Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
Just something interesting from one of my hubs that I thought I would share.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buriedToo much trouble to expound, I suppose. I'm apparently just too dumb to figure what he/she really means.
Obviously, if there was solid proof...... Why would anyone deny solid proof? It will never happen, so this whole thread is really useless, and just one out of hubdreds dedicated to the same old tired and worn out subject!
Insane....you ain't so crazy. You should change your name to : I Just Think I'm Insane Mundane.
Jonny: If Claire listens strickly to Jesus, and not his 'followers' then, she'll be alright. Trust me.
Oh, not me personally... The name of my underground cave is called "Insane Mundane," but by calling it that we are just making fun of the guys that live above the Earth. Get it?
Claire to answer your question on this forum I would say that the question itself is not valid. Christianity is a religion that is based on faith which the bible defines as "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 (KJV 2000).
Based on the definition above Christianity is not a faith based system. It requires your acceptance of its tenets first (faith) in order to confirm to you its veracity which actually is nothing more than mere subjective evidence based on your acceptance of those beliefs and how deeply committed you really are to those beliefs.
I was an evangelist for four years in the Pentecostal faith and very committed to the faith. But in the end after four years of service I found the Christian faith immoral and lacking in substance. Based on this there never will be proof of Jesus as the son of God because he does not exist. If he did exist the stories about him have been greatly exaggerated and he is not coming back from the dead.
The very idea of someone coming back from the dead on a flying horse or even descending from the clouds is outright absurd and laughable. But I am sure that long after you and I are gone there are always going to be those proclaiming the coming of Christ till the belief dies out or they will just continue to do this perpetually. They have the scriptures that state that no one knows neither the day nor the hour so they can play this game forever.Correction!!
"Based on the definition above Christianity is not a faith based system."
I meant to say that Christianity is not an evidence based system.I wrote my other comment before I saw this one so ignore the part where I asked you about your contradiction that you corrected.
We have faith that Jesus has our best interests at heart and will guide us in the right way, not have faith He exists. No one ought to be a Christian without having received that proof.
You just said it was faith-based now it's not? Faith whether it comes before or after is still faith. I actually got the evidence first before accepting its tenets. From about 7 I also knew God existed. At that stage He was in the silence. I just felt His presence. It was ironically a battle with evil at age 12 that confirmed the power of God but I won't get into that.
If I was a Pentecostal, I would run out the church so fast and become an atheist. I'm sorry, but it is oppressive and no wonder why you found it immoral and lacking in substance. Why not form a personal relationship with God without all this nonsense? So your bad experience has led you to throw the baby out with the bath water which is extremely common among people.
If one hasn't experienced the supernatural then it is going to sound absurd. You'll just have to see.I've been there and done that Claire. Notice that you "felt" God's presence, that is not valid evidence what that is is subjective evidence and it is only valid to you. I have boat loads of subjective evidence from my days as an evangelist. But what actually drove me away from Christianity was when I read the bible cover to cover not once but four times including once in Spanish! The more I read the less I believed and became convinced that I did not like this God represented in the bible nor did I want to be a part of what he represented.
I don't see any difference between Christianity and all the other pr-existing myths before it. In fact Christianity is a conglomeration of many of those ancient religious myths.
Yes, it is only valid to me but I am not the only who needs convincing when it comes to a relationship with God. No one can prove the Holy Spirit to another. One needs to find out for themselves.
.
I despise the way God is represented in the Old Testament. I never believed it was Him based mostly what was written about Him but this was confirmed when I realized how much it is based on the occult and paganism. Therefore it has been heavily corrupted. This is why Jesus came to earth; to witness to the truth and dispel the wrong in the Old Testament.
Like what?
Yup - lay on the proof. Meanwhile the "God particle" has been discovered. Will this make you an atheist?
Not much of a bible guy (Me) I am into philosophy. Jesus was a philosopher. Muhammad was a philosopher. Buddha was also. The problem with Dawkins statement is this: In seven hundred years, they same thing will be truthfully said about the U.S. Bill of Rights...if we last that long.
In seven hundred years, the U.S. Bill of Rights will transform from a document intentionally designed -- by a few hands -- to a document creatively cobbled together, revised by hundreds of authors mostly unknown to each other? Really?
If I have anything to say about it....the Bill of Rights and Constitution will be even stronger by then(several hundred years from now).
Dawkins was right about one thing (religiously, that is.) The Bible does not make sense to a materialistic, human mind! It sure didn't to me, even after I became a Christian. I've spent twenty plus years studying it and there are parts I still have trouble with.
You seemed to be suggesting the particle tells us anything at all about whether/not there is a god. It doesn't.
@peanutroaster I actually got it after I posted a reply. I agree with you regarding your stance on God though. I gave God a fair chance and found that those beliefs were lacking on so many levels. It's time that the bible and all other so called divinely inspired texts should be filed in the book store or library under mythology. People need to grow up and see it for what it is; a bunch of tales akin to the Greek and Roman myths of the time.
What's this got to do with Athletes? I know it's the Olympics very soon, but geez!
- thegeckoposted 12 years ago
0If you're addressing Atheists, you appear to be jumping ahead of yourself.
First, you must prove there is a God.
Then you can try to prove that Jesus was his son.
Then, if both are true, they might be more inclined to become Christians.They don't necessarily have to become Christians if they find out. Satan knows Jesus exists but he is not a Christian. Lol.
I don't know how to respond to that. I feel like you did not really read my post.
I did not say they "have" or will become Christians if they are given proof, only that they would be more likely. That was your original question.
And whether Satan knows or an Atheist knows Jesus existed is irrelevant. You asked if Atheists were presented with proof that Jesus is the son of God, not merely if he existed.I stand corrected.
But read my commentary below the question. I said "and if they realized it to be true". So not only do they have proof but it indisputably proves Jesus is the son of God.If it's your choice to believe that Claire, so be it. Doesn't make it indisputably so.
You will find it out to be true one day.
So, now the bigger question... do you have the proof?
You're ducking the question. The question is, "IF there's proof..." Don't make it circular by saying first supply the proof.
If the proof existed, would you believe?If there were proof then one would have to believe. But then the question remains does such a God deserve to be worshiped? I was taught all about God unconditional love was young. But then I thought buy why are there conditions if he loves us unconditionally? He would have some explaining to do.
We have the capability to behave however we choose. Obviously human history shows that some humans choose to do some truly horrendous things. If you knew God existed, would you really demand an explanation for why He has behavioral conditions?
A person can have a deep conviction of being christian in life and outlook, yet commit a heinous crime. Being christian did not prevent the crime.
You can have a law about not committing murder, but it does not stop a person murdering someone.
Why does anyone need to prove that a christian person is on the right track? it's that person's choice. Why does a christian person feel a need to convert me to his/her way of thinking? Is it because they want to control the way I think? Is it because they think I need it? They should butt out of interfering in my life. If they think they know my need in this respect, that is arrogant.
If they see me on the side of the road, injured, obviously in a bad way and being neglected by every passer-by, then it would be the Christ-like thing to help me. But don't use that as a sly way of trying to convert me. Please.
CHOICE. We all need to respect each other's.Just to be clear, my comment had nothing to do with being a Christian. It had to do with our ability to choose our behavior freely and how that ability warrants conditions.
jonnycomelately, I'd suggest without digging into fellows like Nietscke, that you completely discount the supernatural. Your terms of reference seem to be the physical humanist world, where as Christians exist within your physical world, but are linked to a supernatural being , the God of the bible.
It says clearly in the Bible the physcial man doesnt understand the things of the Spirit - your attitude seems to bear this out. This isnt a criticism, rather just a form of QED when it comes to that scripture. Christians have a spiritual walk in life - one that seems to be "out of whack" or "weird" to people who arent interested in getting to know God.
Do we want to "convert" people - yes. However our primary purpose is to make disciples of people through providing a **knowledge** of God through talking to people. God will draws those who He wants, but everyone has to hear first, so they can then accept or reject Gods offer based on their God-given free will.
No one is forcing anyone to believe anything. If you want to know more, great, please ask.
If you dont, c'est la vie.
Our view on things is that God sent His own son, to die on behalf of all sinful people, as an act of love for all those who commit sin. As all men sin, that means everyone, no exceptions.
Faith is walking based on a belief that cant be shown to people physically. Having said that, you see many things uncovered by archeology that prove more and more of whats in the Bible to be true.
Personally, as a scientist myself, I find that there have been so many 1,000,000 to 1 probability events in my life as a result of direct prayer to God, that it beggars belief I could not believe in God. And once you start doing things Gods way, things happen that just further defy the odds.
As someone who has limited people skills and loves logic, this is the best I can put it.
Please dont think that just because you cant see it, it isnt as real as you.Yes, the "Supernatural" is a man-made concept.
I have been a christian, so I know exactly what you are talking about. You are saved. I am not. So you must make it your business to get to become saved. From what you cannot say precisely. What I get as a reward, you cannot say precisely.
You believe what you believe. You are welcome to that, and I will not try to change your mind or you point of view.... it's yours to do what you like with it.
You will have all the off-the-cuff answers for every point I make here. It is in your training and psyche as a christian evangelist to be so equipped. You say no one is forcing anyone to believe. But if I entered your church and for one moment became saved, then opted out and said "no thank you," I would then be a bad boy in your sights, and be accused of back-sliding. Converting people is the one ultimate purpose of evangelists. A lot of churches and their instigators make a lot of money out of it. I will have no part of it, thank you. You just carry on believing what you want.
I do not give you permission to even try to convert me. My life is not your domain or your responsibility.
c'est la vie. !Yes, the "Supernatural" is a man-made concept.
Actually I disagree - based on logic. And for the record, I would *not* beat up on you if you decided to walk away - by the sound of things thats what happened to you.
I'd like to ad that from a spiritual point of view, if you are truly saved, you cant backslide as Jesus loses no one given him by the Father. I doubt many people even in Christendom actually understand the "formula" for biblically based salvation which is the need for repentance and faith - repentance in rejecting sin, and faith as in accepting in faith fully that Jesus is who he said he was and then believe fully in his freely given sacrifice for all humanity. Once people believe that Jesus is who he says he is, repent and put their trust fully in Jesus as saviour, then and only then are they saved.
Many denominations dont practice actual biblical salvation - many still ( WRONGLY ) believe infant baptism and good works will lead to salvation - they dont. The Bible makes this VERY clear.
Good works are as a result of salvation, not how we get saved. No one can *earn* salvation - its a free gift from God. No one can do enough to rescue another from imaginary places like purgatory either - in the bible it says clearly that no man can save his brother - thus use of pugatory etc are moot.
I dont have off the cuff answers for anything. I've locked horns with people to challenge them to prove God doesnt exist. I'm not some smart alec who ponces about with starry eyed ignorance to real world situiations or peoples beliefs. What I say is based on my personal experince and real world proof in my eyes that God logically exists. As I said before, I have had so many extremee probability situations unfold as a result of prayer I told no one elese about, it proves beyond doubt Gods existance.
I personally think a lot of athiests are plain arrogant - if they roll over and admit God
exists all of a sudden they lose their intellectual "authority" and have to drop down the ladder a rung or two. Boo hoo. I used to be incredibly arrogant, so I know a bit about it. And also - i find its intellectually lazy and poor form to sit back and hang cr* p on people about "prove this" and "prove that" - i flick it back at them and say "prove it doesn't" - then they usually make some blustery excuse and slink off. You might be different of course.
A lot of mega churches make big bucks - however *****very few***** of them are worth attending as they don't preach the true Gospel. Christianity is about Jesus and his ministry and the message of salvation.
The Gospel properly and fully preached - is offensive to many people - it cramps their style, it holds up a mirror to them and exposes their sin so they hate it.
From my experience, a church that is huge or makes no real demands on people from a study or time point of view, is unlikley to be teaching the gospel properly because the bulk of the population wont make the sacrifices to follow Christ.
A large denomination I can think of ( with a billion people in it ) teach a false gospel thats so corrosive its spritually lethal, yet its dressed up as "christian" and people can turn their brains off when they enter the church, but as a result get spiritual poison because of lack of thier biblical discernment. Its sad but it is what it is. It employs many techniques to make people scared and needs to be condemned for what it does.
And no - I'm not going to convert you - thats Gods job.
If He wants you, He'll have you. The apostle Paul went from chief christian killer to Apostle. The power of God in action.
I'd suggest if you truly want to know about christianity, find a good solid bible believing church. They will be easy to spot as they will likely be quite small but teach the bible with love and kindness and humilty and will be genuinely concerned about you, not your money.
Nice chatting to you John. Dont leave it too late - you dont have much time left. Be careful who you trust.A definite "No Thank You!"
Thank you for your theoretical description of what you believe. I have heard it all before. I reject your unarguable stuff. Unarguable because you are the arrogant ones. You put propositions to people which cannot logically be argued. You know it, or at least you should if you have an ounce of intelligence.
This is a clever one! How can you prove nothing is nothing? All you get is nothing. A very unintelligent attempt to prop up your christianity.
You are very ready to declare others who claim to be christian are not "really" christian. One thing you seem totally unable to do is turn around and examine your own attitudes and deceptions. But then if you did this you could no longer hope to conquer the world. Could you?Hi
Me, arrogant.....no I dont think so. Well maybe in some small part, but perhaps that's just confidence masquerading as "arrogance", the definition of course in this case is subjective, so I doubt I'll be able to meet your standards. But thats OK.....
If holding a point of view is in your view is "arrogant", but have it backed by real world experience that gives me confidence in what I say, then yep I'm as "arrogant" as the day is long - so are you too , because by your definition, arrogance means you have confidence in your beliefs.
Thoughts?
I'll get to your second point soon....( and no I'm not avoiding it...)How are people with a faith arrogant? Yes I can imagine a strongly held position might come across as arrogant. I can only argue about my faith based on actual real life experience, so its faith in action in the real world.
You have a strong belief in no belief ( which is kind of ironic ) - I have a science degree , so no I'm not dumb and design computer systems for a living.
Intelligence and belief are not mutually exclusive, although I do find a lot of athiests who seem to equate intelligence and lack of belief as being stablemates.
Proving nothing is something - I'm assuming you mean that youre equating my belief of a God who I know to exist, to be the same God you believe doesnt exist?
No, I dont declare others who are "christian" to not be christian. I do base my beliefs on what is in the Bible. The truth is that there are a lot of "christian" churches that are more pagan than christian. In that respect if you define christianity as following the gospel as it was written ( which is how its supposed to be done ), then many "churches" fail big time. Its not arrogance, its just reality. By way of analogy , if people decided to play football and make the rules up as they went, it wouldnt be football, it would be another game completely. The same applies to the Gospel - it was written once, and never changes.
You said
"One thing you seem totally unable to do is turn around and examine your own attitudes and deceptions. But then if you did this you could no longer hope to conquer the world. Could you?"
The gospel doesnt change. It wont change to suit you or me. God is unchanging. Its not a matter of "attitude" or "
No one sets out to alientate people, however the gospel will always sound offensive to some people as it cramps thier style or nails them to the wall and thye just dont like it. People think that religion turns people into drones - it doesnt.
I sincerely doubt you have had a good experince with the gospel, but youre still wanting to be convinced, as here you are.
Why are you here? You would blow off steam anyywhere.....
Of course. If your Dad was an ass and expected you to respect and praise him when he has never shown himself. Would you not ask him why?
Think about that. What good would it do to give people the capability to behave however they choose if you're just going to stand over them? That would have a pretty significant affect on behavior,don't you think, to have God looming over you? It would kind of nullify the whole idea.
How does a child best learn? By you standing over them, always in sight? Or by providing them guidance and letting them go off on their own?
Besides, He asked us to love and respect Him, treat each other well, and simply believe His sacrifice was for you and all is forgiven. I don't think the ass-dad comparison really applies.Where is all the guidance? He left a manual. Is that a good why to raise children? In the manual it says to love and praise him or burn in hell. It also says to stone anyone to death if they try to tempt you away from him. I don't think I'd blindly follow anyone like that.
He left a manual and you can call Him whenever you like. And whether you believe it or not, He actually does answer.
As for praising Him, it's kind of important. If a cell in your body does not adhere to what your DNA code dictates, that cell jeopardizes the rest of the body. It may sound harsh, but that cell has to go. It's a potential cancer. He's not being mean just for the sake of being mean. That's just how things work. He is the one true authority. Respecting Him as such connects you to Him. You're then a properly functioning part of the body. Without that order it's chaos and our bodies would never be able to function and sustain life.
The stoning thing, along with just about anything else you can find that may make Him appear to be mean, had everything to do with protecting that one bloodline that Jesus eventually came from. With rambunctious cells all around able to behave however they chose, they sometimes jeopardized that bloodline. Like a cancer, they had to be removed.
Whether you agree or not it can't just be that everyone can behave however they want whenever they want, doing whatever they want to whoever they want, and all is well. Kids always think parents are mean when they set and enforce rules. Some respect them and behave accordingly. Others rebel or act out or just complain that it's not fair.This is one of the most blatant, sick-in-the-mind attitudes I have ever seen.... the reason I reject anything to do with your sort of religion. There is no supernatural god such as you believe in. You are totally deluding yourself and trying to do the same thing to others. Your only purpose is to control the minds of others, in order to better your own chances in your mythical "heaven."
Wow, you make me out to be some sort of super villain. I think you're giving me a bit too much credit. I'm not driven by a want to go to heaven or a jeweled crown or whatever. I'm driven by the endless/pointless bickering over this topic and the resolution that's possible through seeing these things for what they really are. A lot of human-made junk has been piled on top of the bible. Human-made interpretations and impressions based on how other humans have used it.
I simply lay the bible side by side with human/earth history based on scientifically gathered data, removing as much as possible the fallible human element. When I do, not only does the bible line up with human history, but set in the context of actual history it clears up much of the confusion surrounding the stories of the bible and reveals a very clear, very deliberate story about a God with a very deliberate purpose. This is something that should be of the utmost interest to every human, but is too clouded by all of our own hang-ups to be seen, which is rather poetic.
That's a lot of rationalizing! No unconditional love. No evidence that he exists. Left a manual on the table and the manual makes no sense. Praise me praise me praise me or burn in hell. Makes no sense at all. I'm not saying that if there is a God he is a bad guy, but the God of the bible is not a nice guy.
And by the way, protecting the blood line? Joseph was the blood line and Jesus (according to the bible) didn't belong to him.
Come on Headly, look at the evidence or lack there of.
There is also no evidence he answers prayers. If there was you would see less Christians in the cancer wards. Cancer is an equal opportunist. It cares not what you pray to.I know He answers prayers because I've experienced it for myself. Evidence of answered prayers, however, would only confirm with all certainty that He's up there, thus nullifying the need for faith, thus nullifying the struggles of all of those who followed Him through faith. It's not going to be that easy. A relationship with God is an internal/spiritual thing that each individual must travel. You're not going to get confirmation from some outside source.
As for the cancer ward, the error here seems to be your view that only healthy sustained life is an answered prayer. That death, though it's inevitable and just as much a vital part of life as sex and food and breathing, is somehow a bad thing. That peace and happiness and good health in this fleeting life of a handful of decades is the ultimate goal to strive for. An inability to understand the answers makes it seem as though there are no answers.
Both Joseph and Mary came from the same bloodline. The same people.
Believe me, I've looked at the evidence. I have 3 hubs in particular that go into detail about it. It's all there. Creation, the beginning of civilization, the beginning of the human ego, free will, all of it. A sharp turn in human history that happened in a very specific location in a very short amount of time that completely changed how humans exist on this planet.
Just as is often the case, while so many bicker and argue from both sides, the answer lies right there in the middle. It's not creation or evolution. It's both. It's not science or God, it's both. The answer's not going to be some cryptic, hidden-away thing, but clear as day and right in front of our collective faces, obscured by our certainty that we somehow know better.So now we should look at cancer as just a part of life? Why even try to fight it? It's part of life like breathing? Why would God not answer the prayers of parents and family for a child with cancer? There is no evidence prayers are answered. You can pray for anything you pray for and it may come to pass that you achieve what you prayed for. It doesn't mean God answered your prayer, it means you achieved your goals. YOU did it. Take credit when it's due and take responsibility for your mistakes. Never mind God did it or The devil made me do it. Show me real evidence God answers prayers, not, he answered one specific prayer for me so there must be a God. Pagans prayed to all kinds of Gods and thought there prayers were being answered just as you have done. There experience was/is no different than yours.
Show me statistics that show God answers prayers.I could give you numerous examples from my own life that can easily be dismissed as coincidence by anyone who hasn't lived my life. My examples aren't going to sway you. Or I could try to give you what you're asking for, but I foresee that won't work either ... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Cancer is a part of life. Sure, we can fight it. Through our medical capabilities we can extend people's lives beyond illnesses that otherwise would have taken them. But you must see that this is a fleeting effort. No matter what we do we're only delaying the inevitable. We cling to life though it's ultimately an unattainable wish and refuse to acknowledge death as anything more than a bad thing to be avoided. Death gives life meaning. The potential of death in any moment makes every moment of life that much more important. Death is natural. If it's not cancer it's going to be something else. If you avoid illness your entire life then eventually your cells would still lose the ability to continue replicating and you'd die anyway.
Let's look at it the other way. What if God answered every prayer, giving every pray-er exactly what they asked for? Would that really be better? What would life be like then if we all got what we wanted? If death and illness could be avoided through prayer. If no child ever died or went hungry. What would life be like if it had no teeth? When we're talking about the creator of the universe and everything in it, we have to step back and really look at the whole picture.
Next time you begin to question why God would do this or that, try instead to come up with an alternative. How would you do things differently? Would your way really work? Think about it.This sounds like all of your ranting and posting of replies, your stating of your religious beliefs and your criticism of our posts, is just an attempt to give you a feeling of personal justification. We have often seen it in these Hubs. It's like you need to convince others of your beliefs in order to confirm your own.
Your Profile shows you as an insecure person. Your flipping between the "scientific" and "having faith" shows how your own thoughts are very much unconvinced.
Into your own doubts you bring others and try to "convert" them. This you should be looking at very carefully. You can interfere with the journey of others to their detriment. I can tolerate your strong religious points of view, until you try to draw others into your melting pot. Then you are not being fair. Discuss yes. Evangelize no.
Give support, ok. Give of your opinon if asked, ok. But above all, listen to people when they state their needs and restrict your offers to suit those needs. Don't push your beliefs onto others. If your beliefs are valid for the other person, he/she will warm to you in due course. It they reject your beliefs, you are only required to love them unconditionally, and allow them to go ahead and make their own achievements or mistakes, whatever.
Finally, you cannot expect others to blindly accept your insistence that your "god" exists and is the only one worth worshiping. That would be arrogance.I'm afraid you've misread. Not to sound rude, but I would appreciate it if you'd focus less on trying to figure out my intentions and more on what I'm saying. While I appreciate the assessment, I feel as though you're maybe projecting some intentions on to me that, while I agree seem to be fairly common traits in many believers in these forums, do not apply here. I am not motivated by a need to justify myself or confirm my beliefs, and I am not here to preach or to convert non-believers. And I have not strayed into any areas in this discussion that were not first broached in the comment I'm replying to.
I'm coming from an uncommon perspective, so I can understand the misinterpretation of my intentions. Like my profile explains, I had a significant revelation that takes Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it squarely into known history. The insecurity you sense in that write-up came from the fact that this idea I was discussing covers a lot of ground from ancient civilizations and their mythologies to geological/paleontological/climatological history to the evolutionary history of life, not to mention in depth studies of the books of Moses. When I originally did the piece I used for my profile, while I was fairly confident in my level of knowledge of these topics, my idea had not yet been very heavily contested or scrutinized. I have since had countless conversations on the topic with some really sharp skeptics and have only found further confirmation through those discussions.
I think my certainty can often come off as a little pushy. That is not my intention. That is just the reality I'm speaking from. One where God and science are not contradictory, but intertwine harmoniously.
What a cop-out. You should here yourself. You claim God answers your prayers, but he can't answer all prayers. Prayers for good health or a painless death for example. You have no evidence prayers get answered, but there should be evidence. There should be statistics.
Well, I could submit my wife as evidence. Would that work? I provided you with a link that details 3 separate double-blind clinical trials testing the effects of prayer. Personally, I don't condone attempting to verify the legitimacy of prayer by basically testing God, not to mention the part that requires making sure the 'placebo' group has absolutely no one praying for them, but it's been done. Does that not work?
"Next time you begin to question why God would do this or that, try instead to come up with an alternative. How would you do things differently? Would your way really work? Think about it."
Isn't your God supposed to be the all powerful??? If so, I don't quite understand where you were going with the above statement; because, supposedly, He can do anything while we are humans and are quite limited...
However, I have all kinds of ideas on how to fix things globally...If I can come up with ideas, I feel pretty confident that such an amazing God should be able to do so as well; and, having said that, we should not be in the predicaments that we are in globally. We should not have to suffer to fulfill your God's incredible ego which, I must add, doesn't amount to a hill of beans if all He can accomplish is the torturing of human lives because they will not bow down and kiss His feet!
As always, in love and light,
Windy Grace <3 AKA Vampgyrl420I assume you agree that the majority of things that need fixing are man-made problems. God gave us the capability to choose our own actions and behaviors. This is the result. So, do you really think He should go undo all we've done and fix everything? Would that not undermine the whole capability to choose if He overrides our decisions and 'fixes' things Himself?
The story told in Genesis illustrates the whole point being this capability we've been given to choose how to behave. This capability in humans makes us both constructive and destructive beyond any other living creature. So, if you were God, and you chose to create beings with their own minds rather than mindless servants, how would you go about doing that? Would you leave their behavior unchecked? Let them run reckless? Would you override bad decisions, fix mistakes, thereby removing negative consequences they might otherwise learn from? How would you do it?First and foremost, I did not ask to be born and, quite frankly, given the choice, I would not choose this. Yes, I feel that if he is such a wonderful God he would be sure that those of us who did not participate in the corruption would not have to live with the circumstances...I need to learn my own lessons, not other people's. Period.
But how often do your own lessons involve only you? Most of our actions, good or bad, effect others as well. That's part of it. If no one but you were ever affected by your decisions because others were protected then you're not really getting the full impact of your capability to choose your behavior. It's a powerful thing. There are long-reaching effects, often beyond our comprehension. Whether deliberate or not. Others live here too. Their actions effect you and yours effect them. It wouldn't really matter so much if that weren't the case.
Your birth was a result of your parent's choices. Through their actions that led to your conception, again whether deliberate or not, they gave you life and eventually death. Their actions resulted in you and effected every life you've ever touched or been a part of.And I'm supposed to honor them for giving me "life." How about NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! This is exactly why I don't bow down to some Almighty God on a power trip who created something just for the heck of it and it turned out to be pretty crappy...
They aren't many who can truthfully say that they suffer for my actions, because I choose to stay to myself. Why do I not deserve the same respect? Is allowing others to believe as they choose to really this darn complicated???Actually, Creator never demanded any one bow down and worship. Interestingly enough, He did command not to bow down or worship anything else around us. I think the issue was more to the human benefit -of recognizing who/what they are, versus becoming subservient to nature and its parts.I disagree on this point, because having viewed the world on the sub-atomic level and obviously the supra-atomic, can say the universe is beautiful and inspiring ~ especially humans.We are all equally effected pro or con by the actions of others and ourselves. This is the nature of human interaction. A smile to one may cause a happy reaction, a smile to another may cause an assumed flirtation, eye-roll, pepper spray-ready moment...lol.
JamesDearest James,
I am simply stating that I did not ask for all of this and, obviously, I'm not very happy with this existence rather than actually living that has become the norm in the modern world...Creator is not the same as the Christian God obviously love, because the Christian God does demand or threatens to throw us into the fiery pits of hell for eternity...The Creator that my ancestors taught me to know and trust is not the same as this...
Love, Light and Respect,
Windy Grace <3 AKA Vampgyrl420Hi Grace,
I am in thoroughly agreement. The battle, this duality, that has raged between the religions of science and sensation have gone on far too long and to the farthest extremes, reducing life to a race for who can stockpile the most pieces of paper with numbers. Again, correct. This is due, imo, to gross misinterpretations over the years, influenced by the aforementioned. Nods.
PS, nice to 'meet you'.
James.
"God" is a man-made problem that needs fixing !
Actually that's not possible. Genesis accurately describes things no human could have possibly known before the past few decades. So, unless they had a time machine or were just really good at guessing, man could not have come before God.
In a world of 7 billion minds, there is the potential for 7 billion perceptions.
"God" only exists in the mind of the beholder. The Beholder being yourself, Chris. The words of the Book are interpreted by yourself, to your own satisfaction. Your interpretation is subject, always, to your own values, your own judgment, your "pre-judice."
Now you will say all that is tempered by prayer and "listening to 'Him'", I suppose. Again, this is your take on the situation. Your right to have this outlook, but you need to be warm and kindly to other points of view without being too judgmental. Your way is not the only way.
Hope I have shown this, maybe not.Perfectly spoken/written!!! I could not agree more.
You're forgetting that the reason I believe in Him in the first place is because He reached out to me. It was pretty definitive. I was not a candidate for it, nor was I any kind of believer or seeker. I was just muddling along.
Chris, I have absolutely no problem with what you have just said. That is your "take" on it. I gave my understanding of this in my post which you are replying to. I have no criticism of you here. I can understand it and it is obviously the most powerful influence in your life. A great blessing for you.
Do you need others to believe what has happened to you is what must happen to them? If so, why? Cannot your experience, and the inspiration which has come from that experience, rest just with you and in you? Maybe you are saying it is love for others that makes you want them to have what you have had, through your experience. I invite you to question that. Is it something other than "love?"
That word "unconditional" means that you can befriend a person for no other ulterior reason other than the friendship. If I befriend many a christian, I get the feeling that if I come into their peer group and "accept the Lord," then I will continue to be welcomed. If I don't do and say all the right things, they will have absolutely no interest in me. This is understandable in the term "birds of a feather flock together." It's an instinctive animal response. But it puts paid to any christian claim of authority of Love.
IMHONo, I don't believe that what happened to me needs to happen to them. And to be honest, I often find many non-Christians to be very nice people who I would probably like to be friends with. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that I can't be friends with them because of their unbelief, I'm saying that right now my home situation is such that I have relatively little interaction with the outside world in any capacity.
I don't know if I'd get along with you so well in the "real world" but here in the forums I have found you to be a pretty pleasant person.
The law of God is written in the heart of man. If you cannot read or hear what is written I understand why the manual would be needed.
In the field of conventional medicine the cell has to go. Yet in the field of alternative therapy the cell can be adjusted. In saying that if the cell goes it does not just disappear. It transforms because energy cannot be destroyed.
That which is in and of God is never destroyed.
Is that really all it said? Did Jesus really teach us to stone those who turn from God?
Don't take this personally, but this is the perfect example of what I've been talking about. The Bible as a whole does actually fit together. But people want to take one part of it and make like that's the sum total of what it teaches. As Christians, we are not taught that. I've known many Jewish people and none of them were taught that. It was a specific teaching for a specific time and even at that there are nuances that often get lost or ignored.
That is called indoctrination. You were told how to think or not to think and that is just what you are doing.
I tend to think that people who continually accuse me of being indoctrinated do so because they've been indoctrinated into thinking that Christians have given up their ability to think for themselves.
So have you or have not given up thinking for yourself?
I don't know, I wouldn't have asked if I knew?
It's been so long that I can't even find the comment I was commenting on!
Funny how if someone says you are indoctrinated for reasons taken from your direct behaviour they cannot possibly be right, but you can say someone is indoctrinated for reasons taken directly from their interaction with you and it suddenly has more validity even tho it has more egocentric reasoning. Next thing we know you will be saying 'I know you are but what am I?' over and over again. Don't look at yourself dude, folks couldn't possibly be pointing out your behaviour for your own benefit or anything
The difference here Chris is nobody had told me to think this way, Nobody has ever told me to be an atheist or else...
Then there's no difference, because nobody ever told me to be a Christian or else.
Except God, of course, but then I know there are people who think I'm delusional. Not you (I think) but there are those...What part of the world do you live in where Jesus is not front and centre?
That would be the US. I know that many people think we evangelicals are running around telling everyone else what to do and getting our way, but if you look at the actual laws that are passed and enforced and the activities of the ACLU and People for the American Way and People for the Elimination of Church from Society, er, I mean People For the Separation of Church and State, it just isn't so.
And Bush may have talked the talk, but he didn't really walk the walk. Don't even get me started on Clinton and Obama...Oh I see, your telling me you were not indoctrinated because you were not raised by evangelicals. Because if you were, then you were indoctrinated.
In a way, I'm saying that indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder, because many of the people who accuse me of being indoctrinated parrot the same phrases and arguments. It's difficult to believe that they all arrived at the same thought by themselves, especially the ones who confess that since they can't understand someone like me they just decide that I must not be that smart.
I'm not that smart, but it's not like they got to know me first. They just decided it ahead of time.Chris, I have no doubt you are smart. I also have no doubt you are a decent person. I can tell you that I was brought up Catholic and never knowingly meet an Atheist. I went to a Catholic school where we had religion every day. In grade 7 I started going to school early for mass everyday, but by grade 8 I started questioning everything. During high school I was a secret agnostic and I never told ANYONE what I was thinking. I finally talked to an other with my opinions in College and was shocked that someone brought up in the same environment had the same opinion. No one ever told me not to believe in God only to believe in God. To this day I rarely am in contact with other atheist and when we are in contact we do not discuss our atheism. We were not indoctrinated to think this way, but if you were raised in a house of a particular religion and you adhere to it, then you were indoctrinated into that religion. If you were told people like me are evil, you were indoctrinated. It's time to at least see that.
I haven't said otherwise. Though you might want to consider that such broad statements cut both ways, as it were. If you're brought up in a house of irreligion, or skepticism, or however you want to phrase it, then you're indoctrinated into that too. And there are plenty of people who teach their kids that religious people are bad.
But I was specifically talking about my experience. I've been accused of being indoctrinated plenty, and I have responded similarly to what I said fairly often, and then just to prove my point, someone who I've never read before, and who as far as I know had only read that one post of mine, responded. They accused me of not only being indoctrinated but of deflecting criticism and refusling to look at my own actions.
Go figure.
His love is unconditional. Jesus came and died for everybody, no matter who or where or when. But the conditions come for spending eternity with God. If we didn't want to do it on earth, He won't force us to do it after we die.
As far as "deserving to be worshipped," of course I believe He is deserving, but aside from that, if He really exists and He told you that you need to worship Him in order to get into Heaven because otherwise you'd suffer eternal torment, does it really make a difference?Did you read what you just wrote Chris?
You said "His love is unconditional."
And then you said "But the conditions come for..."
So which is it? You can't say his love is unconditional and then list conditions.His love is unconditional. He loves us no matter what. But He doesn't force us to do something we don't want to do. And if we don't want to spend time with Him on earth, then He won't force us to go someplace that we would find wanting in the next world.
You did it again Chris. "His love is unconditional... But..." Too funny.
But perfectly logical.
His love is unconditional. He placed no conditions whatsoever on sending Jesus to die for us to take away our sins.A change of topic, but that's Okay. So just how has his sacrifice taken away our sins?
Aaahhh! Wow. That would be a series of hubs.
I'll see if I can compress this in a way that makes sense, even if you don't agree with it. Back in the OT, the Israelites needed to sacrifice an animal in order to atone for their sins. Of course, this was not universally true about every single sin but it was the general rule. Human sacrifice was specifically forbidden in the OT. But the fact is, no amount of sacrifice could ever assure that every single sin was atoned for. You might have had a nasty thought before you died, might have coveted your neighbor's wife and forgotten. Any number of things. And if you had sin, you can't go to Heaven and be with God, because a perfect, holy and sinless God cannot have sin in His presence. So the only way wipe away the sins of everybody who ever lived was to have a sacrifice that would be above all sacrifices. But no animal could do that, and human sacrifice (humans being made in the image of God) was forbidden. So what sacrifice could be made? God would have to sacrifice Himself. So He came in human flesh to feel and live the way humans actually do, but sinlessly, and then was sacrificed to take away sins once and for all. (By the way, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was the icing on the cake of that.) So Jesus' sacrifice atoned for everyone who ever lived.
But...
No one is forced to accept it. In order to get to Heaven, you must accept Jesus as Lord of you life, and do what He said to do. So if you do that here on earth (and lots of people who think they have are in for a rude awakening on the other side,) then He will accept you into His presence. But if you reject Him on earth, He will reject you on the other side. He talked about that fairly often.
I know that I skipped some theological points, I'm just trying to give a compressed philosophical argument here. Whether you believe it or agree with it or not, that's the basic outline.Thanks for that Chris. It is just what I thought and had been taught, but I thought there must be a more logical, reasonable explanation.
Sometimes we need to ask ourselves, does that make sense? Does it make sense that we would have to sacrifice the life of an animal to rid our sins? What connection to our sin does this animal have? If one were to say the animal was a loved pet and you wanted to show god that you would except the loss of your pet to be with or to have pennants for you sins, then I would say yes YOU would be making a sacrifice, but at the same time you would be showing cruelty to an innocent animal. That is a best case scenario, If the animal is not even your (goat lets say) then you are making no sacrifice at all, as most likely you will eat the goat. If the goat is yours, you would most likely kill it for food eventually anyway.
On a side note, I know people who love to kill animals. Want to kill. Are they sinless?
We are left with what does an innocent animal have to do with our sins? Nothing. What did Jesus dying on the cross have to do with our sins? Nothing because for us he would be dead by now anyway.
It's a scary concept, rid you sins by killing. Does a father show his devotion to God by killing his son?The sacrifice came back in the days of ancient Israel, not in modern day anywhere. And the people were required to sacrifice the best of what they had, not just any old goat. It had to be without blemish or defect, which would have been considered a real sacrifice because these were the animals that you kept back for breeding. To a farmer or herdsman, that would indeed have been a sacrifice.
Blood was the required sacrifice, and humans were forbidden to shed the blood of other humans for it in Israel, though surrounding cultures did that. The life is in the blood, which not only is the reason that an animal was sacrificed at the temple, but also the reason the Jews do not eat the blood of animals they slaughter. And why they were forbidden from eating animals that had died along a road or out in the wild.
At this point, do I really even have to answer that? Don't you know what I'm gonna say?
The animal was decreed by God, that's what it has to do with our sins. But in the real world it actually doesn't have anything to do with our sins because all sacrifice had to take place at the Temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD.
Jesus did have to die because He was the only sacrifice acceptable to God to take away "the sins of the world." Quite literally. And it was fortold.
If you need to ask the question, as Satchmo would have said...Of course some my questions were rhetorical. You gave me a bible lesson, but you didn't tell me if you believe that the sacrifice is viable. It's been practiced around the world for thousands of years and sometimes on humans. I believe it was the Mayan's (but I could be wrong) that would raid people from near by towns and cut out there heart while they were still alive. It made sense to them as well. I'm not sure why any God would ask us to kill anything and discard it. And I'm not sure we personally made any sacrifice when Jesus was killed so how could it save our sins?
You're right, we as humans didn't make any sacrifice. God did. That's why it's viable.
And just why does God need to make sacrifices for our sins? Does it not seem just a little archaic to you.
It does sound quite archaic to me.
"I created you. I created the Laws that rule the Universe (if not, then I am a slave to them). These laws made it so that your actions, not surprising of naive child-like new beings, cut you off from Me and condemned you to either Hellfire or eternally being cut off Me (whichever). Instead of rewriting the rules that I put into place, or starting over from the beginning ridding the world of the first batch, which I basically end up doing later anyway, except for a few incestuous left over humans, I decide to allow events to pass as they do. I then later decide to give you a way to cross that bridge that I built and allowed to so easily be destroyed, and it's the ONLY bridge. I expect you to believe in that new Bridge, my Son Jesus, with very little evidence that exists except for a book, and maybe a vague mentions here or there, some that appear quite sketchy. I perform miracles through people, and I send help through people (I never get my own hands dirty, silly) I mean, I got my hands a little dirty when I sacrificed my son, knowing that he would be raised on the 3rd day, but you know, I killed people and allowed people to die in much more brutal ways...
Anywho I know human nature, and so I know that many people won't be able to cross that bridge. I say so in that ONE book that I revealed my TRUE, special knowledge in. Especially rich people. Yea, like they'll barely get in. Man, and boy do I detest truly free thoughts.
Though the book I gave you, the Bible, is filled with atrocities, many unfair happenings, and it shows the ugly side of my nature, I expect you all to get over it. To concentrate on the "good" that I do, even though if humans did half the things I did, they'd be labeled a tyrant or and overly controlling and abusive parent. I want you to become slaves to my idea of righteousness. Even though you don't understand everything I do, like when I let your 6 yr old girl die at a movie theater, or another little girl be raped by her father every day, doesn't matter. Trust me anyway. Love me anyway. Be thankful anyway. No matter what I give or take from you. Eh. It'll work out for the "good" somehow. Like those Native Americans. My missionaries and the rest brought their European diseases and killed who knows how many of those Natives, but, it all worked out for the good, right!?!
Also, I expect you to forgive everyone who does you wrong, even though I allow the people who use their free will and don't believe in me, to burn in a Hell that I created for an Evil angel that I created, the ultimate form of vengeance and unforgiveness. You know, do the whole 'do as I say, not as I do,' thing, and you'll be just fine."
Yep sounds archaic to me, and kind of ridiculous, no personal offense to anyone.wow...never seen the bible so quickly summed up.
Yup, you got it, but you forget that you let steal other people from their home and tied them up in a boat for a few months where half died. The survives remained slaves on the other side of the world for generations. You let this happen because the texts you left behind condoned slavery.
No Chris I believe you are missing the point. You are following and praising something you think is archaic and barbaric. The point is would the God you love allow and ask for such senseless brutality?
No, I haven't missed the point at all.
Actually, God wouldn't have to ask for senseless brutality, man is more than happy to supply it all by himself.
As for the sacrifice, yes, the God I love does ask for exactly that. And once it was done, it was done once and for all. It is primitive and bloody, but that is the depth of love He has for us. Just as a parent who loves their child would give of themselves, even unto death, for them, so God gave for us that we can be with Him in eternity. No small thing.Two things Chris,
Would a parent who loves his children murder one of them to show his love for the others?
Just how does Gods sacrifice nullify our sins? Seems to me all it does is make a martyr out of Jesus and God.God didn't murder Jesus. It may seem like a semantic difference but it is a very important one. Murder is the premeditated act of taking another life in cold blood. Jesus was sacrificed, an act in which something good was given up for a time so that a greater good could be achieved.
How? If our sins aren't nullified, what cause would Jesus be martyred for? If our sins aren't taken away, then Jesus was just another of the phony messiahs (there were many) who arose around that time and were punished with death. If there is no God, then Jesus was nobody because remember, nobody at the time He was walking the earth thought, "Hey, let's start a religion!" Nor did any of the Apostles (not even Paul) think that. They all thought of themselves as Jewish, working within the framework of Judaism.I almost forgot, the other thing is that, yes God is sacrificing His only begotten son, but Jesus is also God, being God the Son. So God isn't just "murdering one kid for the others," it's actually Himself that He's sacrificing.
Because God sacrificing Himself is the only sacrifice that will take away our sins once and for all. As said, animal sacrifice will only take away specific sins one at a time, so you can never sacrifice enough animals to cover all the sins. And human sacrifice is specifically forbidden in the Bible. So the only sacrifice that could ever cover over our sins and take them away would be for God to sacrifice Himself.
As Doug Stanhope said, "'Jesus died for your sins.' How does one affect the other? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage. I don’t get it."
May I? I never needed Adam to sin for me. I rack up my own. What we call “heaven” is our birthright. It is the next stage of our existence as human beings. Even the most primitive people have a sense of this. Few men have been privileged to hear God's voice. The rest of us muddle along. Sometimes, our actions have negative repercussions in the cosmos.
Few are aware of this, and the ones who are only have an inkling. We only have eyes on the front of our heads. We have pawned our birthright for pennies on the dollar to finance our pleasure, pride and plans. How can this right be restored when we have crossed the line? What is the point of no return? No man can tell you.
If you are a seeker or a cynic, this is all you need to know for now. The love of God combined with your own is the only thing that will punch your ticket. God is real and he can surely speak for himself. God’s ways are not our ways. My mistake was expecting God to conform to my image of God. Excuse me, I was way off the mark. I wouldn’t acknowledge someone who approached me that way either.
There it is sweet and simple. That is what I know in a crumb cake. Have some milk with that. God loves you. God is love.
Now when you become enlightened, you will realize that the socio-political agenda of the media and the pop culture is driven by a globo-industrial mindset. It has incarcerated most of mankind in a prison of concrete, steel, and glass.
Canned Heat - Let's Work Together
http://youtu.be/MN7j-LCgaiEBecause Doug Stanhope is not God. Neither are you, nor I. Jesus is. Plus, if that's the level of Doug's thinking, he's an idiot. That's about the most idiotic bit of pseudo-reasoning I've heard yet.
I actually got that, but I still thought he was trying to make a "valid philosophical point" using humor. Maybe he was just trying to be funny for the sake of it, but I think that's what he really believes. Not unlike Monty Python's continuous snarking at religion, which came from their innate disdain for it.
Truthfully, I see Stanhope's point. Unless there is some sort of universal law which mandates human sacrifice for sin -- a universal law which even God is obligated to obey -- then it seems maliciously arbitrary for God to require such sacrifice. Presumably, he could have mandated any price at all -- including hitting one's foot with a shovel -- but he chose human sacrifice.
I'm struggling to remember exactly what Stanhope said, but if I remember correctly, then my statement stands. Stanhope is not God. Neither are you or I. Therefor, not only would God not require any of us to be sacrificed, but He has specifically forbidden us to be sacrificed. Jesus is God. He is God in human flesh, but He is God nonetheless. Therefor God can require His sacrifice because it is Him sacrificing Himself. If Stanhope were to offer himself up with the best of intentions, it would be meaningless, no one would be saved.
The quest for the holy grail still makes me laugh just thinking about it. When I was much younger much of it I didn't get. Like the seen where one of them come across a castle full of beautiful lonely women. He starts to give up his search for the (grail, cup) and suddenly his friend drags him out of there to continue his search. Hilarious.
I haven't seen the movie in 20 years. The only scene I remember clearly is the French Knight.
Only John Cleese could have delivered the line, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries," the way he did.
But, God didn't really sacrifice himself because he's still here, right? So, God must have been play acting, which means that our sins were never really taken away because God didn't really sacrifice himself in the first place.
Please, don't advertise your ignorance. It is too painful to watch
I am still trying to figure out what sins. In the old testament we are forgiven the sins of our fathers. So we don't garner sins from them. If we then don't commit any sins, what sins are there to take away?
Well, if you want to look at it that way, that would be the way I would expect you to look at it.
Your way makes absolutely no sense and only shows how one can so easily be fooled into believing a god could die and bring himself back to life. Obviously, the "show" was staged by God and he used 'smoke and mirrors' to create the facade.
Of course, you're free to explain how God died and brought himself back to life or admit that he never died in the first place. Which one is it, Chris?The former, He died and brought Himself back to life.
I'd almost forgotten what I love so much about you...That makes no sense, how can anything die and then bring itself back to life. IT'S DEAD!
Please explain how that can happen?
Or, are you going to just state that God can do whatever he wants? LOL!My response to this can only be explained using botany. A living seed from any plant must be shed from the plant, and literally die -no flow of nutrients, water, etc to it for no less than 3 days in order for it to begin germination. In essence it is dead, as any other thing would be and then decompose. And it does. That decomposition is actually those nutrients, mixed with existing soil, which later allow the plant to grow anew. Physics will confirm energy does not die, neither does DNA -which is why it is able to be extracted from plants, animals and humans years after they have stopped living. It is one of the ways science has been able to claim the ages of things as well as cloning attempts and the recent attempt to create life.
So, like a plant, can the human body also be brought back to life? Well, there are cases on the books of people being dead upwards of 20 or 30 minutes, solid, and coming back to life {breathing, blood movement, muscle & nerve actions, brain activity}. In this century, am not certain of any cases of longer instances of prolonged death that resulted in revival.
To avoid decomposition, the body would need to be at least 2C/36F, preserving cellular structure. Any colder and the cells freeze; any warmer and immediately decomposition sets in. The longest would probably be 72 hours, at which time, the cells would begin breakdown, due to prolonged exposure to the cold and no nutrition, blood flow or electric charge.
James.Since you already said it, wouldn't it just be redundant for me to repeat you?
So, that is your answer? God can do whatever he wants? No explanations on your part are required? You can say whatever you want and then refer to your answer?
A) I'm under a lot of pressure and don't have time to write long-winded answers.
B) My experience with you has been that no answer is actually going to satisfy you. Maybe you've mellowed while you've been away, I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Here goes,
First of all, to say that God died is not like saying you or I died. If you or I die, that's it we're dead. God is not a human being. For one thing, although there is only one God, there are three Persons in that one God. So just because Jesus died doesn't mean that all of God is dead. Okay, assuming you already understood that and that wasn't your point, it's also true that Jesus body died, but not His Spirit. I know a lot of people don't accept it, but the fact is that Jesus is both fully man and fully God. So just because His body died doesn't mean He was obliterated for all eternity then came back like some comic book superhero. And lastly, since in fact God did create everything including human bodies, keeping a human body preserved and then reanimating it would in fact be no big deal.Then, it wouldn't make sense to use the word "die" and by changing that word, Christianity comes crumbling down. So, if God didn't "die" then what happened exactly?
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Which one of the "three Persons" died, exactly?
Since spirits have never been shown to exist, we can only focus on the body. If the body died, then the body was human, yes?
It probably isn't accepted because it makes absolutely no sense.
That is pretty much what Christianity is boasting.
That would only show Christianity is based entirely on a charade perpetrated in order to create the false image of a man dying and being resurrected.
As well, you are deferring to the "God can do anything" answer, which isn't valid in these discussions.You can start a fight, but once it's on you can’t set the rules. The only thing here that isn't valid is your , redundant lack luster insistence that God does not exist. You will find out different sooner or later. Please, make it sooner.
Oooooo...
Gotta love it!
I thought you were just lurking there, waiting for me to give a straight answer so you could pound my head with your dogma, er, correct me with your infallible logic!
For the record, I never said that Christianity makes sense from a purely materialist point of view. In fact, I've often said exactly the opposite. I wasn't always a Christian, and there are still some things I struggle with. I'm no great theologian. But to equate Christian belief with superstition and irrational dogma?
Yeah, that is the ATM I've come to know and love!
Peace out!
It's too bad he didn't reveal himself to all. Then there would be no question. Can we trust the word of his followers or the word of someone who heard the story? No, we don't know he rose from the dead. Some think his popularity was his rising. The people of his time surely didn't think him special, his peers condemned him.
Not there is anything wrong with paganism, but Christians are pagans by another name. One God, three persons? I know you don't see it that way, but that is because you were taught otherwise. Christianity rose out of paganism and it shows.Er, no it didn't. You might not be able to see that, but it didn't.
So dividing up one god into three Gods with three different purposes doesn't sound like you are praying to 3 different Gods to you? Now if you were Catholic you'd pray to all the angels and saints as well because according to them they have separate powers (or influences) with God. Sound like paganism to me, except with a different name.
Okay, but you're not dividing one god into three gods with three different purposes. I understand how it sounds like paganism to some people (including my friendly neighborhood Jehovah's Witnesses) but a lot of that comes from not understanding the concept of Trinity or how it was even arrived at in the first place. No matter what anyone says, there is only one God, and nowhere in the Bible does it contradict that.
I completely agree that praying to the saints, no matter how it's couched, smacks of paganism, so that argument isn't even part of the equation for me.
God in the flesh, Jesus, sacrificed Himself. The whole point was that He rose again from the dead.
LOL! It is the "whole point" of rising from the dead that one simply cannot accept because people don't rise from the dead.
That's kind of the whole point. How significant would it be if it were an everyday occurrence?
Highly significant. It would confirm some doctrines in Christianity, instead it completely undermines it.
Jesus wasn't just a person. He was God incarnate and the son of God as well.
Regurgitating and repeating dogma does not explain anything.
Now, you are saying Jesus was a god, but it isn't possible for gods to die, is it?God incarnate He was. He had a body and bodies die. The triumph was the resurrection of a new body.
That is a contradiction. God's don't have human bodies. If they did, they wouldn't be gods or they are just wearing a human suit to create a charade and fool everyone. Gods can just conjure up a new body, they can do whatever they want, right?
Another thing, why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son when God forbids human sacrifice. Shouldn't Abraham have said, "Get behind me, Satan!"
I'm not sure I follow where you're going with that one.
Understand, it's not the laws of the Universe that cut us off from Him. It's our free will. Free will, by its very nature, is a constructive/destructive force that gives us the ability to invent tools and build cities and murder and enslave. And you're right, it's natural for us as naive child-like beings to break those laws. That's the whole point.
For thousands of years hunter-gatherer and early horticultural humans lived in harmony with the natural world. Some indigenous tribal cultures still do to this day. They did not war against one another, they did not separate people into classes, and they did not treat women as inferior. They were peaceful. Starting around 4000 BC that all changed. Each civilization's history, starting in Mesopotamia, Eastern Europe, and Northern Africa, tells stories of people coming from the desert lands around the Sahara, migrating into their land, and forcefully taking over.
This was free will. Free will is a gift, but it's not a gift without consequences. It makes us a potential cancer that can destroy everything around us. Just as we have since 4000 BC and still do today. We destroy land, fight each other, displace indigenous people and wild life, and pollute the environment. The natural world behaves according to God's will. We don't. We're a destructive force that disturbs the natural order.
God gave us our own minds and our own wills. We're powerful creators. Humanity has accomplished truly phenomenal things through this capability, and humanity has also committed some truly horrible acts through this capability. And for the most part He leaves these actions unchecked. Afterall, if He just overrode every choice we made, if He undid the bad things, then it wouldn't be free will.
The age the bible speaks of was an archaic time, especially from our modern perspective. It was archaic because of free will. In those times men entering a new city were in danger of being gang-raped by the men of that city. Slavery was normal. Widows would be murdered and buried with their dead husbands. It was a violent time because free will had been introduced and was running reckless. And it's still running reckless. Only now we have laws enforced by armies and governments and such, but it's still there, and could easily return to chaos.
Anybody can 'cross that bridge', as you put it. You just have to acknowledge God as the authority. That's it. That's what He requires. If we're going to have this kind of power and capability, we have to acknowledge the creator as the one true authority in the universe. That's the only way it'll work.I don't think you understand the concept of free will. If the concept of free will does exist all animals have choices to make and humanity always had it. Tribes have been at war longer than you can imagine. What makes us human is our ability to share information and share our creativity.
We've had this discussion before, Rad Man. To you, free will is in regards to metaphysical determinism. I'm talking about the biblical version that is a will apart from God's. As in, everything in existence did exactly as God said, animate or inanimate, except Adam and Eve. Living organisms were told to 'come forth from the sea' and they grew legs and lungs to comply. Early humans were told to fill and subdue the earth and establish dominance in the animal kingdom, which is exactly what they did over the course of numerous generations unlike any other species. Adam and Eve were simply told not to eat from that one tree and they did it anyway. That's the free will I'm talking about.
The idea that early humans (hunter-gatherers/horticulturists) were violent, testosterone driven, male-dominant creatures is a popular misconception. The truth is, prior to 4000 BC, violent deaths, wars, tribal battles, were practically non-existent. Most early humans lived full rich lives and hardly ever harmed at the hands of another human. Weapons didn't exist that weren't for hunting. Cave paintings show an appreciation for nature and no glorification or even depictions of battle or conflict. It's not until around the time of the 5.9 kiloyear event that transformed the Sahara into a desert that humans began claiming land as their own, retaining possessions beyond what they needed, building walls around their land, and forging weapons. The contrast is so great, in fact, that there are some who suggest this is when the human ego came about.
Creativity is another clue. Just look at the pattern of technology. It took 2.6 million years for humans to graduate from stone tools to tools of sticks and stones. Yet, in a very short amount of time, the Sumerians invented the wheel, the sailboat, the first written language, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks, astronomy/astrology, mathematics, calendars, bronze hand tools, beer, the plow, the first Monarchy, the first laws, and on and on and on. You're right, the ability to share information and technology is unique to us, and that only really started a few thousand years ago. And it started in Mesopotamia.Are you seriously suggesting no murder or fights took place between any tribe ever before 4000 years ago? Humans have remained anatomically the same for 200,000 years. The only difference is there is more of us, so we cross each others paths more often so we had to learn to communicate with other tribes better. It's this sharing of creativity that lead to what we are today. It has nothing to do with free will. If one person was left along in a field and asked to build a rocket ship he couldn't do it. Creativity and the ability to share it made us, well Us. The free will you speak of is just a right and wrong issue. Very few people are ever truly creative. The guy who invented the wheel was and it's a good thing he shared his invention.
I'm not alone. Archaeologist WJ Perry went so far as to say, "it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace."
The lack of evidence of any sort of violence is striking. And this can't just be boiled down to population density. These were not isolated conditions where the first civilizations formed in Sumer and Egypt. There were settlements with populations in the thousands long before. By 10,000 BC the world population was estimated around 100 million, with humans on every continent, constantly migrating, and interaction was frequent. To say it was nothing more than just increased social interaction is an assumption that's not supported by the evidence.
Very thoroughly presented HvK.
Free Will allows us to make Choices {Reason}. That is the one universal thing that will never change, is ever constant. Something odd about this week, seems to be me stumbling into these conversations that bring up the Irresistible 'paradox'. The immovable {constant, never changing} meets the unstoppable force {free will}, resulting in either creation or destruction. Man created by this and with this same ability requires a force greater to oversee him, not lord it over him. We are irresistible as well -to our own thoughts {reason}, to nature and one another and even to our true nature, pro or con. Perhaps many just neglect this entirely, to protect or deflect {to continue in reason}. I usually define Reason as Sin. Man believed in Reason Required to be/do, therefore also accepted the parameters of reason. Again, irresistible. Unable to control Reason, caused his own demise. A close group of friends called it inertia. I couldn't disagree.
JamesJames, in the context of "quantum choice," there is always an opposite. This way, that way. Up or down. Big or small. Loud or soft. Blue or black. Red or orange. Etc. etc. Without change there is no consciousness, no awareness.
The most obviously contrary views in these Hubs can only show us the other possible choice(s). The difficulty for me is when someone makes a statement which is not open to discussion, i.e., the choices are closed. I put several of the religious minds in that category.
What do you think?Hey!
Absolutely.
What will get most is without change there is no constant {immovable}.
Who loves the quantum?! he-he.
And, yes, just by the many perspectives, presented here alone, shows the many choices available, to reach the result. And I never 'got' what the purpose of discussion was if no room is provided in that discussion. One science or religious book or one opinion seems a tad -what's the word- selfish. Might explain why the world is struggling so much within the Choice Conundrum.
Sorry, just having a laugh.
James
Well said. I especially like how you say creation or destruction is the result of the meeting between free will and the constant. And I believe you're exactly right. Our reason and our self-awareness is what makes us the anomaly here. A creative/destructive force unlike anything else in known existence.
I think human nature illustrates the need for an authority. Like any other endeavor that incorporates numerous individuals, without a clear voice of authority that all in the chain respect as such, it's chaos. Just look at the state of the world. What one individual would have the wisdom/respect of the entire world so that his/her authority was universally respected? We basically govern by committee for this very reason. No one person is worthy. When it's been tried before that power goes to their head. We have to limit the power of that one so that they can govern, yet not go all Emperor Palpatine on us.
Noah's family was not incestuous.
God gets His "hands dirty" constantly. That's in the Bible from beginning to end.
I think that if you met my kids, they might suddenly change their mind and think I'm a hopeless optimist...
It seems both bloody and primitive. It also was decreed by God. So, archaic or not, it's something I believe.
Slight correction here, Chris..... Humans thought it was God's will so that was what they did. Humans do all these things, good or bad. It's a lame excuse to say "God wanted me to do it because he said so." If those people had what you call "faith," and it was "faith" that made them offer sacrifices, human, animal or whatever, faith was not such a great thing. It was just used as that Insurance. -- Don't you think?
Same as when people in modern times, from what ever religious background, perpetrate most dreadful punishments on their fellow humans because they have "faith" that God is telling them, via a holy book, that is what "He" wants.
This in my view is humans neglecting to use good, basic, down-to-earth common sense and kindness. They should instead be delving into a person's background to find out what he/she has been through in life, that makes them commit a "sin" or break the law. Only then punish, if it's appropriate, or have compassion and pardon it that is what's appropriate. Human stuff, still, nothing to do with a nebulous "god."
"Faith" today is such a well used excuse for personal blindness and lack of clear thinking.
IMHOBelieve it or not I agree with a lot of what you wrote. God does not excuse us from using (to the best of our ability) common sense and reason. He gave us brains, He expects us to use them. And yes, "faith" is an over-used excuse for many, many evils (large and small) in the world today.
However (I'm sure you didn't see that coming, right? )
Having faith is not an automatic indicator that you've shut your brain down. I know a lot of people would like to think that (and that's true for both sides) but it just doesn't work that way. Belief in the existence of a divine Being who created time and gravity doesn't excuse us from paying attention to the fact that they exist and acting accordingly.
And often faith is simply a cover for people doing the bad things they wanted to do anyway. Plenty of people do the same things for what amounts to the same reason, they just don't attempt to justify it with "faith." If anything, we who have faith are even more responsible for our actions because we represent both the One we have faith in and the entire group of people who claim to also have faith (whether we like it or not. There's no way I've escaped being painted with the same brush as Elijah7 or CJ Sledgehammer, whatever I may think of them or whatever anybody else has either.)
I hope that makes sense.
About the animal sacrifices...you do know they ate the meat of the sacrificed animal afterwards? How's that true repentance? I also staunchly believe God would not want animal sacrifices because it is a pagan practice. Here are a few verses to consider:
Jeremiah 6:20
What do I care about incense from Sheba or sweet calamus from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me.
Jeremiah 7:22 (NKJV)
For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.
Isaiah 1:11-13
"The multitude of your sacrifices - what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I cannot bear your evil assemblies."A) The priests ate the sacrifices because God decreed that as their alotment. The Levites didn't get tribal lands like the other 11 tribes. Other people, no matter how rich and powerful, were forbidden from eating that meat. And it still had to be drained. And when the priests started treating it as their own private little club, picking out the best pieces before they had finished cooking and growing fat, God got angry with them, too. But for everyone other than priests, they had to give up an animal they owned and that was that.
B) You can staunchly believe anything you want, but show me in the Bible where God said, "Don't ever sacrifice animals. I never said to do that."
Yes, in each of these God was telling the Israelites that their burnt offerings were meaningless to Him. Why? Because they were just going through the motions, thinking that they could get away with doing whatever they wanted to do as long as they presented the animals for sacrifice on the appointed day. BTW, they weren't even presenting the proscribed animals, ones without blemish or defect. So in more than one way they were attempting to cheat God, and He wasn't having it. But these select verses are in no way meant to say that God never instituted the sacrifices. He most certainly did in the Pentatuch.How did God decree that as their atonement? Did he speak through the clouds? Or do you think maybe the Jews made up that law and just said it was from God? What could have happened was that Moses, or a Moses type figure, to speak to a GOD! The Sumerian Text say people in Moses types interacted with the gods face-to-face.
Let's look at these verses:
Exodus 33:11-12
"The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."
Exodus 21-23:
"Then the Lord said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
It is obvious that God here is a human being or some sort of creature with a body. He has a face and a back. That's even contradictory because the former verse says God speaks to Moses face-to-face and then the latter says you cannot see his face, only his back.
In pagan texts, however, people actually interacting with the gods, whatever physical form they assumed, and spoke with them. They also loved animal sacrifices.
As for God not demanding animal sacrifices. Did you not read this?
Jeremiah 7:22-23
For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.My opinion has changed on nothing, here. The quote from Jeremiah doesn't deviate. But okay, then which is it, did God institute the sacrifices through Moses or did He not? Because then you make the book out to be a lie, either way, and we're back at square one.
There are other texts that either state or imply that God has a body.
"Face to face" was an expression, showing that God had a special relationship with Moses.No, God did not institute sacrifices through Moses. It is a FACT that much of the Old Testament is based on paganism and the occult. Genesis isn't original. It's a condensed copy of other myths, most specifically the Sumerian Tablets.
Then how come God could not see Moses face-to-face but then could? Isn't that contradictory? Why did God have His back to Moses if they see face-to-face. How did Moses communicate with God? A booming voice in the sky?So then the sacrifices which were performed from the time of Moses until after the death of Jesus, which Jesus did not tell people not to make, in fact said to do so explicitly at one point, are in fact a lie perpetrated by Moses and Judaism and in fact the whole Bible is all one big perpetration?
Congratulations, A Troubled Man is loving you right now.God did not demand animal sacrifices:
"I desire mercy not sacrifice!" (Hosea 6:6)
As for the Passover, He used the Passover as an opportunity to correct the misinterpretation that animals sacrifices atoned for sin and instead taught that it was through His body and blood that sins could be forgiven. Anyway, Jesus and the disciples ate unleavened bread because it was the Feast of the Unleavened bread.
Jesus scorned those who believed animals had to be "clean" for sacrifices:
Mark 7:14-23
New International Version (NIV)
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [a]
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Now Jesus entered the Temple where animals were to be sacrificed in celebration of the Passover and confronted them angrily because they were defiling God's Temple by selling animals and allowing it for sacrifice. Why do I say that? Because Jesus said in Matthew 21:13: ..."My house will be called a house if prayer, but you are making it a "den of robbers".
Jesus also said in Matthew 12:1-8
12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
This mirrors Hosea 6:6
Why would God want an animal sacrifice knowing the fear it goes through? Satanists sacrifice animals and humans to capture the negative energy that is in their blood upon sacrifice and drink it.
Animals sacrifices is a a pagan and Satanic practice.
You didn't answer this question, either:
Also, you didn't answer my question why God would ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son, which is murder, especially since He is against human sacrifice? Wouldn't you think that it was Satan pretending to be God that asked him to do such an abhorrent thing?Do you put animal life on par with human life? Because humans are created Imago Deo, animals are not. They were required as sacrifice because "the life is in the blood" (and I KNOW you know that verse.)
Satan would have had Abraham go through with the sacrifice. God prevented it. God already knew that Abraham had the faith, He just needed Abraham to know it as well.
Common people were not allowed to eat the sacrifice, so Jesus' speech about clean and unclean applying to the sacrifice simply makes one of my main points all over again, which is that either the OT is a coheren whole and wholly true and wholly part of the Bible, or Jesus, whose claims to Messiahship (let alone Godhood) were 100% rooted in OT prophecy, are a sham and we are all just wasting our time here. All of us.
Just because satan copies God does not mean that anything done is satanic.Yes, that is why Satanists drink the blood to capture the life force of the sacrificed.
So if God told you to sacrifice your child or parent, would you do it despite the fact it is murder which God forbids? It doesn't matter that Satan would allow the sacrifice to go ahead: Abraham didn't know that.
Why wouldn't the common people allowed to eat the sacrifice? I thought all men are equal in God's eyes. Jesus' speech did not prove the OT is true in it's entirety. It just proves that there is no such thing as "clean" and "unclean" food which has anything to do with God. It is what is inside that counts. I don't know why you think that the OT has to be wholly true. Jeremiah said the scribes lied (jeremiah 8:8). It's a fact that Genesis is a spin-off of the Sumerian stories. It is not God revealed. Many of the other books are based on the occult.
Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … CJxw1wDtoq
Read:
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/2012_fr … tions.htmlHmmm...
Well, God wouldn't let me go through with it either, just like Abraham. I thought that point was kind of self evident.
Yes, satanists pervert the works of God. If you allow them to make you start calling the works of God satanic, then they've won.
Peace.How do you know? He allowed Moses to murder and sanction rape? How would you know if it was Satan posing as God to murder your child?
Animal sacrifices were practised way before the Jews did. They got it from the pagans. In fact, the God of the Old Testament sent snakes to bite the people for idolatry and if they looked at the brazen snake on the pole, they'd be healed. Serpent worship was prevalent in the ancient world. Funny how a snake should be a healer when Jesus could the Pharisees a pit of vipers.Actually, it was John who called the Pharisee a brood of vipers.
Who did Moses rape?John the Baptist said that, yes, but so did Jesus:
Matthew 12:33-37:
33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Don't twist my words around. I never claimed Moses raped anyone. I said he sanctioned it.
Numbers 31:9-21
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba —the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood. ”Yes, the OT is a nasty piece of literature. I am confused as to why or how people justify it as the word of a loving God.
I struggle to understand what you're saying, I will admit that. You seem to be pulling from some teaching that I've never heard. I don't understand why you keep talking about the "imposter gods."
Chris, you are willingly ignorant. What is so hard to understand how disgusting those Numbers scriptures were? If that God is contrary to Jesus, it's not the Father of Jesus and that is why I say they are imposters. Once again, pagan texts speak of the gods walking the earth and conversing with people. You would know this if you bothered to read and watch the links I gave to you.
Who are the Gods who say, "Let US make man in our image"?
Here's another weird example:
Genesis 11:5-7
New International Version (NIV)
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
First we have the Lord saying their language must be confused and then suddenly he turns into "gods"..."Come, let US got go down..."Concerning ideas of Trinity and a man as God, folks might want to read this first to understand from the Hebrew language what these terms mean, especially the "let us"...
Jews for Judaism
JamesPerhaps you'd like to know where the Hebrew terms for God and gods came from?
ʾĒl (written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic:Perhaps you'd like to know where the Hebrew terms for God and gods came from?
The noun ʾēl was found at the top of a list of gods as the "Ancient of gods" or the "Father of all gods", in the ruins of the royal archive of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. The bull was symbolic to Ēl and his son Baʻal Hadad, and they both wore bull horns on their headdress.[3][4][5][6] He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. Ēl had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot.
Cognate forms are found throughout the Semitic languages. They include Ugaritic ʾil, pl. ʾlm; Phoenician ʾl pl. ʾlm; Hebrew ʾēl, pl. ʾēlîm; Aramaic ʾl; Akkadian ilu, pl. ilānu.
In Northwest Semitic usage ʾl was both a generic word for any "god" and the special name or title of a particular god who was distinguished from other gods as being "the god", or in the monotheistic sense, God.[7] Ēl is listed at the head of many pantheons. Ēl was the father god among the Canaanites.
However, because the word sometimes refers to a god other than the great god Ēl, it is frequently ambiguous as to whether Ēl followed by another name means the great god Ēl with a particular epithet applied or refers to another god entirely. For example, in the Ugaritic texts ʾil mlk is understood to mean "Ēl the King" but ʾil hd as "the god Hadad".
The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾalāh, ʾelāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾlu with a parasitic h. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning "gods" is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm "gods". But in Hebrew this word is also regularly used for semantically singular "God" or "god"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
So we know that in Hebrew Elohim can be god also, not just a god. HOWEVER, it means gods when used with pluralistic verbs and adjectives, e.g, "Let us make man in our image."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
The name El is just a pagan name. It means the supreme god of many gods. This is just like Islam. Allah is the supreme god over many gods.
Truth is, the Tower of Babel story is copied from ancient pagan texts, specifically the Sumerian Text.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/36_babel.html
No, Claire. I'm not willingly ignorant. But thank you.
And no, He never turned into "gods."The only arrogance observed is from those who claim God made us special in His image.
Really? That's interesting coming from you.
My wife collapsed on the floor this morning. This unplanned comedy with the prince of petulance has had its moments, but it also has its limits.
Chris, you are willfully ignorant. I don't think you are comprehending my argument. Oh course he never turned into gods because there wasn't a singular god to begin with. You just gloss over the parts that stump you. I'm asking you why both God and gods are mentioned as the same being.
I've said many times that I don't understand what you're saying, so your "willfully ignorant" remark is total rubbish. You're pulling in arguments from other sources that I am not familiar with and still expect me to comprehend and agree with when everything I've studied and thought about disagrees with it, what I understand of it. And it doesn't help your case that you make blanket statements about my being willfully ignorant or Biblically and historically false statements about the Israelites slaughtering everyone who came in their land. Come again? You maybe want to chop this up in digestible pieces so that I can understand you better?
Chris, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. You either don't have the intellect to understand what I am saying or else you are willfully ignorant. You KNOW if Genesis that God is sometimes referred to as the gods. Why? This is from Genesis and is from a source you ought to know.
Claire, if I'm ignorant then you're arrogant.
I've made my point about time management, let it go. I will get back to it. Calling me stupid does not help your case. Make any assumptions you want but if the point is to get me to "see the truth" then keep the crasser ones private. Otherwise there's no point.Hi Chris. I rarely agree with you, but on this one you are dead on. I find it humorous how disagreements devolve to either 'oh, you're just willfully ignorant' or ' the Holy Spirit hasn't seen fit to enlighten you'. Or variations on those themes.
It's an obvious tantrum because arrogance wants to win the day. Intelligent people disagree on these issues. Those who don't disagree rarely show a mind of their own. I may not like what you have to say, but I respect your opinion.Chris, what am I to think when you don't understand that "gods" and "God" are both mentioned in Genesis? What am I to think when you can't even answer a yes or no question about Jesus and would He say women and children should have killed? I have tried to squeeze this out of you for the couple of last comments but you don't respond.
Willful ignorance comes in that you live in denial. You refuse to condemn the evil in Numbers. That really gets me. How can you not condemn evil?
I am devastated that people would equate Jesus with that God who sanctioned and inflicted such suffering and evil.
Let me tell you a thing or two. The Pharisees thought Jesus was arrogant. He completely challenged the Old Testament. Why else do you think they hated Him? Because He adored every little thing in it? How many times did He scorn the practices from the Old Testament?You seem to think that the God of the old testament is cruel. Here is a link. Please read it carefully.
http://christiandebunker.blogspot.in/p/ … cruel.html
BTW, I don't think you are stupid. I said you EITHER lack the intellect or are willingly ignorant and I've called you the latter.
So I didn't call you stupid.Willfully ignorant is not intentional stupidity? That's interesting....
I disagree with Claire on most things -- I certainly consider her willfully ignorant -- but she is actually correct, in this case.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is a lack of intelligence. One is correctable, the other isn't.Okay, maybe you guys are technically correct, but the principle is the same.
No, it is not. Many smart people live in denial and skirt around issues that make them uncomfortable, like you.
Or you Claire. You and Chris are both living a slightly different delusion.
If you were to look critically at the NT as you do the OT you would find similar flaws.
Yes, but I ask you discuss what exactly you have contention with and you haven't responded to that request.
Well, we can start with the fact that the NT is based on pagan beliefs, which should give you the impression that it was made up.
Well, that's rather vague but I'm busy composing my response to VAMPGYRL420's same claim about paganism influencing the New Testament. It will be up soon.
The problem is you will not look at the NT critically as I asked. You are busy trying to show you are right rather than seeing if you are wrong.
That's nonsense. There are somethings in the NT I don't believe in. A debate starts with my stance on what I believe is right and it is your job to prove I'm wrong. That's how it works.
Gosh, at least you don't do that, eh?
Seriously, how do you know anything about me? Answer, you don't. I think about these things all the time. But you feel free to level any accusation you like.
No really, I mean it. If it makes you feel any better, do it. Remember what Eleanor Roosevelt said...Nope, I don't do that. If I do that I don't know about, point it out please?
I don't know you but I know some facts about you: You cannot answer a yes or no question. If you replied no to the question about Jesus and the "Why have you let the woman live?" part, then that would prove that the "Lord" in the OT, in that specific passage at least, is not the Father of the son of God as He'd never sanction murder and rape. If you answer yes, that Jesus would say such a thing, well, obviously that makes Him evil and we can't have that.
So you cannot reconcile this OT passage with Jesus. It's impossible. So what do you do? You ignore it. It's a cowardly thing to do. Sorry.
Just went back and read that one again. Interesting. You accuse me of contradicting myself, then you also say the Bible contradicts itself.
If you have Jesus contradicting the OT (which He does not) then the entire argument falls down (the proverbial "house divided" indeed!) And if you really have to ask why the common men were not allowed to eat the sacrifices (which they were forbidden to do) then I begin to wonder if you're really reading the OT you quote from or if you get your info from some source and pass it along as if you know what you're talking about. I used to know a guy, real nice, would give you the shirt off his back. But he would say some of the most bizarre things about the Bible. Turned out he was listening to Fred Price and the only parts of the Bible he knew were the ones that Fred preached about and he only knewe them from Fred's literature. He'd never read the whole thing.The Bible does contradict itself. Jesus preached to love one's neighbour and not seek revenge like the OT does. If Jesus agreed with the OT in it's entirety, do you really believe the Pharisees would have hated Him so much? He broke the Sabbath like the disciples. Even Jeremiah accused the scribes as lying.
Tell me why the common men weren't allowed to the sacrifices? Woman were inferior in the OT but Jesus treated them like equals. It was done to stone adultresses yet Jesus said just to sin no more to Mary. He did not say, "Stone her for the Father demands it!"
You refuse to believe the OT is heavily corrupted why? The Church is corrupted today so why not the OT?Have you actually read the OT? God didn't sanction revenge. He said over and over that vengeance is the Lord's.
But, finally and for all, my point stands. If you say the Bible contradicts itself, then you also say the Bible is a lie and congratulations. My God isn't that small. And you keep dragging in outside stuff. No, the Bible is a whole, and it stands or falls as a whole. If the OT is garbage, then what are you preaching Jesus for?God often got under people to act out revenge on his behalf:
God had ordered Moses and his loyal followers to “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” Three thousand men died at the hands of their peers in addition to those killed by the second punishment (Exodus 32:26-28).
More:
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter9.html
And God did want the Israelites to seek revenge:
Numbers 31:1-6
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." 3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
The Bible does contradict itself. Jeremiah even accused the scribes of lying. For heaven's sake, would Jesus ask people to do what "God" asked Moses to do in the above verses? Why do you think that if there is wrong in the Bible then that invalidates the entire thing?
I actually felt sick regarding those Old Testament passages.Moses was talking to a group of people who were still learning to trust and follow God and who were conquering and inhabiting a land set aside for them by God. Jesus was talking to a group of people who were already conquered and enslaved by a foreign empire, telling them to get right with God when what most of them wanted was for Him to raise an army and kill all the Romans.
Am I wrong?
There are other factors involved, and I never said I didn't have problems with some of these stories, but for the moment just answer that question. Am I wrong in that last paragraph.So you think God approves of the Israelis killing the Palestinians today because it's the Jews land? What you write here is completely irrelevant. Answer me this question: Would Jesus want non-virgins to be killed and the virgins raped? Would Jesus say, "Why have you let the women and children live!"?
Just think, Chris! This is not God, it's an imposter. It is clear that it was the "gods", actually physical beings, that were instructing them. Have you actually wondered why God is depicted as a physical being conversing with Moses (remember Moses speaking to God with God's back to Him".
And why did God allow the Jews to be conquered? In fact, why did He allow the Holocaust? He delivered them from Egypt, why not Hitler?
You know what the biggest and most dangerous hoax that ever existed in the history of mankind? The claim of the promised land by God. It has caused much blood to be spilled.
Don't you see these OT passages are corrupting the Christian religion? Don't you think atheists have a point when they say they don't want to serve this God?
Let's take this scenario: The rebels in Syria believe that Assad should go so they can have democracy. The land belongs to the Syrian so they need to conquer anyone that gets in the way of democracy? How do they carry this out? They are ordered to kill, rape, torture anyone that opposes them. Anyone who is in the Assad regime has to be killed. Houses have to be burnt down and the rebels keep the spoils of war for themselves. And if a regime supporter is not killed, one can say, "Why have you allowed him to live?!"
Is this scenario familiar to you? Does it remind you of something?
Yep, if Moses and friends kill in this manner, it's okay, but I'm sure you believe what the rebels in Syria are doing is evil. So really, what is the difference? The difference is that you refuse to denounce your Bible which you believe is true just like the West turns a blind eye to the rebels atrocities because they want Assad gone.
Think about it.I'll get back to you on this, but first of all you didn't answer my question. I actually have a longer argument set up but it's pointless to debate if you're not going to pay me the respect that you want for yourself. The question was, Am I wrong?
But was Moses the only one who saw God with a Body?You mean this?
"Moses was talking to a group of people who were still learning to trust and follow God and who were conquering and inhabiting a land set aside for them by God. Jesus was talking to a group of people who were already conquered and enslaved by a foreign empire, telling them to get right with God when what most of them wanted was for Him to raise an army and kill all the Romans.
Am I wrong?"
As I said, it's completely irrevelant in our discussion whether that gruesome god is yours based on that nature. I just find it interesting that Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
Was Moses the only one to see God with a body? I don't know if that is written in the OT but in my view-point, the others probably got a glimpse of him walking around. Gods were physical beings in those days.No, it's not in the least irrelevant. Your refusal to answer the question is all the answer I need. Thank you and good night.
I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you can me the answer?
Did I say that? Talk about completely irrelevant!
He delivered them from Egypt after 400 years, He delivered them from Hitler after 9.
God works through history. Things take time. People need to be worked with and sometimes on. That's why things don't happen instantaneously, no matter how wonderful we think it would be.
I understand you much, much better now...Claire: "So you think God approves of the Israelis killing the Palestinians today because it's the Jews land? What you write here is completely irrelevant."
Chris : :"Did I say that? Talk about completely irrelevant!"
Of course you didn't say that but didn't the Jews kill all those that came onto their land?
Claire Evans: "Answerme this question: Would Jesus want non-virgins to be killed and the virgins raped? Would Jesus say, "Why have you let the women and children live!"?
Just think, Chris! This is not God, it's an imposter. It is clear that it was the "gods", actually physical beings, that were instructing them. Have you actually wondered why God is depicted as a physical being conversing with Moses (remember Moses speaking to God with God's back to Him".
And why did God allow the Jews to be conquered? In fact, why did He allow the Holocaust? He delivered them from Egypt, why not Hitler?"
Chris Neal "He delivered them from Egypt after 400 years, He delivered them from Hitler after 9."
Did God fight for the Jews during the Holocaust? Was there a Moses figure that lead them out of the Holocaust? It's funny how God just went away and let the Jews fend for themselves. The Holocaust didn't end because of God. It ended because the Germans were defeated. I know of a couple who abandoned Judaism because of the Holocaust.
Chris Neal: "God works through history. Things take time. People need to be worked with and sometimes on. That's why things don't happen instantaneously, no matter how wonderful we think it would be."
Claire:
"You know what the biggest and most dangerous hoax that ever existed in the history of mankind? The claim of the promised land by God. It has caused much blood to be spilled
Don't you see these OT passages are corrupting the Christian religion? Don't you think atheists have a point when they say they don't want to serve this God?
Let's take this scenario: The rebels in Syria believe that Assad should go so they can have democracy. The land belongs to the Syrian so they need to conquer anyone that gets in the way of democracy? How do they carry this out? They are ordered to kill, rape, torture anyone that opposes them. Anyone who is in the Assad regime has to be killed. Houses have to be burnt down and the rebels keep the spoils of war for themselves. And if a regime supporter is not killed, one can say, "Why have you allowed him to live?!"
Is this scenario familiar to you? Does it remind you of something?
Yep, if Moses and friends kill in this manner, it's okay, but I'm sure you believe what the rebels in Syria are doing is evil. So really, what is the difference? The difference is that you refuse to denounce your Bible which you believe is true just like the West turns a blind eye to the rebels atrocities because they want Assad gone.
Think about it."
Chris Neal: "I understand you much, much better now..."
What a cop-out!
Answer me this:
Would Jesus want non-virgins to be killed and the virgins raped? Would Jesus say, "Why have you let the women and children live!"?
You just skip over those that are inconvenient to you because you don't know how to defend these passages. You know they are wrong but do not have the courage to say, "It can't be right because it doesn't reconcile with Jesus."
Have the courage Jesus had opposing what was wrong.No, they didn't kill all those who came into their land. I suspected this before, but that is really all the proof. You don't actually read the Bible. I don't know where you're getting it from, but somebody is saying, "This verse proves this," or "This verse proves that." You're good at quoting Scripture, but that was a serious, serious blunder. Let's talk again after you've actually read it through and can discuss it in an informed manner.
Sorry Chris, I hate to admit it, but she is making perfect sense. A good chunk of the world (Christians) gives Israel special treatment because the bible says they are the chosen people. Which is really a silly immature concept. Why would God have a chosen people. Wait, what's more, how told us they were the chosen people? Well they themselves did that. Chris you must know deep down inside that the God you KNOW wouldn't tell his people to kill the non-virgins and KEEP the virgins. This was clearly propaganda written by people to inspire people.
I don't have time to dig into it all now, but Claire's argument began and evaporated with her statement (and I don't remember the exact words, but to the effect that) the Israelites killed everyone who came in their land. Bad history, bad Bible, bad theology, stupid argument. When she gets her act together on the Bible she claims to know so well, then I will discuss with her the finer points of history and whether I agree with what you said.
Fair enough, most of the time she is talking about ridiculous conspiracies like the bombing of the Olympics.
The Olympics Games isn't technically over. It ends on the 9th of September, i.e, the end of the Para-Olympic Games.
I think a Christian destroys their own faith by defending the atrocities in the Old Testament by saying it's God ordained. It's an affront to Jesus.
Is it? If so, then fine, but you have simply proved what I've said over and over. Jesus stood on the authority of the OT, He used it time and again to prove His claims. If the OT is then an affront to Jesus, then He is indeed a liar and you and I are the biggest fools of all here.
It is interesting when the fundies argue over their religion. No wonder there are so many denominations of Christianity. And, they expect the non-believers to capitulate.
I am not a fundamentalist, ATM. That should be clear by now. A fundamentalist believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
Did you know Genesis is just abridged, rehashed pagan stories?
The stories of Jesus were not new at the time either. Did you know that?
I'll get back to you on this one. I'm looking forward to the challenge.
The belief in the eternal life is as ancient as they came. It does not mean that on its own means Jesus is a spin-off of these gods. Man wishes to live forever so that is not a unique concept. In the case of Osiris, ancient Egyptians believed that their earthly physical bodies would rise from the dead and that is not a Christian belief. Anywat, that wasn’t the case. We still have Tutanhamen’s old remains. Lol.
Elysium or the Elysian Fields…
“is a conception of the afterlife that evolved over time and was maintained by certain Greek religious and philosophical sects, and cults. Initially separate from the realm of Hades, admission was initially reserved for mortals related to the gods and other heroes. Later, it expanded to include those chosen by the gods, the righteous, and the heroic, where they would remain after death, to live a blessed and happy life, and indulging in whatever employment they had enjoyed in life.”
Is this like Christianity?
Vespatian – irrelevant because he lived from 9AD-70AD so we know who copied whom.
Apollonius of Tyana – irrelevant because he lived from 15 AD – 100 AD.
“When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.”
So? People have been prophesizing forever. No one thinks Nostradamus is a myth.
Romulus - Modern scholarship approaches the various known stories of Romulus and Remus as cumulative elaborations and later interpretations of Roman foundation-myth.
Be careful of myths that evolve. They are later inspired by other myths and aren’t original.
Amulius forces Rhea Silvia (Romulus’ mother) into perpetual virginity as a Vestal priestess, but she bears children anyway. In one variation of the story, Mars, god of war, seduces and impregnates her: in another, Amulius himself seduces her, and in yet another, Hercules.
Vestal virginity is actual a vow of celibacy specifically thirty years in this case. When she bore children, she violated her vow of celibacy. It has nothing to do with an immaculate conception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus
There is no reference to Romulus being the son of God. He is the son of Mars, the god of wars and one of many gods.
Alexander the Great: Since it is a fact that he had a mortal father, Philip II of Macedon, then it is safe to assume he wasn’t referring to him being God incarnate. Back then, emperors often called themselves “sons of god”, etc, It’s supposed to represent a close relationship with deities. Here’s more:
“Throughout history, emperors have assumed titles that amount to being "a son of god", "a son of a god" or "son of Heaven".[1] Roman Emperor Augustus referred to his relation to the deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar as "son of a god" via the term divi filius which was later also used by Domitian and is distinct from the use of Son of God in the New Testament.[2]
Around the time of Jesus, the title divi filius (son of the divine one) was specially, but not exclusively, associated with Emperor Augustus (as adopted son of Julius Caesar). Later, it was also used to refer to Domitian (as son of Vespasian).[2][10] Augustus used the title "Divi filius", not "Dei filius", and respected the distinction.[11]
In the Book of Exodus Israel as a people is called "God's son", using the singular form.[12] Both the terms sons of God and "son of God" appear in Jewish literature predating the New Testament. In Jewish literature, the leaders of the people, kings and princes were called "sons of God" based on the view of the king as the lieutenant of God.[3] However, the Messiah, the Anointed One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2:7: The "Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee".[3] This psalm can obviously be seen as referring to a particular king of Judah, but has also been understood of the awaited Messiah.[13]”
Same applies to Scipio Africanus
Dionysus – He did not turn water into wine. He was the god of wine and was the teacher of wine-making.
http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_God … nysus.html
This writer of this web page is not being hundred percent honest in his/her claims. The devil is in the details and the context is everything. So already here his/her credibility is flawed.
I would like to address something I spotted on the Website:
“Borrowing just means "Accepting and incorporating the ideas of your culture," or, "Absorbing the ideas of your culture."
“POCM isn't about a sneaky ancient conspiracy. I haven't uncovered the hidden key to the True Meaning of the bible. POCM's answer is simple and pedestrian: Christianity was the social product of its time and place. It didn't invent its core concepts —heaven, hell, souls, eternal life, miracles, prophecies, angels, Gods, sons of God, walking talking godmen, etc.—it got them from the culture in which it developed. When ancient people made a new religion, these are the things they put in.”
Why does Christianity have to introduce completely original ideas to be valid? The question to be asked is, since all these things like the concept of hell, heaven, etc, were already in place, what would attract the early Christians to Christianity? Why would they go from Judaism and convert to a pagan religion which was forbidden in Judaism and was just many of other pagan religions? Why would they die for this religion? If a new religion was created that regurgitated the same pagan themes, why bother with it? And what’s also interesting is that so many pagan stories adapted their myths to match Jesus. It is utterly ridiculous to toss out Jesus’ divinity because concepts that He preached like heaven and hell preceded Him. In Buddhism, hell is a temporary place, not eternal like Christianity
If it was written in the Bible that Jesus mentioned crop circles and that was a portal to heaven, it wouldn’t mean He did not preach that because crop circles existed before Him. Christianity interprets these existing ideas. I could say that crop circles is result of a pulsating light from space and another can say the same crop circle is a portal. We both are addressing the same thing in a DIFFERENT WAY. So Jesus addresses existing concepts like heaven and hell in His own way. In fact, He came to testify to the truth. In fact, He claimed the only way to the Father was through Him.
People have an innate thing that automatically makes them think of heaven and hell. All around the world we have ideas about hell and heaven, angels and demons, prophecies, etc. Did all these ideas evolve from concepts that originated in one place? No. How do people across continents in ancient times exchange these concepts? How could one be influenced by the other?
We have many ancient cultures that did not have contact with others that claimed extra-terrestrials came to seed the earth. Here are examples:
“It is important to note three ancient Hindu text scriptures, the Bhagavata-Purana, Mahabharata and Ramayana Scriptures. These scriptures date back to at least 3000 B.C. and are among some of the oldest writings currently known to man. They speak extensively about flying machines called Vimanas that flew not only the skies, but to the stars as well. India's Vedic writings speak of gods, (they called Devas) from other star systems. They tell of how the human soul is nonphysical and how our sentient energy goes through a succession of physical bodies, as only the physical body dies.
The Mayans believed their predecessors came from the Pleiades. The Mayan Indians of Central America knew the earth was round centuries before the Europeans made this discovery. The Popol Vuh states that several gods, including Hunahpu, Xbalanque, and the great god-king Quetzalcoatl, returned to the stars after their earth life ended.
In India, it was and still is believed that man descended from gods who flew fiery crafts. Early Chinese texts tell of long-lived rulers from the heavens who flew in "fire-breathing dragons". In Tibet there is a book called the Kantyua, which means "the translated word of Buddha". It tells of flying "pearls in the sky" and of transparent spheres carrying gods to visit man. Here to, the belief is of being reborn time and time again and not just to earth. The Royal Pedigrees of Tibetan Kings dates back to the seventh century. It states that the first seven Tibetan kings came from the stars, and goes on to say that they eventually returned to the stars.
Ancient Egyptian legends tell of Tep Zepi, or the First Time. This is described as an age when "sky gods" came down to Earth and raised the land from mud and water.They supposedly flew through the air in flying "boats" and brought laws and wisdom to man through a royal line of pharaohs.”
http://greenzilla.tripod.com/index3.htm
We have a common theme here. How did those cultures know about the other’s beliefs? Does repetition from concepts actually validate claims? Many of these ET’s were called saviours for improving people’s lives. Savior in the sense that Jesus offered is not the former’s concept of salvation. So we have different words but they can be interpreted in different ways. It does not mean one belief has been influenced by the other because there is a common motif.
Another thing to keep in mind is that paganism is a religion of nature. Dying and resurrection often represented crop cycles, for example. Osiris represented the vegetation crop cycle.
The only way that Christianity can ever be validated is if someone has a personal relationship with Christ. That is the confirmation of the Gospels.
I never dismissed the whole of the Old Testament. Tell me, did He stand by the authorities of Numbers?
Did He say in the synagogue, "It was right of Moses to ask why the women and children weren't killed and that non-virgins had to be killed and virgins raped"?
Well, do you think He'd say such a thing?
I wonder if He preached this one in the synogogue?
Deut 22:22 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die-- the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.
If this is a law from God, then He insulted God by sparing the prostitute. I wonder if Jesus stoned a lot if accordance with the Old Testament laws.
We have a problem here because it is said that Jesus was inspired by the Mosaic Law. Did the early Christians try and reconcile the Old Testament with the gospels to lure Jews into Christianity? Many Jewish allegories are found in the New Testament. For example, Moses was said to fast for 40 days and Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness. It is written that it rained for 40 days in the Noah's Ark story.
It's important to note that Jesus did not come to invalidate the whole of the Old Testament. He came to fulfill what was written about Him by the prophets, like Isaiah. But the OT has been corrupted and we think what we have in the Bible is what was originally written.
I believe there could have been a Moses-type figure but not the one in the OT.
Satan is a clever fellow indeed. He mixes lies with the truth to confuse people and cause division in the Christian faith. Some want to cling to the idea that the Bible is infallible and thus accept that God must have been evil.
I believe it is important to focus on the gist of the gospels; that Jesus can to testify to the truth and died for our sins to offer salvation. This is all we need to know.
What is the truth about the Old Testament? The truth is that if God behaves in such a manner that is contrary to how Jesus behaved and stood for, then it's false. It's that easy. The two have to reconcile. God can't slay innocent kids and then Jesus says those who harm children have a heavy punishment to pay.
I'm going to go back and look at all the verses and do the study. I disagree obviously but unlike you, I don't have the time to just sit and go back and forth on this. It will take a while. As you ought to know, my life is pretty hectic. The answer will come when it comes.
In other words, the answer will never come. I have to accept this. I wonder how much of your time it would take to answer yes or no to this answer?
Would Jesus say, "Why did you let the women and children live! Kill the non-virgins and keep the virgins for yourself!"You make many assumptions, Claire. But I'm going to cut you a little slack and assume that you only read posts addressed directly to you. So here's the scoop: My wife is stage 4 cancer and collapsed in my arms the other day. I have three kids, two of whom are special needs. You get the answer when you get the answer, I don't have that much time. Even A Troubled Man, who is not my biggest fan by a long shot, had the good grace to drop it when I made the situation clear.
I am sorry about my your wife. I truly am but how many times must I ask you this?
Would Jesus be angry and say, "Why have you let the women and children live? Kill all the non-virgins and keep the virgins for yourself."
You keep saying you don't have much time. How much of your time is it going to take for you to say yes or no? You have the time to log onto this site yet you cannot answer yes or no. You will have time to do anything else but answer a simple yes or no question.
You want to know why I am being "brutal"? Because it is horrific to equate Jesus with this type of evil. How can this "Lord" in Numbers be the Father of the Son of God? Does he have bipolar? Make the time to adjust your way of thinking on this issue because equating Jesus with this evil is actually a sin.
This is the very reason why people become atheists. They feel that Christians can't separate the "Lord" in the OT and Jesus and thus whatever atrocities the "Lord" committed in the OT must automatically make Jesus responsible as well as He is one with the Father. It would make Him the biggest hypocrite on earth to preach against evil when He is responsible for it as well.
If I didn't know Jesus for who He is, I'd say, "Stuff this Christianity."
As much as I am sorry about your situation, I am under the impression you are using this as a form of emotional black-mail. You want me to drop the subject because you want me to believe you have more important things to attend to. NOTHING is more important than Jesus.Claire, despite the fact that at this point you don't deserve the respect of an answer, you will get one.
WHEN YOU GET IT!!!!!!!!
I have a lot on my plate right now and almost all of it is more important than you.Which do you think takes longer? Logging onto Hubpages or typing in "yes" or "no"?
It's not me we are talking about. It's JESUS! It's appalling to associate Him with that Numbers passage. It is sinful to equate Jesus with that sort of evil. And, yes, by not condemning it and saying it is lying about the Lord, then you are equating Him with that evil.EXACTLY! It's Jesus! And because He is God, I'm not going to get suckered into some soundbite answer where you can proceed to spin whatever that brain of yours desires out of one lousy word!
Which takes more humanity, to browbeat someone who's wife is dying into giving them the answer YOU want, regardless of whether it's the actual answer, or to wait a little and hear what the person actually thinks?Yes, Claire, so be it. I won't be emotionally blackmailed into the kind of one-word answer that is plainly not a one-word answer.
And you say you're not a hard person yet you keep doing this.
My wife died last night. Want to beat me over the head a little more?You have my deepest condolences, sir. I can't imagine what you're going through.
Thank you very much. That means a lot to me. And I'm being completely serious.
Sorry for your loss Chris. My thoughts are with you.
Thank you. This is a really tough time for me. Ironically, Mark Knowles contacted me and was very nice, giving me the advice that I should stay out of the forums for a while. I'm seriously thinking about it. But I appreciate the thought. Thank you.
I'm not going to pretend to know what you are experiencing, Chris.
I'm so sorry.
*hugs*Thank you. It's impossible to know something like this unless you've experienced it. Thank you for the kind words.
Actually, you are the one who is using emotional blackmail as far as I can see. I've laid my position out time and again and every time you say "I'm sorry for your situation" what I hear is "Shut up about you and tell me what I want to hear."
I've told you why I am not giving you a one-word answer. Accept it or don't but don't keep badgering me. It makes me think that the reason you left that church was not bravery.I am not a hard person. Why ought I not be sorry about your situation? However, it has nothing to do with answering a yes or no question.
Please refresh me: why can't you answer a yes or no question? Is it because you have to do mountains of research to answer a very simple question?
Well, I can't make you not equate Jesus with evil. If you want to think so, so be it.
I have not left the church!Let it go Claire, Obviously he needs time to think. He sounds like he has enough on his docket. Perhaps he has a life.
I concur. Claire needs to spare us her wrath. It's unbiblical even.
It would be a different ballgame if respect was given to other people's views and arguments were being based upon research on both sides. However, it is clear that Claire is set on her own beliefs and could not really care less about the actual truth of the matter.
What's the truth of the matter? I actually need a debate going if I'm going to think about other views. You have not responded to my comment about the website you referred me to.
Didn't Jesus have wrath against the Pharisees? I'm not saying Chris is a Pharisee but when it comes to defending Jesus, I get worked up.
You haven't responded in a manner that would back up what you just said.
Take some time off and ponder deeply what I say. Pray or whatever you want to do. But this is a very important issue we are dealing with here. It is passages like Numbers that contribute to people's decision to leave Christianity and rightly so.
As usual you cherry-pick about what you choose to address. You don't read the Bible because you didn't know that Jesus called the Pharisees a pit of vipers.
I can learn about the Old Testament as we go along. I was not correct to say that the Jews killed ALL the people who came onto "their" land. What is in contention, however, is that they would often kill to conquer other lands and badly, too. But my Numbers example PROVES that Moses is an evil bastard and that God who put him up to do it.
So I'm going to give you one more try. Answer this question:
" Would Jesus want non-virgins to be killed and the virgins raped? Would Jesus say, "Why have you let the women and children live!"?
Okay, I went back and looked at the verse in context (using my Textus Receptus, no less!) when I wasn't rushed and wasn't feeling the pressure of other events.
Let's look at it.
Here's what you said:
If you go back to verse 21 and read it through, here's what the Textus says:
"So says Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out from the land of Egypt, concerning matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But I commanded them this thing, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. Also, Walk in all the waysw that I have commanded you, so that it may be well with you. But they did not listen nor bow their ear. But they walked in their own plans, in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward."
So, if you take only the verses you took, then yes, you might be able to make the case that God said He didn't institute the sacrifices. But if you read it in context it becomes clear that He's saying that He didn't originally institute the sacrifices right out of Egypt, instead giving commands to the Israelites which they refused to obey, therefor necessitating the sacrifices. And since their hearts were still hard, He's saying "Keep your sacrifices, they're meaningless." The sacrifices were necessary and they were instituted by God, but they were never meant to substitute for obedience and humility.
It is a FACT that many practices in the OT mirrored or were mirrored by surrounding pagan cultures. One of the names for God, "El", was not originally Hebrew but came from the writings of a culture that Moses came across in his travels (Lud? Luz? I don't remember off hand and google has failed me again.) This is a secret to exactly no one, it's not like we evangelicals are attempting to cover it up. But that does not mean ipso facto that Genesis or the Pentateuch is merely a rip-off of pagan fertility cults. Get real. God is bigger than that. Plus, if that were true, then in fact Christianity would be a lie because Jesus' claims to Godhood are rooted in prophecies of the OT.
You lost me when you ask why God could not see Moses face to face but then could. I can't find that in the Bible, nor in what I wrote. Could you explain that?Regarding animals sacrifices, I give up. Not even Jesus condoned it. Your God is different to mine.
Exodus 33:11
The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
Exodus 33:20-21
"But, he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."Yes, your god is different from mine, because Jesus told exactly nobody to stop making the sacrifices at that time. In fact, He specifically told one of the people He healed to "give the gifts," which meant the sacrifices at the Temple.
The verses you quote don't in any way at any time in any manner indicate that God could not see Moses face to face. Moses could not see God's face (no living man could) because then he would die. God has never been under any such restriction.
Yer gawd's too small.How do you know He didn't? Give me one verse where it says the disciples sacrificed animals to atone for sin? And what verse says people He healed to give gifts that proves He approved of animal sacrifice?
You are in denial and you contradict yourself. First you say God can see Moses face-to-face then you say He couldn't because Moses would die. Obviously Moses could not see God's face because he was told to converse with God with God's back to Him.
Your God is blood-thirsty helping the Israeli's commit murder and rape.
Numbers 31:9-21
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba —the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood. ”
God sanctions murder which is evil and allows Moses to say that virgins should be raped.
This is your God???Claire, I have no idea why or how some Christians can't or won't see the horror of the OT. In the OT God condoned and sanctioned rape, slavery and murder.
Agreed. Some won't see it because they think they are betraying God if they don't see Him in that way which is false.
No, I'm not denying nor contradicting.
Rape? When did He help the Israelites to rape?I meant sanctioned rape.
So this is not your God? So who is this God in Numbers? If this scenario was reported to happen in Syria, you'd be appalled. If it's in the Bible, it's not bad. Right?Well, aside from the fact that you make several really, really, really huge assumptions about me that you feel justified in...
As I've said many times, I'm under a lot of pressure here. Where in Numbers is this rape?
- whowasposted 12 years ago0
The only thing that unites atheists is that they don't believe in gods and supernatural things. That's it.
So, each individual atheist will have their own answer to your question based on their life experiences, thoughts, studies and analysis etc.
For my own part, even if your god was proved to be true and Jesus came back to life and all that, no I wouldn't accept being his humble servant or the salvation that he offers me from the destruction he threatens me with. (worship me or I'll kill you. Hmm. Nice.)
"I can do what I like with your life because I created you - now do as I say or I'll destroy you/torture you for eternity" doesn't strike me as a the product of a very loving mind. On the contrary, I'd say that if the god of the christians is real he's the most evil and perverse monster ever concocted and he can go to his own hell before I'll bow down before him.Nor would I think Jesus would want you to serve him. That was not his philosophy, although I do know many understand it that way.
Oh, well, He didn't stop people from worshiping Him.
John 5:
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
In other words, Jesus and God are one and the same. He would not have been put to death for blasphemy if He did not equate Himself to God.They will worship anyway even if he tried to stop them. Jesus was right in my opinion they were one and the same. God within and Jesus the physical manifestation. In and of, no separation, just as we are. We just think we are separate. This thinking of separation impedes our ability to realize more of the type of connection we do have with God.
But then we have had this discussion before so I won't go there again.
This is a common misconception of atheists. They believe Jesus says, "Worship me or burn in hell!" What they don't know is that the very antithesis of hell is Jesus. Hell is the complete separation from God, Jesus being the son of God and God incarnate at the same time. With sin we cannot go near God and thus being with sin separates us from Him. The further we are from God the greater Satan has access to us. After all, he cannot go near God so someone completely separated from God is a sitting duck.
Jesus is trying to save us from this. How can a good person reject everything that is good, which is Jesus?
Beside, do you really believe a tyrant that people perceive Jesus to be would give us free will on earth? Why not cast the unbelievers into hell now out of spite?It is impossible to be separated from God because he is omnipresent. There is nowhere that God is not so a hell separated from God is impossible. Psalm 139.
It is people who attempt to separate themselves, such as the call for the mountains to cover them to hide them from God in Revelation. If hell did exist then it would be a state of being eternally in the presence of God where our sin is continually exposed to his love thus being in everlasting shame.
You say that sin prevents us from coming near to God but WHILST we were yet sinners he reconciled us to himself. This is the good news because the lamb that takes away the sin of the world has done just that and as far as the East is from the West have our sins been removed from us. Psalm 103. So there will be no separation from God neither will there be a state of eternally in his presence still carrying sin.
By the way, Satan js a figment of the Church's imagination.This Psalmist is referring to all places on earth. Do you believe God is in hell?
Again, one can't hide from God on earth. What kind of God would punish us for eternity by constantly reminding us of sin we repent of? We can't be near Him, though, with sin so this point isn't valid.
Yes, but that was through Jesus. Jesus came to EARTH to reconcile with sinners. We cannot reconcile with God in heaven because no evil exists there. There will be no separation from God provided we repent of sin.
You are soon going to find out that is not true. Come the 27th, unless something drastic happens to the contrary because I always hope, you will find the death of the old order of the world. Hell on earth is coming.Sorry, the 27th of July is that? This year, 2012? Hell on earth is coming on the 27th of this month?
And hell is separation from God, you say. So...on the 27th of July, the earth will be separated from God.
You know, with respect, it seems to me that your theology doesn't even make poetic sense. It isn't even inherently congruous, it doesn't even follow an internal logic. It sounds increasingly like raving gobbledigook to me.
Where are you getting all this inside information on the future of the world and what God is and all that any way?
This forum thread is becoming increasingly entertaining and ridiculous. I can hardly wait to read your explanation for why nothing much has changed on the 28th!The 27th of July, yes, when the approach of the planet Nibiru (maybe actually Neptune) will cause a giant cataclysm that will plunge the world into chaos and pave the way for Satan and the NWO to enslave us.
I have a few dingbat friends who anticipate exactly that scenario.Some parts of the world are in chaos now, so.... what's new?
Well, larger chaos, affecting more people. a non-nutty attempt to explain a nutty issue here:
http://www.science20.com/hammock_physic … _way-88570That was hilarious. Simply hilarious. A marketing ploy aimed at he gullible. I would love to know how many of those $2000 balls they will sell and more importantly who they will sell too. I suspect they will be sold to the profoundly gullible, the telemarketers dream person. Most likely a born again christian.
"I suspect they will be sold to the profoundly gullible, the telemarketers dream person. Most likely a born again christian."
Are there really than many of them here in HubPages?
That makes no sense. We are already enslaved. How more can you enslave a person. Mind wise I mean.
You don't know the worst slavery that lies ahead. First of all, if the government tells you if you cannot buy or trade without getting a microchip, I'd think you would be inclined to get one. No one wants to starve.
If man is merged with machine, as in transhumanism, then they won't have a mind of their own. Their consciousness will be downloaded off a huge database. Then you can have thoughts put in your head and will act on it. I am not making this up.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati … onvergenceOh please, no one will starve. If they know how to grow vegetables or eat off a tree.. gees. Most things of nature you can eat.. So what must you be talking about?
Oh, and what if everything in nature is owned by a one world government? If they can track you when you microchip, they can kill you on site if you try and survive on your own. Have you heard of those in America who have been arrested for planting vegetables in their yard?
http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/07/ … lants.html
Don't think in the mindset of the Old World Order but rather the New World Order.Don't get a microchip then. Do you seriously believe that whomever can own nature? No I haven't heard about American's who get arrested for growing vegetables in their yard. People are not supposed to smoke dope either but they do.
Don't get a micro-chip and you die or get imprisoned for life. Yes, if the population has been reduced drastically, like down to 500 million which is around the desired number, then a one world government can dictate the move of its citizens. Again, don't think of what can't happen because of what you know now.
Assuming New world order happens and you do not get a microchip how will they find you to kill you or put you in prison? Going off the grid is easy. You stay on the grid because you want what they offer.
They would be able to monitor all places on earth. There's no place to hide. It would probably take a bit longer to find you but you will be found. Most fugitives always get caught and technology isn't at its peak.
Another possibility is that food that is not under the control of the one world government will not be edible. Think of the massive radiation that is being released into the atmosphere now. Diseases could be created so that food could kill you. If you have a micro-chip, you could be offered food that is clean. After all, there are seed banks out there.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?cont … ;aid=23503
The Saylbard Global Seed Vault was officially opened on February 26, 2008, although the idea for the facility was conceived in the 1980s, and its purpose is to house the world’s most important natural resources in the event of a major catastrophe. These resources would come under threat due to civil strife, natural disasters, etc. Important crops may be lost in these cases and the Vault serves as an insurance policy for the world’s food supply.
It is dug into a mountainside near the village of Longyearhven, Syalbard.
The Vivos Cryovault is a nuclear blast-proof, fully staffed underground shelter where thousands of mature, reproductive unfertilized cells, like sperm or ova, are contained in liquid nitrogen freezers. Here you can preserve your family lineage in the case of a disaster, natural or caused by the destruction of the reproductive gene pool caused by radiological, biological or chemicals attacks, which would require the earth to be repopulated.Oh please you made me laugh big time I am sorry to say. We are not that advanced yet. They cannot monitor hackers, what makes you think they can monitor humans? You are too funny!
And as for the food not being edible, are you for real? If new world order was a threat to any naturally grown produces they will have a hard time trying to outdo nature.There is a lot of muddled thinking coming from someone, here in this Hub. Can't think who it might be. In some places it sounds quite intelligent and well informed. Then all of a sudden it becomes incongruous, uninformed. It purports to be from someone who is spiritually minded and prophetic, yet it's neither spiritual nor scientific nor logical. IMHO
Do you think the technology we know about is all there is? Lol. Much advanced technology exists that the public doesn't know about.
As for the food not being edible, don't rule out these scenarios because you cannot fathom it. There are smarter beings out there you and I don't know about.I have no doubt there are much smarter people than me that exist in the world. Probably most if not all are smarter than me. I very much doubt that they are smarter than nature though. Don't get me wrong the advancement of technology is amazing but not that amazing. Nature has its ways of not conforming to man. Look at the natural disasters that occur. When we abuse the earth it will abuse back because it is in it's nature to survive. Just as it is the nature of our bodies. When we abuse the body it will attempt to heal itself. Only difference between the body and the earth is the consciousness as we know it to be can interfere with speedier healing.
What Claire is talking about is from the Book of Revelation. Yes, in all likelihood there will be people who "won't get the microchip" (assuming that's even going to be the technology.) But they will not just have to live off the land, they will be forced to separate themselves from other people period because the government will have orders to force everyone to get the chip. If you really think that a government can't force a vast majority of people to go along with it, then you need to read your history.
Whether the chip is going to be the technology or not is up for debate, the Bible doesn't have that kind of detailed tech information. But the government will force people to tow the line. The Romans did it, and were overall quite successful.I suspect "the Government" whenever it comes will be formed by right-wing, stubborn, bullying, fundamentalist members of one particular creed. Especially made up of the people who give lip-service to love and forgiveness and tolerance.
And people who are more conservative tend to think the one world government will be made up of big-government types who are simply Harry Reid times 1000. And that all religion will be stamped out and punished. It all depends on what your perspective is to begin with.
The Bible does say that the one world government will actually have a religious nature to it, and it's possible that Christian-sounding terminology will be used, but Revelation makes clear that the Antichrist will demand worship, which makes it very, very un-Christian.A government is supposed to be sensitive to the needs of the people, act for the people, be authorized by the people, etc.
If it were one world government, where would its seat of government be? There would be many conflicting demands even on this point.
How could a government, sitting in Brussels, be sensitive to the needs of a tiny village in the mountains of Peru? How could a government sitting in Zululand be conscious of the needs in Iceland? (You have a good example of how things don't work when you look at the European Union now.)
What would be the depth of penetration for the dictates of the government, in any given locality?
What is the need for a government in the first place? What are its primary functions?
The way I understand it, a government body should ideally be responsible for setting up a framework, within which the governed people can conduct their lives. Rather like the frame of a picture. The "look" and "feel" of the framework should provide, for the picture, a boundary, a containment, security and protection from damage, It should not become involved within the picture itself. The framework, i.e., the government, should not become embroiled in the day-to-day matters of the people. People should have the freedom to conduct their lives as they feel fit, but avoiding disastrous conflict, unfairness, greed, bullying, dishonesty. These negative aspects are avoided by the strength, wisdom and foresight of the framework.
To impose anything of a sectarian or dictatorial nature would be against the best interests of the people. (Or would it? I can't be sure.)
With a world government, you bet your bottom dollar, this will happen when one religious person or group gets their hands on power. Its demands are unimaginable right now! We have only an inkling of what this Dictatorship would be like, but I can assure you it would be Hell on Earth!Somehow, the US manages it fairly well, as does Canada.
I'm not suggesting one state, but one nation, composed of many states. I conceive of one sovereignty, one currency, one rule of law, and an abolition of all of the those trivial differences that people war over.A noble hope, Chasuk, but what would bring about the "abolition of all of the those trivial differences that people war over?" Surely, it's the trivial differences which are the essence of individuals' rights to merely exist.
Government will not solve the problems. Good leadership might. The christian message is supposed to be about Love, yet governments are past-masters at destroying any concept of Love.
Doesn't it all start with bickering across the garden fence?
It comes back to individual responsibility, coupled with individual rights. Good leadership might weld these into a formidable power for good.The commonwealth nations are close to what you are conceiving. Many countries pulled out of that, if I remember correctly.
The Commonwealth -- an organisation of 54 independent states.-- still exists. Some members have terminated their memberships, yes.
I'm not advocating an organization by force, incidentally.
And I disagree with you because...?
Well, except for the religious part. But I can't see the future. Of course, I believe the Bible, so I believe the OWG will have a religious aspect. But that does not necessarily mean it will be fundamentalists grabbing power.
But other than that, I agree with pretty much every thing you wrote.
Yes I understand that is what she is referring to.
The governments already enforce rules and regulations that sometimes make no sense except to themselves. Why do governments go to war? Only they understand why?
To take away peoples basic freedoms of choice like food/housing/health etc they would more than likely have a force to reckon with before that ever comes about. You will always have people though, who can be self sufficient and will not rely on government and the economy to live.Self-sufficiency is a hot topic in my little section of the world and I know of several other locations where it is the only way the people have ever known...
Yes, little is known about these people in an highly westernised society. Probably because it is not a way of life they prefer, I don't know? Unless you have lived this way or have witnessed it you are less likely to believe it is possible.
It is not the easiest life; but, from my perspective, it is quite necessary to not only learn how to live self-sufficiently but to prepare to do so...Times are only getting harder. I'm surprised that more eyes aren't wide open by now.
I had the great honor of living the Amish life for three weeks out of the summer of 2007...Having been raised on a large plantation, I was familiar with the majority of the daily chores. However, it gets quite interesting without vehicles, electricity and powerful farming equipment...
If the desire to survive is there, people will find a way to do soThere was a show here in the UK a little while back, where they got a bunch of teens and sent them out to live with the amish for a little while. They visited several amish communities and then the second part of the show saw a group of the amish teens sent to visit the UK. If it weren't for the religious aspect, I would seriously want to live with the amish, just the religion puts me off. Their values, with the religious aspect removed, are ones I admire greatly.
Perhaps their values are as they are minus the religious aspect because they live as close to nature as possible. Or as naturally as possible. Most who live off the land have a deep respect for it. It is an amazing thing to witness.
Same here, but the fact is that you can't really divorce their religion from other aspects of their lives.
A one world government is unworkable. One only has to look at the Eurozone debacle to see that you cannot tie two disparate economies like Greece and Germany under a single currency. Now imagine trying to tie together America and Uzbekistan under single currency. It's lunacy. In the 20th century united countries had a habit of fragmenting into independent states: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc etc. Recently Sudan has split into two states. Even the UK may split in the next ten years if the Scottish Nationalists have their way. The only people who believe a one world government is going to happen is a small group of evangelical Christians who know nothing about international politics or economics.
A one world government requires coordination, policy agreements, consensus, organisation, etc, etc. These are things that governments are not able to do efficiently, cost effectively, on time,........ And how do you suppose they would get people to buy into it in the first place? Please don't say that the anti-Christ will mesmerise them with a talking statue.
As for the government keeping track of us by RFID chips, this is laughable. I've worked with government agencies on IT programmes; they haven't a clue about simple concepts such as joined up thinking. The UK civil service has a notorious history of screwing up just about every major IT infrastructure project.If the entire world economy had to collapse then a single currency could be used. If a major world catastrophe had to happen a one world government could happen. You also assume that governments make decisions. They do not. There are shadow governments; people/beings we don't even know exists that pull the strings. Satan has the final say. My uncle has a similar argument to yours. I think only a character like the Anti-Christ could make a New World Order succeed. Imagine a figure that could solve all the worlds problems. Wouldn't he be worshiped?
I'm going to give you an example of how catastrophes change the order of the world. The Telegraph published a slideshow in 2009 displaying London's and America's future. Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/cult … ml?image=1Did you notice that your Telegraph story is made possible by a group of Christian doomsday cultists? Do you know what self-fulfilling prophecy is?
Okay, well, we'll have to see. I just think it is interesting that Syria, Iran and China are identified as the culprits of these heinous terrorist attacks. They all happen to be allies and, well, Iran and China are opposed to any intervention in Syria. Weird, hey?
Why is it always Christians who make up doomsday stuff? Are there only Christian conspiracy theorists?Most conspiracy theorists are Christian, yes. Why this would be so, I am not sure. Perhaps it is the Book of Revelation?
Chances are nuclear warfare will change the order of the world so much that a one world government would be needed.
There is something extremely disturbing in the slide-show. Go to part 4 of the Blackjack slideshow. Then go to the slide where it says everyone in the US will get a UNA ID biometric card. Note that the Telegraph says the events of this slideshow are fictitious.
Go to this site:
http://www.string-functions.com/hex-string.aspx
The number on the ID card is a hex code. Type the hex code in the hex to string converter; click convert and then you get this message:
"This is not simply entertainment."I can confirm that the message is there, indisputably.
EDIT: ASCII (digital code) for the letter "t" is hexadecimal 74 (using the base-16 computer numbering system). ASCII for the letter "h" is hexadecimal 68, ASCII for the letter "i" is hexadecimal 69, and so on, spelling out the message "this is not simply entertainment."
Why you think the existence of an obvious cipher is significant, I don't know.Lol, how many people know about this hexidecimal thing? A tiny fraction compared to the rest of the world's population. It's not if people are going to riot outside the White House in protest.
What do you think that message means?I don't think that it "means" anything. I think it was placed there by someone with a sense of humor.
As for knowing hexadecimal, tens of millions of people know it, globally, far more than enough to make it discoverable (obviously, since someone discovered it, unless its existence was leaked) and cause alarm in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Truthfully, this might be part of an ARG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_gameEveryone ready for the party? Less than 7 hours to go for us in Ozzyland!
24 July. Aren't we expecting fireworks tomorrow?
I never said anything about the 24th of July. That's was another hubber who made that claim and made a forum about it. 27th of July is a different story. It is the Olympic Opening Ceremony and it's expected that there will be a nuclear explosion in the stadium.
I hope that isn't true but I know deep down it is. If nothing happens, I can't tell you how elated I'd be.Hahaha, Spoil-sport. No, only joking. I tend to agree with you. Such a huge spending of money and using/abusing resources of the planet, and for what? I would like to see it come back to real sportsmanship. Hope this has not spoiled the flow of this Hub.
Should this happen, World War Three will happen.
If you _know_ "deep down" that it is true, will its failure to occur cause you to rethink some (or all) of your conspiracy theories?
Do you possess that degree of intellectual honesty? Show us, come the 28th.Nope, I won't reconsider because I go where the evidence leads me. The evidence has been overwhelming in this case and if nothing happens then something went horribly wrong for these terrorists.
Let me show you something interesting:
Go to this site to see a larger version of these posters.
http://truthyoucanwakeupto.wordpress.co … s-posters/
This is an advert for travel options during the Olympic Games. Here we see a rather odd-looking figure looking back at the London Underground Station. He looks like Osama bin Laden. The point of including such figures as these is to program your mind sublimely that Muslims are responsible when the attack happens. It's a sort of mind control.No intellectual honesty at all, then. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
As for your "interesting" advert, how about a saner explanation? Mainly, that there are half a million Sikhs living in the UK, any of whom might attend the 2012 Olympics?
You seek evidence -- real or fanciful -- to support what you have already concluded.How do you think I came to the conclusion in the first place? You think someone told me and then I believed it? I did my own research. I don't want to believe this would happen. If I was living in London, I'd switch off. I'd refuse to believe it.
Your "research" consists of reading a bunch of stuff on conspiracy webpages, and accepting everything that matches your bias, which seems to be focused on Zecharia Sitchin and Satan.
So are all the links I've posted from Sitchen and Satan?
As far as I know, you haven't posted any links that came from Satan.
I said "focused on," not from.Stand corrected but do you believe I have only posted links from Sitchen and those focused on Satan? Believe it or not, the world revolves around Satan so it is no surprise there is some reference to Satan in my links.
I wrote this:
This was criticizing your "research," with an aside noting your apparent focus. I wasn't questioning your belief in Satan.So when I give interpretations of the scriptures, for example, I'm focusing on Satan? Not every is about Satan that I write about.
Looks like a dude with a bicycle helmet on to me...Maybe we are trying to blame Lance Armstrong??
But then again...I guess we see what we want to see...
And since it is a poster about the Games...I just think sports...Did you go to the link for the larger version? That's no guy with a helmet! It's a turban!
"But then again...I guess we see what we want to see..."
Exactly, even when an obvious turban is supposed to look like a helmet.Knowing nothing of this discussion, please excuse my interloping. However I did click on the link and as a graphic designer I have to say you can't trust anything you see on the internet. One could easily take a picture of a poster and alter the picture, add stuff, take away stuff. As I said I'm ignorant to this conversation, I have no idea what significance the guy with the turban has. I just saying you can't trust what you see.
Awww I missed it. Was offline all this time! Thanks to our ISP. I was thinking they got raptured or something?
Sorry everyone, I didn't know this Hub was about Science Fiction. I tried to get up that Link, but it would not load. However, there was a note across the bottom of the screen, thus:
"Blackjack - A slide show story. The events portrayed in this slide show are entirely fictitious"
Sorry Claire, I didn't mean to spoil your fun, but I think we get a bit too serious here, pursuing nonsensical statements. I don't know if we are judging you too harshly. Do you post a number of your comments expecting them to be taken seriously? Or are you having a game with us? I don't intend to be unkind to you.I'm very much aware that it says it is fictitious. What you didn't know, however, that it taunts you that it isn't. In Part 5 of this slide show, you see this:
This is the biometric ID card even US citizens will be obliged to have. On the card is an ID number. It is a hexidecimal code. The number is:
74686973206973206e6f742073696d706c7920656e7465727461696e6d656e74
Now go to this string converter site:
http://www.string-functions.com/hex-string.aspx
It's chilling. Chasuk agrees with this.That this is a hexi-decimal code and it says, "This is not simply entertainment."
I used to take comfort in that kind of thinking too. I'll admit that not just technology, but the ability of people to work together is years, if not decades, away.
BUT...
Rome united the known world under one government. Yeah, not everyone in the world was down with it, but they did it. So it can be done.
By the way, have you heard of bitcoins? It would allow a one-world economy.
http://bitcoin.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitcoinA one-world government, in my opinion, is the best hope for a sustained peace. I don't fear it; I'm hoping that it happens.
There are a lot of people who think like you do. And back before I became a Christian, I was kind of in the same boat in a Star Trek-clean-future-utopia kind of way. The Bible paints a one-world government very differently, and frankly just from a geopolitical-historical standpoint I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how it's any kind of best hope.
Yes but as you wont be able to pay land tax or buy gas( petrol ) you wont be able to live in your house. So if you reject the Mark, you will be homeless and probably beaten up and preyed upon by govt death squads.
Think I'm making this up - it happens right now in south america.
You havent thought through clearly what will happen if you cant buy and sell - no home, no food, no heating, no safety - just God to rely on for everything.
This is why the whole world is going to go through the Tribulation - in the past people could escape to other countries like the USA or Switzerland etc. However, each country will likely turn on its citizens who don't take the Mark, as Satan has presence all over the globe and runs all the govts. This was demonstrated in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness when Satan offered Jesus any kingdom he wanted if Jesus would bow down to Satan.
This is also a time for God to test people to see who they stand for - will they fold and take the satanic Mark and be forever condemned by God, or will they stand up for God and reject the Mark?
The biggest success of Satan is fooling people into believing he doesnt exist.
Look around you and look at he horror of the last 60 years and convince yourself men truly can be that deranged without some form of pure evil guiding them? Do you think the Nazis without thier belief in the Occult ( satanism ) could have been as blood thirsty and repulsive like they were?
A great movie I saw was "Fallen" with Denzel washing ton in it - while some aspect sof the movie seemed ouytlandish, the conbcept of demonic possession was correct, as was the supernatural continuation of pure evil regardless of which human was the "host " for it.
Christians believe the Antichrist will make surface and then ask for everyone to take his Mark - he will be charming, fierce, able to solve impossible situations and gain great following - yet he will turn on all religion and burn it, making all on earth worship him as "god" under pain of death. It seems we are close to that now.
You think the UN forming as the antichrists seat of earthly global power and his "throne" is some random act? Nope.
Hope this helps your understanding.You are talking to a person who is from a culture that lived off the land and sea (ie nature in all its glory) and still does to a greater or lesser degree. If it came to that, there would be, no houses required, no power required, no modern conveniences required because we have lived without these. Historically so has man elsewhere.
Safety?
You are convinced by conspiracy theories. If your relationship with God does not assure you that all will be well no matter what, why would you worry about NWO as you have described it. If you do not trust God what God are you believing in?
I trust the God within no matter what arises.
We all die sooner or later and if it is sooner rather than later so what?
Only those who would like to cling to life as they know it with all the modern conveniences will conform to any so called mark of the beast, if that even comes into being.
Gees....All these dates with God and Hell make my diary look very busy. So those who are left after the 24th are Satans for the taking because we will be in hell?
(See the 24th of July thread to know what I am talking about)
Separation from God in my view is only in the mind."Hell on earth" is an expression of horrendous events. When someone goes through "hell on earth", they aren't in hell literally.
You don't need to have a crystal ball. You just need to do your research. Look up false flag terrorist attack at the London Olympic Games. Here's something for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0dwMZ6k … plpp_video
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Vv82Jm … ure=relmfu
If I have to hear another reference in adverts, music videos, etc about London being blown up and people falling in cracks in the ground and burning from nuclear warfare, I'll get sick.
As for God, if you accept Christ as your saviour and want to have a relationship with Him, you will now Him. Now I don't hear a voice in my head that says, "Humans have been genetically manipulated" but I use my brain and do my own research. For example, I know Genesis is an abridged version of the Sumerian Text story of creation. It expands and says humans were genetically manipulated to become more like the "gods", the Annunaki. In the Bible it even says that they mated with God's people obviously corrupting the gene pool. It is a very plausible explanation on how mankind is capable of such evil.
If nothing has changed on the 28th I'd be elated! A plan would have been heavily derailed but I would be ecstatic.
Claire you didn't read those psalms did you.
I did. I think this is what you were referring to:
Psalm 139:7
"If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there."
Now heavens and sky are the same in Hebrew. He is saying, "If I go up in the sky". He is referring to the depths of the earth in the latter half of that verse. See here:
15: My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth..."
Maybe it's actually man who has a lotta 'splainin' to do, Lucy.
In fact, if there is no Big Guy in the Sky, it's definitely man who has alotta 'splainin' to do...Lucy!
This question is moot. Proofs are considered legit if and only if they meet the strict verification principle. Jesus being the Son of God has nothing to do with any serious scientific proof that meets the verification principle. It's faith. Sorry, faith is not a proof at all.
I'm not following anyone who tells me to throw my offspring off a cliff if they disobey. There is not a child on earth who has not disobeyed at some point. And, what's with the huge ego? I am the One true God and thou shalt not worship none other than me? Sounds like those types of people who can only have friends who are only friends with them and no one else...Just saying.
VAMPGYRL420,
Only Satan and his demons would tell you to throw your kid off of the cliff. The devil comes only to steal kill destroy. He is the prince of this world. Jesus is Saviour of the World. John 10:10 Jesus came so we could have life and have it more abundantly. John 10:10 Everything you need to know is written in the Word of God. The enemy of our souls roams like a lion to devour and wants to take all with him. He is doomed to hell already and he knows it. He was Gods right hand angel thrown form heaven with his followers to earth because he wanted to be God. He is the prince of lies!! He is greed, lies, deceit, evil, lust, envy, strife, frustration, depression, addiction, jealousy, idolatry, confusion, porn, abuse and all things dark. Man makes choice's based on their own belief and desires. Our sin is what had made the mess the world is in. Instead of turning to God the devil LIES AND DECEIVES to try and push humanity to turn from God and off into the deep, dark, empty, lonely edge!
Jesus is the Light, Prince of Peace, Creator of the heavens and earth. gentleness, understanding, kindness, self control, comforter, guide, teacher, strength, wisdom, knowledge, truth, prosperity, Jesus is the HEART changer. He fills the empty hole. Ask Him and HE will. He can, He saves. He died for you and I girl so we could be saved from our sin and made right in Gods eyes. That is huge. If you never knew, you never knew but how can you say God is the creator of evil in this messed up world? Jesus gave His life so we could be made righteous before GOd and cleansed from our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. We are not perfect but we are transformed into the likeness of Christ when we beleive. There is no greater joy or gift then our salvation. You are right vampgyrl we are born with a free will to choose. We do have a choice in this lifetime who we will follow. The enemy or the Saviour of the world. In this life we make up our mind, In eternity it is too late. We have decided. Do not be too late, no one knows what tomorrow will bring, except God. In this life there are no guarantees. Jesus loves all, and that includes you and me. He wants you to come to Him. God knows and understands you like no other. Well that it he Gospel truth. You can throw stones if you choose they will bounce off. Mark the words.They are from Jesus. I am only a voice for our Lord. Jesus wants no one not one to perish!! It is not too late until it is too late. Jesus is going to return and soon, as King of KIngs to reighn. As it is prophesied and foretold in the Bible. Much has already come to pass. Prophecy is unfolding before our very eyes!!!. IN Christ Love n Peace Skye
Jesus is the way truth and life.Skye2day, you would have my respect if you prefaced your long-winded repetion of quotes from the bible with: "I believe that......."
I'm not here to argue. I'm simply here to state my opinion which is that you are going against everything, including others' civil rights, when you try to persuade someone else to believe as you do. I don't seek converts nor should you. And, I must assure you that no amount of gibberish you can feed me is going to change the way I feel. Life experience has brought me to where I am today and that is something that cannot be erased. "God" did not heal me, although "He" was given every opportunity while I was actually a Christian. I healed me. I broke away from everything else and I healed myself, because I had to. Now, I carefully analyze and test every theory/philosophy possible in my quest for truth; because I don't want to nor should I have to believe in something and give up my power to it blindly. As in my humanitarian efforts, I put my energy where I feel it's needed most, where I feel there is a worthy cause. Maybe freewill, self-teaching and self-respect aren't for everyone; but they are for me. I am on a quest. I have many places to go, spirits to touch and feel...What is your purpose in life? What are your dreams? Why do I ask these questions? Because these are the questions that I learned hard to ask myself
You all are beautiful souls. We all have differences, but there is also always beauty in our many colors, personalities and smiles I have to say that all of this negativity really brought me down this morning. I have had to give this great thought, pick myself up and move along. These are my thoughts...
Love & Light,
Windy Grace <3
P.S. I am not Atheist, but that shouldn't matter...VAMPGYRL420 ~ I have to disagree a bit with you when you assert that trying to persuade someone else to believe as you do is an "going against everything, including others' civil rights". I personally don't come to this (or other) forum to try to persuade others to stop believing whatever it is they believe and to adopt my belief as their own - I come to share my own understanding and to learn from others . . . but I think it is a core civil right that we all have the freedom to present our cause in an effort to persuade others to embrace it.
Because we have codified the idea of religious liberty, that everyone is allowed to believe whatever they prefer to believe, and that idea is so at the heart of how this nation came to be and what it's all about, many think that this means that every idea anyone chooses to believe is equally valid and that we're never supposed to talk about it directly or persuasively - I just don't believe that's a reasonable or proper deduction from our code of civil rights.
Everyone has every right and all power to believe whatever they choose to believe, but not all beliefs are equally valid and seeking to convince or persuade someone their belief is invalid and another is valid is not stepping on anyone's civil rights. Depending on the when & how it may be rude and obnoxious, and no one wants to be badgered, but persuasive argument is (thankfully) not a civil rights offense.
I am sorry to intrude and I have read most of these post.. I am happy to say I can actually see both sides the christian and the athiest side. I can agree with both side on some things.. But I will not judge you for your believes for its not my right to judge anyone. And I have my own beliefs and I do believe we all have the right to believe what ever our hearts tell us to believe in.. But either way the bible is still a history book.. And like all history books it had been rewritten and has been altered to fit the beliefs of the authors.. Weither it be the jews the catholics the historians the democratics the repubicains..All our histories books have been altered in some way yet we all have the right to believe in what we want to and if we should believe there is a god then so be it and if we chose to believe in what has evedence then so be it.. But as for me I believe that there is a reason why we are even having this discussion some one out there wanted us to have a choice of what to believe.. may be we can't see it maybe we can but whos to really say what is real and was isn't..I am a believer in my own way and I am proud of what I believe... And thank you all for being so honest with yourself.. even though you don't believe in god someone out there still loves you but you have got to want the love.. Love is not evidence but its more than many can offer to a person....
That is why I say that the Holy book is as much about the inner being as it is about the external universe. The temptations that arise in us to do things detrimental to others, to steal, to lie, to cheat, as opposed to those good things we are moved to do, giving, sharing, loving, forgiving. This is the battle of Armageddon being waged within. The proverbial angel on one side with our positive points, and the little devil on the other with our negatives. In finding Heaven, Paradise or Nirvana, it is necessary to bring peace to the war waged within the self.
Druid Dude wrote:
" That is why I say that the Holy book is as much about the inner being as it is about the external universe. The temptations that arise in us to do things detrimental to others, to steal, to lie, to cheat, as opposed to those good things we are moved to do, giving, sharing, loving, forgiving. This is the battle of Armageddon being waged within. The proverbial angel on one side with our positive points, and the little devil on the other with our negatives. In finding Heaven, Paradise or Nirvana, it is necessary to bring peace to the war waged within the self."
I agree wholeheartedly with this Druid. Great post.
I'm sorry Claire, but I am confused as to which of the thousands of Gods you are speaking of. To refer to a figure as God is extremely confusing.
jonnycomelately ~ "One thing I am very sure of: If we all put our minds and our "hearts" to it, we can jonnycomelately ~ "
But, isn't the instant and reasonable response to that, why has that not ever happened yet? If men would just put their hearts into it, but they have never escaped the centuries of a history of selfishness and brutality, then isn't it a reasonable question to consider if man's heart is not corrupt to the point that he is in fact not able "find a very sensible, sensitive and intelligent set of rules for our modern day"?Yes the ego tends to get in the way of the heart. Ego being the original sin that God warned about. We (our ego) thinks we know instead of listening to our hearts (spirit within). The bible more or less teaches that. Not many listen even when they follow the bible.
Except, that's not what the Bible teaches at all; too many think the Bible is so ancient and ethereal that anything it is presenting is imperceptible and since it's all religious/God stuff anyway we are all free to take whatever we want from it - but the reality is it is a book, with pages and words and it says what it does say and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.
All man's concocted religions teach some manner of finding or feeding or fanning the flames of a supposed 'spirit within' - the Bible teaches that man is spiritually dead, not sick, not weak, but dead . . . that is why Jesus talked about being born again. The ego/original sin you talk about, and I (and the Bible) agree with you to a point, does not manifest as our head wrestling with our heart - the Bible teaches that the heart of man is desperately wicked . . . the oft imagined notion that if man would only listen to his heart is exactly contrary to what God reveals as the truth.
The humanly religious notion that God is all about doing more good than bad, or not doing bad at all, or about good and bad at all is just that, a humanly religious notion - the Bible teaches it's not about doing good instead of bad, it's all about spiritual life . . . Jesus' teaching was not that we live right but that we live a different nature of life altogether - eternal life. Man has no spark within, no light, nothing that we can build on - man needs to be born of the Spirit to become able to fellowship with and enjoy God.
We are all born once, of the flesh, by our parents - Christianity, the Bible, Jesus taught that we must be born a second time, of the Spirit, by God . . . that is why Jesus said He is the only way to God. Christians don't think they are any better than anyone else - it's only that we believe Jesus when He says He is the way to God and so we don't believe Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, trying really hard to be really good, etc, etc, or anything other than Jesus gives man any hope.If that is what you believe, your choice, keep going, don't let me stop you! What you believe is all based upon your premise that a "god" exists in the supernatural domain, and that god is a judgmental entity that looks "down" on me and my life, decides whether I am doing "his" will or not, then casts me into somewhere as a punishment for not doing "his" bidding.
I see all the judgment as being done by fellow humans. Like yourself, presumably. Sound judgment, i.e., wisdom, requires one to be in full knowledge of the facts which you rarely are. Unsound judgment brings with it a miscarriage of justice. However, when human judgment is made without ignorance and bias, it can be pretty spot on, caring about and for the person under scrutiny.
Humans also dictate the punishment(s), which go usually with a cultural background.
My understanding, which you Sir cannot change, is that I am not subject to a "god" and I can and do make my own choices in life, for-better-for-worse.
Period.jonnycomelately ~
"What you believe is all based upon your premise that a 'god' . . . casts me into somewhere as a punishment for not doing 'his' bidding"
I said nothing about any such thing. You're making assumptions.
"I see all the judgment as being done by fellow humans. Like yourself, presumably."
I'm not judging you at all, I don't even know you. Again, you are making assumptions.
"Sound judgment, i.e., wisdom, requires one to be in full knowledge of the facts which you rarely are"
Do you mean "you" as in me personally or mankind in general?
"My understanding, which you Sir cannot change"
Another seeming assumption - honestly, I recognize that many who identify themselves as 'Christian' chase people around nearly assaulting them to change their thinking - however, I am here merely offering my own understanding, just as I assume you are . . . I don't assume you are interested to have me drop my own beliefs and adopt yours to be my own - I certainly don't seek to have you (or anyone) take-on what I believe to be their own beliefs.My assumptions about you are because of what I read in your posts here.
You give statements about the bible. You make statements about the failings of other christians and how they perceive the bible, etc. You make these statements as though your opinion is way, way above other people's opinions in authenticity.
I suggest you are here for one thing: to convince others that your views about god and the bible are the correct ones. To do that you have presumed to be a judge of others and their views. We can be excused for seeing this as your desire to evangelize us to your point of view.
Penny has given her understandings clearly. Yet you don't address her views and give a respectful counter-point of view, without coming over as though you view is the only correct view.
If you listen to what Penny is saying and thoroughly digest her points of view, you will see that you don't need to relinquish your own beliefs and understandings.....indeed yours can be augmented and enriched by a deeper understanding of the God inside of you.jonnycomelately ~ "You give statements about the bible"
I am honestly sorry if I give the impression that I am judging others or that I present my own understanding as authoritative fact - that is not what is in my heart or head and I genuinely regret if my manner makes it easy for people to perceive me that way. When you say "You make these statements as though your opinion is way, way above other people's opinions" I don't instantly disregard your charge, but let me assure you that for me, inside me, I make a clear and definite distinction between opinion and fact, between how things seem to me and what can be objectively examined, etc.
I may not introduce every statement as such, but my own sense is that we are all here sharing our own understanding, that it's commonly recognized that you are saying what you think and I am saying what I think, etc . . . I say "I may not introduce every statement as such" but I must admit, it seems to me that I say things like 'it seems to me' or 'I think' or 'it's my understanding', etc, more often than most folks - and I must admit that I wonder if you bring the same accusations against some in here who, it seems to me, don't merely disagree with someone and post what they think is the accurate view, but who then insult and mock and just generally speak in a condescending manner to those they simply disagree with.
Perhaps you have or do, I don't know, I'm only directly sharing that I wonder - because, some in these religious and/or political forums fill their responses with things like 'maybe if you learned more about . . .' or 'let me educate you about . . .' and all manner of condescending and mocking remarks, remarks about the person not about the idea at all. Again, I'm not debating your point aimed at me and I'm not trying to to deflect away from me - I am only hoping to assure you (whoever) that I am alert to not offending, I will try to be more careful, I have no interest to distress anyone and I don't count myself to be anyone's judge as I share what my own understanding is.
"I suggest you are here for one thing: to convince others that your views about god and the bible are the correct ones"
jonnycomelately, for me there is a big difference between opinions and observable facts. If we all share our own view of the validity of the Bible's teaching on, say, adultery, each of us is free to accept or reject that Bible's teaching that adultery is wrong . . . we have every right to say that the Bible is just an old book and that we think there is nothing at all bad about committing adultery, that fidelity to one partner is obsolete, etc - but if one says that Bible does not teach that adultery is wrong, they are simply and demonstrably mistaken. That is not me asserting that my view is superior and that I am the legitimate judge of others, etc - that is merely acknowledging an observable, examinable fact.
My view that the Bible is revealed truth is one that all are (of course) free to disagree with and I will (hopefully) engage in civil and even friendly debate and share what my view is and why I hold it to be valid, etc - but if someone asserts that the Bible does not teach that adultery is wrong but asserts that the Bible teaches that adultery is good, I will point-out, not an opinion, but as an observable fact that they are mistaken.
If I told you that in the end of "Gone With The Wind" Scarlett O'Hara lived happily ever after with Rhett Bulter I assume you would correct me and tell me that I was simply wrong . . . you could take me to page and paragraph and show me that what I asserted was just wrong. I could say that Scarlett O'Hara is my favorite character and you could disagree and say that she is not at all your favorite character, that is a matter of personal opinion - but how the story ends is not opinion it's an examinable fact that Scarlett O'Hara ends-up with Rhett Bulter leaving her . . . it's not opinion it's simply what the book says.
The Bible is a book, with pages, paragraphs, and words - I honestly don't think I'm being arrogant or unreasonable to assert that we can each believe it to be eternal truth or reject it as foolishness, but that it does in fact say what it does in fact say and it does not say what it doesn't say.
"I suggest you are here for one thing: to convince others that your views about god and the bible are the correct ones"
I accept your assertion that I need to be more careful about how I present myself, to be more clear that I am only offering my own view and not judging others, etc - but I know myself, I know my heart and my intent, and you're assumption is simply wrong here. I participate in these forums to share my own understanding and to learn from others, particularly those who see things differently than I do . . . I'm not interested to, and I tremble at the prospect of, anyone dropping their own understanding and adopting my own view as theirs.Thank you for your reply.... good discussion, and lots of respect to your views and opinions. I am sorry if my post to you came over too abruptly, hopefully not arrogantly although in this instance it I see that could be the case.
We get so many here in the HubPages who are simply pushing their beliefs as though there is not other valid point of view. Occasionally I will come over defensively, putting an atheist interpretation on the subject in a similar pushing fashion. The defensiveness comes when the christian point of view is seen as offensive and bullying. That is when I am liable to stand and say "NO."
Let's continue the dialogue. There is room in this Hub, as there is in the wider world, for diverse points of view.I'm with you . . . in more ways than one. I too can get defensive, I too regret if any assumptions I might make sound more like accusations, and I too believe there is a place for (just about all) viewpoints so long as those offering them remain civil. It is easy for me to engage discussion and enjoy exchanging ideas with those who disagree with me - but that is so easy for me (meaning, I don't get angry or offended, etc) that the discussion, the ideas, too often take such a center stage with me that I neglect attention to appearances and social sensitivity.
I know I too often pursue an idea to a degree and in a fashion that makes it easy for others to count me as insisting on my own view as THE view - but what I am really, inside, doing is seeking to be convinced otherwise. Not that I am eager to find a different idea to believe in, but that is how I approach ideas - show me where I'm wrong and demonstrate where you are right, or, I have not much to do but continue thinking I'm right and you're wrong (or, that we're both wrong). The trouble is, for me, inside, everything stays nice and friendly - meanwhile, others often get more and more exasperated and annoyed.
And, as I said, I too can get defensive. It gets rather wearying to be perpetually assumed, because you're a Christian, that you must certainly not be a independent and critical thinking, you must be fearful of change and lacking in imagination to STILL believe what your parents and Sunday School teachers taught you as a child, and you must certainly be emotionally frail to trust in some blind faith rather than stable and centered enough to form your views based on solid evidence regardless of the outcome . . . or just plain too stupid not, in the 21st century, to know better. For someone like me, nearly iconoclastic in my apprehension of recognized authority and established norms, etc, that routinely played-out scenario gets gruesome to take . . . so, I'm sure I make assumptions and get defensive as much as anyone.
So, anyway - you and pennyofheaven are wrong and I am right . . . what a couple of dopes.Haha, apparently some consider me a loveable ol' Dope....
How about you Penny? (Oh, not calling you ol' of course, that would be very politically incorrect !}
Thanks MickeySr. Even now other possible explanations are coming up for me.
I am wondering if most, if not all, of the evangelizing from whomever it comes, is more of an outward expression of the evangelist trying to convince him- or her-self of their own belief.
When someone agrees with what I am saying I believe, that gives my ego a "high." Just what it needs to continue its life unhindered. When someone dis-agrees with me, especially when it's done in public, that hurts the ego and it can keep coming back with counter-argument until it gets it's full due.
We will only get such discussions and arguments expressed openly and fully in a place like we have here in HubPages forums. it it's done in a bar or a football club, only the popular answers will get heard, and they are usually voiced by someone who can be accepted and is rarely challenged.
So, maybe the well considered challenge is what teaches us most, so long as the ears are fully opened.Many Christians I've come across over the years (decades) who are fervently, even annoyingly, evangelistic too often fall into one of these categories; they, under a certain fear, think it is practicing a faithful obedience to badger non-believers into some manner of professed conversion - they think they are required to be successful 'soul winners'. Some simply want to appear to other believers as 'super Christians'. Some have a genuine concern for others, and have been taught that the final fate of non-believers is in their hands, that if they don't 'get them saved' it will be their fault if they don't get to heaven.
And of course there are many who genuinely care about others and simply want to share something that has been such a stunning source of joy and knowledge and strength in their own lives . . . but, those others have made that sharing a bit tricky, and the message is, essentially, that you are worse than deficient and need to repent, etc - and nobody likes to hear that. The thing is, that's really all Christianity is - it's not a religion, all the denominations and pews & pulpits and hymns, and meetings and etc, etc, are not Christianity.
Christianity is simply a reporting of an event, Christians are little more than those who have come to believe the account that Jesus of Nazareth is God and that His death accomplished an atonement, etc, etc, and they have, because of that atonement and through their belief, experienced a remarkable 2nd birth and are new creatures. We go to church and have meetings, etc, etc, but that is not what Christianity is - it is simply the reporting of a historic event and the telling of it's meaning . . . so, being a Christian is kind of all about telling others about what you believe. The tricky bit is appearing (and being) nice, not being judgmental, remaining humble . . . sharing and not badgering. And, still no one wants to hear it - especially today, when we all 'know' that of course none of that stuff is true anymore.Huh? The meaning that we're retelling is that we can be united with God through Jesus and if we're not, then we're in big trouble. That's why it's not simply reporting an event.
Chris ~ I understand your point, and there is certainly teaching & doctrine involved in our reporting . . . you can't report that Jesus lived and died and that's it, the 'reporting' is the reporting of who He is and what He did, etc, and it must be an accurate account of who Jesus is and what His incarnation and death accomplished.
My point is that man is by nature religious, we make religions out of nearly everything that crosses our path . . . the Christian religion that competes with Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc, the array of Methodist and Lutheran and Baptist, etc, etc, etc, denominations, etc, has devolved from the core truth of the event of the promise, the fulfillment of the covenant in the incarnation and atonement of Jesus of Nazareth, into a mess of what type of music the 'music ministry' should include or prohibit, what manner of activities the 'youth ministry' should include or prohibit, who church members should vote for, if they should play cards or listen to Rock & Roll, etc, etc.
My point is what most non-believers think of when they think of Christianity is the kind of local congregation or national church bullcrap that has little or nothing to do with what the original 1st century church was busy with . . . western Christendom has within it much that is church organizational and practical matters that have not much at all to do with the heart and point of authentic Christianity - namely, being witnesses to the truth of the gospel; discipling our brethren and announcing the message. We need to be (somewhat) organized, we need a time and place to meet, we need to be under sound teaching, etc, but Christians are (should be) essentially simply reporters of an event not followers of a mammoth and intricate religion.
Yes! I can be a dope. And yes you are lovable! I accept that I can be wrong. As castlepaloma says 99% of our existence is unknown so how can we not ever be wrong. It's all good.
Your understanding says the bible does not teach it at all. Yet it does.
When eve ate from the tree she experienced a spiritual shut down or part thereof, (Gods warning, saying you will surely die if you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil). Ego came to the fore and sin was born. The spiritual shut down was not a complete death because they could still commune with God.
I agree the bible teaches all about spiritual life or eternal life if you like. Being born again is awakening into the spirit and does not require physical death as you seem to be saying? I disagree we have no spark or light as you put it because the bible clearly states in many passages in many ways, that there is spirit within. For instance The kingdom of God is within. We are not just flesh we are spirit. Those who live for the flesh will not be aware of God. Those who are aware of God will live in the spirit. Inside Jesus was the way to God for him He teaches that we can do the same. One day he said you will realize My father is in me. I am in my father and I am in you. The whole point of Jesus's journey on this earth was to teach us how to be one with that which we were prior to eve eating the apple.
Of course you will see it the way you have been taught.pennyofheaven ~ "your understanding says the bible does not teach it at all"
I wouldn't say 'at all' all - I agree there is a sense in which sin comes from ego, that in fact, sin is exactly our ego replacing God in our life, it is going our own way rather than following after God . . . the ego is self and our self is selfish, and selfishness (not hate) is the opposite of love - and God is love. So I agree with a sense of your presentation of ego and sin, etc.
Where we disagree is that you assert that sin did not kill man spiritually but only weakened or distressed man, that man still owns a capacity to commune with God. But the Bible so clearly teaches otherwise; we cannot still commune with God, we are separated from Him and cannot know Him . . . further the Bible says there is not some spark within man but flat-out states that man is only evil and wicked continually and that there is nothing good within us (and, I did not say nor do I believe that being born of the Spirit requires physical death).
pennyofheaven, you are missing the point of the Bible and of Jesus . . . the purpose of His journey on this earth was NOT to teach us how to be one with God - His work was to accomplish an atonement so that we could be able to be one with God. Jesus didn't come to teach (He is God so of course everything He said and did was instructive) He came to provide the means through which we could be reunited with God . . . the text doesn't say we should learn about Jesus, or learn of Jesus, or even learn from Jesus - the text says we are to "learn Jesus' . . . He doesn't teach the way, He is the way.
You say "We are not just flesh we are spirit." but I wonder what you're reading - the Bible makes it very clear that we are of the flesh and not of the Spirit, we are living souls but we are spiritually dead . . . that's the whole point of needing to be born of the Spirit, because we are spiritually dead. All the talk about 'the kingdom of God is within' and 'I am in my father and I am in you', etc, was being said, not to the world, but to Christians, to those who had already been spiritually reborn - that is the way, there is no way for us to arrive at or accomplish this, it is God's work. He's not telling the world that if we follow Jesus' example and try to fan the spark that is in us that we can grow into spiritual people - God is telling us that there's nothing we can do, that we are spiritually dead, that Jesus is our only hope . . . not what He taught, but what He did.
You say "will see it the way you have been taught" - pennyofheaven I can tell you honestly that I am taught by the Holy Spirit, I do not follow the teachings of men. I was not raised a Christian, I never went to church, I became a Christian reading the Bible on my own . . . eventually I discovered that just what I understood the Bible to present as the truth was what historically the Christian church had always believed, but today has wandered far from.Unless you are separating Jesus from God then perhaps we do disagree? Not sure how you can do this when you take into account the passage. John 14:20 At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Holy spirit is no different to the God/Jesus/Kingdom within. Only difference in my understanding is the label we choose to use.
Christianity according to the scholars came into being many hundred years after Jesus died so how could he or any writer have been talking to Christians only when they did not exist? I would imagine he was talking to anyone who would listen and that were spirit minded. A lot of what he advocated was not accepted by the religious of the days as he claimed to be God in a sense. However this sense did not seem to be understood then or now. In my view, the kingdom of God, spirit within etc is available to all and not limited to a selected few or the bible would not reference it so often and in so many different ways. I have found, it has little or no meaning even to followers of Christ as Jesus/God is always seen as something outside of themselves yet it clearly points to within.
On spiritually dead;
In Romans it clearly says; for they that are after the flesh do mind things of the flesh. Therefore to be carnally minded is death. But they that are after the spirit the things of spirit.. To be spiritually minded is life and peace. It also clearly says that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit. That same law that Jesus walked in....spirit of life. If spirit were completely dead we would not have the ability to to be born again in spirit.
I apologize for assuming you may have been taught in the conventional way to understand it in the way you have. If the holy spirit within is what guides you, I see this as a good thing, even though our views may differ.pennyofheaven ~ please, no need to apologize, we're both just a couple of chuckleheads trying to understand eternal ideas. First, the historical bit; the notion that Christianity didn't "come into being many hundred years after Jesus died" is just simply not factual. Even in the Bible we are told that followers of Jesus in Antioch were called "Christians", and that was in the time of the apostles. Many seem to view Christianity and Roman Catholicism, historically, out of whack. . .
. . . when it serves non-Christian's argument that today's Christianity is not what it started-out as, they count Roman Catholicism as original Christianity and so assert that the first Christians, in the first century, were Roman Catholic, and then they will fuss about how the church wandered away from what was first believed. When it serves non-Christians to count today's Christianity as corrupted by evil plotters, they will assert that Roman Catholicism made-up Christianity and construed the Bible hundreds of years after Jesus.
The historic record demonstrates that the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, including the 12 and the 40 and the 120 and after Pentecost thousands, came to be called 'Christians' in their own lifetime . . . they were the church, in the 1st century, they had ministers, meetings, etc, etc. In the 5th century, the bishop of Rome claimed for himself authority over the whole church, he asserted that he was not merely the bishop of Rome but was the bishop of all other bishops. This is the beginning of Roman Catholicism . . . this is why it's called 'Roman' Catholicism. But, at any rate, the 'scholars' you're reading are poorly informed - the Christian church was active, identifiable, and persecuted in the 1st century . . . and the New Testament text of Scripture was written to Christians, and is very often (particularly the letters to the churches) addressed to Christians.
pennyofheaven, there are two kinds of people on this planet, not male & female, not Black & White, etc, etc - those who are God's people and those who are not, those who submit to Him and those who reject Him, those filled with His very Spirit and those who are not (and are spiritually dead). The gospel message is for anyone, all who are now children of God and filled with His Spirit used to not be His, He brought them to Himself, they experienced a conversion. Those people can rightly be identified as spiritual. The Bible makes this distinction again and again; it's being of the world or being of the kingdom, being of the flesh or being of the Spirit, being born once or being born twice, being lost or being saved, etc, etc.
When Romans talks about being "spiritually minded" it's talking about being made alive through conversion by the Spirit, it's talking about Christians - it's not talking about anyone just feeling religious or thinking about religious ideas . . . the idea in Romans isn't that anyone can and ought to try to be more spiritual, the idea is that there is a factual difference between being carnal (or of the flesh, or spiritually dead) and being spiritual (or spiritually alive, saved, a Christian).
Christianity IS something within, it is a matter of spiritual life (not being interested in spirituality, but being spiritually alive) and not a matter of outward religious duties, etc - but it is a gift from God, it is God putting His own Spirit (the Holy Spirit) within us, making us alive in Him, giving us eternal life (as opposed to our mere mortal life). It simply is not at all about finding some light inside us, or fanning some spark within us, it's not something everyone has if they would only give their attention to it - spirituality is a gift from God, it's not something we already have and need to discover and feed.
Jesus didn't come to teach us we're already spiritual if we would just figure that out, He didn't come to teach us at all - Jesus (absolutely God incarnate) came accomplish the atonement by which He makes us fit to be given His Spirit . . . but it's only those who come to God in Jesus that can benefit from His atonement and and be made fit for His Spirit and eternal life - that's why Jesus says "No one can come to the Father except by Me", and that's why Christianity says that Jesus is the only way.My whole point historically speaking was that nothing was written down. This is what I meant about Christianity not coming into being until then. Mainly because it appears that Christians of today base their faith on the written word of the bible alone. Nothing wrong with that in my view. However when it is not understood where God resides and there is no coming alive as you put it to the spirit within, it can be likened to those verses that refer to things of the flesh. Materialism versus Spiritualism. Which brings to mind the passage that says there should be no other God before me.
You may call the spirit within anything you like because for me it's function does not change and no amount of labelling it this or that can change it's function. We can negate it for sure but that does not change it's function. You may also believe it does not exist in everyone. Yet that is what the bible says and that is how I sometimes experience it, so the bible for me says what it means.
How does one come to God in Jesus in your opinion? Is Jesus a physical thing or a spiritual thing? How did Jesus make us fit to be given his spirit? Do you merely have to believe in Jesus or awaken to the Jesus within? How can Jesus be the only way to God when Jesus is not a physical being but a spiritual one. Where does Jesus reside if it is not in you? Does Jesus enter your body when you accept Jesus is the way? Or is Jesus already there? I think I understand that you need the spirit within to be called Jesus. I say ok. Accept it as Jesus if you like.
Like I said though it doesn't matter what we call it. The function does not change. We are in and of the process called spirit/god whether we know it or not. God is in all things whether we know it or not.pennyofheaven ~ please keep in mind as we discuss this that I am not badgering you to think more as I do, you (of course) may believe however you prefer to believe - I am only trying to be clear about what Christianity is and is not, and clear about what the Bible presents as the truth and what it does not . . . and I'm not asserting myself to be the final judge or sole arbiter of this, it's just that I do know what I'm talking about on these matters. Like, if someone was asserting that Napoleon was America's first president or that our constitution prohibits private citizens from owning electric guitars - someone from a remote Amazon village might not be rightly informed on those matters, but, without counting myself an expert and everyone else's judge, I know those are both erroneous assertions (and, the constitution is a document, we can all go to it and see that there is no prohibition against guitars, etc). I only want to be clear and assure you (as we continue) that I am not thinking I alone am right and I am not judging you or anyone - I am only sharing my own understanding.
When you say that your historic reference was "that nothing was written down" for hundreds of years I'm still confused - if you're asserting that Christianity did not have the Bible until hundreds of years after Jesus, that simply is not accurate.
When you talk about the Spirit saying "it's" function and "it's" within us etc, that suggests to me that we are fundamentally talking about two very different ideas. God is a spirit, He created man a material creature, and He breathed into man and man became a living soul. Now, the Bible tells us very directly that we are so uninformed as to the deep things of God and yet so arrogant within our own ego that we leap forward with our own notions about things, but that (unlike God) we are not even able to understand or even to distinguish between the soul and the spirit.
There is a sense in which it can reasonably be stated that man is a being with a body, soul, and spirit, that there is a 'spirit of life' in us, that there is a 'spirit of man' common to all, etc . . . that is an 'it' and perhaps what you're talking about. But when the Bible talks about the Spirit of God, it is not talking about a force or a way or a non-worldly disposition - it's talking about God the Spirit . . . that Spirit is not an 'it' anymore than Jesus of Nazareth is an 'it', that Spirit is a divine person, a 'He'. I'm not nitpicking on language and terms, I'm saying I think maybe we are talking about two different things. If I talk about 'the hands of my mother' holding me up and say 'THEY are always there for me' you might think I am speaking poetically of the memory and lasting wisdom, etc, of my mother - but if I talk about 'the hands of my mother' holding me up and say 'SHE held firmly to steady me' you might more likely think I'm talking about my mother actually holding on to me to keep me from falling down.
I will address some issues here over in our other discussion in the other forum, and try to respond directly and briefly to some questions here;
P - "How does one come to God in Jesus in your opinion?"
My opinion is nearly pointless, I will share with you what the Bible presents as the truth; The Bible is clear that no one can come to God except through Jesus, and it is equally clear that no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws them to Him . . . it also directly states that God determined before anyone was born who those who eventually come to Jesus would be, that union with God is an adoption and is based on His own purposes and not based on anything in or about us. So the Biblical answer to your question is that people come to God in Jesus as God chooses to unite them to Himself.
Experientially I can tell you that I came to God in Jesus as I began to read Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Koran, Apocrypha, and the Bible, etc, and the Bible more and more stood apart and was saying something altogether opposite of all the other religious texts. I recognized it's message was other-worldly and compelling, but I couldn't quite grasp it's unified and spiritual meaning . . . then I began to read portions that said that God is the eternal Spirit and that we are material creature and cannot possibly understand His truth apart from His own Spirit (who wrote the book in the first place) opening our mind and softening our heart to His truth.
I began to ask God 'if there's anything in this book You want me to know You're going to have to show me what it is because I'm not getting it' - I experienced a dramatic conversion instantly and all that I had been reading fell into place, it all made perfect and beautiful sense to me. So, I came to God in Jesus as His Spirit drew me to Him and revealed Him to me.
P - "Is Jesus a physical thing or a spiritual thing?"
Both, and we are to be like Him . . . Jesus was, of course, born a physical being and has existed eternally a spiritual being - the Bible states directly and emphatically that Jesus rose from the dead a material man, with a body, He is as we are to become, a perfect union of body, soul, and spirit.
P - "How did Jesus make us fit to be given his spirit?"
Jesus makes us fit to be given His Spirit by removing the consequence of our rebellion . . . He is the 2nd Adam; the 1st Adam turned away from God in rebellion and we all live in and under that rebellion - Jesus, the 2nd Adam, lived His life without rebellion and never turning away from His Father and He stood in our place taking the full consequence of our rebellion as if it were His own, and overcame it. Jesus makes us fit to be given His Spirit by wiping away the rebellion of Adam and his descendants and giving to us as it were our won His perfect submission to His Father - now, only in Jesus, we can have union with God.
P - "Do you merely have to believe in Jesus or awaken to the Jesus within?"
There is no "Jesus within", Jesus is a historic figure, a real man who was really born 2,000 years ago - He is also the eternal Spirit and He gives His own Spirit to those He adopts to be His own, so as God the Holy Spirit in within each of God's adopted children you could say that the Spirit of Jesus is within God's people . . . but when Jesus teaches His 12 about the coming of the Spirit (because He's not already in anyone but has to come) He very directly and very pointedly announces that He is talking about those who are His and that He is very specifically not talking about the whole world . . . the Spirit is given (He's not already in you) only to those God gives the Spirit to, not to the whole world.
P - "How can Jesus be the only way to God when Jesus is not a physical being but a spiritual one?"
He is a physical being - but, I'm not sure I understand you question . . . it is exactly because Jesus is both God and man that He is the only way to God, He is the God/man, the only mediator between god and man.
P -"Where does Jesus reside if it is not in you?"
Jesus is with His Father, in paradise, the kingdom, heaven, eternity, etc . . . preparing a place for those who are His.
P - "Does Jesus enter your body when you accept Jesus is the way? Or is Jesus already there?"
I think I covered this - and, Jesus was a man who lived 2,000 years ago and He is the infinite Spirit with the Father in eternity, He doesn't "enter your body" . . . this is why He sends His Spirit. pennyofheaven, you really ought to read Jesus' final discourse to His 12, these are the things He is telling them about . . . that He must go to be with the Father, but that He is sending them the Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is given (not already in us) only to those in Jesus and not to everyone, etc, etc.I am not easily badgered and I do realize beliefs are unique. Clarifying what you know to be true is fine with me. It is the reason we have these discussions. I rarely jump to conclusions or make assumptions about what a person may or may not know. What you assert is based on your beliefs and experience, as it is with most of us. If I don't understand something I will ask. If I am not prepared to accept the answers I might get then there is no point in asking.
So the bible we know today existed before Jesus and when Jesus was alive are you saying?
Was man made in God's image or not? There are two instances in genesis that talk about the creation of man. Man in God's image both female and male. Then the man made of dust Adam and the woman from the rib Eve? Which one of these creations do we descend from we do you think? Were they two separate creations or two different accounts of the same event?
In your view soul is then the breath of life and the spirit of life common to man and has nothing to do with the spirit of God? God is a male and a divine being. What in your view is a divine being?
So God decides who God unites with. What is the point then of sharing the Gospel or what Jesus teaches when only God knows who would be united with God?
Where in the bible does it say Jesus rose a material man?
That makes no sense. If we inherited the sin of our ancestor only to have it taken away by a 2nd Adam it makes no sense why one would have needed to inherit the rebellion in the first place.
If we are not chosen by God to be united with God, what would be the point of wiping any said rebellion away. Why would we need Jesus if we are not chosen.
If Jesus is the only way to God and physically resides with the father in eternity. How does Jesus mediate between God and God's chosen? With the infinite spirit you are referring to or physically?
What I read and how I understand it is entirely different to your interpretation.
You appear to be describing God that is infinite with limitations. You seem to be perceiving God in a way that we often perceive other human beings. God seems to be in your assessment, selective, discriminating, indecisive, and not all powerful or all loving because there are conditions to Gods love. God is also not all powerful because God needed an intermediary to sort out the flawed creations which God could do nothing about in Gods all powerfulness. Do you not see how you are limiting God?p ~ "So the bible we know today existed before Jesus and when Jesus was alive are you saying?"
During Jesus' earthly walk what we now call the 'Old Testament' was extant, to those of that day, it was the scriptures. It was shortly after Jesus' death, after they were written, that the gospels and letters to the churches, etc, were included with the Old Testament to be counted as Scripture by Christians. My point was the "shortly" . . . it simply, factually, wasn't hundreds of years, but was during the lifetime of the apostles (those chosen by Jesus to carry forth His work) that the Bible, as we have it today, was recognized as Scripture.
p ~ "Was man made in God's image or not?"
He was - but you seem to totally set aside the hugely consequential event of man's rebellion, turning away from God, rejecting His authority and love, and the subsequent fall. Man was made in God's imagine, but man before the fall and after the fall is a very different creature.
p ~" Were they two separate creations or two different accounts of the same event?"
The same; a common feature of ancient Hebrew literature is to announce an idea or event you are going to elaborate on later . . . because of a lack of understanding of this literary device, many have pointed to passages as 'contradictions in the Bible' when passages don't offer opposing ideas at all, they simply are not identical statements, but an announcement and then more detail - but dishonest and fretful, or simply ill-informed, skeptics seize whatever they can imagine they've found to discredit the Bible.
p ~ "What in your view is a divine being?"
God alone is divine, He alone is deity . . . the word is THEOS (in the original Greek) and it refers to the one true God. We, as God gives us eternal life, gives us His own Spirit, are said to be made "partakers" of His divine Spirit - this does not mean we become little gods, but that we are united to God, who is alone is the divine being.
p ~ "What is the point then of sharing the Gospel or what Jesus teaches when only God knows who would be united with God?"
First, because we are told to by Jesus and through the Bible. And, just because God knows if our crops will fail or flourish, just because the rain is His rain, just because He knows if we will be injured or healthy enough to harvest when the time comes, etc, does that mean we should just sit on our butt and not plant?
God knows in eternity, He knows experientially the beginning and the ending . . . eternity is not time that just goes on and on - eternity is the absence of time, it is an ever-present now, an ongoing instant. We exist in time, in the linear movement of one moment passing into the next . . . God, just now is actively superintending the birth of Moses, He is with us as we write these messages back-and-forth, and He is with our great great grandchildren's children as they fly around on their jet-packs. He is not bound by time as we are, He is experiencing all simultaneously . . . He is choosing who He will give His Spirit to and adopt as His own as we are sharing His message and as that person is trusting in Jesus as his only hope and as he is teaching his children about the truth of the gospel he has long believed, etc. No one is forced to be a Christian and no one who wants to be a Christian is hindered from believing - eternity and time, God's eternity and time, come together in a divine manner that makes God the author of all that is good and yet man is responsible for his own actions.
p ~ "Where in the bible does it say Jesus rose a material man?"
I don't think there is a passage that sates 'Jesus rose a material man' - but the Bible is clear that Jesus rose in a body, a body of flesh & bone, a body that those who knew Him recognized, a body that ate, and a body that people touched and handled.
p ~ "it makes no sense why one would have needed to inherit the rebellion in the first place"
Because redeemed man is superior to innocent man. God desires a real, authentic relationship, and that requires love, and love requires volition - had God made man to robotically, unavoidably, love Him, that would not be love at all. God made man innocent, but with a free will, able to love or reject God . . . when man rejected God, God announced His intent from before creation, His eternal plan and purpose for creation, God promised a Mediator, a Messiah, a Savior - God would save men by giving them His own Spirit, by giving them eternal life. Born again redeemed man is superior, better off, than created innocent man.
p ~ "You appear to be describing God that is infinite with limitations. You seem to be perceiving God in a way that we often perceive other human beings. God seems to be in your assessment, selective, discriminating, indecisive, and not all powerful or all loving because there are conditions to Gods love. God is also not all powerful because God needed an intermediary to sort out the flawed creations which God could do nothing about in Gods all powerfulness. Do you not see how you are limiting God?"
It appears just the opposite to me - your god is like a big human, like Zeus or Vishnu, etc . . . like us, your god makes no distinctions, he wants everyone to just be happy, there is no urgency to holiness (which is practiced love) just a broad accepting of all. You talk about "selective, discriminating" as though they are bad things - would you want a known child molester to babysit your children . . ? . . of course not, selective & discriminating are good, reasonable things. Because God loves fidelity He hates adultery, because He loves benevolence He hates murder, etc . . . you advance a notion of god that, doesn't come from His own revelation of Himself in the Bible, but comes from your own amalgamation of accepting any religious ideas from wherever and assuming god is just like us - accepting of all and anything. It's good that God, the true God, is selective & discriminating, that He is holy and not evil, that He is light and no darkness.And in your understanding Jesus was only talking to followers of him even though the book was not yet published. Ok
So Gods image is still there just inaccessible after the rebellion.
Only those that God chooses in your view gets to partake in Gods spirit. All other creations God knows not what to do with them? Who would care about eternity if they are not chosen? Who would care about Jesus?
No it does not mention Jesus rising in body. Which means it must have risen in spirit which is why Mary could was urged not to touch him.
Your logic makes no sense and sounds more like a power trip that some humans get on. In your understanding you are saying God creates but wants all your love but wants it to be your choice. If you choose otherwise the divine spirit is not shared with you. That is blackmail. That is human strategy, do you not see that? Even if you love God assuming that is what God wants you might not be one of the chosen and it would mean zilch.
Well if my understanding of God is that God makes no distinctions how do you compare that with a human? Humans make distinctions all the time. You are doing it right now when you assume a God that makes no distinctions would want everyone to be happy and that there are such things as urgency to holiness. God is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, all loving yet you perceive God with human emotions? Why is that do you think? Are you limiting God again and trying to fit God into the human way of existing?. Just because you read that God hates this and that in the bible, do you instantly accept that what the writers said was correct? If you do, why do you fail to accept all the other things the bible says. Is it because they do not fit with your understanding so you simply reject all the messages that do not fit? Where have I said God is like us? Perhaps you need to polish the mirror and take a look at who is actually trying to make God like us? If you go back on our dialogue it is clear you have attributed God with all the traits human beings have. I will make a summary if you wish.
Do you know the Bible? Doubting Thomas put His finger through Jesus' hole in His wrist. Jesus interacted with the disciples after resurrection and conversed with them.
What are you talking about? You sure do cherry-pick! What don't you understand about Thomas touching Jesus' body?
Consider this:
Luke 24:37:
37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,[a] 43 and he took it and ate before them.
Spirits don't eat.Oh that's right. You believe it was physically. Ok
That depends on what you believe. in some shamanic faiths, yes, at least in the sense that they accept offerings of fruits, vegetables, money, milk, honey, and tobacco.
Apparently, spirits smoke.In the case of Jesus, He was proving He was a physical being because the disciples thought He was a ghost.
Actually, yes. That was the entire point of the story. Jesus rose bodily, in the flesh, and Thomas said that unless he could put his finger in the holes, he wouldn't believe it.
In the body. In the flesh. Physically. Jesus rose as a living human being.
yup, my neck is definitely gonna snap, from nodding - has now become what appears to be an involuntary reaction. lol. I am bobble head.
What do you mean, "that God warned us about". I thought God wasn't a conscious deity to you!
I said God is within and not outside of you. Where did I say God wasn't conscious. It might be more useful if you remember our dialogues or go and re-read them again.
So who is warning us? All of us? There'd be no need for warning. Lol
Check out the warning, just in case you have forgotten.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.
Keep eating like Adam and Eve and we will stay dead.Okay, first God warned us not to eat the apple. Since God is not a conscious entity, who warned us? Satan is supposed to scoff that warning. He, according to you, is not a conscious entity either. So who warned us?
Do you even read my posts? Or do you only read what you want to read? I cannot tell because you seem to perceive I said something I did not?
Huh? Why is that? I am not special in any way.
(PS: By the way did you get my email? I cannot find the sent email so I wonder if you got it?)
Funny enough, the bible says that even the demons acknowledge Jesus, but they fear him
demon : origin: Greek dæmon : an unclean heart; unclean {human} spirit.
dæmon was bastardized in translation and used to proliferate the doctrine of demons, circa 1500}. Weird how the bible popped up exactly the same time... And oddly, Saul warned against, such things creeping up -especial teachings {doctrines} concerning {about} demons. Shakes head.The Bible did not "pop up" circa 1500. All the books were written before 100 and with the exception of Revelation, had generally been agreed upon by general church acceptance before they were bound together in one book.
Well to answer your question simply, I suppose that most atheists are atheists because of the lack of proof, and unlikelihood that god exists. If Jesus came to earth and proved beyond a doubt that he was in fact Jesus and by extension that god exists, then I'm sure that everybody would have no choice but to believe in them! But as this is very unlikely to happen then people will (quiet rightly), go on believing whatever it is that they believe in.
Apologies if that is too simplistic an answer.There's a difference between believing in the Holy Spirit and actually becoming a Christian. Satan is no Christian and he certainly knows Jesus is the son of God. Thanks for you response.
Yes, perhaps I didn't read the question as well as I should have done. I certainly didn't think about bringing Satan into it, as I don't come from a Satan-believing background.
Still, I'm guessing that most people faced with God/Jesus right in front of them would go the whole hog and become a Christian, why not if his existence and therefore his whole history is undeniable? - providing of course, that a whole load of other deities didn't show up at the same time... Then that would be a tough one!
I guess irrefutable proof of Satan would equally be needed for people to believe in him.
Interesting question by the way.Hi.
I believe all atheists who are good will accept Jesus once they know the full truth. After all, people are only atheists because they are ignorant of Him.You know the difference between good and evil. It would take someone incredibly evil to reject Jesus once they know the TRUTH about Him. If they realize He is the source of all that is good and what He did for mankind and still reject Him, then they have to be evil.
As with every group in the world, there are always evil people, including atheists.If they are good, then what do they need Jesus for? Do you think you came to Jesus because you're good instead of evil?
So, you (and atheists, and everybody) are good & evil?
(I'm not trying to give you a hard time - I'm just trying to understand your point)You can be good but sin but not sin to the extent you can be labelled evil. For example, a good person could lie which is wrong but it doesn't make them evil. They can say a nasty word but not be evil. A person could abuse their body by drinking too much alcohol. That person isn't evil.
An evil person is someone who knows what they are doing and knows the effects it will have on other people. For example, a paedophile knows their actions are wrong and it will harm children but they don't care. Interesting enough, evil people can do good but often to make them look good. Evil people can set up charities so that no one suspects them of evil.I would rather be looking at the mentality of the crowd who wanted Jesus put on the cross and kill. For me, any argument about the reason Jesus was on the cross is easily answered: He was put there because the powerful people had been offended by what he told them. Very simply a human lesson in psychology.... what we do instead of facing our own personal motives. These were what Jesus was constantly talking to his disciples about.
By examining the attitude of the crowd we can learn so, so much about ourselves.jonnycomelately ~ I'm not sure . . . are you saying you'd "rather" give your attention and consider "the mentality of the crowd who wanted Jesus put on the cross" than to give your attention and consider if atheists would become believers if proof of Jesus as the Son of God? As to "the mentality" of those who sought after Jesus' execution . . .
I agree, and I think the Bible makes it clear, that the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead because He, very publicly, offended them repeatedly - and they were jealous of the esteem and respect as a teacher the people gave Him. But, and it's a big giant but, why did the people turn on Jesus so quickly? The very same crowd who had just welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem placing their garments on the road in His path and shouting"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" in just a few days were now crying out to the authorities who arrested Jesus. "Crucify Him!" . . ?MickeySr, thanks for your questions.
I see it as a clear example of how we can become embroiled in "crowd psychology." The physiological responses, the adrenaline rush, the feeling part of a crowd which gives us courage and confidence..... true of the human being's response then, 2000+ years ago as it is now in our modern age.
Claire Evans ~ So, answering my question "What do you mean by good"? you would say that good people are those who sin less or not as severely as evil people . . . that everyone does some bad some times but that evil people are those who do really bad stuff a lot, while good people are those who only do sort of bad stuff a little?
I would ask you, can God sin - can God do wrong? Can God "lie", "say a nasty word", "drink too much alcohol", etc?"I would ask you, can God sin - can God do wrong? Can God "lie", "say a nasty word", "drink too much alcohol", etc?"
No, He cannot and that is why we could never reconcile with God unless Jesus took on our sin. All those who truly repent shall be forgiven.So then, what does being good or bad have to do with coming to God through Jesus? When you say "I believe all atheists who are good will accept Jesus" isn't that saying that good people go to heaven and bad people don't, when in truth no one is good enough to go to heaven so God gives us Jesus and we get to heaven, not because we're good and we don't miss heaven because we're bad - we come to God through Jesus. The Scripture says that "While we were yet dead He saves us" and "He came to save sinners", etc - good atheists AND bad atheists all come to God through Jesus, because in truth, they are all bad . . . just like the rest of us.
That's an interesting statement. I believe that most atheists are atheists because they do not believe in the existence of any kind of god.or sons of gods. I don't mean any offence but as an atheist myself it would have to be some pretty solid proof for me to change my mind. In fact I can't imagine any circumstance in which I would be able to experience this truth, short of Jesus literally appearing to me. I don't know many people who wouldn't feel the same way. But an intriguing perspective.
This may sound like a personal criticism, but I assure it's not - it's just an expression of my own personal wonder; it always amazes me how the science and examinable evidence folks (and I make no assumptions about you) who are willing to consider and imagine the possibility of extra-terrestrial life can be so solidly dead-set opposed to any idea about a god. Perhaps it's a generational thing.
I'm from the 60s, we grew-up on SciFi and were encouraged to consider all we could imagine . . . to me, it seems the materialism guys I'm referring to must think that only planets similar to earth could possibly produce life, that the possibility of a life-form based on some fully other-then-carbon element or gas or whatever is simply impossible - everyone anywhere must be just like us or just simply can't exist.
It's just a puzzle for me. The non-religious often think those who are religious are so because they still believe what they were told, that they lack the imagination and boldness to consider other ideas, etc - when, in fact, when it comes to an eternal infinite Spirit being, they just can't imagine there could be such a thing but if there was it would have to be pretty much just like us. It's just a puzzle to me.There's no sense in arguing with an atheist about God. My prayers are stronger than my words.
That is by no means a fact. That assumption is based on the fact that Genesis in the form as we know it now, based on how the language was written/titles of people and places used, was estimated as to have been written at different times between the kingdom of Judah (about 950 BC) and while in exile (about 500 BC)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
All the similar Sumerian stories tell us is that these were very well known stories in that region and that they're extremely old. What the Sumerian stories don't get right that Genesis does is significant. Genesis correctly details the creation of the earth and all life on it in the right chronological order. Cain's building of a city in Gen4 correlates to the first city built in Sumer, Eridu. The flood corresponds to a catastrophic deluge that wiped out the Ubaid culture of Ur around 4000 BC. And the tower of Babel tale lines up with the mass dispersion of the populations in that region due to the Sahara transforming into a desert around 3900 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event).
The only thing that makes early Genesis seem like mythology is the human assumption that Adam was the first human that ever existed. Remove that one flaw and Genesis lines right up with actual history down to the number of centuries between the major events. Something I highly doubt mere Pagans could accomplish. The people who eventually became the Sumerians were the human population in the background of Genesis. They were the 'others' that Cain feared would harm him in Gen4 and they were the mortal 'daughters of humans' that the 'sons of God' had children with at the beginning of Gen6.In the Gospels a man by the name of Thomas (the doubter) asked Jesus for proof that He really rose from the dead if He would let him put his fingers in His wounds on His hands and side of His crucifixion. Jesus honored his request and said to Thomas; you believe because you have seen (wanted proof), but blessed are those who believe without seeing. (Faith)
Blessed are the scientologists obviously... Seriously think about what this means, it is better to blindly accept what people tell you than to question it... what a great message, just what we need more ignorance by self enforcement, but of course it's a very useful message for a religion because if one starts questioning it all falls apart, it precisely relies on blind belief.
It's not what people tell you, it's what is written in the scriptures.
You don't find that problematic? ...
If that is the truth as you see it, then you are entitled to follow that understanding, and make it mean something in your life.
If you really have a Christ-like outlook on life, then you will allow others to have a different point of view, without making a judgement on them. Even if you now say, "But it is not me that's judging you, it's God," you are still setting yourself apart from others, basically saying you are elite in the eyes of your god.
Being Christ-like is not allowing yourself to be elite. It's about being at-one with everything in the world and having unconditional love.To become defensive for interpretations and shoot back, again, interpretations/asumptions, a bit stronger than in a standard conversation, to me it carries less humility than preached about and more judgement than admitted. Emotions twist reason and perceptions get disfigured, just by jumping to conclusions before asking for one more clarification, I think...therefore I believe...and I exist...
i say, again, to me...
No, only if a person has the will to know the truth will God reveal Himself.
"everyone realized"? That's too vague, as in everyone was convinced? As in a large group thought? Now if it were to happen again? So some Chris Angel type person convinces a bunch of people he is the son of God? Yes, I would reject him...
To clarify, I meant if everyone was convinced and there was no possible way someone could be deceived when they see the son of God.
Aw... what if Chris Angel performed the miracles that Jesus performed?
Naw, Dustin S. would still not believe... just like 2,000 years ago, Yep, Claire He'd be back on "the cross " again.
And all he was trying to say was, "People, Listen up, there is a God and He made you and He loves you!" God exists e v e r y w h e r e and in all people. Who can explain, "If Thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light." ?
I believe He was saying that the light of God would be perceived within you as you perceive God's reality w i t h i n you. I don't think He'll be back until the majority of the people realize God's existence and reality first. To know God is to love God. Just look around...who created the earth, the stars,the planets, all the really cool animals, the trees, the flowers? O. K. the process of evolution, but Who set it forth and guides it to this day? Who guides all the really miraculous things that occur in Your Life all the time... and I know they do.
You asked.My point is, Chris Angel is already doing just as miraculous things, and if he were to simply start talking about how sage and all powerful his father is they would be the exact same person.... in theory.
More clearly, only the naive would believe in miraculous events in today's world thanks to science and special effects.
As for what started it all, i don't know, just as you don't, but you should check out my theory attempting to explain how!
Ever heard of "begging the question" logical fallacy?
It's what you ended your comment with - an error in reason - and i can't retort logically to it.I would like to hear your theory. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I am certainly not one to impose mine on any body. I was just answering the question
yes definitely, i just enjoy thinking/talking. Here http://dustinstaples.hubpages.com/hub/Gods-Thought
I am saying if everyone knew as truth without any possible deception would they accept Him as the son of God? I am hypothesizing from that angle.
Aha, i see, well then i shall answer that
I think yes definitely, i attest to this since i grew up knowing God as the truth with out any deception; so yes, he would accept, if the person was never deceived to know otherwise, but thats like saying he never knew their could be "otherwise".
It's strikingly similar to the allegory of the cave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
I think that's putting the cart before the horse? That's like saying "If I can prove my Barbie was made by elves, would you believe in Santa Cause?" I'm not being entirely sarcastic here- we can ALL agree Barbie is REAL, but I can show you about 20 MILLION Barbies made in a sweat shop in China somewhere. If you find compelling evidence of elves with YOURS, more power to you...
That's actually "affirming the consequent", and ahaha my research shows, Santa Clause's sweat shops are based out of China... the plot thickens.
I've got some elves living in my basement. Captured them last Christmas. The Big Guy was too big of a catch, but his two companions I've got. Now believe me because it's written in words. But I won't give you my address, or show you pictures. You've got to believe it on faith, mate.
now that would need lot of proving ...first one has to prove that god exist , then that existing god is same as written in bible, then that god managed to send some holy god to impregnate a Palestine woman and then comes jesus...
Hey Mickey, I know the literary device you're speaking of, but I don't believe that applies here. The two accounts Penny is referring to actually come from two different sources. We know this because in the original Hebrew one refers to God as YAHWEH, the other as the more 'privileged' title, Elohim. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)
The main clue that best illustrates that these were two separate events is the simple fact that Adam showed through his inability to follow that one rule that there's no way he and his descendants would be able to carry out God's command to be fruitful, multiply, fill/subdue the earth, and establish dominion in the animal kingdom. These things took numerous generations to accomplish and Adam/Eve/Cain showed right from the start that they were incapable. After those commands, it says God looked on 'all' He had made and deemed it good. I doubt that would be the case if that were Adam and the gang.
Plus, make that one adjustment, see the humans in Genesis 1 as naturally evolved humans, and everything from then on lines right up with history. And it goes a long way towards clearing up some really ambiguous sounding bits throughout the rest of the bible. Like Genesis 6:1-3, for example.So what happened to the first creation made in man's image? Still present as God made them or something else?
Well, here's how I see it....
Both. We're all descended from God's first creation. We all share genetic lineage with homo sapiens dating back tens of thousands of years. And unless you were born of an indigenous tribe from a lineage that never bred outside of their ancestral roots, then you're most likely also a descendant of Adam/Noah. Intermingling began right from the start....
Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This comes right before it says a wicked element had developed in humans. It also then says that God regretted putting humans on the earth. Adam's descendants were able to behave however they chose, and they chose the human daughters they found beautiful.
After the flood wiped out the wicked element that arose through the introduction of free will/ego into the naturally evolved human bloodline, the descendants of Noah's sons again mixed with humans. Within a century or so they began to build a city and a tower made of fired mud bricks. These humans/descendants of Noah were being creative.
Genesis 11:5 - And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built.
Genesis 11:6 - And the Lord said, “Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do.
That's when God scattered them. Humans/descendants of Noah spread in all directions. Civilizations soon sprang up in Sumer, then in Egypt to the west not long after, then in the Indus valley to the east not long after that, then to the north the Akkadians. Civilization spread like a virus. Killing, enslaving, often killing the men and keeping the women, expanding kingdoms and empires.
That's our history. Children of men/descendants of Noah/Civilization, spreading across Eurasia. Yet places that were geographically cut off from Eurasia remained largely unchanged for a very long time. Southern Africa south of the Sahara, Australia, North and South America. But eventually 'civilized' man reached them as well.
It's now estimated that roughly 5% of humans living today are indigenous/tribal.
just wondering: i saw you said this,
"" And unless you were born of an indigenous tribe from a lineage that never bred outside of their ancestral roots, then you're most likely also a descendant of Adam/Noah.""
so, Old Earth creationism?: So you acknowledge natural selection, but as far as the Adam character goes, do you think God intervened to actually create him with out a natural father? or one of the first homo sapiens was deemed Adam? or the bible is just being allegorical completely?Yes, I think God created Adam outside of the naturally evolved line of humans just as it's described for a few reasons.
One, Adam and his descendants are described as being immortal in comparison to humans. Gen6:3 says that humans are mortal and only live 120 years just after listing Adam's descendants with ages that span 7+ centuries. In fact, God says 'My spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal'. From that point on those lifespans gradually decrease through each generation.
Preserving God's spirit is why I think the Jews were given all of those 613 Mitzvah laws, many of which were very specific as far as who the Jews could and could not conceive children with. How to keep it 'in the family', so to speak, without it being too close. This I believe was for the purpose of preparing/preserving this chosen bloodline for the savior to come, and this in my mind relates to how Jesus was able to be conceived without a father.
Two, I think they were larger than humans for a couple of reasons. For one, the descendants of the Nephilim that the tribes of Israel encountered in Num13 were described as very large. In fact, everyone in Hebron was large. And there are a number of further interactions between the Israelites and giants afterwards. Many times these were the people the Israelites were supposed to wipe out. Maybe to finish the job the flood started?
Gen6:4 says the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and are described as "heroes of old, men of renown". The humans that inhabited that region of the world during that time eventually became the Sumerians. The Sumerian King's List describes kings in their ancient past with extremely long lifespans before a great flood that gradually decrease after. According to the Sumerians, they were taught civilization by immortal gods who were human in form, male and female, who were moody and unpredictable, and who eventually bred with humans. Gilgamesh, for example, was a demigod. Sumerian carvings depict these gods as being roughly 1/3 larger than them. Compared to mortal humans, Adam's descendants would seem god-like, living the length of seven or eight lifetimes.
Third, a big theme throughout the bible has to do with the weakness of the body, of the flesh. Throughout the old testament only Israelites are referred to as 'sons of God'. In the new testament, after Jesus' death and resurrection, believers are then referred to as 'sons of God' as well. This I think is the purpose of the holy spirit. God's spirit ,which was preserved in the Israelites/Jews to allow for Jesus' birth, was then available to believers through the 'Holy Spirit' to make them sons of God as well.
That's my take, anyway.First, preserving God's spirit is an alright answer, but in the end, rationally speaking, it's just a logical fallacy. It's actually the same one i mentioned earlier here "begging the question" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. So im just going to leave that alone. As for longevity of life, have you ever read about atmospheric pressure pre-deluge? http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html.
Second, giants are talked about in various texts as well, but their's giants in todays world, how tall do they need to be in order to clearly require divine intervention to exist (rhetorical)?
The giants argument is better but it's actually another fallacy: "False cause" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic).
Your saying, because there was text about there being giants, that proves that God had to have intervened to bare Adam, the first giant.
That statement just doesn't follow logically, you can have the former with out the later, i.e. evolution.
Third, your third just re-asserts your first, but as for the 120yr" quote i was intrigued because its such an exact prediction, God could be so wrong about that; oldest women alive in modern times, Jeanne Calment, 122 http://listverse.com/2010/02/07/top-10- … ple-ever/. 120 is very close tho, i'll give him that one.
I appreciate your input.
Obviously, I just have what Genesis says, but I think the mention about the centuries-long lifespans in Gen5, then the 120 year mortal human lifespan mentioned in the same breath as the intermingling between sons of God and daughters of humans in Gen6, followed by the gradual decrease in lifespans through to just after Abraham is pretty telling. The creation of Adam is described as being formed from the earth and God breathing the breath of life into him, and he lived for 930 years. If this were how it actually happened, then the offspring would get genes from both. Repeat that a few more times and you can maybe see how that would diminish over time. It's not necessarily God's spirit that caused the longevity.
I have read about the idea of higher atmospheric pressure, but there's a couple of issues I see with it. First, Genesis says Abraham encountered the Egyptians in Gen12, so we know this could only have been so long ago. 3500 BC or later, roughly. 3150 BC if it was truly a Pharaoh. Abraham was born 1950 years after Adam was created, so that would put his creation somewhere around 5500-5000 BC.. ish. We have plenty of human remains that date back to this time and beyond. If all humans in existence truly lived longer lives, as the atmospheric pressure scenario would be across the board, then I'd imagine we'd be able to tell by the bones that they lived much longer lives. But that's not the case. Homo sapien lifespans have always been roughly the same for tens of thousands of years.
Second, human cells have a limited number of times they can divide. A limit known as the Hayflick limit. Unless increased atmospheric pressure dramatically slowed the functioning of a cell, I don't see how this could be possible. Plus, this would presumably also apply to animals and plants as well, and there's just no evidence from that range of time that supports that. Again, unless everything slowed. I'm no expert on the topic, but I don't believe that would be the case. Certainly not to the point of extending a lifespan times ten.
I guess it's possible that creating Adam from 'the earth' could mean him being born by a natural human mother, in the same way that the mammals in Gen1 were called from 'the earth' and we know mammals came from Synapsid reptiles, who were on the earth. Using available biological materials, so to speak. But combined with everything else, plus the general idea of Eve being formed from Adam's rib, makes me think otherwise.
You can have the former without the latter, I agree. This idea comes from a combination of things. First, the mention of the Nephilim in Gen6/Num13. What's most interesting is how they're described. They're mentioned in a way that suggests the intended/contemporary audience knew full well who they were. In Numbers, though this was many centuries later, the Israelites immediately recognized the sons of Anak as descendants of the Nephilim, and it describes them as large in stature. This makes me think this wasn't a common thing. Something about their mere appearance made them instantly recognizable. If they existed before the flood, where'd they come from? Maybe the human daughters could be of a tribe of large stature. But again, the Num13 thing makes me think they were not as common as that would suggest.
Second, if Adam were created in this approximate time and place, then the humans that eventually became the Sumerians, the inventors of civilization, were the humans that lived in that region. When Cain gets banished in Gen4 it says not long after that he built a city. The first Sumerian city was Eridu, built around 5300-5200 BC. Sumerian mythology says the gifts of civilization were given to them by immortal, human in form, male and female gods who 'descended from heaven' and actually lived in the temples built at the center of their cities. The remains of Eridu actually did have a temple built just as described. In their depictions, as I mentioned before, these gods were larger than the Sumerians. Of course, this could have been a method of showing respect, but combined with the rest I tend to lean the other way.
When I speak of the weakness of the body being a theme throughout the bible, I'm not talking about physical weakness. I mean in this sense ...
Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
This in my mind solidifies the idea of a true duality in man. A physical form genetically evolved to desire things instinctively. The id. What I believe was introduced in Adam was the ego. The ego is a kind of mediator between the wants of the id and the reality we live in. The ego negotiates what is acceptable in reality as far as getting what the id wants. If the ego works for the individual needs, and not the needs of the many/group/tribe, then you have pretty much what still serves today as the bane of human existence. Selfishness.
The introduction of the ego would explain both the explosion in creativity/ingenuity/inventiveness experienced by the Sumerians and Egyptians in that age, and it would also explain the explosion of war-like behavior, enslavement, and all the other things that went along with the spreading of civilization.- TMDHemsley17posted 12 years ago0
Proof of Jesus as being the son of God requires first that proof of God is found. This will not happen because there is no God. Never has been, never will be. As an anti-theist, I also think it would be very bad if proof of a God were found, as that would mean we are always watched and controlled by an omnimalevolent, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, arrogant, narcissistic, hateful, unimaginably cruel entity.
Would proof of God make me a christian? Well that brings into argument which god you're referring to. What if proof were found for Thor? Odin? Anubis? Apollo? Jupiter? Minerva? Or another of the 3000 plus gods believed in at some point in history. Assumingly as a christian you are referring to the abrahamic God of the new testament, and if proof of this particular god was found, it would not make me a christian. It would make me a theist. I say it wouldn't make me a christian because if the God you so mindlessly follow is a benevolent, loving god, why wouldn't he accept me for living my life in a good way regardless if it were by religious customs and guidelines.
However, as I said at the beginning, no proof will ever be found for God because God is a figment of human imagination. The greatest character of fiction every conceived. Only when humanity removes the oppressive restriction of religious belief and theistic nonsense will humanity be able to develop properly.Not necessarily! check out this theory i wrote: http://dustinstaples.hubpages.com/hub/Gods-Thought
you'll find it interesting im sure, both of you actually.
Headly, im going to respond to you after i awake, but same to you it's a breath of fresh air talking to a theist who has put a lot of personal, critical, thought into their beliefs.
and TMD, the best analogy i've found to describe, following said "greatest fiction", is alike people extremely well read on the Star Wars universe.
lol, but it's much more valuable, i'll admit that.It is impossible to say for certain there is no God for what is God? God could be the universe like the pantheists think.
You make a lot of assumptions in your comment. You say I mindlessly follow God. No, I use my mind in my relationship with God. Else I'd just be a zombie and what's the point of that? God would not have given you free will if it was unacceptable to be choose what religion to follow. However, the only way to reconcile with God is through Jesus because He took on our sin so that we could be clean. It is an act of love. He wants to save us from hell. It is people who send themselves to hell. They want to stay with their sin and sin cannot be near God and hell is the complete separation from God.
Were you once a theist?How would humanity move forward if there was no "theistic nonsense," in your view, TMD Hemsley? This would be an interesting book. I would definitely want to read it. HOW does religious belief restrict us and what kind of freedom do believers NOT have? Please explain what you mean by " the oppressive restriction of religious beliefs." Where would morals come from?
What would truth be based on? How does science really help us. Rational thinking is a good thing. What about perfection. What is the "Concept of God?The 'concept of God' in the sense I am arguing against is a theistic divine creator who created the universe and continues to have a role in human affairs. Whilst deism also has no rationale or proof behind it, I don't see it as harmful.
Religious belief restricts society in that it prevents people from thinking rationally and coming to their own thought out ideas rather than those put forward in a century old book according to some supposedly loving creator. It restricts society by giving people morally flawed beliefs, such as hatred towards different peoples such as homosexuals and women, and that all who disagree with said beliefs will suffer for eternity for having a different viewpoint. In many places people suffer in life for having beliefs different to those of the religious, such as women being stoned for adultery or being forced to marry men who rape them. It restricts society by hindering science and reason in the name of superstition.
Where would morals come from? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. I find it extremely absurd and frustrating when the religious claim you have to be religious to be moral. I've never been religious, I've been an atheist since I've been able to think for myself, yet I believe it is wrong to murder another human being, I believe it is wrong to rape, attack, or be violent in any way towards others, and I didn't need religion to come to those views. Then often religious individuals claim that religion created morality back in the day, which it didn't, morality existed before religion did, and evolutionary biology and science has demonstrated how morality can have evolved in the human genome. Religion was certainly a driving force behind the spread of morality in civilisation's early days, but I am of the view that religion is outdated, that it was something only relevant back when we didn't have the understanding we do today. And with the emergence of scientific inquiry and more understanding of the world around, religion is losing its relevance, as demonstrated by the increasing number of atheists in recent times and the decline in religious followers. But my point is that the irreligious are just as moral if not more than religious people. Many atheist, humanist, and secular groups do lots of work to ease suffering and help charitable causes, and they do this because of ideas that they came to without religion.
Truth would be based on science. Science helps us a lot. It explains the universe as we know it, how life has evolved over millenia, how forces work, the composition of matter, and everything around us. Religion does not provide truth. I hear people sometimes say "My beliefs are my truths", which is a flawed statement, something is either true or it isn't, it can't be true for one person but not for others. Another oft told argument against science is "science doesn't know the origin of the universe". No it doesn't, but at least us rational thinkers say we don't know how the universe began rather than jump to the conclusion that it must have been created by an intelligent entity, and at least science is working on the problem. And this argument can be turned back on the religious, because they don't know either, and are much further from the truth than science is.
Another argument I hear against science is that it doesn't provide a moral framework, and henceforth isn't as good as religion. Firstly, that's not what science is for. Don't mistake the question of the origins of the universe with the question of having a moral code. Both are important, but different. Having said that however, science can very much provide you with morals, as it allows you to understand that there is no reason to believe that person A is inferior to person B or that something that someone does is an abomination. And going back to an earlier point, you don't need religion to have a moral code, and you don't need science for morals either, but you do need science to understand our universe, whereas you don't need religion for that.
Thank you, Mr. Dawkins...
Actually, controlled would be exactly the wrong word, because if you could accept proof of God, then you would understand that most people are not "controlled."I consider that a compliment.
Firstly, I can and would accept proof of God, being a person of evidence. But there is no proof, there is no evidence, and henceforth there is no rational reason to believe there is a creator at works. If not controlled, then a word that fits better is 'coerced'.
I say coerced because if there was a God, we might still have our ability to think for ourselves, but his existence would mean we would be obliged to believe in his ideals and guidelines, and in a way wouldn't have true free will as we would have to follow this divine being for fear of punishment. That's coercion, and a tactic often employed by religion to get people to follow it, "If you don't follow God then you'll burn for eternity".What you say is logical (except for there being no proof.)
But...
You make a very common mistake, which is to assume that if you believe in God, your relationship must, must, must be based on fear under any and all circumstances. That's not the case. Yeah, plenty of people have done that and plenty of people try to get others to do that. But a real relationship with God is like a real relationship with anybody else. It's a two-way street, and it's based on love and trust, not fear and loathing. In fact, Jesus actually told a parable about what happens if you're the kind of cramped, small person who only does what he/she does out of fear and resents God for it.I don't assume that belief in God is based on fear under all circumstances, I understand that belief is often based on love and reverence of a God, but what I am saying is that the fear of a God is a idea often used to scare people into believing, and if God were to actually show himself with undeniable proof of his existence, people would follow him simply out of fear of punishment.
"Except for there being no proof"?!! Please enlighten me on the proof of God! This should be good!If you were really smart and well educated, then you would know the word for fear . . . like in, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all understanding (wisdom)." . . . then you would know it isn't about being scared. It is better translated "awesome respect".
Now, you don''t have it, so I worry about you. You look cute when your passed out. I hope you aren't into those Oxies. They really mess up people's heads. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh (if you can stand to). My fiance' says he moved to Florida just because Oxies are easy to get here.okay, I am jumping in again. Here is an interesting idea. The proof of God is this: He gives us free will by hiding. Where is he ? Invisible. When we need him, he comes... within us.... speaking the language of our hearts. God is invisible consciousness who gives us free will... along with everything else material and visible. He stays completely un noticed and in this way he does not influence us at all. Jesus came (when he did) for those who needed visible evidence. He knew the majority would not be able to handle or recognize the truth. Would we be able to handle the truth today? For a while, but not for long, is my guess. We really do need to have our own thinking and freedom to operate out of our own sense of s e l f n e s s. That is to me, the greatest Gift and proof of God: My existence (and Everyone else's, of course) Thank You for your time to answer the questions that I posed, TMD Hemsley! I also agree with what you wrote. Did you know, TMD, that there is proof of Jesus and he is really part of human History? If I were you, I would read about him as though researching someone in history.... with an open mind. The dogmas of religion are truly a waste of time and do boggle otherwise well functioning minds!
That's not proof of God, it's not even evidence. You can't say proof of something is the fact it's unseen. That seems to me to be an evasion of giving proof or support, or just ignorance to what constitutes empirical evidence. Your own existence and that of everyone else's is not proof of God, that argument basically states "We exist, therefore God exists", which doesn't make sense. What about the fact we exist insinuates a God exists?
There isn't exactly proof that he existed, but evidence suggests he did, and the consensus among academics and biblical scholars is that Jesus did exist, which I also believe. However, there is no proof that anything written in the Bible was even said by Jesus, there is no proof that he was a divine being, there is no proof that he committed great miracles and had supernatural abilities. There is very little evidence of anything he did, just that he was a real person. I do read and research about him as though he is a historical figure, because he was, but I look at what evidence suggests, which is very little.
The dogmas of religion are a waste of time, but they're still influential in today's society and cause widespread oppression and suffering, and people need to stop following them.
And you're welcome for answering your questions, they provided me with much intellectual curiosity and interest.Here is a question for you... what would be proof of God? A physical manifestation of some sort? Is that the only proof an anti theist would accept? What if God does physically manifest as plants, trees, everything alive? What is the essence of animals plants, insects, viruses, bacteria, fungi, ocean creatures, plankton and us??? Life is proof of God, a mon avis.
A physical manifestation that demonstrates its supposed divine abilities would be empirical proof, and that seems to be the only thing I can think of that would support his existence. I would accept definitive proof of God's existence, whatever that may be, but there isn't any, and I'm relieved there isn't.
If God physically manifests as everything around us, that contradicts the idea that he created everything, as that would mean he created himself, which is logically impossible. There is no evidence to support that idea either.
The problem is that for something to be proof of something there needs to be empirical evidence that allows you to make a logical connection. For instance, you may find many different fossils in a certain area, all of a similar animal but with noticeable differences. Through whatever scientific method is used, the scientist can find out the ages of these fossils and from whence they lived. Here they discover that the fossils all come from different time periods. Based on the similarities, and the way evolution works, they can surmise that one set of fossils is a precursor to another, through say the existence of vestigial limbs in one fossil that were much larger and useful before. These are logical assessments, made based on observation, exploration, research, and scientific understanding.
Now on the subject of proof of God, you can't just say life is proof of God. The existence of life in no way supports the existence of God. The basic argument religious individuals put forward is "Life exists, therefore God exists", which makes no logical sense. There is no empirical evidence which would lead one to the existence of God from the existence of life. It is just as nonsensical as saying that the existence of spaghetti is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no rational reason to make the connection, but that is what people do, create a connection that has no basis in reason and just isn't there.
"Life is proof of God", that may very well be your opinion, but, a mon avis, a belief needs a logical reason and evidence to be believed, otherwise it can be ignored. "An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.Being able to say " I AM " Proves that I am part of God,( but not God.) Jesus said, "know ye not that ye are gods!" If Me being aware that "I am" does not prove God , then nothing does or ever will. I might have well not been born. But I was born! I am here! and so I am a god. To me that is quite logical. I know it ain't to you. Thats O.K. We gotta have freedom. So Have it! Its all yours. And I have freedom too, thank you very much. Claire is just trying to save us from a bad end. I do not think you will have one. I won't either. Why? Cause we think and behave with love,logic and common sense. How is it we have all these positive attributes/? Cuz gods have them. That's just how gods are.
But some people are more tuned into their god natures than other people. Some people have less light and less illumination of mind and spirit. They are more like rocks, than energy driven gods. Q. How does one become more godlike? A. meditation. If Your eye is single, ( He is referring to the third eye, the "perceptive eye" of the true self and therefore intuition, located in between and slightly above the middle of the eyebrows.... your whole body will be perceived as light, and energy. This is the " light" blueprint of the body which we have even after death. It is the energy creation of the body containing the lungs and the heart etc.
By the way when Jesus was a young man he took off for india. He had work to do there. There are records of his visit in Ladakh. Why do I believe in all this? Read Science of Religion By Sri Yukteswar.
God lets You watch Yourself. You are completely in charge of You. You are really fighting dogma and illusion. Well, Keep fighting that fight I say!
This discussion has become nothing but an 'I'm right and you're wrong kind of thing'. We will never accomplish anything arguing back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. Why not place your energy somewhere it might be useful??? Maybe, just maybe, we are all right or wrong in some aspects...Dare think of that???
Think about that statement for a minute. Who's to say what is 'proper' human development? If God were truly a figment of the human imagination, and the human imagination were just a naturally evolved portion of our psyche, then one could argue that this too is all a part of 'proper' human development.
No, because not everything that comes from human imagination is beneficial to society. Belief in God is a prime example. I would say 'proper' human development involves truth, reason, rational thinking, science, and morals, which religion either does not provide or provides twisted, warped versions of. Human imagination is naturally evolved, just like all life, but not everything that is naturally evolved is actually helpful. Ostriches have evolved to have useless wings, humans use the same pipe for respiration and ingestion, and most species can suffer from congenital diseases (these are also all examples of the argument from poor design, which goes against the concept of God).
I am not a fan of religion myself, but in a way I'm a functionalist, or I realize it's functionality from an objective point of view. (And not all religion is the same. I think too often people lump all religion in with dogmatic, close-minded Western religions) In all honesty, religion can have many benefits for a society. In some ways, it increases longevity because people are: happier more often, less stressed out, more involved with community, less likely to be reckless (if devout), more likely to live longer because of these various factors, likely to keep their lineage going, etc, etc.
We are certainly capable of all these things without religion, which is a world I would prefer, as far as religions/schools of thought that don't teach self-suffieciency and appreciation of nature, etc, but instead more about some Cosmic Sheriff view of "God," and omniscient, omnipresent, etc. etc. type deity. Those are the kinds that cause the most trouble and strife on a bigger scale. But, the functionality of an all powerful God gives many people the order that they crave. For some reason many people have the need of a king or someone to be in power over them, and this idea is constantly abused by people in authority, religious or not. But it is the apparent longing to stay in a child like state in certain regards that I believe religion will always have a stronghold on the human population. The need to fill in the gaps where the gaps may not necessarily have to be filled so concretely. (I see this is devout, true Atheists as well). Ultimately dogma is the real problem with religion and any other school of thought/ way of life.I think you make a good point here. It's not the belief in God, or a god, in and of itself. It's not even necessarily religion. Cutting it out entirely is not the answer. Just like things that have to be worked through on an individual level, this too is something that has to be worked through on a collective level.
Like the more positive aspects you listed, if we look ahead to a potential world where there is no religion, and where a belief in a higher power is not the more common view, I can't imagine it having a positive impact when I think of how many people might decide to not do something drastic because of fear of that higher power. Or if the common belief throughout the world were that nothing came after death, and how that might impact humanity on a large scale.
In the end religious dogma is a man-made thing with all the same pitfalls as anything else man-made. Nature has developed a very balanced kind of ebb and flow. It's beautiful in many aspects, harsh in many others, but is ultimately a necessary, self-sustaining process. Humans are the anomaly in that regard. Our self-awareness and reason makes us aware of our place in the world and capable of making change based on our whim. Whether that be for the good of mankind or the good of our individual selves in spite of everyone else. And there's an ebb and flow there too. Where there is the capability for good, so is there the capability for bad. Where we are incredibly creative, we are also incredibly destructive.
This nature comes out in us in all things. And it's just as it should be. It's inherent in our nature and our capability to create our own ways. If it wasn't religion it would be something else. There's an episode of South Park that deals with this idea where an atheist scholar finally convinces the majority of the world to come around to his way of seeing things. Then, way off in the future there was still conflict, only it was conflict between differing factions of atheism. A silly example to use, I know, but there's some truth to that I think.Having high atmospheric pressure wouldn't show giants across the board, mammals dont grow like reptiles, which continue to grow until the die.
Yes there's the Hayflick limit but that correlates to aging, it depends on how fast the cells decay, thus how often they need to divide; high atmospheric pressure would bring much slower cell decay.
Genesis 1:6-8, "Then God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so"
This is where the canopy theory comes from, and if there was indeed a layer of water in the sky, there would have to be high atmospheric pressure. The canopy theory also explains where the flood water came from pretty well (you dont just have Genesis, science brings all sorts of points into a creationism argument).
I wont kid at explaining a tribe of giants, but i don't think it's to hard to imagine some region on earth where everyone was quite large tho I wouldn't think anything more than 14ft TOPs.
As for sumerians, they list gods that guide them, and they describe them as also being half fish like. Tho, if you do side step some of the obscurities in their lore, it does line up surprisingly well with christianity.
and I know what you mean by the weakness of the body.
A Thousand Words: I couldn't agree with you more! every line, and people definitely have that capability to go with out religion; I think the ones who need it most, on a sub-conscious level, are truly terrified of feeling like they are in full control of their lives. Absolutely anything can happen, an in the end, "oh, it wasn't really in my hands to begin with".
Heady: The death of religion would be a slow and scary process, I would be scared of evil men laying dorment under higher authority, but in the end bad people are going to do bad things. As for, no thought of an after-life, when you know your only going to live once, you treasure it like nothing else; people will find their own purpose, it's not like every (any) atheist are running around passionless.
and ahahaha that's a great example, and i wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if something like that happened.
TMD: It's not that the scripture has mal intent, I think the rotten things in the bible your referring to are mostly proof of how exceptionally outdated the bible is.HeadlyvonNoggin: An answer written by my own heart
- TMDHemsley17posted 12 years ago0
No, thankfully I was never a theist. Yes it is impossible to say what God is because yes there are many definitions, such as what pantheists and deists believe, but my argument concerns the theist definition of god, which is what you follow.
Your argument is remarkably contradictory, for you say God finds it acceptable if we choose to follow other religions based on the fact we have free will, but then you say we have to follow Jesus, an individual only in western religions, in order to be saved, otherwise we go to hell. So God doesn't mind what religion you follow, but if its not Christianity you go to hell? How twisted is that idea? Such a benevolent and loving god!
So it is through Jesus that we avoid going to hell? How do you account for people who have never heard about Jesus, and henceforth cannot follow his teachings? By religious 'logic', they will go to hell for not following Jesus, which isn't exactly a fair system imposed by the almighty.
And as for the problem of hell, how can you claim that your god is a loving, caring figure when he sends people to an eternity of punishment for a crime in a finite lifetime. God loves us so he sends us to burn for the rest of time? And then for what reasons do we go to hell? If you don't believe in God then you go to hell. Firstly, if true, God is an extremely egotistical narcissistic arsehole, and secondly, some people just can't believe in God. Some atheists wish they could believe but just can't find the belief within themselves. So they want to, but since they can't, off to the fire and brimstone they go. And then again, my point earlier of those who have never heard of God, or were brought up in a different religion. Off to burn you go. I don't understand how anyone can say that God loves all people equally but sends anyone who doesn't adhere to his rules to suffer for eternity.Bingo! God's love and greatness and wisdom and patience - all of it - is rendered nonsense (and psychologically damaging to try to obey or understand) by ANY notion of hell, wrath, judgment or any other "divine" consequence or auditor, and likewise by anything but PERFECT equity of all fleshly blessings, and lastly by suffering of any kind under a perfect and loving god "Yyyyeah, I see all your hunger and cancer and blindness and disabilities, but see, Big J an' I tee off pretty soon, sooo.....
Well, don't you have free will now? You have a right to follow which god you choose. God is offering us the gift of salvation which we either accept or don't out of our free will. It is also out of our own free will whether to go to hell or not. Can God force someone to repent? No. Therefore someone unrepentant goes to hell because they are consumed with sin. Good people won't reject God when they see Jesus one day and know the full truth. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about.
As I said, when we face Jesus one day and see the truth we will have the opportunity to accept Him or not. How can that not be the case when there are many who have never heard of Him or others rejected Christianity out of ignorance of Him?
Read again...never said that God sends people to hell. Can an unrepentant paedophile enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Should a paedophile stay in society? Sin is what separates us from God and hell is the separation from God.
So you have the wrong idea of God and that isn't surprising. Many Christians, especially fundamentalists love threatening people with hell. If I was threatened with hell if I didn't become a Christian I'd tell them to get knotted.You are basically arguing that Hell is a choice, not a punishment. If that were so, it would be unreasonable for God to give ignorant and flawed creatures such as human beings the responsibility over our eternal destinies. If God was so loving, why would he eternally damn someone for a decision made under the wrong circumstances, such as being depressed or forced.
I understand your argument, but it's flawed and contradictory, and you evidently don't understand what is wrong with it.
The idea that you have to believe in God or suffer eternal damnation, even if it is a choice of the individual or not, is a scare tactic that forces people to believe in God. Basically God is saying "You can believe in me or not, completely your choice, but if you don't you're going to suffer for all eternity". The problem with this is firstly, that shows God is a cruel being with some twisted ideas. He gives us a choice of either believe in him or eternal torture? I'd hardly say that's a fair choice. Secondly, God never says "You have a choice to believe in me or not". On the contrary, the second commandment states "You shall have no other gods before me", meaning you can only follow God and no other god, which goes against your argument. By this then, God is saying "You have no choice, you must believe in me" which means God is evil in that he demands worship on the threat of eternal damnation.
On your argument of that we will one day see Jesus and people will be saved, the problem of this is firstly, Jesus is dead. It is physically impossible for a man to come back to life after 2000 years of being dead, and makes even less sense if Jesus never actually existed, although most scholars agree he did. Secondly, we have the opportunity to accept Jesus 'when' he returns. So when is that? This brings into argument my previous point about those who have never heard of Jesus or God or followed other religions. For over 2000 years, Jesus has not returned to show us the truth, so all those within those 2000 years who had never heard of him or followed other gods are now burning in hell for not accepting Jesus. And how much longer will Jesus wait? Another 2000 years? Another 2000 years worth of good, honest people will suffer in hell simply because they didn't know of Jesus or had other prophets and gods to follow. When he returns we have the opportunity to accept him or not? Firstly, who's going to say no? Salvation or hell? Hardly a choice is it. Secondly, all those who had died long before Jesus finally returned, they didn't get the opportunity, so they can continue to burn in a lake of fire.
So to sum up, if there were a God, he is an evil, arrogant, hateful, and twisted entity with some strange logic.God is completely spiritual. He manifests as the physical creations. BUT he gave US and US alone the freedom to GUIDE our own wills. We can be proactive and develop wisdom and guide ourselves to heaven ... a peaceful state of consciousness... or hell an non-peaceful state of happiness. Jesus represents the former. by followinging Jesus we follow the path to heaven, peace , bliss. There is no argument... only ignorance.
In terms of a theist God, it cannot be completely spiritual. For it to have created the universe and continue to have a role in life it must be a physical entity which can affect the laws of the universe.
Hell is a non-peaceful state of happiness? That's a very oxymoronic statement, and goes against religious teachings of hell, described as a place of eternal suffering, not happiness.
"There is no argument...only ignorance"? The ignorance comes from the religious, who ignore scientific fact and critical thinking, and oppress society into believing what they think. Just by the religious saying that God gave us free will to decide how we live our lives, but that we have to use that free will to follow him or go to hell, is a way of scaring people into believing what the religious believe, whilst at the same time trying to present themselves as accepting of all beliefs.Well, No one is stopping You from creating a life of misery or forcing You to be happy, right? No One unless you buy into it. You do not ave to accept anything you do not want to! And God gives us that freedom. If Some one else tries to take it away from us we can always get it back... But Obama has a lot of force behind him. Its gonna take a lot of force to fight back and we better.
I agree that we need to pay attention to the discoveries of science. Anti theism is an honest approach and is better than GUESSING about everything.
so, How will Jesus help the fight that Claire E. has mentioned as far as loosing our wills to the government... and apparently the ability to have our own thinking!???? This really is quite interesting. How will Jesus help us combat such an occurrence and where does she get this info? Revelations I suppose. How can Jesus lead the battle. How?
Well, hell is a punishment whether you choose it or not. However, there are some people who are incapable of repenting. They just cannot because they are so evil. The result of that choice is the punishment of hell. You aren't reading my comments properly. In death we shall know the truth. There will be no more ignorance. So no person can reject God out of ignorance.
The thing is, it's not that you are being damned because you haven't chosen God over a myraid of gods. It is only Him and Satan. So choosing the one is rejecting the other. Since God is trying to save us from hell, is it not appropriate to say "you shall have no gods before me"? Although that, of course, it not how God would say this. He doesn't tell us what to do.
Yes, it is physically impossible for us to just to come back 2000 years later after death but Jesus is the son of God. He did not ascend into heaven with a body that can decompose and slain. His new body was immortal. It is no longer the body He had when He was killed by crucifixion.
I'm not going to repeat myself because you clearly are ignoring some of my points. No one goes to hell out of ignorance because they never knew Jesus. Upon death, they will see Jesus and automatically know he is the son of God. Jesus can reveal the truth of Him in death.
Jesus cannot come to earth unless the time is right. When He returns there will be no good people on earth. He will come to fight evil. Once the New World Order has been firmly established, people will no longer have a mind of their own literally. Their consciousness will be downloaded off a database and will be programmed to think and do at the will of the programmer. If you want more info about this scientific plan, just say.
So Jesus will come soon.Ok, I want more info about that scientific plan.
What is the matter with you?!! How is every piece of rational, logical thinking and argument I give to you going straight over your idiotic and ignorant mind? You're just repeating the same flawed, ridiculous, nonsensical ,mindbogglingly irrational ideas, and I reply with competent and logical rebuttals of your idiocy, and you ignore all of it! Do you not see the stupidity, the irrationality, the herculean oddity and ridiculousness of your claims! It annoys me greatly to see that this is what religion does to people, turns them into truth-denying, superstitious, babbling morons who would lose a rational argument to a piece of roadkill!
Scientific plan? SCIENTIFIC!!! Nothing you claim is in any way scientific! You have no evidence or logical argument to back up this cesspit of fallacy! Just monumentally flawed reasoning!Be careful, Sir H... You are supposed to be pleasant and helpful in these forums. Can you restate all you have said in a calmer manner? Shouting is not allowed by capitalizing words. I just found all this out.
I think it would be a good exercise for you. (sorry this is the teacher in me. You can tell be to go... u no where.)I don't apologize for my words, and have lost the will to continue debating, it's getting nowhere.
OK, do you mind if I give it a try? Here goes: " How is it that every piece of rational and logical argument I give you is going straight over your head?
I reply with competent and logical rebuttals and you ignore all of it. Do you not see the the irrationality of your claims? ( Concrete examples are needed.)
It annoys me greatly to see that this is what religion does to people. It causes them to be superstitious and truth-denying. These people cannot win a rational argument with anyone." 1 By TMD Hemsely, edited without permission by Kathryn L Hill. I hope he does not mind. I couldn't resist. But, I do like his points. And where is that Scientific Plan, Claire? I am still curiousBy the way, I meant un-peaceful state of consciousness, not happiness.( see above. That is hell. sorry. ) Like anybody is reading or comprehending at this point.
How can religion be debated in a logical manner? The Holy Spirit cannot be explained rationally and I never claimed it could. So you think you are providing a rebuttal but you only believe so because you don't understand these matters.
There is no scientific evidence for the faith in Christianity.
So if you are looking for a scientific discussion on this subject then you aren't going to find it.The problem arises when Christians try to control science. An example would be trying to get intelligent design taught in science class. It's when Christians step over the line into science that the people of science have the right to step over the line into religion and show believers the flaws that they don't see. You see Heady trying to convince himself and other that genesis is flawless by using science. Science whoever does not care about religion it just wants the truth. When confronted with the truth the religious dismisses the evidence because it contradicts what they believe. We end up with people believing the world is only a few thousand years old in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it's much older. Religions tell people what they must believe and teach them NOT to think for themselves. Christians start the brain washing on the very young. Catholics are taught to chant The Apostle's Creed every time you go to mass. The simple act of chanting the words over and over is enough for your brain to think it true. Being told to chant the prayer below is brain washing and if you think the Catholic church doesn't know it you'd be sadly mistaken and sadly brainwashed.
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.In this case, Catholic means Universal. In the end, science will acknowledge Christ. There will be proof enough on the day of his return. Your bold assertions are proof that the day is near.
DNA is an example of intelligent design and DNA is taught in schools. It only is wrong to say God did it in a science class. Likewise when evolution is taught it is not taught that it rules out the existence of God because it is only concerned with how life evolved and not how it came about in the first place.
I don't believe the earth is just a few thousands years old. Only brain-washed people do. There is no point in reciting any creed without meaning it. Many blindly do and that leads to brain-washing.DNA is not an example of intelligent design. Intelligent Design is not a scientific approach, it is pseudoscientific psychobabble and is a religious view, not a scientific one, and should have no role in the education system. It basically takes the scientific laws of the universe and says "God did it", and lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and tries to explain history and life as we know it in scientifically untestable supernatural ideas. You talking about Intelligent Design is interesting as the advocates of ID describe it as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" (which it isn't) rather than "a religious-based idea" (which it is), but you say science cannot explain religious beliefs and the supernatural?
No, evolution is not taught to rule out the existence of God, but it is an argument against God in that it explains how life can evolve through darwinian natural selection, a process well understood and a better explanation then a divine creator. Evolution is not concerned with how life came about in the first place, that may very well have been another process such as panspermia, but we don't know how life came about, but to jump to the conclusion of God did it, based on no reasoning or evidence, is illogical.
Your second paragraph is rather amusing and ironic to me. Young-Earth creationists are brain-washed and wrong, but those who believe everything was created by divine being with no evidence to support its existence as well as a number of strange supernatural phenomenon are not brain washed? You have much evidence for your views as young-earth creationists do, none, and your ideas are just as odd. I'm curious, why are young-earth creationists (who I agree are wrong) wrong to you?
Oh I've never heard that argument before! Such a cowardly and ridiculous argument, your just trying to avoid having to defend your beliefs!
I know you can't explain the Holy Spirit rationally, because its an absurd belief, it's wrong. You can't just say that your beliefs are outside the realm of science, because firstly, nothing is, and secondly, many religious beliefs are to do with literal physical acts rather than spiritual or metaphorical ideas. For God to have created the universe and continue to have a role in it, it must be a physical entity that can affect physical laws, and as such if he were real, he could be explained through science. Jesus rose from the dead? Humans are biologically incapable of coming back to life after being dead for a few days, and henceforth this could not occur. But it's a remarkable piece of illogic to say "my beliefs are religious beliefs, so they can't be explained by science". Besides, it's not up to the scientist to explain or disprove your beliefs, it's up to you to provide evidence and logical reason for believing what you do, otherwise they can be ignored as wrong and ridiculous.
On the point of science however, if science did prove some religious belief to be correct, the religious would be all over that proof! You ignore science when it doesn't support you but I'm damn sure you'd be all over science when it proves you right!I wonder what ill fated catastrophe has made you so bitter. The river that flows from the throne of God is sweet. Drink deep and be healed of your hurt.
No ill fated catastrophe had made me bitter, and I'm not bitter. I live a happy, good, moral life, but I recognise the dangerous influence religion has on society.
Let me know when you wake up from your nap.
...
not a nap just a logical informed position.
Does't sound bitter to me, but you sound condescending.
Chill out. The Holy Spirit can only be revealed to individuals who want the Holy Spirit. So as much as you think the Holy Spirit is wrong it just isn't true.
The supernatural cannot be explained by science so science cannot explain everything. I don't know why you think God has to be a physical deity to create the universe. Also God is a generic name. What kind of God created the universe? Some people believe God is the universe!
Normal humans cannot rise from the dead but Jesus was the son of God. He could do it.
So you can think I'm ridiculous. I believe you are wasting your time with me.I'm starting to think I am wasting my time with you, you don't seem to know how to debate and argue properly. Whilst I am putting forward my views, reasons, and arguments for my views and against yours, you are simply restating your view as though that somehow backs up your assertion, or not explaining or arguing your case at all.
"The supernatural cannot be explained by science so science cannot explain everything" - You need to explain why, not simply say that it is so. Supernatural occurrences are generally physical acts, such as a man coming back to life or turning water into wine, and being physical ideas that supposedly happened they need to be explained, something science could do if they were real happenings. Science can't explain the supernatural simply because there is no evidence or proof of the supernatural, so there is nothing to prove or explain.
"I don't know why you think God has to be a physical deity to create the universe" - I touched on why, so if that went over your head either re-read my argument or forget it, it is more or less similar to the one above.
"What kind of God created the universe? Some people believe God is the universe!" - Interestingly here you are providing a point that makes more sense against you rather than support you. Some do believe God is the universe, they're called pantheists, who firstly, are irrelevant to my arguments because I am trying to argue against a theistic god, and secondly, they don't believe in an anthropomorphic, personal god like you, but that the every single thing in the universe is part of God, basically that the universe and god are one and the same (on pantheism, they generally don't believe that a God created the universe). Asking what kind of God created the universe goes against you because you presumably believe in the God of Christianity, but that's only because that is the God you were either brought up to believe in or is part of your culture and so came to believe in it at some point. Why not believe in Allah? Odin? Osiris? Thor? Zeus? Apollo? Brahma? Anubis? or any of the approximately 3000 gods who have been found in scripture and who were believed in by peoples at various points and places in history. There is the same lack of evidence for every god ever conceived, so believing in God is just as irrational as believing that Athena was born from the head of Zeus or that Anubis would weigh the hearts of the dead against a feather to determine your place in the afterlife.
"Normal humans cannot rise from the dead but Jesus was the son of God. He could do it." - Evidence for this claim? Rationale behind believing this? "Jesus was the son of God. He could do it" is not providing proof nor is it backing up your claim, that IS your claim. That point makes a premise which requires God to exist, and opens up a whole another can of worms to explain and argue. Death is the cease of biological functions, and as such cells die. Unlike certain species such as the Hydra which are biologically immortal due to regenerative abilities which prevent them from aging or dying of old age, Humans cannot undergo such processes, and when they die, that's it. Operating under the premise that there is no God, then Jesus cannot be the son of God, meaning he is a normal human, and as such is dead, never to return. By the principle of Occam's razor, this is a much simpler explanation then yours and henceforth more likely to be true.
So yes I can, will, and do think you're ridiculous, but I would say there is much more reason for me to say that those beliefs are ridiculous then to say that
Most people who make your argument miss a couple of key points. The first is that God exists. If He doesn't, then this is all a waste of time. The second is that He is completely Good and completely Holy, meaning that Heaven, a place where people can actually view His face, cannot have beings in it who are not either of those things.
God takes depression and mental imbalance into account.
Of course I understand that you don't believe in God, but the argument you make against His existence still lacks a fundamental understanding of why we should choose not to go to hell. If it's a real place, that's not the worst beginning I could think of. If God does exist, then you can marshall all the intellectual and free-will arguments you want, it won't make any difference.I miss out the key point that God exists? Firstly, if that were a key point I had to take into consideration, I wouldn't be arguing that he didn't exist, and there wouldn't be this debate. Secondly, there is no proof, no evidence, no rational reason behind the existence of a creator. Arguing his existence is only a waste of time in the sense that the religious individuals arguing for his existence fail to see reason and fail to understand scientific and logical arguments against God.
People can keep saying that God is completely good and completely holy, but that still means you have to reconcile this idea of God's benevolence with the idea of hell, which is most certainly not a loving place, and the huge amount of suffering in the world. Many are born into the horrors of poverty, war, and disease, living their whole lives in perpetual anguish and dying only knowing pain and suffering. If there was a caring, good God, why would he let these crimes happen? There is a good quote by the philosopher Epicurus that nicely looks at this problem:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
You can say God takes depression and mental imbalance into account, but you do need to argue that point. You can't just say a point outright, it in no way backs up your argument.
I understand very well why we should choose not to go to hell, if it exists and if it's our choice. A place of infinite torture and suffering for crimes in a finite lifetime, it makes perfect sense why people would rather go to heaven, a place of infinite peace and love, than hell. But that's irrelevant, my argument concerns how the existence of hell is incompatible with the idea of a benevolent God. No my arguments won't make a difference if there is a God, but the opposite applies to you. Also if there is a God, and he is good and loving, he would surely let people into heaven not because of their faith and belief in him, but by the virtuous way they have lived their lives and the good they have done.
On that point, let me put it to you. I am a moral person, I have never attacked anyone, never killed anyone, I have never broken the law, and have lived my life by good values that I have come to myself and lets say I continue to be like this until I die. However, I am an anti-theist. I've never believed in God and I believe it would be bad if he did exist, and am out spoken on my opposition to organised religion and religious beliefs. According to religious beliefs, will I go to heaven or hell when I die?Your basic point is that if God can prevent evil He should. The corrolary is that the only way He can do that is to make us not human. Which would make Him evil. So then you get to have it both ways, damned if He do and damned if He don't.
That makes no sense. He could have made us all humans with no evil. How does that make Him evil?
I actually agree with you here, ATM. I'll be sure to note this momentous occasion on the calendar!
According to Genesis, He did make humans that were not evil, or capable of evil (Gen1). It's the knowledge of good and evil, or free will, that makes that possible, and that was introduced in Adam/Eve (Gen2).
Not giving humans free will would not make God evil. It just means humans would continue to exist much like some tribal cultures still do today. We'd hunt/gather or practice limited small-scale horticulture, and we'd be content with the simple pleasures of life, living harmoniously in nature. But we also wouldn't have a rover on Mars right now.You certainly don't know that for fact as I'm sure there are many other alternatives.
What a rover on Mars has to do with that is exceptionally baffling.( ..... that is exceptionally baffling" (?????.....))"
Does that happen often?No, I don't know that for fact. But there is substantial evidence that supports it, and there certainly aren't very many convincing alternatives.
The rover to Mars is the latest example of our need to understand. The Sumerians were the inventors of civilization and were also the first astronomers. The appearance of free will, or the human ego, is what I believe got things going, and I think that started with Adam in an already populated world. When humans stopped living harmoniously with nature and began to chart their own course.
Sumerian civilization first sparked not long after the arrival of nomadic, semetic-speaking people from the desert. Same thing in Egypt. Then in the Indus Valley. The list of inventions that first appeared in Sumer is staggering. They built the first cities with a centralized government and laws. Where violent deaths and war-like behavior was virtually non-existent for tens of thousands of years of human history, from Sumer on it's been the norm. There was a fundamental change that impacted humanity significantly in that time and place, that appears to have started right after those desert nomads arrived. Changes that spread from there and affected all but those not so easily accessible from Eurasia; Africa south of the Sahara, Australia, island-bound cultures, North/South America.
This is exactly what Genesis says happened at Babel. Descendants of Adam/Noah, carrying that free will/ego/knowledge of good and evil gene and a unified language, got dispersed in all directions when they began building a city and a tower out of mud-fired bricks. This mirrors the populations in Mesopotamia that got dispersed around 3900 BC when the Sahara transformed into a desert, sending them into already settled regions along the Tigris/Euphrates and Nile rivers just before the boom of civilization.
This may sound crazy to you, but it sure would explain a lot.No evidence of the sort has come to light, unless you have it?
I don't know if it's crazy or not, but it certainly doesn't explain the rover on Mars.It's the same evidence everyone else has. I'm not eluding to some little-known, or newly learned stuff. Many are on board with the idea of the desertification of the Sahara sparking civilization and many agree that it's the arrival of these nomadic tribes that seems to have sparked it. If you like I can provide you with the specifics. In fact, a good resource where you can find a lot of detail all in one place on this topic is in a book by Steve Taylor called The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era. He suggests it's the onset of desert conditions that caused a kind of social pathology in humanity. I think it's the free will described in Genesis. The traits he associates to pathological behavior can also be explained by the onset of the ego, which is what he's suggesting as well. He just doesn't tie it to Genesis.
The rover on Mars is our need to explore and understand, stemming from our self-awareness in relation to the physical world around us. That started in the same region/era as civilization by the same people. The Sumerians were the first to begin tracking and trying to understand the heavens. tribal cultures were, and still are, content. We're not. We haven't been for a long time. Again, the emergence of the ego.Evidence. The evidence indicates that humans have been farming and killing each other for over 60,000 years and that's just what we have evidence of. You dismiss this as an isolated incidence, but isolated or not it proves you wrong. Evidence.
60,000 years based on just one parameter of testing? Seems a bit naive to believe that evidence is infallible. And it doesn't prove HvN wrong, it just suggests another avenue of exploration leading to a conclusion. One that does not seem so far from possible. Environmental changes force migration, eating habits, longevity and population shifts, sizes. Just look at the midwestern US right now.
Radiocarbon, potassium-argon or even uranium-lead cannot state the ages of these as infallible. They are using a method they have tested and believe to be accurate. For all we know, it could be completely incorrect. A meteor shower could completely change the parameters of the levels of carbon, radiation, etc, throwing the entire thing off. Heck, even today's high frequency radio signals, electric usage and noise pollution are interrupting the flow of information, changing the atmosphere, isotopes etc.
Makes more sense to keep an open approach.
James.First off, humans have not been farming for 60,000 years. More like 10,000. Second, even the references you cut/pasted in our previous conversation don't say what you're saying. With the exception of one contested occurrence from around 11,000 BC, and another that just appears to be a typo since the rest of the paragraph is referencing evidence that suggests the absence of warfare during the Neolithic (small towns not fortified to resist attack/lack of evidence of warfare in burial remains), the rest supports what I'm trying to point out.
The evidence strongly supports what I'm saying and the majority of experts in the field agree. Whether or not this indicates the emergence of the human ego, or whether or not there's any correlation with Genesis, is still very much debatable, but the general disposition of hunter/gatherer and early horticultural humans is pretty widely accepted as being rather peaceful.We all agree that agriculture, along with the domestication of animals, produced the most important change in human culture since the last ice age.
The Fertile Crescent of the Middle East has been established as being the homeland of farmers. Einkorn wheat was first domesticated from a wild species around 11,000 years ago. This date has been established both with radiocarbon dating and genetic studies.
The Farming and herding in this area at that time brought the growth of large, settled human populations and increasing competition for productive lands, touching off organized warfare. The extra food freed people to develop crafts like textiles and supported the privileged bureaucrats and soldiers in the new cities.
Your numbers are way off and the Mayans and the cultures before the Mayans did the same, completely independent of what was happening on the other side of the world.
At best 11,000 years ago. This does not line up with Genesis, so if you were truly honest you'd be open to this information and study it and not dismiss it as you always do.Slight correction, Rad Man, Farro is the parent grain of Einkorn. Farro is genetically said to be millions of years old, but no one knows for certain. No one knows for certain how long it has been cultivated. The same grain is indigenous to Europe, Caucus and the Americas. More so is Barley, which can grow in the Arctic {ice age scenario} and Ethiopia {equatorial scenario}. What you might be thinking of, as far as cultivation could be Kamut or even Teff, which was essential to the Nile region diet.
JamesNope,
"A team of European scientists, led by Dr. Manfred Heun of the Agricultural University of Norway in As, reported these findings in the current issue of the journal Science. The researchers analyzed the DNA from 68 lines of cultivated einkorn wheat, Triticum monococcum monococcum, and from 261 wild einkorn lines, T.m. boeoticum, still growing in the Middle East and elsewhere."
Moreover, the particular kind of grain is irrelevant to the argument. The timeframe is what is relevant.I do like the new picture James. The old one looked like you were stuck in the 70s.
The old one was a poster of Dorian Gray. But thanks!
Trust me, Rad Man, I've studied it. I continually study it. And I agree that "if you're honest, you'd be open to this information". That goes both ways.
You're exactly right that the timeframe is what is relevant. And you're also right on many counts here. Horticulture, and I'm stressing the difference between horticulture and agriculture, began around 8-9000 BC. I am not arguing against this date range. It still falls right in line with Genesis. Pre-Adam. In fact, check this out ....
"When major climate change took place after the last ice age (c. 11,000 BC), much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture
So as a result of climate change, at the beginning of a series of dry seasons, the conditions made for abundant plantlife that produced a lot of seeds, which led directly to the discovery of horticulture and the first human settlements.
Gen1:29 - And God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Now, the key here is what really happened between 9000 BC and 4000 BC. Like I said before, the horticultural period was not one of war and violence. They lived very much like modern indigenous cultures still do. There was no accumulating possessions or material goods. Sharing was the standard. There was no inequality between the sexes. While there was division of labor, there was no social stratification. And there was no war-like behavior of any kind. Burial sites showed equality and the absence of weapons. They used weapons to hunt, but there was no regard for warriors or fighters like what came later.
There are many that go with the assumption that horticulture led to agriculture led to social interaction- invention - cities - civilization. But this is historically inaccurate. There's a lot of archaeological evidence from that long horticultural era. There were villages in Europe with populations in the thousands. It's sometimes dubbed "Old Europe". Lots of population, modest advancements, no defense walls, no war or battles. And also no gradual progression towards the civilizations to come that you'd expect to see if it were truly an evolution of sorts.
"Like many sociologists, [Gerhard] Lenski sees these new societies as the result of "social evolution", a natural progression which occurred as the simple horticulturalists gradually accumulated more knowledge and technological skill. But in historical terms this wasn't the case. As we've seen, it wasn't so much a question of a development from one kind of society to another, as of one being supplanted by the other, as the Old World peoples were invaded and conquered by the war-like Saharasian peoples." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
It wasn't a progression. It all came when the humans from the desert showed up. Semetic and Indo-European nomads....
"Archaeologists have never been able to conclusively answer the question of who the original Egyptians and Sumerians were. But evidence clearly suggests that the Egyptians who "civilised" the Nile region were immigrants from the desert areas. As Brian Griffith points out, in North Africa recorded history begins against the background of mass migrations out of a growing desert. He notes that "pre-dynastic Egyptians were a jumbled assortment of tribes, many of them recent arrivals from the deserts." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
If you look into the Indus Valley culture, you'll see a very similar story. It's the behavioral characteristics that are key here. These people from the desert were vastly different than the hunter-gatherer/horticultural humans. They were aggressive, possessive, and everywhere they went sexual inequality and social stratification went with them. And so did inventions and advancements in skill and war.
The Mayans are a tough one. For a long time they seemed to fly right in the face of my whole view. But there's something strange there. What's most striking about all of those 'new world' civilizations are the similarities with cultures way on the other side of the world, specifically ancient Chinese cultures....
"[James DeMeo] speculates that Saharasian peoples may have arrived in the north-west Pacifici first - possibly from Japan or China - and migrated southwards, displacing matrist cultures and painting further spots of patrism over the general background of matrism, until they reached middle America and then Peru. Evidence for this includes cultural similarities between Indians of the Pacific north-west and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums and diet) and linguistic similarities. At the same time, there are cultural and linguistic similarities between the three patrist areas of the Americas, suggesting that the peoples are related."
"The Olmec culture flourished in Mexico from around 1200 to 400 BC and is usually seen as the "mother culture" of all the middle American civilizations. The Olmecs built the first temples and religious centres in the region, and developed a rudimentary kind of state, in which an elite group ruled over a mass of peasant labourers. [Chinese archaeologist H.M. Xu] argues that the Olmecs sailed to Mexico from China after the fall of the Shang dynasty in 1122 BC. He notes that around this time about 250,000 people disappeared, and suggests that at least some of these traveled to America. This explains the presence of what appear to be Chinese symbols in Olmec written records, and strong similarities in art, architecture, religion, and astronomical knowledge."
As I said before, this all lines up with Genesis. 1656 years passed between Adam's creation and the flood. Babel a century later. Somewhere in the first century after Adam's creation, Cain was cast out and he later built a city. Eridu, a Sumerian city, was established around 5300 BC. Then a flood in the Sumerian city of Ur ended the Ubaid culture around 4000 BC, then came the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC) that spawned the massive migrations that led to the dawn of civilization a short time later in Sumer (again), then Egypt, then the Indus Valley. Fun fact, Abraham's father was from Ur.I've showed you that there is plenty of evidence people were farming, and killing each other long before you say they should have been. Why you even think this thing you call free will would start wars and farming is beyond me. Do you think humans are the only animals that kill each other or attack other tribes?
I said, way back when I pointed out that the limited examples of violent death are statistically negligible, in that same sentence, that it's on par and not unlike what can be seen in the animal kingdom.
200,000 years of human history. Hundreds of millions of humans. Plenty of social interaction, dense populations, and adverse conditions. And out of all of that you only pointed to one isolated incident that falls outside of the timeframe I'm specifying, and even that one was noted as being contested as being signs of battle in the very text you included.
If it were like you say, then there should be countless examples. Think about the span of time we're talking about here. Think about the sheer number of humans involved, in every conceivable environment.
And I'm not contesting farming. There's a big distinction between horticulture, rummaging through the woods gathering seeds to bring back and plant near your settlement (which Genesis specifically talks about), and the agricultural practices the Sumerians invented and used before anyone else. They practiced large-scale agriculture, used crop-rotation, tracked seasons using calendars they invented, irrigation. Big difference.
I assume you agree humans descend from the same ancestry as the rest of the animal kingdom? And I assume you agree that humans are now distinctly different than animals in our self-awareness and ability to reason? So it stands to reason that you would agree that somewhere along the way we changed in a way that the rest of the animal kingdom has not.
That self-awareness that makes us realize we're naked unlike any other species. That self-awareness and reason humans use to decide we want or deserve that land more than those people. Or that we need to hoard and protect material possessions. Free will/ego means we can imagine solutions to problems and create them. Like better farming practices. The wheel. Calendars. Razors. Beer. Plows. Written language. Or mud-fired bricks, towers, and cities....
Gen 11:3-6 - And they said one to another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
4 And they said, “Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built.
6 And the Lord said, “Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do."Chimpanzees, our closest primate relatives, engage in war-like behavior to gain territory, new research finds.
The findings, published in the latest issue of Current Biology, explain why chimpanzees sometimes brutally kill their neighbors. The killings are most often done by patrolling packs of male chimps that are "quiet and move with stealth," according to lead author John Mitani of the University of Michigan."
http://news.discovery.com/animals/chimp … avior.html
It must suck to always be wrong.
"Battles among ants can be startlingly similar to human military operations"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … art-of-war
You are just wrong, wrong wrong. Even ants go to war. We like the Ant and the Chimp are but creatures of the earth we just happen to be better at sharing information.So, instead of providing what must be copious amounts of evidence of human on human warfare, you give me this? We're talking about 200,000 years and millions and millions of humans. You should be able to list examples for days if I'm so wrong.
I did and you dismissed it as you dismiss evidence that we are not alone in warfare as you claim. Dismiss it... go ahead. Chimps have warfare. Dismiss it...
I've showed you humans have been killing each other for as long as we have been farming (where ever we have farmed) and for much much longer then you admit and then I've showed you we humans are not along in warfare.
Are you going to lie to yourself as well as to others?You did no such thing. You gave one example, which I acknowledged. Cemetery 117. Dated approximately 13,140 to 14,340 years old. 59 bodies found, over half female. "40%", or 23-24 bodies, appear to have died of violent wounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_117
One example, just over 20 bodies. And, just as I'm saying for a third time now, on par with what can be found in the animal kingdom. This includes ants and chimps. The point is, there was no distinction between human behavior and animal behavior as far as violence is concerned.
And it's not just me saying this....
"For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Richard Gabriel, anthropologist
In regards to the idea that the agricultural revolution led to warfare...
"the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic" - Riane Eisler, American scholar
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gatherer era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." Steve Taylor, Psychology lecturer, author of The Fall
Matrist cultures - "democratic, egalitarian, sex-positive and possess very low levels of adult violence"
Patrist cultures - "tend to inflict pain and trauma upon infants and young children subordinate the female possess high levels of adult violence"
"There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE." - James DeMeo, Geographer, Natural Scientist
An actual question? Be still my heart! The answer is that if He made us "humans with no evil" we wouldn't actually be human. We'd be robots with flesh. If you can't actually chose to do bad, you also aren't actually capable of doing good. If you can't choose not to love somebody, you can't choose to love them, and if you can't choose whether to love them or not then you can't really love them, you can only slavishly offer up what you're incapable of not offering. So the point remains.
Yes, we would, because as you say, God can do whatever he wants. Obviously, that is no longer true when it comes to creating humans.
Believers already are robots with flesh. You are told what to believe, programmed by indoctrination.
Sorry, but that makes no sense, one does not necessarily have to rely on the other. One can do good and never have to do bad.
Sorry, but what does love have to do with choosing good and evil. That makes no sense.
Of course, all of your responses now rely on your previous answer that God can do whatever he wants, hence your points are moot.
See how that works?
Now this is the ATM I remember so well!
Good to have you back, haven't had a laugh like that in a while!
That really doesn't make any sense. Firstly, I admire your attempt to simplify my entire argument into one small point. My basic point is not that if he can prevent evil he should, but that the concept of a good, omnipotent God is incompatible with religious doctrine of the idea of a hell, the way in which you go to either heaven or hell, and the suffering apparent in society.
Why is making us not human the only way he can prevent evil? That statement implies that humans are inherently evil, which firstly, is very much untrue, and secondly doesn't make sense, as why would God create a species that is evil? That immediately raise the point that God himself must be malevolent. And if that were the only way he can prevent evil, that would mean he is not an omnipotent being. Furthermore, I don't understand how that would make him evil. So he prevents evil by making us not human, ergo he is evil? That is just confusing and senseless.
If you feel one of my points doesn't make sense to one of yours, its probably because your whole statement was nonsensical and illogical.I would have to go back and read it at this point to remember whether I was attempting to simplify your statement or simply commenting on a trend I've seen. However, I would have to disagree with your assessment of human beings. I don't care what history or at what point or what kind of history you're studying, if there's anything that even hints at any inherent perfectability in man, I've yet to see it.
I never implied that humanity is perfect. As someone with significant understanding and knowledge of human history, I very much see that humans are a flawed and destructive species, but we are not all inherently evil. We are all capable of evil acts, but doesn't mean we all commit them or desire to be evil.
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the belief that humanity is perfect, but the belief (whether you have this belief or not) that humanity can be perfected.
Human beings are born with a bent towards doing bad things. We just are. You can call it what you want, but the fact is that most people, even if they don't want to hurt other people per se, still want to do things that hurt other people, or themselves. We call it freedom, and I'm certainly no different, but that's the way it is.Perhaps, you are describing yourself to a tee, but your own behavior and how you wish to live your life certainly doesn't apply to the rest of us. No, we don't want to hurt people as you say you want to hurt people.
But, we can see that the indoctrinated will learn their behaviors from the dogma they receive, and it certainly does show that what they read is what they believe and how they will behave to others.Well, at least you are consistent in missing my point....
But that's what I've learned to love so much about you!
LOL! It is not a key point that God exists, it is a key point that no gods have ever been shown to exist. Please try to get facts straight and not preclude them with your personal beliefs, which is where the time is really being wasted.
Obviously, he doesn't exist and hell is not a real place. Simple, isn't it, and aligns quite nicely with reality, too.And the fact that you state categorically that it's not is all the proof I need, right! Hallelujah! I make you guru now!
Aging is what I was talking about. If increased atmospheric pressure extended human lifespans, then it would have done the same for everything. And if the lifespans of everything were increased ten-fold at any point in history, I would think that would reflect in the fossil record.
I agree that science can greatly inform the creation account. The problem with this idea is that there is over 2 billion years between the last time there was a significant amount of water trapped in the atmosphere and the existence of animals. At one time, before the surface of the Earth cooled, what eventually became the oceans sat trapped in the atmosphere as vapor. The oceans formed when the surface cooled enough to allow the water vapor to condense.
The creation account does line up remarkably well with the scientific account of Earth's history. I've got hub that illustrates it. Verses 6-8 correspond well with the formation of our oxygenated atmosphere and the establishment of the Earth's water cycle, which both happened following the formation of the oceans.
The majority of Sumerian deities were always depicted as fully human in form. Enki was sometimes depicted as half goat/ half fish, but most times he's depicted as being human in form as well.I think this really shows that human beings, even back when the Old Testament was written, were way more observant and logical than perhaps we give them credit for.
And none of us are figments of our own imaginations.
I think it is amazing that dinosaur bones and our own bones are so similar in design! I also think it is a little fishy! Also all animals have elbows and knees and ribcages etc. Some people say the elephant has two sets of knees... but an elephant skeleton shows elbows as well. The extra set of "knees" might be where the shoulders are... even chicken wings have thumb bones... How does science explain the similarities. evolution? or a divine blueprint. another thing... if we only use a small part of our brain... and have potential for using more, was the human brain utilized to a greater extent in the past?? Have we de-evelved? it does seem like we are ever so stupid.
Although, tomorrow, Aug 5th, a rover will touch down on Mars. It is the most advanced machine ever sent to another planet and will be sending data back to a 350 member team of international scientists. It has one arm and weighs 1,989 lbs. Its mission is to climb up mountains 3 miles high to to determine if there was life on Mars when the planet was warmer and wetter and if microbial life can be found. The smart guys over at JPL call it a geologist on wheels. Its name is Curiosity. It was launched in November of 2011
Yay! Scientists! for using more of their brains than the rest of us.Of course it's a little fishy! The fish came before most of us (animals)! It's fishier that the Bible never speaks of dinosaurs (as far as I know). Though they were here much longer than any of the current species alive, they have yet to be accounted for.
Well, if animals all evolved from a similar source, it would make sense that we would possess similar features. Not so much a master design, but a set number of variations. As my piano teacher once said, "there are only 88 keys on a keyboard," implying that there can only be so many original melodies.
It's not actually true that we only use 10% of our brains (or only a small part), with 90% being some wasted void we have yet to find a way to fill. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … se-only-10
In terms of brain power, we're pretty much on top of the animal kingdom.
I don't think we've devolved. Our intellectually capacity has not changed much over thousands of years. What has changed is the amount of knowledge and the amount of skills we continue to past down as a result of our advancing civilization. Take a baby from 5000 BC and raise them today and they will most likely do as well as you or I. They might need to take some medical precautions regarding potential infectious diseases etc though.
Perhaps those scientists heading Curiosity use a tiny bit more of their brains, but they also benefit from collectively using 350 brains all aimed at a single goalThanks for the enlightenment and so speedily! And I agree with your last point. That IS a lot of focus and energy.
I like to imagine that "Some Conscious Energy Source" designed a body for "Itself" and then started experimenting with the dinosaurs... erased that creation and started over with the current experiment. I think our brain is the very brain It designed for Itself. i believe each of us is another manifestation of this 'self'. We are all the same "being"... just another version and another and another... We forget that we are actually a small portion of the ocean of the real. The real being that which we cannot see. It is the metaphysical world... beyond the physical.
It will be very interesting to see what they discover! Maybe more dinosaurs? o.O
Naw... just more microbes... if that. I also like to imagine that earth is the only planet in the galaxy sustaining our life forms. It is just much easier to believe in the invisible Source of Energy behind eveything. If there are other planets of physical lifeforms why haven't we found them yet? They are really far away if there are. I think there are invisible planets of another frequency. Atheists will not believe in that which is not knowable. That is just no fun. BAH.
Ah! But I bet many atheists believe in life on other planets. You should watch Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking if you have not already:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655078/
I think it's still on Netflix.
He provides a pretty good explanation of why we have not found extraterrestrial life yet, why it most likely does exist all over the universe, and even provides the possibility of other universes.
People would be surprised how much more amazing our existence can look based on our current range of scientific knowledge
To me, his explanations and possibilities are much more wondrous than current religious teachings. And being based on scientific theory, much more likely.
By not placing ourselves at the center of existence, the universe becomes a pretty magical place.
He is most concerned, however, with humanity believes its our mission to survive as long as possibility and explore as much of the universe as we can.
That might sound more like science fiction or Star Trek, but he has a very realistic take on it all!is he an athiest? Does he have proof and is that why he believes what he believes?
I'll watch that Hawkings link... thank you very much. I guess theory is proof. It is all beyond me and I am fine with that. It is enough for me to contemplate my own existence. I wish I could remember my past lifetimes. They say that is dangerous, though.
Theory is more of a high probability guess based on all the know facts
I hope you enjoy the episodes!No, I didn't think theory was proof! it is a surmise or a guess!
Check out TMDHemsley's profile. Seems like an interesting young british lad.Reading this chain of comments I'd just thought I'd set something straight. You both say a theory is a guess. Whilst the term in the conventional sense is synonymous with guess, a scientific theory is not the same. It most certainly isn't a guess. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." In terms of science, a hypothesis is a guess or idea, but a theory isn't.
And thank you for the compliment Kathryn! I know 'interesting' isn't a massive compliment but it is to me lol.
God is light, God's power, God's justice, God is a mysterious presence, God is Great, God is great, God knows, God has an order, a partner in the Kingdom of God and not government. Jesus, man, Jesus' death and disease has always haunted keeps.Jesus, were subservient to God, He is the son of God in truth, even if they were too full to control. He wishes he could be alive, and when he came from heaven and earth could?Why they can not navigate on their own in the world, why in God's earth can not eliminate corruption. He's human, like a great but generally human beings.
God is light, God's power, God's justice, God is a mysterious presence, God is Great, God is great, God knows, God has an order, a partner in the Kingdom of God and not government. Jesus, man, Jesus' death and disease has always haunted keeps.Jesus, were subservient to God, He is the son of God in truth, even if they were too full to control. He wishes he could be alive, and when he came from heaven and earth could?Why they can not navigate on their own in the world, why in God's earth can not eliminate corruption. He's human, like a great but generally human beings.
God is light, God's power, God's justice, God is a mysterious presence, God is Great, God is great, God knows, God has an order, a partner in the Kingdom of God and not government. Jesus, man, Jesus' death and disease has always haunted keeps.Jesus, were subservient to God, He is the son of God in truth, even if they were too full to control. He wishes he could be alive, and when he came from heaven and earth could?Why they can not navigate on their own in the world, why in God's earth can not eliminate corruption. He's human, like a great but generally human beings.
God is light, God's power, God's justice, God is a mysterious presence, God is Great, God is great, God knows, God has an order, a partner in the Kingdom of God and not government. Jesus, man, Jesus' death and disease has always haunted keeps.Jesus, were subservient to God, He is the son of God in truth, even if they were too full to control. He wishes he could be alive, and when he came from heaven and earth could?Why they can not navigate on their own in the world, why in God's earth can not eliminate corruption. He's human, like a great but generally human beings.
Why they can not navigate on their own in the world, why in God's earth can not eliminate corruption. He's human, like a great but generally human beings.
He gave us free will. If we follow Jesus, we learn The Way to guide our free will. That Way is toward heaven, yes, as the Yogis say: bliss consciousness. the question is do we want bliss consciousness? We can have peace, joy and happiness with Jesus in our lives. Follow Him or not... it is certainly our choice. Heaven or Hell ... it is certainly our choice. Jesus gave us a Way to be proactive. He gave the west Karma Yoga. But, he was Middle Eastern... dark eyes and hair.
Thank you TMD Hemsley. "confirmed through observation" is really what Caire's original question was about. So, I think we can conclude that the answer to the question posed by Claire is, Yes: If we observe the man, Jesus, perform miracles and explain the nature and science of reality, then we would might actually believe... but we still might not follow Him until we are motivated to do so.... and I am positive that is OK with God and Jesus and all the saints of all religions. They have all eternity and so do we. But of course I am still surmising and hoping it to be so. You win Hemsely.
well, seeing as how proof would mean its absolutely true, yes, atheists would then believe in God. So would every other religion. If there was proof that Mohammad was real and the Quaran was factual, wouldn't you believe in Islam?
Good point.
If there was proof that Santa Claus was real, I would believe in him.And you would be willing to be "good" all year to avoid coal in your christmas socks and no presents?
This is the perfect analogy.It is hard to live for the sake of something else only, (being good for the sake of presents.) Plato explained, "The highest good is that which is for the sake of itself and something else."1 (Plato's Republic ) There would still have to be something truly motivating to one's self about being good (for the sake of itself) in trying to be good all year for Santa, (the something else.) As in... it would be fun to be good! Happiness, actually, comes from doing the right thing for the sake of itself and something else. Especially when it is one's Own Choice.
Hmm?
I observed only that if there was proof that Santa Claus was real, I would believe in him.
Likewise, if there was proof that Lakshmi was real, I would believe in her.Chasuk: I replied to myself because I had more to say. I guess I could just add to what I had already written by going to "more" and then "edit." Also it seems there is no timing issue with the edit capability, right? Thanks.
So anyway, Christians have a way of telling people to be good for the sake of going to heaven and not going to hell. But, this form of preaching is irritating to other people because they feel they are being ordered to follow without question or connection to one's own will. You may not understand this because you were not brought up in a Christian culture. So I am explaining it to you. I keep talking about free choice because for some reason, in our culture, we seem to have this compulsion for obedience. Adults, however, give T h e m s e l v e s permission! So I am reminding everyone that we give ourselves permission to follow Jesus or Not, based on our motivations and desires to do so. Some of us have Faith and see him as Real already and do not need further proof. Some may believe in Him when they witness Him in person in the physical relm, rather than the spiritual realm, where He is now. I have stood before a statue of Vishnu meditating with ten incarnations of avatars and felt huge surges of Joy. So, I also believe in Vishnu! I love Tara as well. I picked up the essence of their spirits through my own Extra Sensory Perception as I meditated in front of their statues. I have done work with this skill and know how to use it. ESP is something not considered at all in this forum, but is the essence, in all actuality, of being spiritual. People of the East know what I am talking about... or used to.
When I think of athiest, I always think of my Father. He was a Baptist Minister for many years. He always love to share his Faith with people every where he went. One afternoon he picked up a hitch hiker that was in need of a ride and after finding out where the young man was going began to witness to him. The young man cursed and said, "Hey, I'm an athiest and I don't believe in God so you can just shut up about that!" Just as that came out of his mouth a large tractor and trailer ran out in front of them and my father had to do some evasive manuevers to swerve to safety. All the while the young athiest was screaming, "Oh, Dear God! I don't want to die!" After coming to the side of the road and the car screeched to a safe stop, my Father looked over at him and grinned as he said, "I thought that you didn't believe in God." The Moral of the story is we all can be a little pompous some times but there are NO atheist in Fox holes or Falling Aircraft. Remember the good book says, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."
...are you calling atheists pompous? Uh Oh...
It's actually just not true, having been in foxholes some do and some don't it's as simple as that.
Nice anecdote, and undoubtedly true a percentage of the time.
http://militaryatheists.org/expaif.htmlDoes it not occur to you that God is so prevalent in society that it is impossible not to be influenced by religious belief in god, so that a comment like 'oh God' or 'dear God' is one of the most common knee jerk reactionary things to say?
Religion really is shoved down everyone's throats enough that evoking the word 'God' is more common then cussing in a bad situation, its not a sign of belief. If that logic were true, that by saying 'oh God' or some derivative then other common sayings would indicate the same. Where I live it is somewhat common to say 'well f*ck me!' (we aren't a bunch of pansies who shudder at the *F* bomb) when something is really surprising, do you really think people want sexual intercourse every time someone is shocked or surprised?What does TDM Hemsley want for humanity and what does Claire Evans want for people? These two seem to be 180 degrees apart. They both seem to have an agenda. It would nice to understand their agendas and compare them. Which one is closer to the truth? What is the truth?
I would want people to know Jesus the way I do. That why they don't have to take on all their burden. They'd be able to cope with whatever situation they are in. Suffering is caused by people rebelling against God and that includes many Christians. Rebelling against God is the constant sinning that one doesn't repentant for.
Dear Claire Evans:
I do not think people consciously rebel against God. Rather, they fall prey to the temptations of their bodies and minds. Happiness is gained in better ways, but they do not know how. Sin occurs due to ignorance. Jesus came to show us the way to true happiness. To read what is recorded about Him is very enlightening.
One of the things He said is, "If thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light." Many believe that he was revealing the practice of meditation and developing intuition in perceiving God directly. Thanks for sharing your beautiful thoughts with us, Claire.
Jesus often would add... "For those who have ears to hear..." Some are ready and willing ... some are not. I think you are addressing those who are not willing or ready.Yes, there are people who consciously rebel against God. You have no idea how many demonic people are out there. Their whole existence is about fighting God in order to usher in the Anti-Christ.
So people like atheists are not consciously rebelling against God because they don't believe in God. There's a difference between purposeful opposition to God and sinning not knowing who God is.
When I sin I rebel on a very small scale to those I have been discussing. The difference with me is that I'm weak and don't intentionally want to hurt God. Constant unrepentant sin is a rebellion against God.Hi Claire:)
What do you mean by 'rebel against God'?
I do not know whether there is a power of some kind, which might be referred to as 'God'. There are still many mysteries, so I am not going to claim to be anything but agnostic.
However ....
Many people refer to the god of the Bible as 'God', and I believe that this specific belief is a superstitious human response to the, then, unknowable, together with a deliberate attempt to harness 'God' ~ and 'his' associated power ~ by ancient rulers. Even if God does exist, I do not think that 'he' would be anything like the 'superbeing' of the Bible.
Demonic?!
I don't believe in demons, though I do think that there are those who probably consider themselves demonic.
And maybe some of them ~ like many 'non-demonic' people ~ are against Christianity, because of the harm that it has done.
Maybe other people are against this Biblical religion, because of all the horrors, supposedly committed by God, described in the Old Testament ~ and because of the threat of horrors in the New Testament.
I used to agree with this. After all, who would go against a loving God? But the more I read the Bible, the more I dicover stories that suggest that God is not at all loving.
I would say that, if God exists, and if God loves us, then whoever wrote the Bible got it all wrong. And this is no surprise. The Bible is a set of stories, assumptions, hopes, histories, etc etc, that belonged to one (or possibly more than one) ancient tribe.
What do you mean by 'sin'?
I mean murder, rape, child abuse, violent assault, etc.
Sadly, these are all attributed to God, within the pages of the Bible.
How are we supposed to reconcile 'love thy neighbour' and 'thou shalt not kill', etc, with these ancient stories?
It doesn't work ~ but it is not demonic, nor is it sinful, to criticise belief in such ideas; ie. to reject a religion, which accepts and praises this sort of thing.Hi Claire:)
This is a purposeful opposition to God and not done out of ignorance.
Where does evil come from then?
Yes, but that is rejecting their perception of God out of ignorance.
Understandable but they don't know the OT God is not the Father of Jesus when you come to passages like Numbers, etc. If Jesus does not reconcile with God, then it is not God. For example, God in the OT made the Israelites kill left, right and centre out of revenge. Did Jesus say prostitutes ought to be slain? Did He say to the disciples that they should kill the Pharisees? No.
As for the threat of horrors. Jesus is warning people against following Satan because He knows that Satan will destroy them. Aligning with Satan brings upon one's own punishment and hell for hell is the separation from God. Why would Jesus die for the sins of the world out of love just to cast them into hell because His ego is bruised?
OT, right? That "God" is not loving. He is an imposter.
No, in the OT, they didn't just get it wrong they deliberately got it wrong. It is riddled with pagan and occult influence.
OT again. Lol
It is absolutely not demonic to criticize such beliefs! I've been called an anti-Christ for lambasting the OT.Claire, you've brought a very interesting point here. I've also been call the anti-Christ for criticizing the OT. Many people think it's all or nothing. I'm not sure why this is. They are two completely different books put together at different times and put together by men. I give you respect for thinking critically. This all or nothing thing is a result of a lack of critical thinking. I for one may not believe much of the NT, but I do think there are many good moral lessons in it. Would I give the NT to a child to read? Yes, I have. Would I give the OT to a child to read as a moral guide? NO.
It's mainly fundamentalists who call others evil for condemning the Bible, NT or OT. It's the way they have been brought up; brain-washing particularly.
The problem that is facing Christianity is that people tend to worship the Bible rather than focus on Jesus. It's interesting how passages like the one I've posted for Chris never are included in church services? Why? Because it's horrific and they know it but never stop to think, "Is that my God?"
It tends to fracture relationships. Jesus said mother would go against father and that He came to bring a sword, in other words His truth is going to cause division. So people don't want that so they just agree with what is fundamentally accepted as true.
At my Mom's last Bible study, something in the OT was being addressed and she said, "This is not my God". He would never kill innocent babies, etc. Some were horrified that she could say such a thing. Some secretly brought her aside afterwards and said they secretly agreed. That was the death knell of the Bible Study. It was fractured from then onwards.
So I've isolated myself from many other Christians but I'm staying firm. Anything that contradicts Jesus is not God.But so many things that don't contradict Jesus you say do.
Not for nothing, but I've found that it's much, much easier to make the "critical" assumption that the two books are different and somehow not connected than to actually take the time to figure out how they are connected what they really have to do with each other. That doesn't mean that people who take the first position are stupid, or lazy, or mean, it's just a lot easier. And believe me, it is, because I've been wrestling with it for half my life. But when the dots do get connected it provides a very rich and satisfying experience.
I would classify you as different from Claire because you think the whole thing is bunk. I obviously don't agree but I do understand and it's a consistent POV. Claire is all over the map and her "critical thinking" about the OT only makes what seems to be "uncritical thinking" about the NT that much more bizarre.Chris, you are correct in that I think the whole thing is bunk and Claire doesn't. I am aware that she is all over the map and to me sometimes frighteningly so (sorry Claire), but in this case she is correct. Her brave thinking was the same kind of thinking that starting me pondering about what I was being taught as a 12 year old boy. It is BRAVE Chis, you may not like it but it is brave to question the validity of the bible. Attempting to justify the OT is a painful battle for both sides. I personally don't think that the God of the OT was an impostor as Claire describes (that me be part of her paranoia), I think it was written by men in another time to justify and explain actions. Wars are being waged and sides are being taken because of the OT. This may be the only time I agree with Claire, but she certainly is brave. All is not lost when one stands up and says "this is not right".
Think about this. If the Bible says, "Let US make man in our image", aren't they imposter gods? Can one think those gods were collectively known as God?
Rad Man, one thing you don't understand is that those who wrote much of the Bible who part of mystery schools heavily steeped in the occult. Moses could have been an initiate being raised in an Egyptian household. Occultic knowledge is very advanced. They aren't studied by the ignorant. The numerology in the OT is amazing. Evil has a very clear and concise plan.
I can quite see why the prophets would lambaste the Israelites them constantly tainting God's image.Think about this. If the Bible says, "Let US make man in our image", aren't they imposter gods? Can one think those gods were collectively known as God?
Rad Man, one thing you don't understand is that those who wrote much of the Bible who part of mystery schools heavily steeped in the occult. Moses could have been an initiate being raised in an Egyptian household. Occultic knowledge is very advanced. They aren't studied by the ignorant. The numerology in the OT is amazing. Evil has a very clear and concise plan.
I can quite see why the prophets would lambaste the Israelites them constantly tainting God's image.Actually, they weren't. That's what the Trinity is all about. There are not "multiple gods" in the OT, there is God and there are all the wood and plaster and stone idols that aren't gods.
This is what I don't understand. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and you say you follow Jesus, but you claim the Law and the Prophets are all simply regurgitated paganism, therefor making Jesus out to be, well, I don't want to be sacreligious by saying it but makes the entire Bible out to be a lie. You can't have it both ways.Claire, with respect, your argument that the OT was written by the Occult is irrelevant to me. I could easily make the same argument for the new NT. Dividing one God into three to help the pagans make the tradition to Christianity is an example.
It's easy to see the occult link. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
The Christian trinity is different from the pagan ones. For example, Horus, Isis and Osiris make up the Egyptian trinity. They are all separate deities, not one.
In the Christian trinity, God and Jesus are one as the Holy Spirit. They are not separate. And Mary is conspicuously absent. To counter this fact, the Catholics brought in Mary worship to match the pagan trinity.Yes, but you can see where the trinity was based. I hate to tell you this but it's a made up concept. They knew Christians would be more apt to follow something close to what they had. We're told they are one, but separate. They have different functions but are one. Splitting hairs?
The word trinity is pagan based. It's just a name but it is not like the pagan ones. Isis and Osiris are two separate gods, brother and sister; wife and husband, who spawned a separate God Horus. They are not considered one god in Egyptian mythology.
I disagree. I think if this were the 1950's, or the 1850's, or especially the 1650's, then you could call it BRAVE, but I think today it is braver to take what many people still think of as a "traditional, conformist" stance which in the modern world has little in the way of tradition and conforms to practically no currently practiced ethic. I understand why people still consider it to be "brave" but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's easier to walk into almost any setting whatsoever and announce the Bible is contradictory and find yourself among friends than to go almost anywhere and announce that the Bible is a whole work that makes sense in context. The leadership may not like it, but like Claire's mother, you're likely to find that most people agree with you but just didn't want to say it themselves.
It's brave to tell your family, friends and community that you think the bible is wrong. I'd wager that everyone in your family are as one with the bible. It can be as devastating as coming out of the closet. Let me share a little fast story if you don't mind.
I had designed some flyers and poster for United Church of Canada's summer youth camp through a printer. A marketing guy saw them and contacted me directly to design a brochure that would be distributed across the nation. He told me he loved the flyers and posters he had seen because the were very visual. During the meeting I suggested using visuals on the cover, but he didn't like that idea he seemed to have his own and just wanted to implement them. As we were discussing this he suddenly asked what church I belong to. I knew this was going to be a problem so I told him I was raised Catholic as was my wife and we are raising out three boys in the same manner (not a lie). I showed him the Catholic school next door that we purposely moved right beside to ensure we could have them in a Catholic school. He closed his binder and walked out the front door.
It's brave to say what you think. Claire my be delusional, but she is brave.In your example, I agree. I didn't have that problem. My family is pretty solidly agnostic but most of them have never said anything. Of course, my wife and kids are not. But Claire was citing an example where her mother went into a public place. In the 21st Century, it really ain't all that brave.
Chris, it's much easier to go with the crowd and say, "Praise the Lord, the Bible is the infallible word of God!"
So my life isn't threatened but I am shunned by most people.Totally, totally depends on the crowd you're in, and frankly even when you're in a crowd that seems that way, you always have the people who are more like you. I stand by what I said.
I actually haven't come across people who completely think like me. If I went to church and said my views, they'd reject it. They'd must prefer to recite blindly, "And Moses parted the Red Sea...."
I'm not exactly going to cry in my pillow because you don't think I'm brave.I think you've completely missed my point there. I think Rad did too, but maybe he got what I was trying to say.
I do get what your saying Chris. I for one am surrounded by Christians. Rarely if ever do I tell them what I think. I'm not that brave, I like my friends. My views would confuse them. But that doesn't give Claire the right to call you ignorant. We all have different views and we should show respect.
Yes, but I need to make sure I'm showing respect before I can expect it of others. Right now is a bad time for me and I sometimes let myself get carried away.
I think you show others respect. Don't be bothered by Claire. I let her get under my skin once and I won't let it happen again.
I've think you have been very disrespectful ignoring important comments of mine which would have wrapped up this exchange long ago.
I haven't ignored them, Claire. I would think that by now you would know I take a long range, historically based view of it. I am going to look at the verses and put them in that context. Since you claim to do the same, I would not think it should be a problem for you. Thank you for your patience. It is, after all, a virtue.
This is too cute. What right did you have to call Chris arrogant?
"You keep saying God made us special. That's arrogant. This thinking that one is special is arrogant."
How much do you respect my views?
"Attempting to justify the OT is a painful battle for both sides. I personally don't think that the God of the OT was an impostor as Claire describes (that me be part of her paranoia), I think it was written by men in another time to justify and explain actions."
Paranoid?
But when I say someone is willingly ignorant and say one lacks the intellect or is willingly ignorant then that is not okay.I see what your saying. You do have some conspiracy issues. You must know that. You are correct about the OT. Now just extend that think to the NT.
Let's discuss your contention with the New Testament.
Here is something that illustrates why it's brave to swim against the current.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magaz … r=1&hp
If the link doesn't work look up (Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader) in at www.nytimes.comYes, I've heard of this guy and others like him. I don't really want this to devolve into another "uh-huh!" "nuh-uh!" argument, I do understand what you're saying. Perhaps it's because as a conservative, evangelical, what I see is the tide turning away from the Bible. So in certain circumstances yes, it is brave, but in the greater cultural setting I don't see it as so brave. It seems more brave to stand up and say you really believe, and prove that you've actually thought about it.
Ironically, I know what you were trying to do with the article, but in a way it goes to illustrate what I was trying to say. In his small circle, it was brave to stand up and say "I no longer believe," and yes I do agree that he was brave to do it. But he had no troube finding a wider group of people who supported his views and then even started giving talks.
But that is the God that Jesus, himself, supposedly acknowledged as his father. He supposedly came to fulfill the OT.
I don't believe in Satan.
He is as much of an imposter as any 'god'. It is all the result of assumptions based on fear ~ of the known and the unknown.
I would say that it was wrong because it was based on ignorance, which led to superstition ~ and, yes, it included pagan beliefs, etc.
And there is no good reason to believe that any other version of 'God' is anything other than superstition, etc.
Something that might be termed 'God' may possibly exist, but, if 'he' does, then it is highly unlikely that 'he' is as described in the Bible ~ Old or New Testament ~ or in any other 'sacred stories'.
It could possibly be an abstract force. It could be the 'souls' of deceased loved-ones, perhaps??? It could just be our own imaginations / sub-conscious minds. Who knows? Nobody knows.
And nobody knows very much about Jesus, either. There is no absolute proof that he even existed. He probably did; experts believe that he did ~ but not as a divine miracle-worker.
Clair, I do hate to change the subject, but wasn't it you that was predicting terrible things would happen in London? If I'm wrong I apologies, but I'm pretty sure it was you.
It was her, though she had already provided herself a convenient "out," prior to the commencement of the Olympics.
A convenient out? That something may happen afterwards and not during the Games, for example?
Afterwards? How much afterwards? Sure eventually something will happen in every large city, it's easy to predict that. I believe you said the Olympic games, know you are just saying after. You were wrong. You should admit it if you are to be trusted as an honest person going forward.
Go and read my hub about clues alluding to a nuclear attacks which says it is possible it would happen afterwards. I strongly believed it would happen at the Olympic Games. I'd shake my head if it happened at the Para-Olympics.
You see, the Elite often throw in half-truths as a psy-op. Clues alluded to an attack at the Olympic Games but no one thought of the para-Olympics. That could be a real possibility. Psy-ops are meant to discredit those who try and analyse the clues but are not aware that they may deviate and interpret much of the clues in a certain way. We find a common denominator and tend to stick with it not thinking there may be other interpretations.
All of us fell into this trap.
What are the concrete facts, though? Thousands of troops, many foreigners, poured into London because of "poor" security including Mossad who had no business there. Missiles were planted on roof-tops, etc. Despite the security fiasco, the Games went off without a hitch. Do you really believe the troops co-ordinated this security in such a short time? What about the evacuation plans of London? What on earth could be so bad to warrant that?
Another interpretation could be that the Games were an excuse to bring in these troops to be on stand-by for a real terrorist attack which, of course, would be a false flag.
I truly believe that the success of the Games was to create a false sense of security after people were worried about an attack because of the inadequacy of the security. A false sense of security has also been established because the truthers have been debunked. Kind of reminds me of the Chicken Licken story.
I think what happened with the Olympic Games not materializing was alluded to in the Opening Ceremony. He is what happened in one of the scenes (my interpretation in brackets):
"As if cycling butterflies weren’t enough, viewers around the world were also treated to another great British tradition – obsessing about the weather. (obsessing about conspiracy theories).
On all channels, everyone was terrified that it was going to rain (terrified there would be a nuclear attack). ‘There is a small risk of showers,’ (small risk of terrorist attack because of the claims there is a high risk of a terrorist attack in the UK) said weatherman Robin on ITV at teatime yesterday. ‘I can’t completely rule out a shower developing,’ said someone else.
Peter Cockroft for the BBC in Trafalgar Square said that we had ‘the right sort of rain earlier’ but said that ‘the risk of rain is receding’. Simon Vigar for C5 News said it was ‘a little bit balmy’.
‘There is a little sense of a touch of rain in the air,’ offered Huw Edwards at 7.15 while Gary was not going to be left out.
‘The weather has stayed dry, the clouds are quite dark,’ he opined. At his side, Sue failed to agree.
‘The breaking news is that the heavens have opened,’ said Sue. ‘I think it has stopped raining,’ she said, five minutes later.
Everyone must think we are mad."
The rest alludes to those who think it is not going to rain and those who do and nobody seems to believe the other. Some people believe that there was going to be a nuclear attack and others did not because of the great security. Something else may happen to change everyone else's mind.
This is how psyops work and it is only in retrospect that one sees the deception.
If you had stipulated that originally, I wouldn't be calling you on it. You didn't, so I am.
I did stipulate it originally on my hub. I did, however, say it was like fact that a terrorist attack would happen on the 27th. As I was saying to Rad Man, the same evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. So I hope nothing happens at the Paralympics.
Terrible things still will happen to London. The Games are technically over. The Para-Olympics is still to come. That is something I never thought of before.
Nuclear weapons are made to be used not to lie around and gather dust.
O.K. I am just curious... What is an example of a constant unrepenting sin? Most sins are ignorant acts based on the needs of the body and mind. Some people get high from violence like those who enjoy dogs (like pit bulls) and cocks (roosters) fighting. I am providing examples of sins. Some deviants get high from the sexual needs of their own bodies by abusing women and children with the enjoyment of their own sense of power and dominance. Some teachers in academia like to influence their students with biased and one sided opinions that have nothing to do with reality, in an attempt to change the world according to their own warped visions. Some religious zealots think their twisted view of religion will "change the world ". These sins, bad as they are, are due to ignorance, and are not done out of conscious rebellion. Do you have examples of what you consider to be conscious acts of Rebellion against God which are "constant unrepentant sins?"
Anything wrong that someone will not feel sorry for. Paedophiles tend not to be sorry for what they do and serial killers. It is the knowledge that one is hurting another but doesn't care
There is no ignorance but dog-fighting. They see the blood and suffering. Sexual deviants can see the suffering of women and children.
It is when one knows it is wrong that it is unrepentant sin.I have been very ignorant. There is indeed more intentional evil in the world than I realized . My, I hate to admit this! If I do not, than I will not be able to bring about the required intensity within myself to follow Jesus. We do need Him... We do. Thanks for bringing this all to light. Keep it up, Claire. Just be sure that you keep in touch with the true spirit of Jesus who absolutely died because God loves every last one of us! He wants every last suffering person to come home. And we can go home! We may have to shortly!
I do not know why I feel the way I do... but, I too am becoming very edgy, lately, about the future. In the end each of us can come to terms with God. Om Peace Amen.Hi, Kathryn.
I think Netanyahu is psychotic and extremely evil. He just wants to use his nuclear toys. I think we need to accept that nuclear war is coming. What goes through the head of someone who drops a nuclear bomb on a city?
The only good thing about evil is that it strengthens my relationship with Jesus. It reminds me of what Jesus conquered and how He suffered this for us.
So whatever comes we can be rest assured Jesus is with us.Yikes! Thank you for the warning. It takes deep concentration in times of terror and agony to focus on the reality of Jesus. We have to practice when the times are good. Even now one must keep looking up at the beauty of the mountains, rather than down at the gutters of filth.
And he must have suffered... to the point of saying, "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" I think he just kept focusing and concentrating on the reality of God rather than what his mortal body and mind were going through.
Ha, ha. I've heard a story similar to this. An atheist who had a Near Death Experience said before he converted to Christianity that it is easy to be an atheist when times are good. When times are bad it is a different kettle of fish.
Saying, "Oh, my God" seems to be a common reaction for most people when they are terrified.
lol why do people bother with religious discussions on here... 1500 posts wow. No one's going to change their mind about anything.
How exactly is the Bible correct? It's a collection of stories from religious whack job hermits who never even knew "Jesus". Why are there no stories of Jesus as a young man? It just skips from birth to 30's. There is absolutely no proof that the bible is nothing more than a work of fiction and a very poorly organized and written guidebook on how to live your life (even though the Bible is constantly contradicting itself). Honestly the petty, and small minded message that the bible gives is enough to turn me off from Christianity, but what puts the nail in the coffin for me is all of you Christians who fight, tooth and nail, for the Bible and Christ to be shoved down others' throats. Is that very Christ-like? No. Please stop trying to save me, it's not going to work because there is OVERWHELMING PROOF that there is no god.
However, I am not proud enough to say that I know for sure if there is a god or not (I think it's extremely narcissistic for both Christians and Atheists to believe that their beliefs are 100% correct. Just please, have some humility on the nature of the biggest topic in humanity.
And yes, I would convert if there was solid proof. That is all Atheists are searching for, legitimate proof, instead of blindly following what you think will save you from eternal hellfire and damnation.Hmm, you are interesting.
Although I will not comment on the venting, I will on the proof issue -and the search statement.
From experience, atheists searched within the doctrine(s) and found them lacking. That was the 800 kilo elephant in the room they danced around with their former theists, without blinking. So, it is highly agreeable they were duped just the same. But, having found the exit door, are they really free or still duped? Not by old doctrine -well partly. But more so another doctrine. A doctrine also invalid in search and evidence...
It is more than clear, over the x-thousand years of human existence, both ends -sensation and science - have fallen short of actual search, versus "marketable discovery". If "...OVERWHELMING PROOF...." actually existed to prove the non-existence of Creator, I do not think you would have made the end statement and not one of the religions would exist -especially science.
Gods? Ha! Doctrines concerning gods are for the pagans, fearful, the intellectually dishonest. Anti-god doctrines are even worse...
James.Overwhelming proof is lack of proof. I am an atheist because there is no logical reason to believe in a god and I do not have any kind of undefinable faith because I understand the egotism of humans.
Human-kind wants to believe in god so that their lives do not seem "futile". Honestly, the argument of god is such a vast one that to sit here and debate it would take millions of years. I do not believe in god because there is no proof and I do not fear death. I am inspired to live to the fullest by the prospect that it is my only life and I wont ascend to some magical kingdom for arbitrarily believing in a god.
Most atheists will concede the fact that they do not know if there is a god or not, but that to live your life in fear that if you don't believe in god you will go to hell, is obviously a silly and invalid reason for belief.If You are not part of God and therefore Proof of God, then w h a t a r e y o u ? ? ? Everything that exists proves the nature and existence of God, which is spirit. I wish scientists and biologists would chime in here.
Also, when we die, we DO not Die! We, as spirits, live on without our physical bodies. We are invisible like God, at that point. Isn't that proof? God is invisible, but his existence is felt as love, joy and bliss- consciousness. Our Own Beings Are Proof of God! It is a given... there is nothing to argue about. Lets just get on with having happy lives through fighting the good fight. Jesus said he came not for peace but with a sword. There is something to fight. That something is Ignorance. Satan is illusion. God is reality. My, I wish I could shut up. I really should. I don't want to be wasting pearls. This is Claire's forum, after all.Yes but that has no scientific basis whatsoever. You have been told since you were young and you believe that everything has God in it, when in fact nature itself is a very intricate and beautifully designed thing due to evolution. The reason why our brains are developed and why birds feathers are colored a certain way, and everything else is due to a beautiful, scientific thing called "natural selection". This is proven to be the reason why everything in nature works the way it does: because of evolution. Unfortunately many Christians do not believe in evolution even though it's right in front of their noses! I mean, look at geometry and the Fibonacci sequence, it's seen everywhere because it is a geometric spiral that works mathematically and structurally. That's why you see symmetry everywhere, because mathematically it works and is therefore able to function.
Also, in America, Atheists feel the need to fight for their beliefs because America is supposed to be a secular country, but it is being increasingly taken over by the religious right. Often times, religious people site in the First Amendment "freedom of religion", but they do not realize that that includes "freedom FROM religion" and often religious people feel that it is their right to force religion upon non religious people. More often than not, people die in the name of religion.
Also, please refrain from associating Satan with Atheism. It is very, very offensive. I have encounter many Christians who feel it is their place to judge others for different beliefs (just look at the West Memphis Three) and not only is it a bit hypocritical of the "judge not lest ye be judged" idea in the bible, it is also extremely dangerous to just blindly associate anything not of your religion with "Satan".To make it perfectly clear...I did NOT link Satan with Atheism at all. I was not talking about atheists. Clair was, but I was not. This is definitely the last time I will ever make another a peep...
Good bye."Lets just get on with having happy lives through fighting the good fight. Jesus said he came not for peace but with a sword. There is something to fight. That something is Ignorance. Satan is illusion. God is reality."
That's what you said, so if you were not drawing a comparison to Atheism and Satan, then were you just spouting off phrases that pertain to Christianity or Jesus? What I'm asking is, how is any of what you said pertaining to the argument of actual proof regarding Jesus' existence as the son of god?
So, you are mentioning the concept of not believing in a god, based on a now third note regarding the [false] doctrine of hell, eternal fire, etc? That is far more narrow minded than those who support the [false] doctrine. And yes, it is quite a silly reason to believe -if that is what believers actually do, meaning believe. From experience most of doctrinal belief is based on fear, not love or practical faith, despite words tossed out about unconditional love and such. It becomes more militant, militaristic even, inducing widespread pandemic of obey -or else- resulting in robotic complacency, or irrational woo-woo-la-la often called faith, which is nothing more than blind regurgitation of memorized text mixed with jumbled emotion {and 101 kilos of paganism}. And likewise, yes, you will not float off to a citadel in the sky for believing.
Furthermore, after ministered strongly these doctrines for a quarter of a century, will be the first to step up and apologize for cramming such misinformation into the minds of many -still believing and post-believing.
But, regardless, the logical thing to do is search without bias. Resting on ones laurels awaiting surmountable proof -pro or con- is still very much religious in nature. And like it or not, atheism is still religion, so is quantum mechanics and nihilism and so on. The lack of proof unchallenged essentially puts the work, the responsibility on the shoulder of something or someone else -be it mechanical or sensational. Which is nothing more than ego. That, to me, is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. That IS what the Hebrews call ha-satan {what opposes, divides, causes failure, stumbling, etc} not some high and mighty rouge messenger of light, hellbent on humanities destruction nor gods by title or proxy.
Granted, I do believe in Creator, but never a god. I do have evidence which tends to be ineffable, yet tangible. Investigation is vital. Giving up both ends of the stick, pro or con, and accepting -or rather implementing- practicality of faith. Certainly, it is very demanding. In some respects, even a daunting task, only because of the sensational mechanical world we presently engage.
James.
PS, awesome BLT recipe. Sorry, former chef in me. Couldn't resist reading.
They're not religious whack jobs, they did know Jesus, and Jesus' life between 12 and 30 (yes, there is a story of when He was 12) is not the important thing about what He did.
God having sons is something very ungoddly. Giving birth is a human quality
A) It wasn't God who gave birth. It was Mary.
B) If humans are made in God's image (and we are) then who are we to say what is an ungodly quality?
This comment can leave you open for a variety of things...
People can be "evil". People kill, rape, steal, cheat and a variety of other "sins"
People can also be "good".
So who are we to say what is or isn't godly as you say...Depending on if you read the OT or NT, you will get all of these types of "qualities" associated to God as well...Valid point. I think what I said is valid too, but you're right that a little more exposition would go a long, long way...
Humans being made is Gods image seems arrogant to me. This notion was taught to make us feel special and arrogant. What image does God have?
Look in the mirror!
Seriously, go out, look at all the people, all of them! They are all made in His image. It's a mystery, and frankly I think that anyone who gets an arrogant feeling from that was an arrogant person to begin with. If you really understand it, it's the most humbling thing.I always if you and Marty Feldman were twins separated at birth...
I seem myself in the mirror. An image not unlike the previous post. This image of me doesn't in any way make a connection with Gods image because we don't know what that image is. Beside those few words written a few thousand years ago do you have any information that would lead me to think God looks like us? Perhaps he looks like my Dog. My dog is nice and would hurt no one even though he has big sharp teeth for such a little guy. He is in many ways superior to me. He can run faster and has much faster reflexes. He also has a superb understanding of body language and a great sense of character. I think a God would look like him and my argument is just as valid as yours. It is arrogant to think God would make us in his image and nothing else. You are saying we are special. That is arrogant is it not?
No, because God made us special. And what I think you're implying is that I think human beings have some kind of special license to be crummy because "we're special" but we don't. Being made in God's image should be the most humbling of realizations, and if it induces arrogance it's simply a sign that you don't know God.
You keep saying God made us special. That's arrogant. This thinking that one is special is arrogant.
Not if you understand it. I guess I'm just not good at making my point. Thinking that we are special in and of ourselves would indeed be arrogant and is the farthest thing from what I'm trying to say. Nor does thinking that God creating us in His image making us special give us special license. It is humbling because it means that we are His, and the fact that He cared enough to make us in His image means that we are walking tributes to His genius and creativity, and never to our own.
We are special, but that doesn't mean we are great or wonderful in and of ourselves.I do understand what you are trying to say but, from someone looking in it has a different perspective. Your language is proof of the arrogance. You say it's not arrogant and then say we are walking tributes to His genius and creativity. Your argument is flawed.
Well, I understand your point, I guess. I used to think like that too. But if you really know God, you'd see exactly where the flaw in the argument is.
I totally understand your point, Chris Neal. It makes perfect sense to any one who has eyes to read and willingness to comprehend! This forum reveals arguments of faith versus proof. But to me, to have faith also requires proof! I guess it is just a matter of where you go to get that proof. If I were a scientist everything I read would give me proof of God.
Thank you and I agree, but to be fair I wasn't always a Christian. I have learned not to stress this too much but it was God who reached out and touched me. Things that I always wondered about but didn't think there was proof or maybe there were other explanations suddenly made sense to me. But everyone doesn't come to Him that way. I don't know. Still, I agree that faith does require some proof, which He has been generous with in providing to me.
In times of trouble we do seem to get help. Little miracles happen all the time if we notice them! Big miracles can blow us away, but they happen too. I was an atheist for a while. Pondering the wonder of trees brought me back to the living Spirit behind all life.
Ding! Someone is getting it -or got it. Ungodly-godly are all apart of the doctrinal approach, the textual approach. Same as right-wrong, good-evil; clean-unclean; light-darkness; truth-untruth. Now, take it from that point of view and run with it. You're going to like where it leads you.
James.
it doesn't make any sense for me that God had to become a man to save humanity. first, a creator doesn't need to become part of the creation to make them understand their purpose of creation, for example, the inventor of chair doesn't need to be a chair to explain it's function.
Imagine you are looking at a 50 ft painting from 2ft away. Will you be able to comprehend that picture? Would you be able to look past your small field of vision? How about if that picture was shrunk down and you could hold it in your hands. Would you grasp it then?
Giving God the possibility to have children lowers him to the level of humans and this doesn't make any sense. The other way to see it is that man can have children like God and this makes you similar to him and that is not possible.
Wait a second, I've heard this one before....
Sam, a muslim I used to live next door to. Real nice guy. Exact same argument. Totally wrong.
So where does it say in the bible the Jesus the become soon of God? That is something fabricated. The Bible doesn't even exist in its original state.
Read the Book of John. Paying special attention to what Jesus said. Jesus isn't literally the Son of God in the manner of God impregnating Mary Himself. He is actually God incarnate. He is referred to as the Son, in order to teach us proper relationship with the Father.
As for the Bible not existing in its original state, all I can say is do some research into the authenticity. You may be surprised. I can sit here and list sources and facts to you all night, but I think it is better that you seek them out yourself.
Related Discussions
- 6
Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
by fstbmmtk 12 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
- 16
If scientists found proof that God existed, would you atheists then believe it?
by John Harper 10 years ago
If scientists found proof that God existed, would you atheists then believe it?http://witscience.org/first-scientific-proof-god-found/
- 56
Research says Atheists are smarter than Theists. What do you think?
by Dattaraj 9 years ago
I have read some articles that suggest Atheists are generally smarter than Theists. Someone shared a link in an Indian Facebook group and Atheists were like; "Theists are dumber because their minds are occupied with fear all the time, and they can't concentrate on studies......." These...
- 285
How can the Bible be considered proof
by Elizabeth 9 years ago
How can the Bible be considered proofI would say that 8 out of ten times when discussing proof of god with a theist, they quote the Bible. In my perspective, the Bible is the collection of claims about the christian god, not the evidence for it - and all claims require...
- 28
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?
by M. T. Dremer 9 years ago
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
- 30
Can only Christians and those who accept Jesus Christ go to heaven?
by Charlie 9 months ago
Can only Christians and those who accept Jesus Christ go to heaven?According to Christianity, only those who have openly accepted Jesus Christ and the Christian faith may go to heaven. If that is the case, what about the African tribe who has never heard of of Jesus? Even if they are good people,...