Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
you ever recieved the holy spirit which is made evident by speaking in tongues? acts 10:44-48
I am a Presbyterian who believes that fresh Revelation is now closed until the second coming. In my view, the bible is completed and God has no need to provide any further and fresh revelation. I base this on Hebrews 1:1-3, Jude 3, 1 Corinthians 13:8, and Daniel 9:24.
I also hold that the speaking of tongues was temporary until the canon was completed. Or as Paul put it "until the perfect (telios) has come". As was the gift of prophecy and other forms of special revelation. I take the view that there was only one kind of "tongues", speaking known languages by people who did not know that tongue as the example of the apostles at Pentecost. I reject that the gift of tongues is - just a communication of your heart's feelings or whatever to God. Nor is it an angelic tongue.
As for the question of receiving the Holy Spirit, yes. I would be unable to believe the truths of Christ and his Lordship without the Holy Spirit. I don't agree that the coming of the Spirit is ALWAYS evidenced by speaking in tongues. Certainly, there are examples of this occurring in the book of Acts. Yet there are examples where it did not occur as well. In any event, Paul clearly indicated that not every person has every gift. Not every Christian has the gift of tongues. He said pursue the greater gifts. But even then, he said unless it was underpinned with love it would be useless.
I hold to Jesus' position. You will know them by their fruits. And the fruits of the Spirit are according to Galatians 6:22-23. It is clear that these fruits cannot be expressed unless with the coming of the Spirit of God.
Thanks for asking.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Yes, that is the verse I was referring to.
Of course, the question is - what does manifestation mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
ou think that I deny.And I think that you deny.Though as long as we are both content with our comparative denials, then all is well.And any ongoing or residual energy afforded by our component parts, can be referred to as a soul if you like. I've no problem with that.
Zed, you don't make a lot of sense.
The soul is simply a living human being. All humans are souls. They don't have a soul. They are a soul.
The bible describes it like this.
God created a physical body out of the earth. He breathed into this body and it became a living soul.
I don't hold to the Greek notion that the body and soul are separate things.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What does that even mean? Can you think of one religion or one political party or one movement - that isn't aiming to improve people's lives? Even - and now I am invoking the extreme - the Nazi Party thought that they were improving people's lives.No. Christianity doesnt aim to improve peoples lives but forgive people's sins so that they go to heaven. And I don't say that, Jesus said it.
I guess you must read a different bible than mine. Christianity is about sanctification, ie being renewed in both the mind and the heart. It is also about seeing the world restored or reconciled with the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the earth groans waiting for the sons of God to take responsibility. Yes, there is forgiveness, but forgiveness for a purpose. Ephesians 1. So that they can be holy and blameless.
But it's good you come up with this subject because christianity is the religion that praise the pain, like the pain Jesus felt when he got nailed to the cross. Your faith are based on a sentiment of suffering, which is pathological to me.
Again, you must read a different bible than mine. Christians are told to rejoice always - whether life contains pain or not. We are never told to praise the pain. Please provide a verse that says differently. Jesus did suffer on the cross - as he also suffered in the garden prior to going to the cross. Life has pain. This is true whether you are a believer or not. Our faith is not based on pain. How ludicrous. It is based on the HISTORICAL fact of Christ's resurrection. Resurrection was not pain but a new life. Christians acknowledge pain exists. We don't pretend it doesn't. We also note that sometimes pain is beneficial and provides strength. If faith was based on pain, you might be correct that it is pathological. Yet, the Christian's faith is not.
Open your mind" - mindfulness, it's all part of the same basic philosophy. Ignoring the brain and the mind - and relying predominantly on feelings and emotions. Hence, why you can identify however you feel? Ignoring the science.I ask again, what are you talking about? Mindfulness is quite the opposite from what you just said. Meditation aims to get us disconnected from reality, meaning that we get rid of emotions and feelings, especially the negative, which is good for our mental and physical health.
I don't think you understand mindfulness. Mindfulness is about emptying your mind. It is about focusing on the here and now. Not worrying about the past or the future. Meditation is fine - I have no issue with it. Yet, this doesn't mean you should simply empty your mind. Praying - is never about emptying your mind.
it is always about a conversation between yourself and God. This takes words. Not just a feeling or emotion. Or a warm fuzzy feeling.
I don't understand why someone can be opposed to it. Even the science confirmed the benefits of meditation, which is quite similar to praying.
I'm not opposed to meditation. I am opposed to emptying your mind. The two are quite different things. Meditation is focusing on thoughts and words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
It's not essential for Christian doctrine to believe the Bible is 100% true.
While many of us do, it is not a deal breaker.
Our faith is not in the bible but in Christ.
It doesn't make us a heretic not to believe it is 100% accurate. Of course, some people might call others a heretic for not believing, but that is personal subjectiveness, not an official doctrine.
One of the problems with not believing it is 100% true is that it means that our authority to discuss things and validate things is a little more difficult.
Nevertheless, most churches and denominations are able to discuss many things without resorting to the Bible.
I have never seen anyone thrown out of the church if they didn't believe the Bible to be 100% accurate. In fact, in every congregation I have attended, there is always a small minority at least where people don't do so. It's not the end of the world. Some people won't ever do so. Of course, a little training might assist them to be better informed as to why it is trustworthy and reliable. It's actually quite surprising how many people have never bothered to actually do a little bit of training. Most people presume they know how to read and to determine whether the bible is reliable or not. and this goes with those who think it is reliable and with those who don't.
Taking people who already believe the bible is reliable through a course on how to read a book is mostly VERY enlightening for them. They come to realise that they thought it was reliable not because they could determine it - but because they had just been told it was. For them - taking ownership of why they believe it - is always very rewarding for them and actually increases their trust in it. Others were surprised by their ignorance. they had just assumed it wasn't reliable or that it was contradictory. Learning how to read properly is a skill. Most people can read, but they read poorly.
Yet believing the bible to be 100% true is not an essential doctrine of the church. It doesn't make one a Christian or not a Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.In terms of data processing, one can only frustrate oneself.And I suppose that we are both the epitome of a point of view.And wherein do you imagine lies my instability.Hmmmmm, this paragraph just seemed like another series of frustrated digs to me Trade.Let's just be content to disagree about the GOD concept.I would suggest that satisfaction comes from contentment, and further suggest that contentment is one of the benefits getting older. More to do with natural physiology than conscious data management. Though there is a balance to be made, not overburdening the brain, whilst also keeping it active.
Denial is good for the soul, hey?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
On the other hand, I find them intuitively going to send us into nuts land. Take the whole idea of postmodernism,. that is new age. There is no truth - there are no absolutes. You can be anything you identify as - whether it's a fact or not. That is the essence of it. relativism. no truth but subjective truth. That's why Christianity is at odds with much of the West now. Christianity still teaches ABSOLUTE truth. That is almost considered an anathema.What are you talking about? new age movement doesn't pretend anything since it is just a collection of eastern beliefs that aim to improve people's lives. I would put it as a practical guideline that revolves around meditation, it has nothing to do with postmodernism or any shit like that.
What does that even mean? Can you think of one religion or one political party or one movement - that isn't aiming to improve people's lives? Even - and now I am invoking the extreme - the Nazi Party thought that they were improving people's lives.
New Age Movement is not identical to post-modernism. Yet it is consistent with it. In one sense the movement from Modernism to post-modernism has been concurrent with the move of the West becoming multi-cultural. The New Age Movement is all about tolerance - (tolerant to anyone who they agree with and intolerant towards anyone they disagree with) It is about a new form of spiritualism, springing from the fascination with the Eastern religions.
It suggests - all religions are the same and working towards the same end. It tends to shy away from organised religions. But has a big focus on self. Improving the self and learning to love oneself. Heading towards self-exaltation. but at the same time is very aggressive towards those who claim truth is exclusive and those who choose to be more discerning. "Open your mind" - mindfulness, it's all part of the same basic philosophy. Ignoring the brain and the mind - and relying predominantly on feelings and emotions. Hence, why you can identify however you feel? Ignoring the science.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
total hypoIf no one attended a church service ever again.Do you think , " life " would " run " the same for ( everyone apart from the christians ) as it does when millions attend .?
given that this is a total hypo - I don't have an answer to your question.
It's an impossibility unless suddenly there were no Christians. After all, Church is not a building. It's a gathering of believers. And when believers get together, they generally sing songs, talk and discuss theology and the bible and pray and read the bible. It's part of their DNA. For us, the church is not just an hour on Sunday but is part of our identity. Of course, there is a distinction between private and public worship. Yet, believers don't stop worshipping just because they are not gathering. For us, service is akin to serving, and we do that voluntarily regularly and very often without other believers about.
If however, people stopped attending church services on Sunday mornings, I think it would not impact most people in the community in the short term. Nevertheless, in the long term it would have a serious impact upon the community, since the underlying morals and values of the church community would disappear and what would be left would be more - fight or flee, doing everything in self interest, there would be less of forgiveness, and reconciliation and grace which are intrinsically Christian beliefs that the wider community has adopted. Yet without the constant reinforcement of such ideas, they will fade away. Not in the short term, but in the long term.
Would life be " normal going " for christians.Apart from church related activities aspect of it.Within reason. ?
I think I answered that above. If I haven't please remind me.
We won't ever witness god reacting negatively or positively to anything we humans ever do in life hey ?A couple of thousand years ago, god use to mess with us humans for the crap we did that he didn't " approve of .
I don't think God has changed over the years. People still are subject to his judgments. I take the view that every time we see a court hand down a decision it is a delegated judgment of God. And that's just one aspect.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hi Deb,
when covid struck - it happened in different ways in different parts of the world.
In Africa people still went to church. As they did in many others parts of the world. Obviously, many people broke the law anyway - which is why they ended up in court and some even in prison.
We met when we could. We used to zoom and have other videos. We even had live streams. And people contributed electronically. In fact - we didn't get a drop in giving, the giving went up during covid. And this was reported in lots of places.
Our numbers since covid has finished -are up. Plus we have lots still continuing online.
I think covid was a hard time for churches - but it didn't make us weaker. It made us stronger. Many of us had to think through some of the significant issues of separation of church and state. And of what is the church? And what does it look like?
Remember too, that even in the days of Martin Luther in the 1500s. When there was a pandemic - they shut the churches down then too. It's not like it is unique.
Still, thanks for your concern.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Firstable, I would like to remark I'm not a believer nor an atheist, but an agnostic, and as such I am open minded to any teaching that really makes sense. You all might understand then why I criticize christianity so fiercely, because it doesnt make sense at all nowadays. So, having that cleared up, let's get down to business.
It doesn't make sense to you. Ok. It makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. So thanks for clearing that up.
According to the latest research, Christianity is severely on the decline as it is depicted in the following link.
If you are talking about the West, ok. If you are talking about Christianity globally, you are incorrect. Globally, Christianity is still increasing exponentially, in China, In Asia, In Africa and in South America. True, Europe is declining but so is pretty much everything as they die out. Even the Muslims are taking a hit in Europe. In the West it is declining, but I think there is another side to this. As the West becomes more secular, those who were nominally religious are becoming more consistent. Those who are serious have become more committed. For me this is a purifying situation and a necessary thing. Mind you, I also hold to the view that we are in a pre-Christian age, not a post Christian age.
On the other side, new age movement seems to be gaining more followers around the world thanks to the internet and of course to christian flaws and nonsense found in the bible. By the way, the new age movement is not a religion but a set of beliefs based on eastern religions like budhism or hinduism, which teach stuff like meditation, yoga, karma, reincarnation, and the like. If you check the following link, you'll see these beliefs are embraced by believers as well as non-believers, which is very telling.
This is not particularly earth shattering. As the West becomes more and more multi-cultural, it is quite logical that the number of people bringing Eastern religions to the West will increase. The New Age movement as a movement was probably stronger 20 years ago and had a more unique identity. Today, the mixture of Eastern and African religions and people in the West have become a vocal force and as such combined with our Western ideas of tolerance it is inevitable that such things become more and more prevalent.
As far as I'm concerned, these new age beliefs make more sense than christianity. In fact, I think some of these beliefs do make sense of christianity itself since it has been theorized that Jesus went to the middle east to learn about spirituality. So, what there is in the new testament -and perhaps the OT as well- is very likely a misinterpretation of what Jesus really taught to their disciples.
How old are you? I suspect that is part of the generational thing for yourself. The New Age ideas have been circling our society for years. Check out the ideas presented in Hollywood, on Star Trek, Star Wars, the Marvel movies. All very new age. Our secular schools teach these principles. They will make sense for those whose beliefs are educated as such.
On the other hand, I find them intuitively going to send us into nuts land. Take the whole idea of postmodernism,. that is new age. There is no truth - there are no absolutes. You can be anything you identify as - whether it's a fact or not. That is the essence of it. relativism. no truth but subjective truth. That's why Christianity is at odds with much of the West now. Christianity still teaches ABSOLUTE truth. That is almost considered an anathema.
Then, I ask: Do you think christianity is going to be displaced by this movement or this movement is going to reshape christianity so it gets more sensical?
Christianity will continue to decline in the West. But then again, so will the West. It will destruct as it moves away from the truth of the Scriptures. New age and secularism will probably overtake Christianity as the predominant religion for a while. That is highly likely. Yet, the current trajectory of our philosophy will head us towards war and self -destruction. We will implode. Im not suggesting in the next five minutes. But then those who are left behind will have to think about how to rebuild. And that will be either towards more of the same or back towards Christianity. Probably the West will split into two polarising places - even as they already are starting to do now.
but only one side will have truth. The other side can't have truth - since it doesn't actually believe in it. history will be unkind with this generation - and it has been with other generations who have forsaken the truth.
but hey that's just my subjective opinion. As valid as anyone else. Hey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wilfully ignorant of what?We are both wilfully content with our own assessment of relevant and available information.And there's is currently nothing new that will encourage me/us to alter my/our view points.Because I'm certain that both you and I are ignorant of the real answer to everything. We have no choice in the matter."Wilfully ignorant". Is just a frustrated dig.No more that one expects.And we've been spicing up meat and vegetables ever since we put meat and vegetables together in the same pot.Not necessarily meaninglessly, but sometimes too absurdly spicy for me.
so you admit to being willfully ignorant. To suggest that there is currently nothing new to encourage you to change your viewpoint is the epitome of such a view. I consider that there are always things about that might help me change my view. I don't know everything and often am corrected in my understanding. It must be a hard slog for you being so perfect.
It wasn't a frustrated dig. that suggests that somehow you are frustrating me. Not true.
I love how you change the goalposts and use humour to do it.
the point is - you say truth exists - but you don't know how to get there and worse than that - you think anyone else is NEVER going to get there before you. So you simply cast doubts on everything they say. I might call that envy. Are you envious of others who have satisfied and balanced lives? Is your life so unstable that you have to believe that everyone else is just as unstable as your own?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
jesus said 'forgive them father, they know not what they do'but if you look around on the internet, a lot of people say that a person acting ignorantly can still commit a sin.i always looked at sinning as 'intentionally doing what you know is wrong'. this involves intention and knowledge, something that resides in one's mind, as an opposite of ignorance.
It's worth noting, that Jesus is not saying that he has forgiven them or that the Father has forgiven them. We often assume that to be the case. But the words Jesus spoke, are a request, not a declaration. It may well be that Jesus is suggesting that ignorance might be an explanation for what they are doing.
It's worth noting in the OT that the Jews would offer sacrifices for unintentional sins.
Like you, I would take the view that intention and knowledge are necessary components of sin. Otherwise, the notion of free will and free choice becomes a little redundant. We often say that sin is any act or omission of the law of God. That includes both direct acts and omissions of things as well. Hence, hitting someone is sinful, but also not giving someone a glass of water who needs it is sinful too. disobeying your parents is a sin - and so is ignoring your parents or not respecting them is a sin.
Having said the above, ignorance is not an excuse in normal life. It can be an explanation. And may well provide mitigating factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think that there are no answers.There's an answer to everything.But we don't necessarily no it.And so someone had an idea, and as people spread so the the idea spread.And as the idea spread, so the idea became modified.A bit like a dish of meat and vegetables.
HI Zed,
you can choose to be wilfully ignorant. That is a matter for you. You also seem to be embracing post-modernism which is really a way of saying, there are no concrete answers.
Reading and understanding what some one has communicated ought to be reasonably easy. After all the entire point of communicating is to get an idea from person A to person B. Imagine if that wasn't the case? Imagine if I attempted to read your words that you write - like the Brother does with the bible. It would make what you say meaningless and absurd on every level. He would take your last sentence and suggest you are doing a cooking show. Rather than making a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As long as you are doing it correctly.For sure, but who is doing it correctly.We all assume that we are,And that includes you Trade.
There are schools of thought on this, Zed. Perhaps if you did some study you might realise this and learn something.
The Roman Catholics believe that the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to the Church, namely Rome, and its scholars. Whatever the Church says the Bible says is what the Bible says.
The Orthodox Christians hold to a similar view. Whatever the Orthodox Church teaches the bible says - the bible says.
Historically, the Roman Catholics, from the West, hold to a literal understanding of the language in the bible. Not a genre of literalism - in the sense of modern fundamentalists, but literal in the sense that - words have a real meaning that can be understood in the context and that more than one person can arrive at the meaning of the word.
The Orthodox, from the East, held to an interpretation that was more allegorical. Actually, they had what we might consider layers of interpretation. The basic literal meaning. A moralistic meaning. A spiritual meaning. An allegorical meaning. It was this latter one which has come to have more significance. Understandings of words came about by some kind of "mystical secret knowledge". Only the initiated or the paramount scholar could understand the text.
The Protestants, Luther and Knox and Calvin, derived from the Western position and so - held to the idea that words were literal and could be understood. Again, it was not literal in the sense of how fundamentalists understand it today. they did not see literalism as a genre. Yet they rejected the idea that the church interpreted the meaning of what the bible was saying. They held to the view that the bible came from God, and was not put together by the church. Rather, God preserved it, having given it to the church.
After the Protestants, the dissidents arrived. The non-establishments, and the anabaptists. They took hold of Luther's priesthood of all believers and changed it. For Luther it never meant that the clergy didn't have a role in interpreting the Scriptures, but the newer dissidents did. For them the priesthood of all believers gave carte blanche to interpret the Scriptures themselves without any need for the oversight of the church or the clergy. They held to the idea that the Spirit will give them all wisdom and will help them interpret.
Hence, why it is really at this point in history that denominations went from 3 or 4 basic ones to about a hundred.
And then came the Charismatic / pentecostal movements from about 1900. Now not only did people have the bible in their own language and not only could they interpret it anyway they liked, now they had the Spirit of God who was giving new revelation apart from the Scriptures. Literally, the church splintered in hundreds of denominations.
And then finally in the 20th century, worldwide philosophy changed from the modern position to the post modern position. Now everyone could believe and think whatever they wanted and nobody could tell them what to do. Hence a zillion denominations sprang up.
But having said this. the church always reflects the world or the world is a reflection of the church. The world is just as confused as the Church. no one knows who they are anymore. We all identify however we want and no-one is able to say - no.
Yet this history only demonstrates how things changed and perhaps why.
I spring from the protestant point of view. I think the bible can be understood and has meaning that can be understood. there are ways to read books - even those written prior to Gutenburg. Books prior to Gutenburn DO NEED to read in a particular style. One example, is not in a chronological manner. Prior to Gutenburg, books were rare and valuable. Nobody wrote anything unless they absolutely had too. Words were important and not wasted. To copy a book required someone to physically write it out with hand. Ink and Quill or however they did it back then. they were written to be read and reread - with links back to previous parts and links to future parts. Nowadays, books can copied at the push of a computer button. They are written to be read once and discarded. There are absolutely billions of books with subjects about everything. They are written primarily to be read from cover to cover in a chronological order.
that is some of the differences necessary to understand when to read any book pre-gutenburg. Yet, the similarities are there too with modern books. they have words which most people can read and understand. the interpretation is not so subjective that there are a billion different meanings. Words and contexts have meanings.
A book came out in the previous century, called "how to read a book". It is not a religious book. Yet it is a wonderful book, for it teaches us how to read. You can download it for free on the internet. Yet it uses the same principles that I would use in reading the bible. And that anyone can use to read it and to understand it.
I take the view that if more than one person is able to come to the same conclusion as you when reading it - then you are starting to read it less subjectively. Of course the more people who arrive at the same conclusions as yourself - about what the text says and is trying to say - the more objective you are. When one person reads something and NO ONE arrives at the same conclusion it is a warning to be cautious. Of course it doesn't mean you are incorrect, but it does mean that you should be able to have good arguments for why you came to that position.
In the church, we have thousands of denominations - but actually relatively few disagreements on theological issues. Yes, that sounds like a contradiction - and yet when we start to see what the differences are - they are actually a lot less than we might consider. they mostly revolve around - the meaning of sacraments, church government, and the meaning of salvation. Yes, we could throw in endgames, and perhaps even interpretations of the bible. But basically that is it.
In my view - these issues of difference result from passion, culture and pride. And perhaps ignorance as well. America is very individualistic and anti-authoritarian in its culture. this is very different from Europe and England in particular which prides itself on traditions and authority. the Asian cultures, are very corporate orientated and this means that they in many ways - are opposed to individualistic thinking. Australia is a mixture of individualism and anti-authority, with many Asian cultures. And more recently, Middle Eastern and African mixes. these all play a part in how we understand the bible.
the thing is - we don't need secret knowledge to understand the bible. Yes it helps to understand the original languages and church history. It helps to have a viewpoint of these things.
No real answers currently available though.And the life sustaining ability of Planet Earth will inevitably end one day.Though whether or not we will have escaped this Earthly prison in our current form, will depend upon the application of science.Rather than the reinterpretation of old Middle Eastern folk tales.My opinions of course.And don't forget that there are a whole load of tough little critters who have the potential to out live Homo-sapiens without even thinking about it.No sin or love required.GOD principle maybe.
If you think there are no answers - you will hit that everytime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Your last post was an interesting one. I agree that there are many questions about life and the world we live in, and I'm glad that you acknowledge that.First, I need to get something off my chest. You referred to the gospel, as many Christians do, as "good news." That sounds weird to me, because the gospel is no longer news. It's been around for 2000 years and in the USA everyone over the age of 5 has already heard about it.
It is good news for anyone who has never heard it. And for anyone who embraces it today as well. It certainly is good news for me.
Second, if you believe the Bible, God is the source of evil. Isaiah 45:7 says "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (KJV) So it's not right to blame humans for evil, since God has already taken responsibility for it.
Yes, many people embrace that idea.
I happen to agree with the verse as well. Yet I don't agree with your commentary and conclusions on it. One might also say that perhaps God has taken responsibility for sin and evil by dying on the cross. For God, a divine being, the author of life, to die is perhaps the greatest punishment any could receive.
There is also a demarcation between God creating evil - whatever that is - and being responsible for sin. Evil in most translations in that verse is not translated evil. The word for evil in Hebrew is Ra. which is the name of an Egyptian God. Perhaps the passage is saying God created the Egyptian God, rather than saying God created evil. It might simply refer to tragedy. Or natural disaster. I am someone who embraces predestination - so I don't get worried or concerned about the things I don't understand. It is the things I do understand that concern me more. We have been told not to sin. Or we will face the consequences of it. Our choice. Yet I do find a bit of irony in the Atheist's worldview - which they don't actually have and yet is implied in their no - belief in God.
Most atheists I know embrace determinism - cause and effect. our environments or our DNA determine what we do. For them free will is a bit silly. Yes, there are some free will atheists. Yet most are not. Do they say that when someone rapes a little child that the person is responsible or that it is simply determinism and that there was nothing the rapist could do? Our system would fall over if - we actually were consistent with that position. Me, I agree with determinism but I also agree with personal responsibility. In Christian circles, we call this covenant theology.
Personally, I don't mind what people say - God is the judge of the universe and the rules he makes and the way he judges is a matter for him. If he chooses to be merciful, people jump up and say - great, if he is just - in relation to others, then they can deal with that, it is when he judges us justly for the evil or the sin or the offences we have done, that is when we get our noses out of joint.
so to answer your question - I don't think God creating evil - whatever that is - makes him personally responsible to the extent that people are not responsible for their actions. After all, if I am going to agree with the bible, including the bits you quoted, I also must agree with the parts that clearly say that God is good and can not do evil. I take it all. Not just parts of it. the question is - which part do I start with and how do I interpret it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
It's not my job to convert. That is a matter for God.
Jesus said the Spirit, like the Wind goes whither it goes.
From my point of view - I just want to present the gospel. That is the good news that Jesus has come to reconcile humanity with God.
Many people don't believe in God. Others don't consider that they are estranged from God.
Yet the Bible teaches that all humanity is estranged from God, because of their unbelief and their sinfulness. Not that all men or even one man is as evil as possible, but that they are all tainted by their unbelief and sin. Sin is the reason for this irreconcilable relationship. Most people don't even believe in sin. Or they think sin is what evil people do. Yet all of us have lied at one stage or another or taken something that doesn't belong to us or thought thoughts that we wouldn't want others to know. And these are just the human elements of sin.
When it comes to God - sins against him are a form of treason. To not believe he exists is a form of treason. It's a little like the sovereign citizen argument. Weak and flawed.
Nevertheless, God, despite his notion of justice, also sought to save those who wanted to be saved from their sentence of death. this is why he sent Jesus, to be punished - for those - who were prepared to accept his rule. those who didn't would simply have to trust themselves that they had figured it out - and hope for the best. Those who trust him - receive mercy. Those who don't receive justice. It's that simple.
the questions most have to ponder is - why do people die? Why is there evil and why is there good? Who determines what good and evil are? Is there a purpose - an objective purpose for life or is it all just random and left to people to decide? Is there a God? Who is this God? How can I know for sure that this is God? what evidence would I accept? Which story makes the most plausible sense? Which ones don't? and how do I determine such things in the first place?
If God does exist, what are the different religions? Can they all be true? Can any one be true? How can we know? Has God communicated to us? Are there differences or similarities with each of the religions or worldviews? Are they all the same or not? Lots of questions. I would be glad to discuss any of these matters with you if you are interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
It sounds like there is no way for me to become a believer then.
Excellent, then we are on the same wavelength. Jesus said the same thing. It is impossible for someone to become a Christian all by themselves.
The bible says - it is a miracle. Jesus said you must be born again. Nicodemus the priest of God, cried - "unfair". that's impossible. How can someone go back into their mother's womb?
It is an act of God. I have said it before and I will say it again. One of the proofs that people can prove the bible is fake and that God is a liar is for someone to become a Christian all by themselves. The bible says it is impossible. I read above - I am not sure who - that it is the easiest thing to do. But that is nonsense.
It is impossible. and let me demonstrate this. You do it. Become a Christian and prove to me that you are. Do it for 12 months. And then tell me it is all a lie.
the bible does tells us - that if people want to be saved - they need to repent of their sins and be baptized. Turn to Jesus etc. And for some people this looks easy - but it's not.
Oh and by the way - although I say it is impossible for people by themselves to become a Christian, I am not saying that people do not become Christians. I take a monergistic view. It is God's work. Not ours. We can't do it ourselves.
So do it - prove to me then that you are a Christian. I won't make it difficult for you - but I will be honest with you. I know when people are trying to be fake or not. there are a few on this site for instance who claim - they are Christians but they are not. I am not talking about the difference in theology or denominations. I know Christians in pretty much all denominations and people who have a variety and different theology and doctrines to me. But there are some essential doctrines and some non-essential doctrines. These are not ways to become a Christian - but evidence of - or fruit of being a Christian.
PM if you want to know more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I have no good reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.Do you honestly think I would not believe that my own mother being raised was sufficient reason? You don't even know me. You think that Bible verse is all you need to know? You and I must be living in different worlds.
There are many good reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead. The fact that you think there are no good reasons is a matter for you. But that is a subjective opinion on which billions of people disagree. Of course, truth is not decided by majority vote, but for you to say there are no good reasons, diminishes EVERYONE who says there are good reasons. What is your standard for a good reason?
Honestly, there are many reason that your mother could come back to life that are not dependent upon God existing. Perhaps aliens come to this world and decide to provide some wonderful contraption that enables your mother to breathe again. Or perhaps someone invents a Time Machine that enables you to go back and find some cure for her. Or perhaps - she has tricked you into thinking she is dead and then somehow appears in the future claiming God has raised her from the dead. There are lots of potential reasons - perhaps there is a clone made from her DNA - and this clone is somehow able to convince you that she is the real deal. My point is - if someone does not want to believe in God, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever - to make you think otherwise. At least this side of death - or until God himself descends from heaven on Judgment Day. A time when - belief will be dispensed away with.
I don't think that a bible verse by itself is something you need to know. The bible itself - says that the leaders and teachers read the bible and can't find life. I don't need to know you to know that you are deceiving yourself if you think a miracle will provide evidence for you to believe in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There you go Trade, off interpreting again.Just as I did.
there's nothing wrong with interpreting, so long as you are doing it correctly. I just laugh everytime I see you attempting to interpret. Imagine if scientists took the same approach as you did, the world would be in chaos. Which incidentally, is why we have so many different denominations in religion and so many different types of atheists.
Some might even say that death is the inevitability of life relative to innate programming.
Death is inevitable without the key to life.
And some might further say that sin is a concept relative to the species ability to over think.
Yes some people ignore the idea of sin, since it is to personal. And requires them to actually think and take responsibility. We can't have that can we?
And further still, some might suggest that love is an overused word, relative to any pleasant response to a sensory stimulus.
I think love is overused and misunderstood. This doesn't however mean it is not true.
Does every living organism die because of sin?
Yes. but not because of their own personal sin, but because of the sin caused by humans. Hey that is the thesis of our most wonderful scientists too, isn't it? they might not call it sin, just greed, selfishness, vengeance, etc, the whole world will die because of humans. And if the consensus of human scientists think this - can they be wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Matthew 12:37-45 answers your question.
And it tells us that even if a dead person came back that they still would not believe.
that's also the purpose of the man who dies and goes to Hell. He cries out to God, please send me back to at least tell my brothers.
And the answer is similar. Even if a person came back from the dead, they still wouldn't believe.
So even though you say - you would believe if God raised your mother from the dead, I don't believe you.
After all, he raised Jesus from the dead and you don't believe that. and there is significant evidence to support it. We don't even have to believe it in faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What sort of proof would an atheist accept to prove to them that they are wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If GODDO always had resurrection up its sleeve then why would it need to be wrathful?Actually, given it's omni-capabilities, why would a GOD be wrathful at all.
Resurrection isn't something up someone's sleeve. People live and then they die. That is because of sin.
Wrath is a reasonable response to evil. Wrath is anger at evil. It is also the framework in relation to justice.
Omni- capabilities don't imply that a person, even God, must need remain neutral. The same question could be said about love. Why be loving if he is omni-capable.
Wrath is not just an emotion - it is the essence of justice. And in particular when justice has been broken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'd suggest reading Mark first. Read it out loud and read it in one sitting. Most of these books in the NT were meant to be read out loud and often in one sitting.
But Mark is the shortest gospel -and there is a certain speed to it as well.
I am pleased to see you care that people read the bible and are attempting to assist. I can't fault that position.
I think it's good to read one gospel first - read the book of Acts, and followed by some of Paul's writings. Romans is a good book to read, even though it is pretty meaty.
In the OT - Genesis and Exodus - good places to start. I wouldn't worry about the next 3 until later - read some of kings of Israel - David and how the nation went sour and into exile. History is helpful.
Read some of the wisdom books - Job is good place to start for suffering and asking the question why. Songs for marriage and love and relationships. Proverbs has lots of principles.
Wait a while before you get into the prophecies, like the minor prophets and the book of Revelation. they are interesting but unless you understand genre and what the purpose of prophecy is - you will get lost. In the West we tend to think that prophecy is about predicting the future, in the Middle East where these books were written - the purpose of prophecy was to cause people to respond ethically to particular events and possibilities. The example of Jonah is helpful.
Jonah was an OT prophet who made a prophecy against a Gentile city. this prophecy did not literally come true. So why wasn't he stoned as a false prophet - but rather his story was enshrined in the OT and even referred to by Jesus? The answer comes back to purpose. Did it achieve what it was meant to? And the answer is yes.
The same can be applied to the book of Revelation. What is its purpose? To reveal the wrath of God against the Jews for killing the messiah. and to offer salvation for those who were prepared to trust Jesus.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If it's going to be subjective interpretation, then people do as they want - and as they do now. Stay or leave. It's up to them whether they have broken the rules or not.Not sure about that. For instance, the bible says to go kosher and Jesus never un does it. So should Christains then only eat kosher?Again. you seem to have shot yourself in your own foot.How so?
Absolutely the NT expands the OT idea. Peter was given instructions to embrace the Gentiles into the church. The OT - at least from Jacob was primarily about the Jews in covenant with God. Jesus came as the Messiah in the NT to expand who might be covenanted with God. Kosher as you so boldly put it - is more than not eating Pig. It is anything that is unclean is not kosher. And not just eating it, but touching it.
Gentiles are not kosher according to the Jew. Just like in Muslim nations, eating with the wrong hand immediately brings a faux paux.
Jesus's entry into the world - cleansed the unclean - through his blood. that's the story of the Cross. It meant that Gentiles if washed by Jesus through forgiveness are can be kosher, then such things as pig and sea food, and other considered unclean foods can be eaten to. Jesus himself said - it is not what goes into the body that makes one unclean - but rather what comes out. Out of the heart, which itself is unclean. Yet once your heart is cleansed, then all things become permissible to some extent. Not that you need to go out and intentionally sin, but that with a new heart - you will be seeking to glorify God. It is our old heart that desires to sin. Our new heart desires to do good.
You have shot yourself in the foot, by pretty much saying - people should leave their religion if they don't follow their rules. And then say on the other hand, that each person determines their own rules. and for Atheists - you said initially that Atheists should leave their religion - and then you say they have no rules. What does that even mean? If they have no rules, how can they not keep them? It seems like you are attempting to make an argument that folds back on itself.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So just to round this out, there are personal relationships and ...... kinds of relationships?Friends, Lovers, Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, there are many types of loves and relationships.God even claims this when he says things like," Love your neighbor as you would your brother," constituting that there is a certain kind of love that you can show someone.
What is love? I love my country. what does that mean? I love my church. What does that mean. I love my family. What does that look like?
I apologise for my ignorance but how precisely do these verses convey "personal" relationships?What is a loving relationship if not personal?
Again, what is love? That needs to be defined. And also what does personal mean? Is that about what I do - individually or collectively or is it a sexual thing? Or is it broader than that. And what would make a relationship non-personal? I go the bank. I don't hate the bank. It gives me money. We have a relationship which I do personally. I smile at the people who work for the bank. But it is the bank I am doing business with.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Although the sentiment sounds fair, who determines what the rules of the religion are?Your interpretation of your religion. People have all sorts of ways they interpret the Bible because the Bible contradicts its self. If you’re Christian, you live by your interpretation of the Bible, and if that means going kosher because Jesus never denounced it, you do that. I think Christians should go kosher because their religion tells them too and no Bible verse undid kosher laws.
If it's going to be subjective interpretation, then people do as they want - and as they do now. Stay or leave. It's up to them whether they have broken the rules or not.
And who would determine the rules of Atheism? Or any other religion.Atheism has no rules; do whatever you want as long as your not harming anybody else.
Again. you seem to have shot yourself in your own foot.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Although the sentiment sounds fair, who determines what the rules of the religion are?
Is it you or me or the pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? Is it Jesus and how do we know what rules he made? If it's what is written in the bible, how does one determine how it ought to be understood? Who makes that rule?
And who would determine the rules of Atheism? Or any other religion.
I think the fact that even in Christianity there are so many denominations shows that this is not an easy question to answer.
I'm Presbyterian. and we have a common joke in our denomination.
What happens when you put three presbyterians into a room? 2 New denominations.
It's a joke. Not really amusing - and not really true - but somewhat applicable because presbyterians, like many others, have strong and passionate views - but also hold onto them stubbornly, like a dollar bill. We don't like to give up our truths. or doctrines. or rules.
So although I think your sentiment sounds fair, I just can't see how it would work out in practice. There are over 7 billion people in the world today - and I think that means there are approximately 7 billion ways in which people see the world - and understand the rules they live by.
Is this good or bad? Not really. I think that mostly, people who share particular values - flock to each other. I think that is what is more important. If we don't share someone else's values, we can leave, or seek to change or persuade those whose values are not the same. That of course is a matter for every person to work out.
Should we stay to change the system or should we leave and start our own or find someone who shares our views. Martin Luther - tried to stay and reform the Catholic Church. Soon that choice became redundant as he was kicked out. so he started his own.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People can read the book and use it for instruction - but that doesn't make them Christians.Atheists rarely read the Bible to learn from it. There are exceptions, of course, but they are in small number. Atheists will usually, when they do read, read the Bible to find what they dislike in it and use it as a criticism for Christianity.
Hmm. I actually think Atheists read the bible lots. And many do - more than some Christians. And I suspect that it is the fundamentalist atheists who do this. They after all are the most challenged and the most invested. Nominal Atheists - which is probably most people - don't read the bible very much. the militant atheists - those who hang around religious debate websites for instance - have ready access to the bible. And most have read it. Do they understand it? Not really. They sometimes get the gist of it. But more often than not, actually twist it to mean what they think it means. Hence why they and Christians are at loggerheads. I think some of these atheists are sincere and some are not. some are actually looking for the truth of what the bible says - and others are looking for secrets or reasons to mock it. There is however nothing new under the sun. most of the rhetoric is just cut and pastes from other people's work - much of which has been refuted over and over again.
Also Christians can often not read the bible and still remain Christians.I have a problem with Christians who never read the Bible or listened to its word. I can understand the poor who cannot afford the Bible and dont live near the church, but I cannot understand the Christians who can afford to but still dont read the Bible at all.In my view, Bible is the foundation for morality and knowledge. While the Bible does not contain all the knowledge in the world, it tells us the best morality, best principles of economy, best principles of social life, best way of scientific research, best governing principles, even the best military principles were described in the Bible. Even the hermit way of life and survival was described in the Bible. Even the basics of agriculture were described in the Bible. Even the managing of diseases and isolation of the sick were described in the Bible.Bible is rich with knowledge on so many topics, reading it is definitely worthy. Some Christians probably find it difficult to read 2000 pages, but my main objection to them would be that if they are ready to read thousands of pages of texts and articles on the internet every month, what is the problem with reading the Bible that in most cases takes 2-3 months to be read if they read 30 pages every day.
I value the bible as well. Is it the foundation of morality? Well not quite. But it is certainly built on the foundation of morality. It has significant contributions to assist us as a globe to become more moral. Yet without the Spirit of God, we will just be reformed on the outside. Consider the story Jesus makes in Matthew 12:43-45. This is a picture of a man - reformed on the outside - and even somewhat on the inside - but there is no regeneration, just reformation. It's a little like a man washing his clothes on the outside - but not dealing with the inside. It actually is a picture of Israel the nation. In the OT they were worshiping idols. Yet despite being punished, judged and offering /. confessing their sins, here they are in the NT about to kill the Messiah. There was some outside moralising, the pharisees were really good at doing good. Yet it did not penetrate into their hearts. they were never regenerated.
Hence, why the Spirit of God is necessary. He brings regeneration. He is the one who changes the heart - inside - transforming it. In one sense, a legal sense he does this at a person's conversation. And that brings forgiveness and reconciliation with God. Yet the Spirit of God then takes up residence and begins to change the person's life - inside - making him more like Jesus.
Unless this happens, all the good works in the world will last for only a moment. All the good moralising will do so much. Ultimately the person will go back to what they were - only worse. That's why baptism is not a fix it all solution. It washed the outside - not the inside. The inside requires regeneration - not just reformation.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thanks for your words.
I would disagree with you.
The difference between the Christian and the Atheist. (Atheist is defined as anyone who does not believe in the Triune God) is the Holy Spirit.
The bible is an amazing book which contains all that is necessary for life and faith, however, it remains a book.
People can read the book and use it for instruction - but that doesn't make them Christians. Also Christians can often not read the bible and still remain Christians.
As proof of this - many people on this site - read - (scan their websites with selected verses) and are not Christians.
The Bible does contain lots of incredible explanations for lots of things in lots of areas. Nevertheless, it is not a textbook on any of those things.
It is a story. It is the way God chooses to communicate to this world. Through stories. Hence it is the story of humanity as understood in part through Jewish eyes, and then in part through Christian eyes. It is a story - and yet it is more than a story. It is His Story. He is the Author and we are the Characters.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
A commune is private.
Isn't a commune - a private public sort of place? A mixture of two notions. People who join communes typically makes vows to be rid of all private property.
Yet, I suppose it is fair to say that communes typically occur on private land. It's a bit of an oxymoron really.
In relation to the early church in Jerusalem, I suggest there was a specific purpose for why this occurred and also why it is not a prescription for the rest of the church.
As you will know from your reading in the Acts of the Apostles, when the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples of Christ at Pentecost, it changed everything. Pentecost was already a wonderful Jewish festival and people from all around the known world, came and celebrated together at Jerusalem. The town's markets would have prepared for this occasion as they did every year.
Yet this year, the year the Holy Spirit fell, it changed everything. The people were hearing the gospel and converting to Christ. People were being baptized and wanting to know more about this Holy Spirit. And about what was happening in the community at the time. Although normally people would finish their holiday and their celebrations and go home, this year, the year the Holy Spirit fell, thousands of people remained in Jerusalem for an extended period of time.
This created a chaos in the city. The town's markets had not catered or planned for an expected period when people would remain in the city. Soon after the normal period of celebrations, the food and the drink and the normal supplies would start to dwindle. It would not be long before there was not enough for everyone.
It takes times to shift in more food and supplies. The coming of the Holy Spirit had changed everything - and the town of Jerusalem and the new converts were not ready for this "type of famine" of supplies.
That's the background. Yes, soon food and supplies would return to the town. But not immediately. And in the context of the times the people of this revival acted in love towards one another - for this extended period of time. Notice - however not everyone sold all of their goods. How do we know? Because they met in private houses. Houses which obviously had not been sold. They met together and they worshiped God.
These were extraordinary times and exciting times. It is a description of what was necessary in those times, but it is not a prescription of how the church should be in every time. Yes, there is an underlying principle of loving others. But in other times, this might entirely different. The beauty of the church and its teachings are they are consistent and yet they are flexible. Covenant theology is brilliant.
Therefore I disagree with your conclusion that "this is how society ought to be". Certainly at the time it was necessary. Yet to apply it in every society would be impracticable. Christianity, like its ancient Jewish heritage acknowledges that private property is good. The Commandment not to steal absolutely implies that private property is not to be stolen. If there were no private property and everything belonged to everyone - then this commandment would have no meaning.
Of course, sharing with people, enabling people to have enough, cooperating are good things. There is no reason why those things ought not exist even within a Capitalist society.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What kind of relationship?Where does it say in the Bible, that being a Christian is about having a relationship with God?A relationship unlike any other.More like a father to son type relationship.Think of it like a marriage.When you sin, you cheat. Cheating hurts your significant other. Sin hurts God.The only difference is that all you have to do is ask God for forgiveness when you sin and he forgives you, because he loves you too much to not.
I think it is more of a covenantal relationship where there are numerous types of analogies, such as father, son, or husband wife, master, slave. teacher, student. king, subject, God creature, Judge, accused.
It is true we need to confess our sins and ask God for forgiveness. He is just and faithful to forgive. Not sure about your last phrase in that sentence.
Are you speaking personal relationship or something else?Yes, very personal.
So just to round this out, there are personal relationships and ...... kinds of relationships?
Where does it say in the Bible, that being a Christian is about having a relationship with God? \Hebrews 5:12-14:"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe."1 Corinthians 3:1-2:"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."
I apologise for my ignorance but how precisely do these verses convey "personal" relationships?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think a commune is a private or public affair?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What kind of relationship?
Are you speaking personal relationship or something else?
Where does it say in the Bible, that being a Christian is about having a relationship with God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The study is wrong.
Australia did not have 69% of its countries as atheists. Even now religious people make up well over 50% of the population. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia
Here those who say they have no-religion is approximately 38%.
Many of those are not atheists. They consider themselves spiritual and believe in god or gods or divine power - and do not consider themselves atheists.
It is that they disbelieve in organised religion.
So your study is incorrect.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I’m pretty sure you could probably teach an ape which knows sign language about a monster that lives up a hill. And maybe teach it ritualistic practices to prevent it from coming for them. But that would probably be considered abuse. You would also probably have to teach them when they’re young so it sticks with them.
It wouldn't be abuse if it were true. In fact, if it's true, it would be reckless, vindictive, and cruel not to teach it about the monster.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
OK. We're getting somewhere.Christians now think that the Bible tales are a bit of a nonsense.Especially in respect of GOD, the virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and Jesus Christ who was not actually GOD.So how does that affect the Christian hypothesis?Or is this just the Trade hypothesis?
Christianity is a broad church. As the number of denominations clearly reflects. Yet EVEN within each denomination, there also exists a difference in emphasis of thinking. An example of this difference in thinking is not so much logic and reasoning but the premises by which conclusions are drawn. Is there more of a reliance upon Revelation or more of a reliance on experience? Hence, we have the liberals in one corner, the fundamentalists in another corner, the Charismatics in another corner and the Confessionalists in another corner.
Most Christians I suspect do consider their religion significant or they would leave. Most Christians do believe in God. There are some who don't. Many Christians believe in the reliability of the Scriptures, even if they don't consider them without error. Most would consider that the Scriptures hold great authority in general, even if they don't always consistently apply the bible to themselves individually. Many Christians do hold some images in the bible as purposeful for instruction rather than as prescriptive for life.
Yet despite these differences, Christians still manage to find unity in their faith. Is it perfect? Of course not. Can we find fault? Absolutely. Yet there are relatively few who would simply throw the name of Christ away as nonsense.
Trade's version:Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.It seemingly did.In fact, it came from something eternal which we refer to as GODAnd even though we don't know exactly what GOD is, we must nonetheless worship it.
Hmmm. I don't think something came from nothing. I absolutely hold that God created all things. There is no question in my mind. Despite the "convenient" calculations that some do, the odds and probability of life beginning, let alone getting to the point it is today is so impossible that only a "fool" would seriously consider it worthy of putting on the table. There are many intelligent fools in this world.
God is eternal. This means he has no beginning nor no end. He is also timeless.
We don't need to know exactly what God is to worship God. We know enough, however, even as he himself has revealed himself so that we are without excuse. What makes someone worthy of respect? Isn't that the question that people ask and demand in our day and age? I won't respect someone unless they prove themselves. Yet it is nonsense of a statement.
Imagine, you go down and speed in your car. Suddenly in your mirror, you see blue lights. Will you stop? Yes. But why? Respect. Respect this police officer has never proved. He just wears a uniform. You end up in court. The judge sentences you to 3 months in custody. What do you do? Give him the finger. He or she has never proved they deserve your respect or submission or obedience. And yet you are given no choice. You will respect them or face consequences.
The correct way of understanding who to give respect to is more complex than simply repeating the nonsense statement that respect has to be proved. There are some people and things that deserve respect whether they have proved it or not. And they do so because of their position, because of their nature, because of their character, because of their uniform, and what they represent. Police deserve respect, judges, deserve respect, parents deserve respect, governments deserve respect, armies deserve respect, firefighters deserve respect. They don't have to earn it. It is theirs implicitly. Even the North Korean president deserves respect.
Of course, all of these people can lose respect. Yet even if we lose respect for them individually, and even if we lose respect for what they represent, we still will respect their power and the things that they can certainly do.
The same applies to God. God created the world and the universe. That is supreme power and has a deserved respect implicitly. Not believing in justice doesn't mean that you are not subject to the laws of the land. Even the ultimate anarchist in the great state of America is still subject to the laws of the land. Some things are inescapable.
God has done far more than simply create a world. He has put into place the laws of logic and reason and science so that you can use your brain in the first instance, and the things about you. He gives you breath every day just so that you can have the option of breathing out words of hate towards him. He isn't afraid of you. He doesn't need you. Yet he has still given you life, perhaps to see if you can figure out how to reason properly. perhaps to see if you might humble yourself. perhaps to see if there is more to you than just your own feelings.
Zed's version:Well, even though something cannot come from nothing.It seemingly did.So, it may have come from something eternal, which I refer to as the GOD principle.But as I have no idea as to what it might be, I see no need to worship it.
We don't worship what we understand perfectly. We worship the creator God of this universe who holds each one of us in his hands and who loves us even though many of us hate him.
Worship doesn't mean getting on your knees and pouring out your tears to him. It can mean that, but it doesn't only mean that. In your case it would simply be an acknowledgment that you don't know EVERYTHING, and that there are some things bigger than you, including God. God is not only the creator, he is the judge. And interestingly, along the way, he became for those who don't want to represent themselves, their lawyer. The first rule of law, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
We're not poles apart Trade.Some people need to worship something, ergo theist.And some people don't, ergo atheist.
You're right. We are both broken people. And neither of us can fix ourselves by ourselves. Everyone needs to eat and drink and breathe. When it comes to worship, the same is true and ALL of us worship. IT is never a matter of worship or no worship, but rather WHO we worship. Everyone has a god. Even if that god is called zed, or Trade, or the God of the Bible. Hence, there really is no such thing as an atheist. The one who does not worship the True God just worships another god. The so-called atheist worships himself. He alone is worthy of respect and understanding. He alone is the most important person for that person. He alone is his own greatest authority.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.LOL, is that what atheists do? I guess I wasn’t paying attention, tell memore, do they grow horns and a tail too? You have quite the imagination.
My point is simple. Atheists do what they want according to their own desires and lusts. Progressives and atheists are often correlated. They prefer culture - at least how they perceive it. Are there exceptions? Of course. But culture and class for the progressive is Green orientated, socialist, vegetarian or more extreme, highly academized, fine wine, fine food, fine everything. Do what you want - live for the day, captain of your own fate.
silly of you to suggest tails and horns. Evolution has its limits.
Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists. So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic.It’s funny that you think integritydoesn’t matter, so this post is about atheists. If they are atheists on some posts and Christians on other posts, dothey only sometimes devolve into wild animals living in the woods?
I never said integrity doesn't matter. In the other string, I was enquiring about the commencement of life. Here I am enquiring about the correlation between religion and evolution. Both are valid enquiries. What I say there in no way discounts what I have said here.
What sort of ad hominin argument is that?It’s not any sort of ad hominem argument.
Really!.
I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution". In any event, my argument is straightforward. Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.Your premise is not necessarily true,and even if it were true, your conclusion doesn’t follow.
In other words, you can't follow it. that is what people call a biased conclusion.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work. It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more. Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me?No thanks, seeing as I didn’t sayanything even resembling that, I’ll pass on explaining it.I love how you guys think the debate isabout the debate rather than the subject supposedly being debated. Burden ofproof, new definitions of the words, ad hominem arguments, all these nonsense tacticsused to avoid actually discussing the subject are uninteresting. I’m done discussing the BoP with all you cluelessgoofballs, go ahead and play your inane BoP game without me.
I don't particularly care what you love. That is your issue. Burden of Proof is for the person who asserts. I'm not avoiding the discussion. I asked a reasonable question and it is you who is hiding. And running away.
I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion. Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent. Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work. What however it looks like you are doing is this. You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond. Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond. I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself.LOL, you seem to be able to have a discussionwith me all by yourself, you don’t really need me to respond to argue with me. Please, go on ahead, I’ll watch you continueto discuss this with me, I find it entertaining.
That's a convenient response. No one asked you to respond. You did it all by yourself.
I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species in varying degrees. But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.Are yousure you need me in this conversation, you had a conversation with me about theBoP without my involvement, perhaps you’d like to discuss my strong argumentswithout hearing them. And remind me, are you wanting me to provide astrong argument for religious behavior in animals or is the debate about thedebate now, are you looking for a strong argument about the rules of this debate game you play?
and who is choosing to hide behind silly rhetoric right now? Give us your best shot.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
As demonstrated, you know exactly what I am saying but have no credible way of refuting the argument, other than to cite terminology such as non-sequitur and ad-hominem.
so what is your argument? Read below. Your argument is ridicule and mockery.
So a magical bloke f**ked a Middle Eastern virgin and sort of created a cloned version himself.And by the way, this magical bloke created the universe only a few thousand years ago.It's the creation hypothesis of fantasy.
ibid.
just for the record, Christians don't believe in a magical bloke. We don't believe that God had sexual relations of any description with Mary. We don't think Jesus is a clone of God.
Yes, God created the world. When? I don't know. Was it a few thousand years ago? I don't know. I wasn't there and it CAN'T be confirmed 100% either way. Whatever any person believes about the beginning of the world or the universe MUST be taken on FAITH of some description.
And something from nothing, for sure it's the big conundrum with no solution.
that's your belief - you argue it.
So, it was a GOD what did it.Ah, but what did GOD?
that again is your discussion. I take the view that some things are eternal. We see it even in our temporal world, numbers start in eternity and end in eternity. obviously both start and end are being used figuratively. We think of space - but what is at the end of space?
The problem you have is that what you can apply to numbers, and time and space, you can't apply to a personality. But you don't have an epistemological reason to deny it. just a blind faith.
We seem to be back to square one again.Magical floaty about Arabian type, or BIG BOOM, or whatever, all rely upon the something from nothing principle.Because the old eternal GOD thing, is about as non-sequitur as it gets Trade.
Nope. you are the one who gets back to the circle. Not me.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
i believe that all of scripture should be interpreted literally. God isnt metaphorical, nor is he a deciever. If he says something is happening or happened or will happen. then it will.
hmmm. People can interpret the language within the Scriptures, as they can with any other piece of literature either literally or allegorically. This is the primary difference between the way theologians in the West interpret it as opposed to the Orthodox in the East. In the East, where they interpret it allegorically, they do so with the idea that the words of any given text have several layers or meanings. In the West, where we use the literal methodology, we mean that the text of meaning has one primary meaning. In other words, we don't have to go looking for other so-called "spiritual" meanings.
Under that understanding, I think, since I live in the West and also because I think words have meanings, that we should use the literal manner of interpretation or understanding words in their context.
Nevertheless, understanding the words are literal is only the first step and for many in the West, a no-brainer. It is then that we need to discern what kind of genre the author was using when he or she wrote the literal text. Was it a historical narrative piece of writing? Was it poetry? Was it wisdom literature? Was it a letter being written to a particular person or group of people? Was it a gospel? Was it apocalyptic writing or even prophetic writing? Authors communicate their ideas in a range of different forms. God is not metaphorical, but sometimes the way he communicates to us is using such a form. That is not deceptive - that is simply using his creativity to communicate ideas. We do it every day in our lives, and it is not deceptive. We use poetry, exaggeration, hyperbole, historical narrative, and so on. We use metaphors and similes. We compare and contrast. We draw conclusions and use reason and logic. And so does God who is the author of language.
None of this makes him a deceiver nor does it mean he doesn't mean what he says. Or that what he promises won't come to pass. But we do need to understand what he is saying. For instance, in Psalm 23, the Lord is called a shepherd. This does not mean that he tends literal sheep, although it is true that David did. When the bible says we all like sheep have gone astray, he is not saying that we are literal sheep. When the Psalmist says that God owns the cattle on 1000 hills, he is not saying that God does not own the cattle on the rest of the hills. When Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, gauge it out, he is not literally saying gauge your eye out. He is using hyperbole. He is stressing the seriousness of sin. Don't do it he is saying. When he says - you must hate your family more than me, he is talking with hyperbole. He is stressing the notion of priorities, not saying you should literally hate your family.
We need to be careful with the way we understand language. As you said above we need to understand it literally, but then we need to determine what kind of genre it is. Literal is not a genre. Sadly, many people Christians and otherwise never had much of an education and so never learned the difference.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
nonsense. nor do you have any proof to make that assumption.you certainly dont have a good enough understanding of scripture to seperate metaphorical discription as a true rendering.i bet you think the psalms are just metaphorical as well.
The Psalms are poetry in the main. It contains many songs. It is what is known as wisdom language.
As for proof, what kind of proof are you looking for?
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
you can reject what you want, but scripture makes it clear that even rocks have a will. that even the earth is "groaning" according to scripture, desiring for the manifestation of the sons of God.you seem very confident in your ignorance. if you want verses, just @me
The bible uses language to describe things in such a way that humans are able to identify with and therefore respond to.
The bible also pictures God with hands and feet and yet we know from other passages that he is a spirit and does not have a body like humans. This is metaphorical language or language that gives us an understanding of God yet not a literal picture.
The earth groaning and the rocks praising - are giving to inanimate objects by pictorial language human attributes. The rock is not going to suddenly stand on two feet which it does not have or open a mouth it does not have and say words - which it can't articulate. Remember the heavens declare the glory of God. But that is by a simple declaration of what it is. Similarly, the earth's groaning is not suggesting it has a mind. Rather the earth is in a waiting mode - for the time that Christians wake up to themselves and start living in the way they ought to.
But it is not suggesting that the earth has a freewill. That is taking the language completely out of context - language and genre context.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
You make atheists sound like a bunch of weirdos.Be that as it may, I'm more interested in discussing your ideas about the bible.I have nothing further to say about the topic of this thread.
Atheists are no weirder than anyone else. They have their own delusions. The main one is that they think they are objectively correct.
hey, if you want to discuss bible ideas, start your own thread. I am happy to contribute to forum topic that I am interested in.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
are you asserting rocks dont praise out of desire/freewill?would you argue humans also dont have freewill? you are on a slippery slope in assuming inanimate objects dont have a desire/will.
I'm not sure whether you are being serious or not. Rocks don't have minds and they do not have freewill. Rocks are not even alive. If a rock praises God, then that is because God caused it to do so.
In relation to humans, I think we need to ask the question about what freewill is. Is it the freedom to do whatever we want? Or think?
If it is simply going to be a choice then every human has the ability to make some choices. Yet there are some things we can't choose to do. For instance, I can't choose to be a bird. I can't choose to be Asian. I can't choose to be 25 years of age again.
So yes, I do think that humans have free will. After all, it wouldn't appear just for them to be punished for something they had no choice over. I reject your assertion that since inanimate objects do not have free will humans can't. There is no slippery slope here.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
One does not need to subscribe to a religion to be able to understand the naive hypothesis behind it.
That is a statement that asserts more conclusions than it can prove. Religion doesn't have a naive hypothesis behind it. One walks into a museum and sees all the artwork on the wall. What might we conclude? That there is a naive hypothesis behind it all. Or that perhaps each of the works had an artist behind it. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. And yet that is what your first sentence concludes.
I would also suggest that atheism is actually a more progressive concept than theism.
Suggest away. But don't forget that progress has a direction. It might be headed to the chasm or to enlightenment. Progress is not neutral. Even our modern political systems recognise that progress has different directions. In other words, the word progressive is not neutral. And ergo adds little to the conversation.
The rejection of archaic naivety in favour of logical realism.
Yes, I reject foolish notions such as "first there was nothing, then for no apparent reason, since nothing changed, nothing exploded. And this nothing - which exploded somehow transformed into the most amazing something". That is the ultimate archaic naivety. Logical realism says - that nothing can come from nothing. It requires something to create something and to cause something.
1. The theist accepts that it was a magical floaty about Middle Eastern bloke what did it.
Commencing with ridicule proves how desperate and faulty your logic is. It simply means you have accepted defeat already, but don't know how to deal with it in your own mind. Hence, why you resort immediately to ridicule.
2. The atheist assesses the theistic concept and realises how stupid an idea it is.
The atheist when they commence with ridicule demonstrates they are unable to assess objectively. Hence, what flows after that is always going to be non-sequitur.
As ever:GOD concept valid.Floaty about Arabian type, not so.
As demonstrated. Your argument is not really an argument. It is ridicule and therefore ad hominin.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Thanks for the Luke 19 passage. I wondered whether that is where you would go to initially. Still the fact that God could make them praise God implies that they are not currently religious.
I wouldn't use this to suggest that they were.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is a foundation for a much larger fundamental difference between Christianity and right-wing politics and atheism and left-wing politics. Christianity ultimately yearns for a higher state that transcends the flesh which is inherently flawed meanwhile the ENTIRE FUCKING foundation for liberalism assumes a positive natural state in which humans must enter a "social contract" with government.Left-wing politics is foundationally primitive
I totally agree that Left-wing politics is foundationally primitive. It's unsurprising then that most atheists are in the Progressive left. They have yet to evolve to the rest of humanity. One problem they haven't figured out yet, this is the Left, not necessarily the atheist, is logic.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, this is a topic to roast rabid atheists, aint it?At least you have a point, we human beings are in an ongoing evolutionary process. Thats why we still have religions -and also atheism- today.But I agree with you, atheism is as primitive as religions.
Yeah, I confess, I felt like roasting an atheist. It seems to be more the norm to roast the religious.
I just want to even up the scores a little bit.
Thanks for agreeing. Refreshing really.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Where did you see atheists that are living like wild animals, without control, rules or social norms? Who are they? I don't know any atheists who could be described in that way. Tell me where I can find them or read about them.
Yes, I see them at parties, nightclubs, people getting themselves intoxicated on alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it. Of course, you might be tempted to say atheists don't drink or take drugs, or have sex.
I also notice them at restaurants, eating sushi, rare meat, vegan food, etc. It's quote common really. Or do you think atheists don't go to restaurants? The rarer the meat, the more cultured you are. The more expensive the wine, and never ever drink beer.
So if you want to see them, come to Melbourne, you will see them on almost any city street during lunchtime, or in the evening at all the plush cafes'.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet.Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion.It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear.Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms. Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved. eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking.Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living.You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists. So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?
It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic. What sort of ad hominin argument is that? I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution". In any event, my argument is straightforward. Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.
To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work. It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.
Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more. Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me? I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion. Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent. Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work. What however it looks like you are doing is this. You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond. Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond. I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself.
I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species in varying degrees. But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.
Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
bible shows all of creation is religious, or at very least believes and obeys God.i can argue that rocks are more religious than some people.
Ok. Show me how a rock is religious. Thanks.
Created: