Usually, when someone writes about God, it is not to debate. It is the intent of the religious zealots to challenge and prove their indoctrination. My beliefs are better because of this, or you're wrong because my pastor said that. It is the common mistake of most people, to see their religion as the be all end all and therefor, prove the other wrong.
The basis that Jesus "is the only way to God", is falacious in it's self and was a product of most western ideology. I say this based on the fact, that most Budhist's won't argue with you. They will say that you are absolutely right, because what you say, binds you to your vision of God. This is not true for everyone, but it works for those that have nothing to prove.
Which brings me to my point. Religion, clearly being a product of man's vision, but devinely inspired, cannot be put in words everyone will enjoy. If I were to tell a joke, only a certain number of people would laugh, because not everyone shares my brand of humor. It is those that are closed minded that hang on the words of the few, to listen to all sides gives one a better view of whats true or not.
The truth is in the eye of the beholder, so it has been said...
Culture plays a part in here. Religion is a part of culture of the peoples being and becoming. What I am trying to say is that there are behavior which is allowed in some culture while in other culture it is taboo i.e, men kissing.
What is wrong and right is subjective. I am thinking of a behavior which is bad in all culture - killing?? I am not sure if killing is justified according to all teachings of different religion. While it maybe said that doctrines will prohibit killing there are aspects of peoples culture in other places where they can kill in the name of clans and offerings.
Living and dying is the nature of life. Is a lion evil for killing a rabbit? If I were a serial killer and I refused to kill, would I not be acting against my nature? The old testiment stated "If someone steels a cow from you, then you must kill ten of his". Because it is written, doesn't make it right.
According to the Catholic church, the King James bible, was delivered to us by an angel. I am only pointing out how obsurd religious texts sound. I do have a form of faith, but for me God is an absolute truth, based on the fact that all have a name for it.
it should adapt to the changing times, (like now we are in the stage of post modernized era - Internet) but it is difficult specially for the religion which thrives on hierarchy.
Like all things living, they must change and if the bible is living, as some say. should it not grow and change itself? The Catholics were the first to deme the bible infalable. And thus, it has not been given license to change.
The Catholics are arguably the most tolerant of science and interpretation of the bible.
Jp2 even went so far as to admit Darwin's theory of evolution is more than hypothesis.
They above all seem to accept the bible was written by people who existed millennia before science and can't be used on a fundamental level.
People seem to forget how Catholics were the bane of evangelicals before the whole gay rights movement came about.
The bible has not changed. Gods ways of doing business has changed but not that drastically. The OT is Hebraic history and God is woven throughout, unlike our Western Society. The OT testament will never change the last page written, it is finished - as jesus said.
The New Testament is Gods, hmm, revised way, to meet the criteria of a larger mass of people - the whole world. The OT wanted truth and the NT wants truth. The OT offered sacrifice to God, the NT our lives are our sacrifice to God and Jesus offered the last flesh and blood sacrifice to end that system. The God of the OT bible wanted - sin less lives, The God of the NT bible wants the same thing - go and sin no more.
So the way that we humans in our carnality think of change is not the way God thinks of change.
We are introducing carnality into this thread now...?
It is so comical to see believers attempt to rationalize the contradictions and hypocrisy between the OT and NT versions of "Gods Word"
Now, we have another explanation based on "a larger mass of people"
In the OT, "Gods Word" was an eye for an eye. But, in the NT, it is "drastically" changed to "turning the other cheek"
Why would God guide his followers to pluck out each others eye and then completely change his mind later? A larger mass of people?
I am not so insensitive as to call things I don't understand as comical. You may get some personal jolly and a couple of haha thinking that you know it all and those other poor deluded creatures, in light of your magnificent brain, have no idea what they are talking about, so i cannot call what impression I have received about you, comical - indeed i am saddened by such arrogance.
Wisdom, if you had any, would make you more humble because you have stumbled over everything that made any sense and you have lapped up every bit of information that is formed in ignorance. You have read many posts and none of it has sunk in. Like a one celled organism, you are selective of what you store.
Now read the following and realize that jeremiah is an OT book and is predicting the future... let that sink in... pre dic ting the future.. got it... pretty amazing huh.
Believe me i won't be surprised when you show that you, once again, don't get it.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks better things than that of Abel.
That's all i am gonna give you because more and more you show yourself to be a big, very large, in fact, huge, waste of time.
I don't want this to be construed as a hate post but i do want to put you in your place because I don't think it fair to the others that we should wade through your insulting posts and snippy one liners ALL the TIME like we did earnests.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Catholic church vehemently against the translation of The King James Bible? Now they think an angel sent it? When did this come about?
"The old testiment stated "If someone steels a cow from you, then you must kill ten of his""
Actually anyone who steals must pay back more than what they stole.
Exodus 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
I don't know what bible you are reading but that is not an accurate statement.
you like absolute truths:
"Love the lord thy God with all your heart, soul and mind".
Now we can't go making up a jesus to love, we need to know the right God to love Him.
Good luck with that.
forget what catholics do, they have always done everything wrong.
And we are picking on Catholics now...?
I have always mentioned catholic wrongs because they are great wrongs, awful wrongs, misleading wrongs.
I do this hopefully that more good will come of it than harm.
But really if we are to follow the God of the bible we must listen to what the bible says. Many catholic beliefs are not scriptural and this is the problem with a 'blended religion', which is why throughout the OT we see God did not want a 'blended religion' .
btw, I read your profile. I'm not that thrilled with TV either.
I was talking to a work acquaintance last year.
he said, "Well the cougars are out".
I said, "they should be out, where else would they be".
he frowned and said, "what do you think of the bears".
I said, "i like em, they are fuzzy and cute".
He said, "you don't watch sports do ya".
I laughed and said, "nope".
Its nice that bhuddists won't argue with you and that anything you say is correct, but as the God of the bible sees this spiritual and eternity issue, it is much more serious than 'just any old thing goes'.
The Christian will, more out of concern for you than anything, give their points of view and that is what we require of a reasonable God, that He make his way clear.
We as humans would like to believe that there are unlimited ways to God, but how realistic is this? We look to the historical documents of the OT and we see that God gave a pattern of his way to his people. We notice that God had a people and all those other nations practiced false ways that did not go to the God of the bible.
We look to the NT and see that God gave his only son and this is no superficial or trite event that can just be ignored, but still people think there are a multitude of paths that lead to God.
Some people think that "The basis that Jesus "is the only way to God", is falacious in it's self and was a product of most western ideology". Any person who professes to have a way to God is suspect to fallacy by the unbelieving masses. But the bible, which professes to reveal the true God for the past 6,000 yrs, says differently in both the OT and NT. The odds of any man fulfilling 25 the prophecies of the OT regarding messiah are 1 followed by 24 zeros. The timing is perfect, before the temple destruction. Mentioning dates and times and names and place begs that the bible be inspected and tested and archeologically proved. The bible doesn't hide, nor is it quiet. It bellows miracles from line one of genesis to the book of revelation.
Obviously, not a product of western ideology.
One should study the life works of bishop Usher. It was his writing that determined that the earth was 6,000 years old and it states this nowhere in the bible. The works of men should not be taken so literally and just know that Jesus had a message. In the Greek Orthodox bible, it states that Jesus said " I am one of God's son's". This implies that the spark of divinity in all of us is aparent.
It is because of emperical belief systems, that anyone with a divine message, was either excommunicated or murdered by a faction of faith. Surely this not the intent of Jesus?
If you add the timelines of the bible you get the 6000 years, to my knowledge nobody really debates this.
There is some debate concerning the meaning of the text itself. Some words in Hebrew have several different interpretations and had to be taken in context. Some of it is a guessing game. I think the confusion lies, first of all, in the genesis account and the meaning of the Hebrew word Yom; as well as Hebrew words meaning "son," etc. used in chronology. I've read the old testament in original hebrew and it can be quite a pickle to translate, given the fact that we know so little about ancient hebrew and aramaic.
@LookingForWalden, there is some exegetical research which points to a timeline compatible with those of science.
I've found new meaning for the first six books of Genesis which reveals quite a bit in this area, including Noah's Flood at 27,970 BC and Adam (all of humanity) starting 10,434,130 BC.
@AshtonFirefly makes some good points about the literal words used, but beyond the literal meaning is perhaps a code which reveals at least one or two more layers of meaning. And there may be many others.
Did Adam really live to 930 years? Read Genesis 5:2 for a clue. One interesting website on this: http://www.GenesisCode.net
If science is right and so is the Bible, then how do we reconcile that the literal timeline places humanity at 6000 years old, but anthropologists find that Homo sapiens is at least 200,000 years old? For the biblical timeline to become compatible with science, we would need a factor to multiply those already outrageous ages of the early patriarchs. Interesting that the Bible has clues that support this approach.
It is perhaps interesting, too, that the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" is embedded in two chapters of Genesis, while some scholars did not think the Kabbalists had been around much before the Middle Ages.
according to Budhist belief, there were to 2 trees. 1 of knowledge and 1 of life. Naturally man chose lnowledge. For who would want to remain retarded for an eternity?
retarded for eternity?
Adam was far from retarded, he understood language and named all the animals. Was governor, in charge of the garden and its inhabitants. He kept his mouth shut when eve ate the fruit (lol, couldn't resist that one, I made a funny)
Choosing a path of sinful ways does not leap a person out of retardation, in fact what stumps me is that if there were such a literal tree in the middle of my garden, I would have burnt it or chopped it down and gotten rid of it entirely and booted, if there were a literal snake out!. "there you go God, don't eat of what tree".
The spark of Gods divinity can be interpreted in two ways:
1) Those whom actually are of God, are his sons.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This represents a small group of people.
If Jesus said he is ONE of Gods sons, which i find no where in the KJ does not imply we all have it. Jesus also said we must be born again of the spirit - that implies divine spark and says that we did not have this previously.
2) and the human conscience
It is not the intent of Jesus or of God, but is the action of people, be it people with agendas, people who just don't believe, people who feel threatened, the list goes on.
But whatever happens in this flesh and blood life in no way can be imagined or compared to what is in store after this life.
Walden is correct, by genealogy we get 6,000 yrs. There are apparent gaps in genesis 1 and 2 that could represent an older earth. Chaos could mean uninhabited or inhabited by dinosaurs, but neither of these are important to me because as i have said, I did not become a christian because i had all the answers first.
Oh, good. I get to post another pic of what God has been up to lately...
Don't get your panties all in a knot.
I just block them anyway lol
Well, now... Let's see how many lab rats (us human ones) the Experimenter (God) has screwed today...
I believe Jesus said it best "I must leave you now for it is for your own good".
Well, I just went and did an image search for tumors. Unfortunately, what I found was just too sickening to post. Besides, it would be a total waste of time anyway. I agree with mischeviousme, and am likewise out of here.
Good. Because now in your fanatical attempts to blame God for everything you would now drag tumors into this bizarre picture. That's way over the top. You need to start to mix some reality in with your picasso perceptions.
Funny. In another thread you were gung ho to blame someone's tumors on my lack of belief in miracles. Now you call it bizarre and fanatical. Glad you can see that, even though you have blinders on when it comes to yourself.
If one is to be a good Christian, let someone without fault cast the first stone. This was not a blog written so that people could cast judgement on one another. I do admit that I got a little carried away as well, but this idiocy needs to stop.
Yes, you're right. That was probably an unkind jab I made. It's funny how religion and politics brings out the worst in people. We never get snippy when discussing things like the weather or how much is the right amount of pressure in your tires.
@mischeviousme, some good points.
Ussher's work was indeed groundbreaking scholarship for its day. Some of the dates we use in history are the same or close to those discovered by Ussher (Julius Caesar's death and the demise of Alexander the Great, for instance). However, his date for the Flood cannot have been right (2348 BC) because there was too much going on at that time. The world was too full of people. Egypt entered its sixth dynasty 3 years after this date. Sargon the Great conquered Sumer 13 years after this date. If Noah and his family were the only ones on Earth, then where did all these other people come from.
For Noah's Flood to have been a real event, the date would have to have been far earlier. My own research pegs it at 27,970 BC. One other event from science for that approximate date suggests a possible reason for the Flood and an identity for the enigmatic "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6.
Jesus also said, "ye are gods," to his enemies. Some have shallowly interpreted this to mean "judges," but they forget that this was in response to Jesus's enemies threatening to stone him for calling himself a son of God.
But then Genesis 1:26 says that we were created in God's image. And then man was created again (Genesis 2:7) from the dust of the ground. Certainly the image of God is not one of "dust." All this says (and this is echoed by Genesis 6:3) is that the immortal spirit is wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh. Too many look at the flesh and forget the spark of God within.
If you cannot read and understand anything this simple how do you dare interpret 'the word' ?
There is no problem with a god creating a man in his own image out of dust, it does not make a man dust !! nor does it make any image of the god dust !! this is simple reading and interpretation of simple words.
I tend to agree with lonestars interpretation. Where is the problem in your opinion?
The problem is simple English. The claim is that by creating a man out of dust this makes the god image 'dusty' in some way - also he claims that creating man in his own image is somehow inconsistent with creating a man out of dust - there is no inconsistency here.
Oh I didn't read lonestars post that way. Here's how I read it. (Maybe that is not how lonestar intended it?)
God made man in his image. In the first passage lonestar cited it only says... in Gods image... does not say it was of the dust till later on in the other passage lonestar cited that he made man from the dust. Which for me meant God's image is as lonestar says an immortal or spiritual image and this image is wrapped if you will in the man made of dust. So you therefore have two parts that make man. The spiritual and the physical.
I really don't see what is inconsistent?
Looking at the flesh alone as lonestar stated we sometimes forget to look at the spark of God within
That is the best supportive phraise to my argument as yet "people dwell on the flesh and forget the spirit".
Genesis chapter one is a general overview.
Genesis chapter two is more specific with still, some overview.
Genesis chapter three gets to the heart of the matter.
Image means just that, an image, not a clear picture, perhaps not even close. It doesn't have to mean that God has 8 fingers and 2 thumbs, obviously God is spirit. Our shadow is an image of our body.
I believe that to be made in Gods image is to represent, passions. God likes, loves, hate, gets angry, judges, is happy, enjoys things etc. Since adam was made of dust which is obviously opposite to spirit, the image of God is about our passions.
I have always stated that the flood was localized and you are right, lonestar, where did all these people come from?
Ye are gods
That phrase is word for word in only one place, what else we have is:
Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
This psalm is directed towards the judges at that time. Israel was only as strong as her justice system. In Gods society people in authority are supposed to hear from God and be instructed by God therefore were they called gods and children of the most high. Not because they had any internal spark of divinity in themselves, not in the OT, nor because they had special powers, but because they had authority and were in submission to God <-- big G not a little g.
In the NT it is not a shallow interpretation to render gods as judges. Jesus may have been about to be stoned, but that was not even a concern of his - because he would just walk right through them in an invisible sort of way. What was the concern is since jesus quoted OT, psalm 82, that those judges were gods, but that wasn't his point, it was the god inspired privilege they, as judges had. And Jesus point was that since those judges were God inspired, why could Jesus not be God inspired as he is the son of God. How could they not have thought a son would be more inspired than a judge? boggles the mind.
People should understand one undeniable truth. Miracles happen. I won't deny this, even The old Budhist texts have miracles, but that happened and I believe everyone is subject to punching his/her card in the end. Just because one survives something does not make it a miracle.
The pic is not meant to imply any miracles. The pic is just another demonstration of us lab rats being screwed over.
The western mind still has alot of catching up to do. What I mean by this is that, personal transformations are looked upon as taboo. It wasn't untill Carl Jung introduced objective and subjective dogma's into society, that we started to accept those that we see as different.
In the west, one is subjected to indoctrination. In the east, one is introduced to a way of thinking and sent off to think for the self. If one is aloud to grow outside of what western society demes normal, than they are automatically institutionalized for being different. If I were to say I was the son of God, again, I would be the crazy, village idiot.
I do not believe that we are going to be destroyed be some deity, I think we will have only ourselves to blame.
I do believe you are right. After all, that is probably one of the things that the lab rat experiment is all about.
"In the west, one is subjected to indoctrination. In the east, one is introduced to a way of thinking and sent off to think for the self"
And this is why there are so many different and blended ways to the very many gods that are represented over there.
God from the beginning fought to protect The Way He decreed as correct in both the OT and the NT.
and the lab rat idea is just another example of bitter ignorance complaining and whining about what hindsight and agenda want to give him. We are more lab rats to governments, world systems and greed than we are to God.
Actually Budhists don't really believe in any god per say. They had a template in Hinduism, which does contain many, but that changed when a free thinker left home, on his own spiritual journey.
The actual Budhist mindset is this: My perceptions are mine alone, no god can dictate my fortune. I believe in a god if I choose to.
The western attitude is that of ignorance. One must remember, that the east was closed to us for a time and we're just now starting to understand.
We were raised with closed mind sets, we weren't privy to such insights and were told by our pastors and teachers, that they were polytheistic heathens over there. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we must all learn that preconcieved notions don't help anyone's cause.
The bible also shows a closed mindset.
Closed in the belief that there is one God and that He introduced himself to the Hebrews and also again in to the Jewish nation but also an open mindset in the way that anyone can join.
The wealth of NT documentation far surpasses any other historical and religious evidence.
All hinduism and the other religions did was the same thing that Roman Catholicism did, take all the religions and tomes and gather them together and say, "here we go, everybody's happy". "Oh you don't like that, well, hows this now"? "Okay good."
Doesn't make it right, it makes it a man made belief structure, again.
Although it is true that interpretations have been somewhat askew because of the western mentality in the past, we now have access to resources never before experienced by church pastors, theologians and common people, which means, new light is shed on past preconceived notions even to the point where false doctrines are corrected.
To think that the creator of the universe, God, cannot dictate anyone's fortune or path or beliefs is just arrogance and to put human knowledge above or make it more important that Gods revelations is nonsense.
If people build on a flood plain does not give us the right to blame God when a flood comes along and peoples homes get flooded. In this you presume wrong if not only to fill your own prejudice agenda.
You poor thing. No prejudice here...
No judgement either obviously.
Whatever your agenda you have the right to it, because you are right whichever way it goes.
The bible is confusing and open for interpretation because it was written by philosophers and we all know that philosophy is always open for personal interpretation.
Philosophers? I didn't know that. I thought it was written by the divinely inspired.
We have so many interpretations because the hidden wisdom of the Bible takes humility, not preconceived notions.
Why would wisdom remain hidden in there? Why would it be written that way?
If one of the aims of the religion and the divinely inspired message was that of cultivating humility, then one could expect a great deal of wisdom to be hidden in the Bible.
So far, I've only been studying for 58 years, but I've come across a few things in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible that no one else has talked about -- including a timeline compatible with those of science and the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in two chapters of Genesis.
Truth is not open for interpretation. It is there for discovery. And like any scientist or other "explorer," that takes humility.
Philosophical goat herders
Shows what can happen when unlearned and ignorant men ARE inspired by God. Even their poor writing can stump people throughout the ages, predict future events and reveal truths never before known.
God reveals His word. Carnal people will always stumble through it. The bible wasn't really written for natural people. It was written for people who are Gods children by His spirit, because in that book are the keys to Gods desires and will, His wants and purposes. It is all about Him.
Sure people can read it, but if we lean to our own understanding and try to interpret it by the human mindset, unregenerated by Gods Holy Spirit then anything can go awry.
Very telling statement about what seduces people to fundamentalism, it makes very ordinary people special.
It makes average intelligence brilliant. It fills a whole.
Why would god make a book that everyone couldn't understand?
"Why would god make a book that everyone couldn't understand?"
-do not throw pearls to swine
-love the lord your God
Some parts of the book are clear and easy to understand, the core elements the basics. John preaching repentance, Jesus showing the way to the Father, but the deep things are spiritually discerned.
Its hard to imagine what the afterlife contains, what its made up of, how it exists but :
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away
Its gotta be amazing!
God does take ordinary people and inspire them to do great things. I'm glad that point in my post came through. Thanks for noticing.
@mischeviousme, I like the overall message, but only up to a point. I studied Buddhism for over a decade and found a great deal of wisdom therein, so I can appreciate the point you made there.
Certainly the zealots get too carried away with their own egos. They don't see that they are "pushing" the very thing that the divine is attempting to escape.
But I disagree with your "truth is in the eye of the beholder."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is truth and is subject to discovery. The eye of the beholder is only "subjective reality" and frequently does not resemble truth at all.
Too many of the zealots forget to search for truth. They think they've already found it and denounce science or other zealots.
Humility is the key -- not scientific skepticism (with its burden of built-in biases). Even a good scientist instinctively uses restraint and humility instead of skepticism. And too often skepticism descends into the realm of dark subjectivity -- unsupported dismissiveness and self-indulgent ridicule. Not a pretty picture.
Yes, all people are subject to divine influence, but fall into the immunity of mortal ignorance -- the heart of selfishness: ego.
Humility in any endeavor is certainly the key.
I never claimed to be a zealot or an atheist. The basis of my argument is blind prejudice. If I turn away all other religions as false, I am cheating myself of great knowledge and insight. And what of history? It was the great thinkers of the day that helped to shape the modern mind; Zemo, Socrates, Christ and Budha. To exclude any is to rob one's own soul.
I agree--to disregard the great thinkers of ancient times would be foolish. I personally love the writings of Socrates, Descartes, Aristotle, etc...I think they give us great information to chew on, and can contribute to a better understanding of the world.
Thank you... There is a book entitle "the dictionary of philosophy" it's a great read and has many profound sayings, by the masters.
Don't forget Plato, Voltaire, Locke, Paine, Jefferson.
All people that preached equality, yet themselve's owned slaves... That was a joke. Everybody owned slaves in those days.
Next you will tell me Thoreau owned slaves.
Neither Christ nor Yahweh agree with that. Both of them say that any other religion is false. In the OT, for purification sake and to keep confusion to a minimal and to avoid the 10,000 paths to spirituality we have today scenario, people who served false gods were killed. This is how serious correct knowledge is.
We can't see it we can't touch it therefore it is just abstract. That's a lackadaisical attitude.
Although there have been 'deep' thinkers, all that deep thinking represents is confusion. Philosophy, as intriguing as it is, offers so many alternates that what it has created as a main course is a 'cesspool of not knowing' and offers apathy as its dessert.
Socrates purposely lied to his students because he was one the controlling people teaching about false gods to keep the masses in control. Call him a government agent if you will. Double Doctrine, look it up and remember that He and Aristotle were before Jesus and christianity.
I wouldn't worry too much about throwing away other dogmas, i would rather be more solicitous about which is correct.
And why not see it one's own way? If God had intended us all to be follower's, there would be no leader's.
I simply believe that no one way, is the right way. They are all vallid, in a sense, that no one mans God is the same as another.
Some Christians see God as a big man with a grey beard, and the inca saw God as a panther. Who's to say that the other is wrong?
And such is the wisdom of God.
When we go to school we have text books.
When we aim for a masters degree we have books up the ying and yang.
Books are an excellent way to transmit knowledge. We pick up a book any ol time and read about whatever we want. We study and learn from books. Written pages are stagnant in that they will keep the writing for many many years, the medium will degrade before the ink will, so to speak.
So God wrote a book. He used the hands of men and a scribing tool to log events and happenings and to reveal himself.
Its not so hard to believe that the maker of the universe has authored and maintained reliable written evidence for those who would seek after Him.
And yes everybody has their opinion. But what does the bible say? What does the book that is all about God say? What is the historical Jesus like compared to what we have decided he must be like? Do we find a Jesus that is all love? and all forgiving? One who doesn't care about sin? or does the bible reveal a different Jesus? And which one do we need to follow, our Jesus or His.
Sure people can say, well i don't trust the bible. That's not really gonna hold water with God. There is a ton of reasons to believe the gospels and Pauls writings. There is a fantastic amount of documentation that has endured centuries of time. 58,000 documents of the NT alone. Whole scrolls of Isaiah. This never seems to sink in but the bible predicts future events, names names and places and times exactly, not vaguely, but pinpoints to a dot what will happen. Personally, I think that is exceptional.
It's a funny thing, I was brought up first catholic, than christianity, than the social worker point of view, to philosophy, budahism, and other religions. I personally think there is a God, but not one faith can accurately define him. I don't put God in a box, nor limit him. I believe everyone is here for a purpose, and usually here to learn some specific lesson. It maybe one religion, or many, or philosophy, or atheism. I think we believe what we choose to believe, and anything can be argued, and researched, but arguments on any side never won totally! There is right and wrong in everything. There is no one way! We can argue our points until the day we die. For my perspective I think I would agree with who ever thinks theirs is right, is right because it is their personal truth, but not mine. I think I have come to the understanding it is just more harmful when you tell someone else you are right and they are wrong, because of course it works from both sides. People get all emotional and hateful, and more wars get started out hatred because someone has to right and wrong. Perhaps I choose the budhist's perspective just for the respect of another human being have the free will to choose what they want to believe without control, force, or manipulation. It's is your choice what you believe, as well as anyone can get you to believe anything if you listen to it long enough. Staying neutral just means you don't need to be right or wrong. You allow yourself to be who you are, and co exist with your neighbor peacefully. Christian's would say love your neighbor as yourself. I think people should research, ask questions, and hear from all sides. Even atheists. None of us are good or bad.
Humans are both good and bad, yin and yang. What I have been saying all along is this: The truth you know is true, but then so is the truth of another. It stalls one's own progression. One should seek as much knowledge as possible. Not simply just to know things, but to have a better understanding of the world at large. Are we all so different? I think not. We all bleed and we all suffer.
We all have the ability to be everything in this world, a lover or murderer, it is just choice and belief that takes us down a certain path. Respect and love for all things and all perspectives is the divine path, not judgement and sin, war and revenge.
If the key to life is forgiveness and yet we are preached to that we are all sinners, repent and be saved logic, then we create a life of judgement and fear anyway. Love for all things and GOD bless is the way I choose.
Yes, some are from God and others are from the father of lies. Both have one goal, to get you to perform your greatest potential, either evil or good. It will either lead you to an abundant and fruitful life or a life of decay and corruption.
by gulnazahmad7 years ago
Do you think that religion effects the way we deal in our day-to-day life and the way our personality has been molded? Is drinking, rape, murder, assault and other such things have to do with religion or is it just...
by boyatdelhi4 years ago
Is Roman Catholic church truly follow the bible?Where it diverted from the bible?
by Roberto Lima Netto5 years ago
KW: Jesus, Christianity, Catholic Church, Christ, Buda, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Gospel of John, Gospel of Thomas, Nicene Council, Description: The article discusses the controversy about Jesus being God or an illuminated...
by Andrew02088 years ago
RELIGION VS THE BIBLE.This is a striking subject as it has being somehow controversal in all ages regarding it's relationship with the Bible. Anyway, I know Religion could be man made in nature as it is widely claimed...
by maestrowhit8 years ago
Free Will is a rather loose topic. There are many arguments for and against it. I'm of the persuasion that free will is a deception of what the Bible calls Satan (the evil one, the great deceiver, the father of lies). I...
by whoisbid3 months ago
Roman Catholics are more open minded than christiansMy father just died recently. He was a good person but some christian people believe that he is now in hell because he never embraced protestant teaching on faith. He...
Copyright © 2018 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.