery?
I personally find slavery much more immoral than homosexuality as a matter of fact I don't find homosexuality immoral at all. Homosexuality harms no one while slavery most certainly does.
That love is supreme and fills the entire law. That mercy triumphs over judgement. That we should always give to those in need. You should disagree with all of those.
While at the same time you disagree with some I hold dear: the golden rule (stop proselytizing). That we should be honest (and quit proffering opinion as truth). That we should not oppress others (like gays). That we should love truth (instead of the biblical tales presented as truth).
See? Your morals are NOT spread over the earth, as much as you would like them to be.
Wilderness, you say I "should" disagree that "love is supreme and fills the entire law. That mercy triumphs over judgment. That we should always give to those in need." Have you now declared yourself an authority on this?
I do strive to treat others the way I want to be treated; as I've said before even if someone was wrong in their belief, if they truly believed it and yet they did not share what they saw as truth with me, I'd be offended.
I never said my morals were spread all over the earth. I think most people are in many ways quite immoral. I said many basics transcend time and place.
As much an authority as you are, or more. For I do not take the word of ignorant peasants as to what is true and real, or what is moral or immoral.
You would support teaching of satanism or Islam in schools? Witchcraft? Do you support the building of satanic icons on public lands and buildings? Do you support other belief systems making laws under those beliefs that YOU must obey, such as Sharia Law? I don't think so in any case, but you certainly support YOUR beliefs being forced onto others.
" The basics (e.g., don't murder the innocent, don't steal, etc.) are remarkably similar in most times and places". A quote from your earlier post clearly stating that your own dearly held morality structure is the same the world over. Those I have listed are most basic, just as yours are, in spite of you trying to deny it. The gods instructions have always been the basis of morality (until the last few decades, when reason begins to raise it's head), they just aren't YOUR god. That you declare them "immoral" just reinforces that you, and you alone, can determine a moral structure for a culture. It isn't true and neither is the quaint notion that they are common worldwide.
I'm not the authority, Jesus Christ is.
I support freedom of religion. That is what we came to America for. Not to force any religion, but to all have the freedom to practice our religious beliefs. That includes the freedom to tell others about it. And if someone truly believes that Islam is the way, then I'm offended if they don't share what they see as truth with me. As for Satanists, they already know theirs is not the true and good way, but they delight in evil, so I'm not offended if they don't spread / share their evil with me.
Notice that in my quote you give I'm saying the same thing - that the "basics" are remarkably similar across time and place. As for my own "dearly held morality structure", no that is not the same the world over, and I did not say it was - I most value kindness, gentleness, respect, mercy and so on, and this is NOT held or practiced the world over. Please stop making assumptions and putting words into my mouth. I'm not sure who you're saying I've declared "immoral". I consider the entire human race prone to immorality but capable of morality based on God's goodness.
Jesus is no authority but a story written by some hellenised jewish sect. Those who wrote about jesus is no authority either for most of it is forgery or as in the case of Paul (if genuine, that is) hallucination.
But the man died 2,000 years ago and has said nothing since. True, some claim "divine revelation" from the ideas concocted in their own mind, but it is not Jesus (nor his alter ego) presenting those ideas; just people like you and I.
But you carefully did not address giving all religions the same opportunity to spread their ideas. Like their icons scattered on every public building. Like their phrases on our money. Like teaching their ideas in the schools to impressionable young children.
As for Satanists, they already know theirs is the right and proper way, and will tell you so. Only one from a different belief system (such as Christianity) will claim differently, and they ALL have the same proof; i.e. none at all. Your opinion is not better than theirs.
Sure they are the same. Basics like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", or the death penalty. Totally moral for society to kill...NOT. Not according to most of the world, anyway. Basics like sex is to be hidden away and never sold outright...NOT. Not according to some cultures anyway. Basics like beating children half to death, or killing women for being raped. Very basic in some cultures, just not ours and thus don't count, do they?
It sounds a little funny for you to say that, and then pick and choose what is basic to each culture, but basic ONLY if it follows your premise. Of course you will find a handful of morals common to (nearly) every culture, but you find far more, and very basic ones, that are not common at all.
Can't remember who you called immoral? Let me quote you: "I think most people are in many ways quite immoral." - you can explain the specifics of who they are while explaining that the moral code they use isn't "basic" because it doesn't match your own. And then declare once more that "basic" morals are similar everywhere.
You don't get a lot more basic than murder. Murdering the innocent is considered immoral in most all times and places. You want to introduce capital punishment, but that is not the same because the people being killed are not (or at least are not considered) innocent. You and I are in agreement that capital punishment is harsh and that it varies from place to place. But that's not what appears to be a universally held concept of right/wrong. Like murder of the innocent, stealing and adultery do appear pretty universally held.
Maybe the word "basic" bothers you. I agree that the acceptability of various sexual behaviors and ideas related to the rights of people (and animals) do vary greatly.
I think too that you are mixing in human corruption and perversion. Let's say that people have been given a tendency to consider murder of the innocent, theft and adultery as morally wrong. They then murder women who've been raped. Their own violent, harsh, hateful, judgmental, hypocritical, unloving, etc. human nature entered in with their awareness that adultery is immoral, and thus they acted in a wrong manner.
"You don't get a lot more basic than murder. Murdering the innocent is considered immoral in most all times and places."
Except under Islam, where it is obviously not considered wrong, but a god given edict. Or under Christianity until the last couple hundred years and for the same reason. You continue to put your own values out there (consider the term "innocent" as in innocent of what?) as if they are universal but they are far from that. There are still societies, for instance, that not only condone adultery but require it and the US is one of the few developed nations to accept the killing of people, innocent or not. Most of Europe finds it barbaric that you feel that when the word "guilty" is introduced it gives the OK to kill.
Yes, your use of the word "basic" bothers me, but only because it is you who gets to define which morals are basic and which are not. Religion still controls the basic morals throughout much of the world, and those religions vary a great deal of what they find right and wrong. At the root of it is that Cat333 feels she is entitled to decide right and wrong for other cultures, based on her interpretation of a 2,000 year old book written by men to cement their power base in place. You aren't.
Uh huh. You mean like shooting schoolgirls for going to school. Like stoning women for being raped. Like beating children. Like sleeping with your neighbor's wife. Like eating meat. Like the acceptable treatment of animals. Like prostitution. Like the death penalty.
The list is almost endless of things that are perfectly acceptable one place but highly immoral and usually illegal somewhere else and if we go back in time we'll find every possible action that can happen has been considered moral at one time or another. often including in your own sacred text. (You might want to spend some time abroad if you're interested - you'll find that the edicts handed down by your god are NOT universal).
Now you're introducing a lot of the "punishments" for "offenses". The punishments do certainly seem to vary by time and location. It's the ideas about the "offenses" that are strikingly similar.
Sure it is. Like the idea girls can't go to school or that children are property to be treated as desired. Or killing cows, dog and cock fights. Things like prostitution and the death penalty are just laws, not morality.
And if you think that shooting girls for going to school is a moral action, we have VERY different ideas of what is moral.
Sure they are.
You should just stop making so much sense and submit to who every she tell you to. But you probably don't have daddy issues.
The basic similarities across time and place are generally morals related to not killing innocent people, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.. As I said, you will find other differences. The level of respect for and treatment of various groups (including animals) does vary greatly.
I'm not clear on why you would even suggest that I might think shooting girls for going to school is a moral action. My point wasn't even that people are in general moral. My point was that God put within us the conscience / superego (or the predisposition for it). We have the responsibility of teaching what is good to children, being mindful of the predisposition placed within them to internalize what they're taught.
That's more super-ego talking. Do you think your God also put the ID in there to constantly ask for instantaneous desires? I've noticed that when people are control primarily by their super-ego they usually have impulse problems and the conscious ego gives in both to the super-ego and ID. Hence all those televangelists getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. It's best to all your conscious mind to be in charge, of course your super-ego will tell you otherwise. It's got you convinced you have a direct connection to God, so it is capable of anything in order to maintain control.
The purpose of the id I believe is survival. The id within ensures we act in ways to survive, that we get our needs met. For this purpose, God placed the "id" (if we want to go with the label) within us (goes along with him making sex so pleasurable to ensure we procreate), just as he placed the "superego" within.
All types of people put their hands in the cookie jar (the id is strong, temptation is strong...), but some receive a lot more attention and publicity when they do it.
My experiences with God began before I theoretically should have even developed much of a superego.
I love them, but that's different than wanting to "impress" them. I don't consider impressing people a noble goal. People are too often "impressed" with what has no real value - money, beauty, strength, popularity, etc. There's is only One who is worthy of impressing.
That's not what the super-ego does. It's job is to persuade you to feel righteous, wanting that image of yourself in your mind to appear good and righteous to others and to yourself.
I'm sorry you feel humans are not worthy of impressing. Trying to impress God then? More super-ego stuff.
The superego's job is to suppress the id and make sure the ego behaves morally. Most people's internalized ideals (what the superego is composed of) do in fact relate to feeling and appearing good and righteous to others and self (even when they appear to us to be behaving very differently).
The id, ego and superego are a way of understanding humans, but be careful of thinking any theory fully explains human psychology. The psychoanalytic theory is limited like all theories. It offers some insights that can be of use, but understand its limits.
Btw, I don't have an image of myself as "good and righteous".
I'm sorry you feel you must impress humans. Perhaps shifting your focus from impressing them to loving them and treating them with respect would result in greater empathy and kindness. While God is the only One "worthy" of respect, that doesn't mean I think it's possible to impress him. God loves us, but he is not impressed with us.
Yes, you are finally getting except the super-ego's job is not to suppress the ID, it's only job is ask things of the ego, which the ID does as well. A person with a strong ego will have a good balance between giving into both the ID and the Super-ego when necessary. The super-ego's greed for attention from the ego has enabled it to lie to get what it wants.
I treat people with love and respect so that I get that love and respect back. Claiming the only person worthy of your respect is rather sad. Must be difficult to have any good relationships?
According to psychoanalytical theory, one of the superego's tasks is to suppress the demands of the Id. The superego is somewhat like a conscience and ensures the person is acting morally. You seem to be personifying superego.
I believe you treat people with love and respect face-to-face, but I've seen some pretty unloving and disrespectful comments toward several people in the forums. Giving respect and desiring to impress are quite different things. I respect people; I don't think trying to impress them is necessary or desirable.
Yes, the super-ego is somewhat like a conscience and ensures the person is acting morally. Bingo. Sound familiar?
"According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego."
"Freud's theory implies that the super-ego is a symbolic internalisation of the father figure and cultural regulations. The super-ego tends to stand in opposition to the desires of the id because of their conflicting objectives, and its aggressiveness towards the ego."
Any of that ringing any bells?
Yes, I'm familiar with the theory. I agree that it can aid our understanding in ways, but I'm also aware that it is only a theory by a man struggling to understand human nature, and that the theory has both strengths and weaknesses in it. We can see the label of the id fits closely with survival instincts and behaviors known to exist in us. We can see the label of superego fits closely with teachings and conscience. And we can see the label of ego fits closely with our thinking / being selves.
Don't you feel it help to understand ones thinking? When it's no longer a mystery.
"The super-ego retains the character of the father, while the more powerful the Oedipus complex was and the more rapidly it succumbed to repression (under the influence of authority, religious teaching, schooling and reading), the stricter will be the domination of the super-ego over the ego later on—in the form of conscience or perhaps of an unconscious sense of guilt."
—Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)
You can learn some things from Freud and others theorists, sure. But you seem to take theories as facts, so be cautious. Learn from them, but take a critical view as well. I get the impression that you want to believe we humans have more knowledge and more control than we actually do. We have not got it all figured out and will not during this life on earth.
I don't buy much about the Oedipus complex. I don't believe I ever wanted to have sex with my father, not because it's too gross an idea but because I actually remember being sexually attracted to lots of people as a very young child, but not my father. I had an abnormally good memory and awareness from a VERY young age (preschool age), and I remember such things as thinking my parents were unattractive, and being attracted to young and beautiful people.
Yes, the very thought repulses us. We either find someone the total opposite of our parents of exactly like them. My wife is nothing like my mom. But I was at a friends house a while ago and say what I thought was an old coloured photo oh his wife and asked "where did you get that done because your wife is young and that looks old and artificially coloured. He replied "that's not my wife that's my mom".
That holy spirit stuff is simply according to you. Because you say it's so doesn't make it so. Because it's written in a book doesn't make it so. You have a good as chance of being right as the Muslims do.
Who is the "he" here? How can a book, any book, especially written by anonymous ancient authors be "he"?
Jesus Christ is the Word in the flesh. The Holy Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit (though men were used and may leave their mark). The Word is living and active. The Word is eternal.
Doesn't mean anything. Sorry. Show us instead.
As a human I can do nothing but tell you about Truth and pray that you will be shown by the One who can show you. And if/when he does, you will believe, just as all of us who have been shown believe.
I know what is written in the book, my question was how can an ancient anonymous book be he?
Word is vibration of molecules, so is not flesh.
It's men who wrote any book the inspiration is varied, from hallucinations to chicanery though they claim it to be from god. The word is neither nor eternal. After it is spoken it dies out.
The Word has not and will not die. It was alive in the beginning, it is alive now, and it will be alive for all eternity.
You are thinking in physical terms when the spiritual is needed. ASK the Holy Spirit to come to you as you read the Word; ASK him to reveal himself to you. Those who ask (and keep asking) receive...
So...can you explain atheists who were once Christian and how they never received? Or maybe other actual Christians who haven't received? To make a statement like that when it's very clearly not true kind of points out that you think you are more worthy than others.
Worthy, no. Having a "first-hand" faith rather than merely a "second-hand" faith (one based on the beliefs of others but not personally experienced), yes. Is a person with second-hand faith saved? As far as I know. Are they at risk of turning away much more than one with a first-hand faith? Definitely. Might someone even with a first-hand faith turn away? Possible but more unlikely. Why is it possible to turn away even with a first-hand faith? Because we humans are "short of memory", prone to doubts, easily distracted and confused, and may begin to question even our OWN experiences and the knowledge given by the Holy Spirit.
Some get lost, but if they are the Lord's, he will find them and rejoice over them even more than he rejoices over all those who were never lost. It is not God's will that any who are his be lost forever. The Holy Spirit seals us in him and he is able to keep us safe until the Lord's coming. (Everything in this paragraph is based on Scriptures, not my opinion.)
So if someone says "I was once a Christian but am not anymore", what can we conclude? Not a lot, for how do we know whether they are one who was never really the Lord's, or if they are one who he will yet bring back to himself?
There goes the Convienent "but they weren't a true Christian" excuse, just a little more subtle. That still implies those who had things revealed to them were more worthy than others.
Just be sure and remember that you are "lost," and you will be properly put in your lowly place.
Truly his revelations are not inspired by any "worthiness" on our parts (none are "worthy").
You are thinking in delusional terms when thinking is needed. TRY thinking. Those who TRY eventually are able.
Word is not alive, it's a vibration that starts from the vocal cords.
I bet you too are doing the same or are you imagining the word as talking, walking and eating without a form?
If believing a nonsense book is what you mean by asking spirit, or blindly believing nonsense as true, sorry.
Jesus is the Word. He is God manifest. He fellowships with us through the Holy Spirit. Just as he came to live the perfect human life and bear the consequences of sin and stand in our place so that we can be declared righteous through him, so also he will one day be returning. He was seen by the eyes of humans the first time he came to earth, and he will be seen at the second coming.
So rather than take his reasoning, which he knows better than yourself, for what it is, you impose random ideas on him just to try and Make sense of his reasoning...which has already been explained to you.
What is your definition of persecution in regards to those 80% of Christians?
It's not MY definition of persecution, it's the International Society for Human Rights' definition.
More interesting facts:
There are seven countries in which you can be executed for being an atheist - Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan.
The countries where you can be executed for being a Christian? Seems too many for anyone to get a good handle on (I couldn't find a complete list). Here's a list of the top ten MOST dangerous countries for Christians as listed by the Open Doors World Watch List: Laos, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Yemen, Maldives, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea.
The Open Doors World Watch list does NOT appear to be a Christian organization, but does note about the persecution of Christians throughout the world: "Western media frequently under-report these incidents, fearing to offend cultural sensibilities. As a result, much of this news must be culled from secular human rights publications and religious watchdog groups."
Then you have not seen my participation in the Islamic forums. Go have a look, they aren't around much when whenever they try to convince us that Mohammad was a peaceful man I'm right there to set them straight.
I'm sorry to say you are wrong about my motivations, just as you are wrong about a great many things you claim to have divine knowledge of.
You need to understand a very important flaw in the doctor (that was weighing people upon their death) reasoning. If there is something immaterial (soul, spirit, whatever) about us it would have no mass because to have mass you need material.
I think you imply that I'm evil because you know saying so will get you banned. You think it but are afraid of saying it, but you imply it.
I enjoy these conversations because I have an interest in psychology and that interest keeps me wondering why someone would convince themselves that a God exists in order to make their life bearable. I'm sure I've told you that many times.
What are those stats for? They are meaningless much like when Muslims say Islam is the fastest growing religion. Sure it is, if you leave it's the death penalty and if you don't convert to it they tax you until you comply. But feel free to see my work on the Islamic forum when they try to tell me the earth is egg shaped or a mans sperm comes from his back. Good times.
First and foremost, Rad Man, I am NOT implying you're evil (the evil within humanity is already a given, and I do NOT consider you more "evil" than others). You're making assumptions about what I'm thinking, and I'm not actually thinking what you assume I am, nor monitoring myself to avoid getting banned in this discussion.
Second, you seem to assume I'm claiming "divine knowledge" of everything. That which I have divine knowledge of is rather limited to that related to God, his character, the divinity of Jesus Christ and such. I personally believe you do desire to tear down the Christian faith, even if you believe it is ultimately for "good". I understand you feel much the same about the Muslim faith, but I don't know that you're passion is there.
So you didn't go into the Islamic forums then and check? I do love this part of your post.
"Second, you seem to assume I'm claiming "divine knowledge" of everything. That which I have divine knowledge of is rather limited…" But you do claim to have divine knowledge, right? I never said everything, you did.
I have no divine revelation regarding your motives (the initial topic regarding divine revelation in your post). Yes, I do have some limited divine revelation - that God is, that He is love, that Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, that the Word is truth, that Jesus is Truth, that Jesus is returning, that all God's promises will come to be...
The problem would seem to be that you regard that "divine revelation" as knowledge instead of the opinion that it is. It does, after all, originate solely within your own mind without any experience or evidence to support it and thus cannot be considered as knowledge at all.
The experiences and evidences are there, given by countless people throughout the ages. We do not all share a common delusion or psychosis. Yet Jesus' devoted followers tell a similar story. They tell of their personal relationship with the Lord, of their experiences with him, of their assurance, of their changed hearts and changed lives, of empowerment and victory. They love the Lord and their hearts sing to him. They hear his voice and follow only One. This depth and magnitude is unique to Christianity. Sure, you'll occasionally find elsewhere that which mimics the experiences of Christianity due to "false signs and wonders" or true psychosis, but mainly you'll find nothing but "second-hand" faith amongst those of other religions.
Yes, I remember some of the experiences reported in the bible. A woman turning to salt. Another one made from a rib. A world wide flood extinguishing all life but that on a single boat that we know never happened. A 3 day corpse walking around. A man living in the belly of a fish for days. Feeding hundreds with a handful of fish. People walking on water. Changing water to wine.
Sorry, they ARE delusion, psychosis or outright lie. That the people living off the story of Jesus reported some of them doesn't make it true. That your "divine revelation" from the recesses of your own mind tells you they are true doesn't make it so. That the church today, taking your tithes to support themselves, say they are true doesn't make it true. Those willing to objectively examine the question all agree.
The similar story presented by Christ's followers is their own, not the stories in the Scriptures, which you speak of. We are those who ourselves know and love him, experience him regularly, praise and worship him, hear his voice and follow...
Strange things reported in the Scriptures. Things unbelievable in ANY day or time (They NEVER thought people turned into salt, walked on water, etc.). If people were seeking to control and gain money from the masses, why would they tell such unbelievable "tales"? No one attempting to sell something would make it so hard to believe. Stories so unbelievable many debate whether the OT stories were literal or symbolic. And yet with God all things are possible. Consider: Your body and very life are so amazing that they would be unbelievable without direct experience of them. If God is able to create life, how would he not be able to also do any of the unbelievable, strange things that defy the world as we know it? Which is harder - to create life in the first place or to raise it from the dead? Nothing is too hard for God.
Go ahead and tell that to the Mormons and Muslims. You see the NT is just on in the series, each one claiming to be the last. The fact that you can't see that is rather disturbing to me.
We tell everyone. I understand that to those with "added" books, the NT Scriptures are one in a series. But God's children follow the lead of the Holy Spirit and listen only to the voice of their Lord. We do not recognize these additions because they have a stranger's voice.
One thing I've found very noteworthy when speaking with those of the Mormon faith (Mormon friends, etc.) is that there is such an emphasis on what their leaders say, what their church says, etc. The focus is shifted from God (the Word and the Spirit) onto humans. You do find this with some Christians/"Christians" as well (generally those following traditions over truth), but it is particularly strong amongst the Mormons I've known.
Edit: Btw, though I believe they are deceived in many ways, I do believe there are many Mormons who are saved, if they have put their faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as for the leaders who introduce the deceptions...
Beautiful thesis, janesix. I have long had similar thoughts.
For instance, evolution, in some cases seems an impossibility, but could it be programmed to think outside the box -- to stretch beyond its current limits?
But going back to the initial creation of the universe. It's perfectly balanced. If protons were a tiny bit heavier or lighter, then atoms may never have existed. Molecules would never have formed into life.
As a programmer and an artist, I've seen patterns across a wide variety of fields that seem to indicate an intelligence behind it all.
The exact nature of that source may be unknowable. Can that source communicate with us? Who knows?
But the closer we get to the nature of that source -- altruistic, giving and loving, the more we become like Him/Her/It -- a non-physical, immortal and spiritual source of creation.
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by Alexander A. Villarasa7 months ago
There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that...
by kirstenblog2 months ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by Ron Karn5 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by Susana S7 years ago
Assuming there are other planets out there with civilsation at least as advanced as ours, what kinds of religions would they have there? Do you think they'd have had Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna and Buddha visit them also?...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.