Total posts: 3,520
-->
@ludofl3x
THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail!Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?
I don't understand your final paragraph. But the idea of divine command theory sounds intriguing. I certainly take the view that God Almighty is a moral being. But not moral in that he can do right and do wrong. But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality.
The alternates views are either 1. that morality exists independent from God - some kind of natural law or 2. that morality is simply a reflection of a culture at any time in history - in other words, it is a simply a construct of convenience for those living in a particular area at a particular time - and that which can change if the society or community in which it exists. This second form might even extend to their being no morality except in the mind of the individual wanting it.
Modernism probably takes the first view whereas postmodernity takes the second. The former working more with absolutes - and science whereas the latter more with relatives and pseudo-science / mysticism. the former being the product of the rational West. the latter the product of the East - and more recently the mixture of multi-cultural western / eastern views. the first is Plato / Aristotle / Socrates. The latter - Edward De Bono and others.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is another one I always enjoy, though I admit it's largely a monotheist / Abrahamic question. If your version of god is all knowing, and has a plan, what would be the point of prayer? If, for example, you have a relative who gets diagnosed with an illness, would you pray for them to get better? It seems praying for god to do his will is pointless, he's going to do it anyway. If you're praying for the illness to cure, aren't you asking god to change his plan? If you don't expect him to change his plan, and he's going to either cure or not cure anyway, aren't you hoping the unchangeable god changes its mind? I guess I just don't understand how this is supposed to work. Of course if you think god can change his mind, or that he doesn't have a full plan< i get that praying would seem like a sensible idea, but otherwise I don't get it.I limit it to intercessory prayer, but if you like, some people think prayer is simply to praise his name. Why does god need or want people to do that?
Yes, God knows all things and will do what he wants. And if that was all there was to it, then prayer would probably be redundant. But that is not all there is to it. God is also our Father. We are his children. We have a relationship. This means talking to each other. And it also means listening to each other. My children often ask me for things which they know I would give them without asking me. They often ask me for things which they know I wont give them. Do I want my children to stop talking to me? Or asking me? I like to give abundantly when I can. Sometimes I could give, but I choose not too - for all sorts of reason - often because I want them to work it out themselves or because I want them to grow up a bit.
In the bible, God tells us to pray to him. He also tells us to ask him for things. There is a sense of comfort too when we do seek his advice - a knowledge that he knows that we have not forgotten to ask him. Prayer of course is the ultimate sense of dependency upon someone else.
Does God change his mind? That is a great question. I suppose we have to ask why would God change his mind? Would it be wrong for God to change his mind? After all, if he knows all things and he knows what is best, surely changing his mind would demonstrate / prove he either does not know everything, or that sometimes a better plan has to come into place? But is that true? Sometimes I change my mind, not because children have provided more information or because they have a better idea, but sometimes just so that they might know my plan was better. Sometimes it is because their plan is just as valid as mine and it really does not matter which plan takes place. Sometimes I just want to give them the sense that I have listened to them.
I don't believe that God learns new things. He knows all things. So if God changes his mind - which I think the bible talks about in certain circumstances - it is not because of new information or because humanity has proved him wrong. Sometimes it is in order for humanity to realise that God really is not as mean and horrible as they think. Consider the example of Abraham with the town of Sodom and Gomorra. It could be argued that Abraham negotiated God from destroying the city absolutely to not destroying it if there were 10 good people in it. Why did God allow this perceived negotiation? Whose benefit was it for? Was there any new information that arose for God to change his mind?
It could also be argued that God changed his mind when he threatened to destroy all of Israel to Moses after the Israelites decided to worship the golden calf. What changed his mind? Was it new information? Was it something else?
Prayer is in my view a demonstration of my utter dependence on God. He does listen. HE always answers. Often it is about changing me - and my perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Hi Keith,
thanks for the post. I would add Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:24 to the list. Death obviously existed prior to the fall of man or its threat would have had little impact. I take the view that in some ways, Adam and Eve died and were resurrected when they left the garden. What kind of death will naturally be debated? But in biblical terms, physical death was not the only kind of death understood and hence it is fair to add that the afterlife was not always talking about a physical afterlife. This might be related to the kind of language utilised at times regarding a new heaven and a new earth. The OT writers don't talk about AD and BC, they talk about ages or perhaps dynasties. The end of one age and the start of a new one referred to a new heaven and a new earth. Certainly the prophets often used apocalyptic language of blood red suns and moons darkening and the de creationist when a nation or a kingdom or a dynasty was destroyed or wiped out.
I would also add Enoch from Genesis 6:24 and Elijah as two in the OT who simply did not die but went elsewhere - one to walk with God and one who went by a fiery chariot into heaven. What occurred in either case is difficult to know, but clearly both were anomalies so far as the traditional view might allude. Although it is not necessarily resurrection, it is also not death and sleep without reviving. It is also true that when the patriarchs died, the language though poetical talks of the deceased as going to join their ancestors.
It is true that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection - but the Pharisees did. Jesus clearly believed in the resurrection. Daniel's reference is a difficult one. David talked about seeing his child one day - this is well before Daniel. I assume you mean Judgment after death as opposed to judgment in a temporal sense. Much of the early books of the OT discuss judgement for nations and individuals. This was most likely temporal judgment - yet there is an implication that a temporal death brings one into the immediate presence of God's throne room - who is the judge of all. I would not rule out that eternal judgment was part of this understanding.
I like the verses you quoted above. I would note that the context of each is important. Some of those verses are not presenting a theology of afterlife from a judgment point of view - but presenting death from the position of us who are still alive. I don't think the writers were necessarily adding a particular view about the resurrection or judgment. Some were noting - the appearance of death - as it is from our point of view - silence. That was their point - not about the afterlife per se. Ecclesiastes for instance is talking about the meaningless of life from a human perspective under the sun. It is not talking about what happens after life. "under the sun" refers to our life here on earth. Still, thanks for bringing this topic to our attention. It is good to see various opinions.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
but I have not said what I imagine it will be like - that is your speculation and thence your response.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
So for you, the answer is "c"? Wouldn't that then diminish that person's heavenly bliss in some way, thereby making perfect heaven less than perfect? It's a twist on a question I've asked my mom whenever she gets upset thinking that as an atheist, she won't get to see me when she passes away in heaven. If heaven allows you to miss me, is it really all that great a reward? If heaven gives you a copy of me, one that comported with Christian principles in some way, would you know it was not the me you knew? If heaven removes your memory of your otherwise decent son, because he didn't check the box that said yup Jesus, are you really you in heaven?The answer was "why do you have to ask all those questions?" Gotta love parents :).
Actually I am not sure it is c. I think that heaven will be very much like earth. I don't see it as some kind of vague thing. We may not marry or have children. I think believers will retain their memories of those they have loved on earth. Will this mean things are less than perfect? I would not think so. What does perfect mean in the first place? Is heaven described as being perfect? Is sadness sinful? I don't think so. Jesus was sinless - and yet he grieved over the loss of dead people. What are the alternatives to this scenario? Why is heaven about reward? I would not think it was about reward per se. Even if people do receive rewards or crowns - it is not in the sense that they have earned it or deserve it. From my understanding of the bible - the things we get which deserve are fair. the things that we receive that we don't deserve - are not fair. Does anyone deserve to go to heaven? I doubt it. Should we be upset if people get what they deserve? Is the question of sadness or grief or upsetness, or feeling really how we should measure perfection or not? I don't think there will be copies of people in heaven. I would take the view that was deceptive - but there is no evidence from the bible that this would be the case. sometimes we need to know what we have lost to appreciate more what we have gained. It is difficult to appreciate freedom until it is taken away from you.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
That is an interesting statement - Keith but really it reveals only that many Christians in the West are platonic in their views about Heaven.Christianity is very vague as to what life is like in heaven. Individual Christians can imagine heaven as they please with no obvious negation. It is clearly in the church's interest to not stress that heaven might not be all that great...
It is the Greek idea that the real heaven is a vague notion in our heads. And therefore any picture we try and make of it is really only going to be at best a vague mirror / reflection of that vague notion.
The Christian idea is not like the platonic view at all. True, some similarities and comparisons can be drawn. For instance - that heaven and earth have been separated. the mystery religions - fertility cults of the first century - thought that to appease the gods in heaven might enable them to enter the heavenlies - after they die here on earth. The Gnostics of course took this futher - the material is evil. the spirit is good. Even some forms of Hebraism got involved with the kabala - Jewish magic stuff - and quite good at it too - (despite its prohibition by God) - but all these things are still wrapped up in the Hellenistic notion that earth is just a reflection of the vague notion of earth. It is to get to heaven that these cults and others tried to get at. Gee the letter to the Colossians by Paul was directly on point.
the Christian view is however that Christ reconciles heaven and earth. We look forward to a time when a new heaven and new earth together - hence the material is not evil. the physical is not bad. Glory for the Christian is going to be a lot like heaven and earth are now - but minus the sin. That is the Christian message and i respectfully submit what Jesus taught. Christians - at least those who read their bibles are not looking for an escape from this earth per se. They are looking forward to being with Jesus - who is king of heaven and king of earth.
Which is why the queries at the beginning of this topic are intriguing.
it strikes me ironic, that a Christian who disobediently marries a Jew and then fails to train up their children in the Christian faith is going to somehow try and get on their high moral horse when they get to heaven. Why does any person reach glory - and be reunited with Christ? Is it to do with their goodness, their morality, their religion, their sex, or gender, or money in their pocket, or intelligence or lack of it? The Bible says that no one deserves God's mercy. Hence if someone is to be reconciled with God, it is not on their own basis - but by God's decision to demonstrate mercy or not.
Interestingly, I don't believe that God wipes away people's memories in the afterlife. I think that some people like to believe that - because they fail to recognise God's overall sovereignty and they maximise their own importance. our memories are part of us.
People who reject God make their own path. But Heaven is not some sitting on clouds playing harps with a stupid smile on our face place. I think there is going to be lots of hard work - in the new heavens and the new earth. Our journey here of 80 odds years is only going to be a drop in the bucket of all that we will know. but I still think that our memories will be real. and every person - child, parent or friend that we know now and who will be lost in the future is going to add to who we are.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justifiedBut as you've spent so much verbiage in this post already claiming what you as a human think about what your imaginary god does is absolutely meaningless. You people believe a book of lying contradictions and so you think that contradicting yourselves will convince people who think. Nah doesn't work.
LOL! do you think your comments are so brilliant that it ends the discussion? talk about naivety. If you took the time to read the post you would have noticed it was a response to the poster of this topic. In his previous discussion with me he distinguished between moral justifications and a dictionary definition of the word genocide. My response refuted his definition. I then went on to discuss whether morality was something that could be applied to God from our puny human position - a point I noted - I did not concede. I had already made the comment previously in the penultimate post that only standards that God himself had provided were possible to hold him to account. Hence, me saying that "God could kill every human being and be justified" is perfectly accurate and not contradictory at all. God holds himself to a perfect standard that he determines. He has no reason to justify himself to us - because we are not sitting in judgment over him or hold any jurisdiction over him.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry, that is objectively wrong. The simple definition of genocide is "kill lots of people". That is what happened in this story. It is a story of genocide.Is it morally okay for God to commit genocide? that is a separate matter which I deliberately did not address in this OP. Notice how I did not once make any moral claims in the OP. That was very much intentional for a number of reasons.
I disagree with your explanation. Genocide like murder is not simply about people being killed. It requires particular elements to it. One of those is that it is committed by a person; namely a human. Murder cannot be committed by an animal. Animals do kill people, but they cannot be murderers. God is not a human. He cannot commit genocide - even if he kills the entire planet and everything on it. I am not talking morals here - I am talking definitions and concepts.
It is an absurdity to suggest that God is under the jurisdiction of human thinking. Perhaps your idea of God might be - but the God of the bible is not under such a jurisdiction. I often wonder whether the god you discuss is Aristotle's or Plato's god. A god who is subject to the laws of nature. This notion of god is quite different to the concept in Scripture of Almighty God. Other gods getting a mention in the bible probably fall into the same category as the Greek philosopher's to an extent.
Hence, I think the discussion about whether God may or may not be morally have justification to commit genocide - presumes much - and I do not concede that point at all. Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justified. I take the view that he has not killed everyone a supreme example of mercy. Mercy means not getting what is deserved. Grace being its reverse - getting what is not deserved. humanity deserves rightly to be killed by God. The fact that he lets any survive is an act of mercy - and that they receive extended life - supreme grace.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The flood that begins is able to cover the entire planet, because as mentioned before ancient people didn't understand a lot about cosmology and thought that the sky was blue because there was actual water held in the sky that could come down onto the Earth. So, with the ark complete and the genocide begun Noah and his family take what they can onto the ark and start their year-long wait for the flood waters to subside.
Yes. This is always an interesting part of the story. Is there enough water on our planet to cover it? I honestly don't know. When I see the damage that floods do around the world in our modern era, it is not unusual to observe that the geography often changes quite drastically. In fact entire valleys can be made very quickly and the dirt and the rock from those places can turn up elsewhere as mounds / small hills - where there was not before. It is interesting to note that our modern science talks of our moving continents, continental drift. The idea for this actually came from a creationist using the book of Genesis. although he was mocked severely for such a theory - other scientists much later took this idea - changed it from happening really quickly to "millions of years" and hey presto - it is now part of all our school textbooks. My point is though - that what the land looked like prior to the flood may well look quite different later after the flood. If the land was much flatter than it is now - then perhaps - there may be enough water? I don't know. I do know that as the climate changes - that people are worried that much land - and islands around the world will be lost to the sea. And this is only due to the melting of the ice caps. It does not take into account the vast amounts of underground water that exists.
Genocide is something that humans do. God gives and he takes away. Genocide is not something that can be attributed to an all knowing, all powerful God. Obviously, if an all powerful God created in the first place, he could create some more to replace those he took away. The morality that we place on humanity - does not and cannot apply to God - it really is an absurdity to suggest so. I would take the view that the only morality that we can judge God by is the standards that he applies to himself. Otherwise the notion of him being God really is just a man made thing. While ever humanity tries to judge God, he laughs at them.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is an ancient tale told and retold in many mythologies for thousands of years. Mankind multiplies and spreads, mankind pisses off supernatural diety, supernatural diety saves a small portion of mankind while the rest get genocided by the primordial waters of creation and the world is made anew.
Would you please be so kind as to provide all of the other stories for us as well. A list will do in the short term. Oh by the way - is it possible that there might have been an original flood story that has been copied by others?
The story of Noah and the genocidal flood is another example of the popular culture versions of these stories differing from the story as told in the book itself. One example of this is the account of Noah being mocked by unbelievers over the course of the 100 years that it takes him to construct the ark. The Genesis account makes no mention of this or of any other human contact by Noah with anyone other than his family. However, we do know that this addition to the story is not a recent one due to the fact that it is found also in the Quran, making that addition to the story several hundreds of years old.
I am pleased that you noticed that the Genesis story does not mention Noah being mocked. Additions to the story - from another culture is however not a reflection of the biblical story but a different culture.
The biblical version of this story is the one we will be reading today, starting at Genesis 6. Mankind has existed for a long time now and according to the third verse they have grown far from god and their lives are limited to no longer than 120 years as a result. Therefore our story begins, with 500 year old Noah as the main character.
Yes, obviously man no longer had access to the tree of life and needed to die. How long they could live had to be limited by something. I take the view that God determines how long - "on average" men would live. It is not as though they would live to 120 and suddenly cark it. Or as later David reminds us - three score and 10 - and another 10 if you treated your parents well. People die - for a long time this age on average has decreased - and now ironically enough since Jesus was born and died and life was put inside us - humanity is living longer again. But not forever. Well not at least until we all become machines.
God notices that his creation is becoming corrupted and evil, not at all the way he hoped they would (I am not sure whether the authors of the Genesis account simply didn't realize how dumb that sounds given the idea of god as all-powerful and all-knowing, or whether they believed like the polytheists they stole the story from that their god was unimaginably super-powerful but not all-powerful) and decides that the best way to handle the situation is genocide. Noah is visited by god and given specific instructions on the construction of an ark to save his family and repopulate the world with after the genocide is complete.
It is recorded that humanity became more and more consistent with its nature. From Adam and Eve people were beginning to be evil. Cain killed his brother - and there are many others who did evil things. It is unrealistic to say that suddenly God noticed it. What the Bible does say is that God was sorry he had made man. I think you are misrepresenting God here. Just because God is omnipotent and omniscient - does not mean that he must use his power to bring about what he hopes for. Evil entered the world - but this was not a surprise to God. God knew this was going to happen and he created humanity anyway. I think the bigger story has yet to be understood which will explain the why. Still, humanity had been told from the beginning that its sin would destroy itself. So God is completely fair and just when he wipes out the world. He is being merciful when he saves Noah and his family and a remnant of the animals. In my view - if God did not judge the world - it would show him to be a liar. You think it sounds dumb - perhaps you would prefer a God who lies? since God is the creator and the judge - he has the perfect, just and legitimate reason to wipe the slate clean and start again. humanity had chosen its own course - and now it was simply reaping what it sowed. God had in my view - delayed long enough in carrying out justice. The longer he left it, the more corrupt people would get - as they believed there were no consequences. It is a lot like that today.
Noah is then given specific instructions to bring two pairs of each unclean and seven pairs of each clean animal onto the ark. The characteristics that differentiate clean from unclean animals are not given until later in the bible, but presumably Noah would have known what these characteristics are. One hundred years later Noah finishes building the ark and the flood begins. Note that while the time between Noah entering the ark and Noah leaving the ark was about one year, the phrase "forty days and forty nights" is used to describe how long the rain that contributed to the flood lasted. Because this phrase is used so often in the Bible it is useful to note that at the time these stories were put to paper this phrase was used to mean "a log time" in a similar way to how people in the modern day might say something like "a minute' to refer not necessarily to an actual minute but instead to mean "a short time"
I agree that God had already told Noah and his family the distinction between clean and unclean. It goes all the way back to the garden. I have not heard anyone suggest that 40 days and nights might just mean long time. I am not opposed to that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Tolerance always has to be qualified. In today's progressive Marxist society - tolerance only applies to those whom you agree with. they don't tolerate Nazi's for instance nor do they tolerate those who hold exclusive views. In other words - it is one sided. they expect others to tolerate them - and their wacko ideas but reject any position which criticises them as being intolerant.
Jesus did not teach tolerance in the same way that the Marxists do. He did teach exclusivism. He was opposed to the religious slavery of the day - because it was opposed to the freedom he was bringing in. The religious organisation of that day was much like our Marxists today. Don't step outside of what we tell you to do and to say.
when I look around the western world today - freedom of speech and opinion has been so watered down - that saying you disagree with something - e.g. homosexuality is tantamount as being intolerant. For me, that is the essence of bigotry and hypocrisy. when people cannot say they disagree with something - and not be labeled then perhaps tolerance may mean something in our society. Unfortunately it has been twisted and distorted so that tolerance means - agreeing with it. and if you don't agree - then you are shamed and made to be an outcast. And for whatever twisted and perverted reason - it is ok to be outcast in this case - and it is wrong to try and say - don't treat them like outcasts. In fact if you support someone who has been cast out - then you are treated in the same way. I say - that if this is tolerance - then I don't want it. I don't want to be your slave - and I refuse to be subjected to such one sided and hypocritical views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Protestantism is an umorganized religion that has easily been able to devolve and distort itself under modernism.Catholicism has stayed true to doctrine and century old teachings. It's resisted modernism to a greater extent.What makes you follow the former?
Hi Triangle, thanks for your question. I wish to point out a few things with the statements you have made. Firstly, Protestantism is not a religion, organised or unorganised. Protestantism was in the first place a reforming movement within the Christian Religion. It has in many ways existed from the beginning of the church, yet, did not really obtain a label until Luther arrived on the scene. Prior to Luther, protestants existed throughout the church history. I would suggest that both Augustine and Athanasius were protestants well before the label ever became fashionable. Both were reformers because like the protestants they did not like the way the church was becoming synchronised with the world around it. Both believed that the church in Christ through his word and his Spirit should transform the world - not the other way around it. Constantine for instance was a believer yet in his passion to make his kingdom united in Christianity - he politicised it - and compromised many Christian values for the sake of unity over truth. He brought into the church many things from the pagan religions at the time and they became part of the tradition that many of the church believed and some still do - even when the evidence is against them.
Hence, Protestantism like the early reformers is not a new religion. It was an intentional movement to try and restore Jesus teaching from the beginning. Hence it protested for the authority of the Scriptures over and above church teaching and over and above tradition. It did not throw away church teaching or tradition save and except where it was in opposition to the Scriptures. It took the view that the Scriptures were the OT books accepted by Jews as Scripture. It understood the books of the NT as Athanasius had listed them and which the early church had accepted and received as the Scriptures. It also rejected the gnostic books and other books which were not in accord with the ecumenical creeds formulated and restated at the ecumenical councils. Protestantism was born protesting for the authority of the Scriptures. But it was not a new church nor a new religion. It was and remains the Christian religion. Luther for instance did not reject Catholicism - but did what any other professor and doctor in the church would have done when issues of controversy appeared - he organised for discussion to take place. Nailing is thesis to the door of Wittenberg was not novel, but the ordinary thing of the time. What was different however is that his thesis was copied with the new printing press and his ideas were circulated like it had never been possible before. With a wider circulation - the ideas were able to be discussed more broadly and this was something quite new.
Modernism has become quite wide spread in Protestantism. This is quite true. And it has been a particular scourge in some circles. Yet, modernism is also prevalent in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox church. It is also true in the non-protestant churches as well, including the Baptist, charismatic, Salvation Army and Brethren. These latter churches are not protestant. Modernism by the way has different aspects to it. The question is with its intent and purpose. I take the view that modernism is a good thing for the most part. Yet, when its takes on Marxism or the dogmatic assertion of tolerance / unity like Constantine many years ago - then its modernity is going to compromise the church's teaching from the beginning.
Catholicism has not stayed true to its teaching. Vatican 11 changed much - it called it reform. The Orthodox church has also reformed over the years. Reforming itself is not wrong per se.
Protestantism is NOT a church or a religion. It is a movement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."Who, then, is supposed to take care of my needs?If we all choose to do this , we are all "the poor". Who will take care of the poor then?
This was not a general command to all; but a specific one to the rich man. It was intended to make the man realise that his riches had become an idol to him - and that he needed to get rid of it and prioritise God and Jesus over this idol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think Jesus taught that the world was about to end. He did teach that Israel was about to face God's wrath and be wiped from the face of the earth. Which incidentally it was within approximately one generation of his death.
The best way to understand what Jesus was talking about is to go to the OT. The Day of the Lord meant many things and referred to events either on one day or even over many years. Jesus clearly talked about the end of the temple and of Israel in accordance with the OT prophecies. We need to understand that for people in those times - the end of the nation or the end of a kingdom or the end of a dynasty very often meant the end of the world. When Israel went into captivity to Assyria it was considered both the day of the Lord and the end of the world. Prophets spoke - as though these nations were snuffed out - their lights out - and for those people in those communities it was exactly how it was.
Jesus understood the prophecies in the same way. For him it was the end of the covenant between God and Israel. The reason - they had rejected the messiah and God's wrath was on them and their literal children. The stories of Jerusalem at that time AD 70 are pretty horrendous. Hence the end of Israel - was to all intents the end of the world.
I think Paul refers to this on many occasions - but like many of the other prophets, he also referred to the last day and final judgement as well.
This is quite traditional teaching - and is common probably more so within liberal quarters - who take an early view of Revelation - which seems to so accurate in relation to its revelation that they say it was written immediately after it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sorry dearest,
there is not one shred of evidence that once we die - that is it. All death proves is that the human body decays. It does not show us or help us understand what happens to the consciousness.
That is the mystery.
and that has not been explained - although many theories and ideas have evolved for want of a better word. Jesus did rise from the dead- but people such as yourself ignore that evidence - which demonstrates to me that you are not interested in truth - but more want to go with your indoctrination. Who after all told you that dead people don't rise?
Experience? How many ACTUAL dead people have you really seen? If the number is more than zero you would certainly be unique in the West. And unless you are a doctor, a police officer, or work in a morgue or a nursing home, the strict number of dead people you have seen will be less than five. Hence, your conclusion on the matter is clearly guesswork at best - or you believe your infallible textbooks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And pray tell - what is the contradiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
4. How do you know everyone is nice? And what is wrong with sunday worship? For me it is the highlight of my week. Yet, I don't think the bible gives us that kind of description anyway. there is going to be a lot of things to keep on doing. Variety and creativity will be unbounded - and yet Heaven is not going to be an entertainment cruise ship - or a retirement home. IT is not Disney land.Again i don't care what you like or don't like. This is about "me." You are asking me to consider worshiping something for the rest of my life. I have to make sure... i'm not worshiping going to hell. You can go to heaven for all i care... I just know that isn't the only place. Sunday worship is boring and burdensome... i get nothing positive from it. I would rather listen to a radio preacher if anything. Also, i'm not talking about it being a theme park. Just normal everyday what it is... sounds torturous. Lastly, so you are saying not everyone is nice? I.e. can i troll people, can i manipulate people, can i hate people, can i just dislike some people, etc. in heaven? If you say yes, i will also reconsider taking that off my torture list.
You are once again mistaken. I am not asking you to consider anything. Heaven is not about you. Life is not about you. It never was and never will be. It is and always will be about God. History is HIS STORY. It is not our story. Heaven sounds like it would be hell for you - whatever it was about - because we all know it is not about us.
5. it seems that you misunderstand the bible. and I guess that is not surprising. I agree that if you want those things - then heaven really would be Hell for you. Heaven is all about God - it is not about you. Yet, the alternatives are not going to give you those things either. Hell wont. So not only do you not get the things you desire - but you get tortured forever as well. And if there is no god - then you get death - an endless dismal darkness - with no escape - nothingness - no one remembering you. So, I find your comment about an after life - confusing as well as dismal.What does heaven being about god have anything to do with the implications that will effect me? Bc it's me that will have to live it... unless i become god which is a different story and more on the lines of logical spiritual platform. And... you know the only other alternatives how? So again, what you are asking me to believe is hell all around. I hear you, and i hear what afterlife beliefs your telling me, none of them is "paradise" to me. So where does that leave me? Well, guess what... there are other spiritual beliefs that fix this paradox. So why in the world wouldn't i believe something that gives me paradise but live for something that will give me hell? All i'm saying is... that is a paradox for your heaven idea which is one of many reasons religion is so clearly man-made. Humans are fallible and especially humans thousands of years ago wouldn't have even considered paradise, as you describe it, being anything but paradise for them.
I am sorry - you just don't get it. And it sounds like you don't want to get it. So go and eat and drink and be merry - for life is erstwhile meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
1. living without darkness? Do you mean the darkness of emotions like hate and jealousy and envy? You are correct - you would not recognise yourself without these things. I am not sure what this has got to do with heaven though or why it then becomes like Hell?Yes i am talking about my hate, fear, jealousy, manipulation, anger, etc. It becomes hell if those emotions are taken away from me. I don't want them erased or gone. They make me who i am. And, i like using them against others sometimes.
Then I guess you wont go to heaven or even understand or contemplate what it might be. Christians are people who find their identity in Christ, not themselves. The very act of regeneration - being born again - means to live in the life of Jesus, not yourself.
2. undying and eternal. I discussed this briefly above. I think humans have no idea what eternality is like and every attempt to make it about undying and immortality is unhelpful. I agree that I don't understand what it is like - but neither do you. you seem confused - how can knowing there is anything after death give you hope and yet the idea of no off switch scare you? I think that life - if that is the correct term in heaven is unlike anything we understand here. It is not a matter of an off switch - because that is a mortal term. Death is an unwelcome intrusion into our life. It does not make life beautiful.How do you know what i can and cannot imagine? I very well can imagine it, i've experienced it, and it is my worst nightmare to be eternal. You are saying a lot of things "you" are either afraid of or don't find torturous. And never said heaven is hell for you... obviously it's not. But yes, i think death makes this life beautiful. Without death we wouldn't know true anything. You may learn love sure, but love is taken to another level when you know you can loss it. Death is the most beautiful creation any higher intelligence could create. Here, let me paint a little analogy for you so you can see how i imagine it bc maybe you truly can't imagine it... I'll do the more extreme version but if you get it you can imagine the others too. Say you watch a movie and this movie is the best movie you've ever seen. Now, imagine i told you... you are not allowed to watch any other movie. Furthermore, i tell you this is the only entertainment you are allowed for the rest of your life. After how many times of watching that movie would it turn to hell? Now lets say it doesn't even have to be your only entertainment which is the most extreme version. Let's say you can have other entertainment but the only movie you are allowed to watch is this movie. You can't watch any other movie. How many times can you watch it... sure you might say you'll watch it once every year so you can still enjoy it, but times infinity into that... at what point would the movie become hell for you? That's what death is, turning that movie off and putting in a damn new show. It's beautiful and i'm sad you can't see it.
Because you are human. Humans cannot imagine things from a divine perspective because they are not divine. Duh! You have never experienced immortality or eternality. I think death is an unwanted intrusion into life. Death makes life dead. It is not beautiful. Death brings grief - and yes it certainly drives home what we can miss out on, but it does not make it better. I cant love better just because I am dead- or someone else is dead. What a bizarre thing to think. Your notion of love is obviously not the same as I understand. Your analogy is unhelpful because it is so flawed. Why would I care if another movie existed if I had only ever seen one movie and only one existed. I would need to know that another existed for me to be mildly interested. I am quite happy to have a kiss from my wife every night of my life for my entire life - and more - without having to experience the kiss of another woman. It is my choice to do this. I am quite content worshiping ONE GOD as well.
3. so you want no restrictions? and you would become bored, is that it? Jesus indicated that there wont be marriage in heaven anyway - so infidelity is not an issue. You seem to have a warped idea of heaven - it is not just an extension of earth.So am i allowed to hook up with different chicks in heaven or not? If i can, then we can take this off the list. And, what i know of heaven is what Christian priests throughout the years have told me. But who knows, i might like your version. And you better believe i'm comparing it to things i love. Bc those are things i have fallen in love with bc of life.
LOL! Whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Christian "A" says Jesus is God.Christian "B" says Jesus is not God.Christian "A" worships Jesus.Christian "B" doesn't worship JesusChristian unity according to Trady. bwuahahahahahahah
you are misinformed and do not understand.
I said unity for Christians is having different idea but able to meet together in worship - so what you have posted is incorrect on many levels.
Firstly, all Christians believe Jesus is God. Yes some people claim they are Christians and also claim that Jesus is not God. They are not Christians. It is a claim that is refuted by the Christian Church as a whole. Even the most ecumenical council of churches - and a very liberal council at that - states that Christian faith in the Trinity is the hallmark of the Christian Church. If you don't believe Jesus is God, then you are a sect or a cult - a distortion of the true faith.
Secondly, since all Christians believe Jesus is God - he is to be worshiped.
This is a no brainer.
Even someone as illogical as you ought to be able to understand this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And if there is no god - then you get death - an endless dismal darkness - with no escape - nothingness - no one remembering you.Just like it was before you were born, remember how awful that was? No? That's because you didn't exist, just like when you die you won't exist to be afraid of the dark. The fear you people are indoctrinated with is pathetic.
And pray tell, how do you know what you have just described is true? Not science. Not experience. Just speculation based on what? A belief that it has to be. Talk about indoctrination!!!!! I don't remember anything because I did not exist. But now that I do exist - what happens in the future is something quite different.
For you to speculate that we suddenly don't exist anymore is pseudo science. It is the substance of superstition. And not based in the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
And pray tell, what about Heaven is to be likened to Hell?1) god supposedly takes away all my darkness... which my darker emotions i've fallen in love with. I don't know who i would be without my darkness. 2) I will be undying and eternal. If you think being alive as an immortal would be heaven... all i can say is you just can't imagine it. Death is what makes life beautiful. Knowing there could be anything possible after death is what gives me hope. Without it, i would eventually go mad. Actually, being alive for eternity with no off switch scares the heck out of me the most. 3) if i find one love, i'll have to be with one women for the rest of eternity. 4) Everyone is nice all the time, everyone is loving all the time, everyone worships like everyday is Sunday church... that also sounds like a horror movie to me. 5) A lot of things i love to do, sleep with more than one partner, listen to music that sings about cannibalism, torment, death and chaos... all these things and some more i love... will be taken away from me. So not only will who i am be taken away from me, i have to put up with that and the implications for eternity. That my friend is hell but instead of fire and brimstone... it's hell but sunny.
LOL!
Your description of heaven is amusing if somewhat distorted for your own biases. but looking at your responses one at a time:
1. living without darkness? Do you mean the darkness of emotions like hate and jealousy and envy? You are correct - you would not recognise yourself without these things. I am not sure what this has got to do with heaven though or why it then becomes like Hell?
2. undying and eternal. I discussed this briefly above. I think humans have no idea what eternality is like and every attempt to make it about undying and immortality is unhelpful. I agree that I don't understand what it is like - but neither do you. you seem confused - how can knowing there is anything after death give you hope and yet the idea of no off switch scare you? I think that life - if that is the correct term in heaven is unlike anything we understand here. It is not a matter of an off switch - because that is a mortal term. Death is an unwelcome intrusion into our life. It does not make life beautiful.
3. so you want no restrictions? and you would become bored, is that it? Jesus indicated that there wont be marriage in heaven anyway - so infidelity is not an issue. You seem to have a warped idea of heaven - it is not just an extension of earth.
4. How do you know everyone is nice? And what is wrong with sunday worship? For me it is the highlight of my week. Yet, I don't think the bible gives us that kind of description anyway. there is going to be a lot of things to keep on doing. Variety and creativity will be unbounded - and yet Heaven is not going to be an entertainment cruise ship - or a retirement home. IT is not Disney land.
5. it seems that you misunderstand the bible. and I guess that is not surprising. I agree that if you want those things - then heaven really would be Hell for you. Heaven is all about God - it is not about you. Yet, the alternatives are not going to give you those things either. Hell wont. So not only do you not get the things you desire - but you get tortured forever as well. And if there is no god - then you get death - an endless dismal darkness - with no escape - nothingness - no one remembering you. So, I find your comment about an after life - confusing as well as dismal.
If I did not believe in God or Jesus, your alternative is not something I would embrace either. It sounds more like Hell than Hell..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is the same as good works. If people can be saved by good works, then Jesus death and resurrection is meaningless.Pelagianism was also recognized as a heresy at this same ecumenical council
So we should all be Calvinists then?
Apostolic succession in the sense of "laying on of hands from the beginning" is a myth and a superstition. The only real sense of apostolic succession is in relation to the teaching of the Apostle's creed. Otherwise, Jesus' death on the cross gets lost in the hands of the traditionalists.I don't know what you think I'm saying, but laying on of hands is something you see an awful lot in scripture, even in the context of appointing someone to an office. It happens in Acts when the Apostles appoints deacons. It happens when Barnabus and Paul were sent to be missionaries from Antioch. These are all just examples from the book of acts. If tradition was bad in itself, why does Paul write in his second letter to the Thessalonians to hold to the traditions?
The laying on of hands occurred several times in Scripture. I am not saying that laying on of hands is a myth. I am saying that the apostolic succession that both the RCC and the OC hold to is a superstition. The Holy Spirit is not communicated to us from God by the laying on off hands. The Spirit goes where it wills. There is no evidence that the apostles laid hands on James, a so called bishop of Jerusalem. The words in the Greek for Bishop and elder are interchangeable in every case. I am not against tradition per se. Yet when Scriptures disagrees with tradition - scripture prevails. Also there is no command to lay hands on persons - to set them aside as elders or bishops etc. These people are known by the character and their godliness and deeds. Not because they have had hands laid on them.
The Orthodox Church has kept to Holy Tradition as other "churches" compromise to the prevailing culture.
Misleading. The OC just compromises to the cultures it exists in. It from the beginning - compromised to focus on icons of the surrounding pagan nations - not like God commanded the Jews to be rid off. Don't forget the OC continues to justify its reasons for breaking the second commandment. Probably like the RCC they simply try and delete it.
If apostolic succession is simply the laying on of hands, then why bother with Jesus dying? Why did he not just lay hands on his apostles - and then get them to do the same? Why would he need to go to the cross?Because simply touching someone with your hands doesn't do anything on its own, and no one is claiming this.
If that is true - then see how many people can become clergy in your church without the laying on of hands? Exactly zero.
If you ask me, it is the so called orthodox church which is incomplete. Incomplete in relation to the Trinity. Incomplete in relation to salvation. Incomplete in relation to Jesus. Incomplete in relation to church history.This is a pretty bold claim considering we actually remember what went on during the so called "dark ages", keep the writings of the church fathers, remember the saints, hold to the ancient monastic tradition, and take our religious education very seriously.You really have nothing to back this up, it is the type of opinion that can only come from someone who is wholly unfamiliar with Orthodoxy. Well, that is why I am here. To educate.
The OC lacks a full and complete understanding of the Trinity. This is one of the reasons the church ex-communicated it. Go and read the council's minutes. Entertaining. And full of evidence. The OC is incomplete in relation to salvation. It does not have a proper understanding of sin - hence it can never grasp why simply trying to restore the image is not enough. We don't want to become Adam in his perfect state again - we want to become like Jesus in his perfect state. The two are quite different. the practice of iconology simply confirms this fact. Reducing Jesus out of fear of not understanding his deity reveals an incompleteness. And looking at only one side of history by itself is incomplete. These are not just opinions dear mopac - it goes much deeper than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It was the Orthodox church which was left the fold, not the West.Yet, the council of Ephesus in 431 (3rd ecumenical council) clearly ruled that anyone who alters the creed will be anathemized, and on that...
There is a clear implication that the creed could be altered if it were to improve its meaning - obviously no one at that time believed that the creed was equal to Scripture because no one was infallible like God.
The OC had and still has issues with the roles of icons in its place. It also has strong links to Constantine. The RCC now has significant issues in respect of icons as well.
Please also explain how sin is not necessarily a breach of God's covenant but rather a diminishing of God's image?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Protestantism is not defined by schisms. I have already addressed this above. Protestants protested against the authority of Rome and for the authority of the Bible. There is basically one Reformed church - albeit containing numerous denomination - from the episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterians groups. Baptists are not traditionally protestant - but rather dissenters.One reformed church? Authority of the bible? That is a pretty bold claim. Presbytarians? They are Calvanists! How obnoxious that must be to a Methodist. And I know it is, because I am good friends with a Methodist pastor. We Orthodox do have that in common. On that note, I know this one Methodist church where they refer to God as "mother" during service and the clergy are all openly homosexual. Wild, eh? Lutherans? Are you talking about the Martin Luther who added words to his translation of the bible to justify his salvation by grace alone theology? Are you talking about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(the largest by the way) that conducts marriages between same sex couples within its walls?I know a man who was a Lutheran pastor for over 20 years. He is an Orthodox now. It happened, like many of the other former pastors at my parish, after they got some education. It happened to me too! One of our deacons was an Episcopalian pastor for just as long.But no, there is no one reformed church. That is a claim that I don't believe can be backed up. And even now, there are new denominations popping up. A relatively new denomination has sprang up in the last couple of decades in my city.. They have churches all over town. I presume this is because they can't get along with the established churches.
In Australia the Methodists formed a new church with the Presbyterians. It took three churches and made one new one. the older churches to a large extent becoming redundant. Calvinism is simply Augustinian in essence anyway. Even the orthodox church accepts his teaching as one of the early doctors in the church. The Methodists derive from the Episcopalian church - and never sought to become its own denomination. To be perfectly honest - the Episcopalian Church is a broad church and both Calvinism and Wesley's disciples are able to fit quite comfortably within its ranks.
As for the Lutheran Church, yes protestant. Yet, like the Episcopalian church, the RCC, and the OC maintain the fictional apostolic succession. As for people leaving one denomination and going to another - woopy doo. It happens with all denominations and across all denominations. We have people in our congregation who were baptised in the Orthodox church and are now Presbyterian. They have left what they called a hate filled and superstitious - even attaching witchcraft to it, and found people who love and care for them. Having met their parents, I understand their views. Yet, like I said I am not of the view that the OC has no Christians in it. One of my mentors is a lecturer in one of their seminaries. I lived next door to a OC priest for 10 years and very often shared lunch and conversations together. I would count him as a close friend. He would often leave his children and grandchildren in my care and even permit them to attend at our church. So either he is a good orthodox or he is a liberal? What do you reckon?
I also see the great variety of denominations as one of the most amazing things that provides real unity to the Church. Rather than seeing it something negative which is what many people - especially the atheists - do - I think it is one of our chief strengths. When Christians can disagree with fundamental aspects of their religion yet still unite on the primary truths of the Gospel, this signals tolerance of the greatest virtue - something which the rest of the world tends to fall behind in all over the place. The only time we see unity of any kind in the world apart from what the church brings - is either in times of great tragedy or the Olympics. Sports tends to act as an equaliser yet - it only goes so far. It is the unity that the world sees of the church when it comes together that is staggering. If the church had only one opinion - it could not demonstrate unity - only sameness. This would place it in the realm of the cults or the sects. This is probably why the OC is often put into a the realm of brainwashing - and superstitious because of its sameness. Sameness is not unity. It is the blind leading the blind. Unity by virtue of its definition requires variety - and non-sameness or otherwise its loses its meaning. When people of different views can disagree and unite it reveals real love.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And why would anyone want to escape from heaven? After all, heaven is not something that people are trapped in? And are you suggesting it is an eternal place - with no boundaries? Or a time? An after life? And what do you say about death? It is a place - you cannot escape from. It is neverending - and dead people cannot rise from the dead.
So if heaven is boring based on that criteria - your alternate ultimate end is worse anyway. And much more boring. And inescapable. Death - unending nothingness. No escape. No anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
No. Boring is the modern word for slothfulness. Boredom is the result of laziness. I can think of nothing more delightful than worshiping God. An eternity of doing so is too short.
But let us put a different perspective on it. Right now in this world, people can either worship God or worship something else. Even if you don't believe in The Deity, everyone believes in a deity. It is really a matter of who is that deity. for the atheist, the deity is the person they see when they look in a mirror. That is the one who they believe controls their destiny and is the master of their own fate. That is the one who is their final authority and the one who decides what is right and wrong - that is how the Bible describes the person who has become like god. And I agree with this definition over and above the secular definition that god is a supernatural being or principle.
So if this is the perspective right now - of course the atheist or agnostic is going to find heaven not to their liking. After all, everyone will not be worshiping them or listening to them or bowing their knee to them, not even themselves. It would sound like a pitiful existence. Hence why Hell is reserved for them.
On the other hand - for people such as myself - who in one sense believe that everything we do is for the glory of God - right now - spending eternity doing so with the same ideals is really only going to fulfill what we are doing here. How could it be boring? You talk of repetition as though it is bad. Why? You don't seem to have a problem with socialism - which is really getting rid of competition or indeed variety. But Heaven - like life on earth is full of variety. It is not as though heaven is about sitting on clouds singing songs. That might be part of it - and if it was - so what? That would be fantastic. But I highly doubt that it is going to be like that. My view is that God who is creative has a much greater variety of things for his beloved children to attend to do. But even if it is not - it will be a glorious place.
Eternity is something which is unfathomable for us humans to get our head around. We have beginnings and we have ends. This is part and parcel of what it means to be contained in our planet and existence. We read our science-fiction books like Dr Who or the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy or the marvel comics and get a perspective of eternity or longevity - immortality based on a human or a robot living a long time. What else can we think of really - but it is a human perspective that misses the divine perspective of eternity. God is not getting older. God is not bored. And this is even though he is omniscient and all powerful and eternal. Indeed he is holy - which many people think is boring by definition. Yet, this is not the perspective we receive when we read the Scriptures.
I think the best thing about heaven is the fact that we will be with Jesus. He is the only one I really want to see up there. And if he was not there then it would not be heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's really not a joke. Everything about the Christian afterlife i find to be hell. I think heaven would be hell, i think hell would be hell, and i think purgatory would be hell if you bring that into it. And none of that is a joke. It's one of the primary reasons i don't believe in Christianity.
And pray tell, what about Heaven is to be likened to Hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I don't think joking about going to Hell is helpful.Why? It's as funny as f***.
So you think the concept of people being tortured forever is something to laugh about?
I am certainly glad I don't hold the same values as you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I don't think joking about going to Hell is helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The wording was changed - an addition was made - and it was an ecumenical council. It was just that some - did not attend. They themselves chose not to attend - for other reasons. And even after that - there was another council where agreement was reached even in accord with the new wording - the problem was at that stage the East decided to renege.
The pope was starting to rise in the church -but his authority was still very much at a lesser level than you are opining about.
It simply is incorrect to state that the East somehow did not have an opportunity to join the discussions. I have no doubt that there may be some people within the Orthodox church who are saved by grace through faith. Nevertheless, there are many, like there are in the RCC, who rely only upon their denominational tag as a means of salvation. the problem is - denominations are not the means to salvation - Jesus is. It is not tradition, it is not even the church, it is not good works, it is grace through faith in Jesus Christ by which any can be saved. Baptism will not save you - not will taking communion.
Sin is the problem and Jesus alone has dealt with sin by his death and resurrection. We trust in him for our life and our life will reflect what he has done for us in the way we live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Protestantism is not defined by schisms. I have already addressed this above. Protestants protested against the authority of Rome and for the authority of the Bible. There is basically one Reformed church - albeit containing numerous denomination - from the episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterians groups. Baptists are not traditionally protestant - but rather dissenters.
It was the Orthodox church which was left the fold, not the West.
Apostolic succession in the sense of "laying on of hands from the beginning" is a myth and a superstition. The only real sense of apostolic succession is in relation to the teaching of the Apostle's creed. Otherwise, Jesus' death on the cross gets lost in the hands of the traditionalists.
This is the same as good works. If people can be saved by good works, then Jesus death and resurrection is meaningless. If apostolic succession is simply the laying on of hands, then why bother with Jesus dying? Why did he not just lay hands on his apostles - and then get them to do the same? Why would he need to go to the cross?
If you ask me, it is the so called orthodox church which is incomplete. Incomplete in relation to the Trinity. Incomplete in relation to salvation. Incomplete in relation to Jesus. Incomplete in relation to church history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
the East and the West split, not so much over the pope, although many in the East did not think he should have assumed so much, yet the papal power had not reached close to its power when the split occurred.
the split occurred over the Trinity, not the pope. The issue at stake was whether the Spirit of God proceeded from both the Son and the Father or only from the Father. The East took the view that one view diminished the deity of the Spirit while the other view took the view that the alternative view was not in accord with the Scriptures.
Hence, why the orthodox view thinks that the West has an idolatrous position in relation to the bible and why the West thinks the East has a defective view in relation to the Trinity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
inhabited exoplanets is a theory that many physicists today are seriously discussing. They remain divided on the issue, but if we assume for the sake of discussion that they exist, then to theists, I ask:
Do you believe there would be a different God for each planet, or one God over them all? If the latter, do you think God's values and commands would change from planet to planet, as befitting their fundamental differences? If you believe in an afterlife, would you expect to see souls from other planets there? Or would it be one afterlife per planet? Do we share heaven with little green angels?
Given it is an assumption, which also implies that Christianity is incorrect, then I do not have an answer.
Fact is, if inhabited (and by that we mean intelligent life) then I would not care whether there was one god or millions or none. And the issue of an after life would become an irrelevancy - as if the biblical God does not exist - then we are left with what? A afterlife that is obviously going to be determined not by faith but at worst by good works. Hence - if there is no god - it wont make a bit of difference for me. If it is plurality of gods and being good is a prerequisite - then I still wont have to worry for I am good by most people's definition - and if there is no obvious need to be good - such as some of our religions - then it matters not what I do. Having a belief along any of the other lines simply becomes redundant.
I don't believe there are other intelligent lifeforms in the universe - save for God, his angels and the demons. Perhaps they have their own planet - who knows? But if there are others - and so far - not a whisper - much less in fact than for the existence of God, then they keep very quiet and invisible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church is The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus and The Apostles.I am especially interested in any questions from others who call themselves Christians, because there are a lot of misconceptions about The Orthodox Church among both Roman Catholics and the protestant churches.Well, I would hope in this topic that the differences become apparent, and that the authority of Orthodoxy is shown. It is The Christian Church.
I am happy to engage Mopac. I disagree with your notion that the Orthodox Church is the only true church. I have never dismissed it as being part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church - but I would not isolate it and therefore excommunicate every other believing church as apostate. I am no fan of the Roman Catholic Church whereby it teaches salvation by works and where it has without authority deemed the bishop of Rome as the head of the church on earth.
It is my understanding that the Orthodox church also focuses on works as a means of salvation and places tradition - just like the roman catholic church does above the authority of the scriptures. Although it does not have a supreme bishop, it does have patriarchs, much in the role of the Anglican Canterbury bishop - first among equals.
I think there is much to admire about the Orthodox church. One of my mentors currently is a lecturer in Russia teaching in an Orthodox seminary. I like some of its rituals - some of its traditions - some of its teaching. But there are other aspects I disagree with - and perhaps you in your teaching role - may well be able to explain these better than some of your other teachers. who knows?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Hi Keith,
although my views on the Trinity are not exactly the same as mopac, they are quite similar.
And I also hear your sigh of giving up understanding the Trinity a long time ago. Many have done so. In fact no one except God really understands the Trinity - which incidentally is one of the reasons why I take the view that the Trinity makes sense. God is a mystery - so for God either to be one only or simply many individual gods, it would be relatively more easy to understand. The entire notion of God being one and three is itself so anti-human reason it fits within what I think is a mystery. This concept sits well besides - Jesus, fully man and fully God. It also sits well next to the Scriptures - fully authored by God and yet fully written - not dictated - by men.
Indeed, if the Trinity was easy to sort out, and Jesus was easy to sort out, and the Scriptures were easy to sort out, I think that all would clearly be the products of humanity alone. Not being able to work something out does not make something divine - or even mysterious per se - but it does mean that attempting to relegate such things to human hands alone is more difficult. Fore example, they might simply be the products of a crazy mind. Yet, given that many people who are not crazy can accept these things for whatever reason makes that not very plausible.
Personally, I think the Trinitarian idea of the one and the many is brilliant. the tension between the absolute on the one hand and the many on the other is part of our life and clearly permeates every idea afoot without some even being aware of it. Take a simple example of legality. Gun laws. On the one hand the tension exists between the individual and the society. both have legitimate rights - but who will take priority. Consider our typical left wing v right wing politics - the individual v the whole. Who is to have the greater right? Are the rights of the society as a whole more important than the rights of the individual? Many would say yes - and many would say no. Trinitarian thinkers would say - it is not that simple.
In the West we focus on the individual more and more. In Asian countries there is a focus on the community. The Orthodox tends to take an oriental view - while the Catholics tended to take more of Individual view. Yet the Trinity says - clearly at the same time - God is ONE and God is three. Which takes precedence?
I think it is worthwhile not necessarily coming to grips with the nuances of the Trinity - no one will ever do that. Yet, from a philosophical position alone - it can enable a framework to see things quite differently in our world. Just think of the question such as free will v determinism. Or the question of economics - free enterprise v socialism. Or theological, mono religion v poly-theistic. (interestingly atheism falls within the poly-theistic worldview - despite the intriguing repetition that atheists don't believe in a god - the effect and outcome of their belief or non-belief is that everyone is a god - hence many gods - making it fall more towards Hinduism and directed to multi-cultural and relativistic beliefs)
Still, a matter for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If the question is simply asking the question: what measure do I use to know that Jesus is real, then my initial response is adequate although not complete.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Because Jesus took me and changed my life completely.A good reason to believe Jesus is real, but j6 askedHow do you know Jesus is real?
I guess the misunderstanding on my part is the vagueness of the term "know". "knowledge" is not just information, it is a intimate experience with the subject or object. Theologically, we talk of a man knowing his wife, we talk of knowing God. We talk of God's foreknowledge of all things. In each of these cases, knowing is not just information but much more than that. Even in legal circles we talk of "carnal knowledge" in a similar fashion.
Yet, it seems that you consider the OP to be using the term in the sense of "information" only. How can we know anything? Is there a standard to which we agree? I can only speculate in relation to most things in this world and its history. I can never really know and nor can anyone else. Sometimes people opine that "all things are possible". I don't subscribe to that point of view. Not without qualification anyway.
I think the historicity of Jesus is fairly well established by most credible historians. After all that is part of the question as well. Jesus is not defined. I would also take the view that anyone saying that they knew the miraculous stories of Jesus as real would be hard put to demonstrate so. And also those who wish to prove he is divine. Hence my response which I personally have experienced.
I have said elsewhere that the evidence, of which I include the Biblical record inter alia, indicates that Jesus not only died, but rose from the dead. I take the view that there is sufficient reason to concur with the conclusions of the NT and that the possible alternate theories do not contain sufficient unity nor plausibility. Yet, I also acknowledge that prejudice runs rife on both sides of the question.
So I apologise that I responded with a subjective belief as you understand and not an objective reason as you suggest the question asked. Given that every person is subjective - and objectivity impossible as such, how can we know anything with absolute assurance? How do we know that our spouse or that our parents love for us is real? How do we know that the government has the best interest of its citizens at heart? How do we know that logic and reason are proper methods of addressing anything? How we know that we exist? "I think, therefore I am", hardly refers to a tree, so do trees exist?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
No that is untrue. I never said it was Chinese whispers. I said it might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers - this is not the same at all. And in fact I went on to contrast modern writing with pre- printing press writing. Let me be quite clear. I don't believe it was Chinese whispers. Having said that I disagree with Keith's assertion that believers think it was dictation. That is incorrect.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?Hmmm great question. I would think it would have to be someone who was there. God, Adam, Eve, or the Snake.A&E&S were late starters, they weren't there for the creation of the universe, are you saying god told A&E&S what to remember?
God communicated to his people. Gee who would have thought that? Duh! Who is going to be a better eyewitness than the one who created the world?
But you use the term "record", which implies writing to some extent. I don't think that they had recording devices at the time. Hence, I suspect it was probably handed down from Adam to his children and then on their children. I guess this might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers. Yet, again prior to the printing press, and as we clearly acknowledge from cultures without literacy, the memory was very good, since it was used so often to recall the events of their history.So everything you believe is based on a SUSPICION? WOW but if that's all you've got. The whole point of chinese whispers is that the story never survives as it was originally told, after thousands of years of chinese whispers the stories are no longer credible. But keep your suspicions.
I used the word suspect. Yet the context was that people back then did not have recording devices, which they did not. I could have used the word "know" but that would be incorrect - although it is the most likely explanation. Nor did I actually say it was Chinese whispers but was actually trying to acknowledge that some persons might take the view that story telling can only be myth and nothing more. It was a dig at persons such as yourself. Your comments are so far distracting from the op and from my points. Even if you find them amusing.
We are informed in the OT that Moses eventually recorded most of the events in writing. Or at least collated much of what had been kept and recorded by others. Was it accurate? That is a question which can never be answered unless we have someone else who was independently writing at the same time. I don't have to make that assessment yet as I don't have all of the information. Yet, I am prepared to presume innocence until proven guilty.
Moses didn't record anything, as a fictional character he simply couldn't. The answer to the accuracy question is, as you've said, because of the evidence of chinese whispers gives them zero chance of being accurate.
Moses is not a fictional character despite your assertion. such an assertion requires evidence to back it up. the story of Moses in Hebrew is written in the narrative historical genre, not poetical or mythical or fictional mode. As for the Chinese whispers - I indicated above I never made that declaration - simply noted it for completeness sake because of others who would raise it.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Sorry Keith,
I don't believe it was dictation. That is more of a Mormon thing. Being moved along by the spirit - is how Peter describes the role of the prophet / revelation writer. God used sinful man in their own cultures and with their own flaws to write the perfect revelation of God. The church has never understood it to be dictation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The protestants very understandably broke away from the Latin church, which was heretical to begin with. However, they did throw away Church tradition, and it would be silly to deny this. Reading the earliest church fathers makes it very clear that protestantism has discarded a great deal.
You seem to demonstrate a misunderstanding of protestant teaching. Would you please provide some examples of what tradition the church has discarded?
And Sola Scriptura is kind of silly, because The Orthodox Church compiled the New Testament. Besides, protestants don't even have all the books because they abandoned the old testament the church has used for thousands of years in favor of a translation they think is in the original language.... oh then they butcher the new testament via textual criticism.
Hmm,, you also lack an understanding of the protestant's view on Sola Scriptura. Protestants do not agree that the canon of scripture was compiled by the Orthodox church. There is no history or tradition which supports such an erroneous position. The books which protestants agree are in the Bible were those books which traditionally accepted by the early fathers of the church. It was Athanasius in around 400 ad who first made a list which aligns with the protestant church. Logically if the orthodox church or the catholic church compiled a list as opposed to that which was handed down by the vast majority of the church from the earlier days, then the orthodox and catholic church are able to claim greater authority than the Scriptures - which incidentally has only one real purpose - to destroy the authority of the bible. This would enable the church today to be able to add or delete books based on this same authority. Indeed this is what the charismatic church does with its fresh revelation. Yet the book of Daniel clearly tells us the canon would be closed by AD 70.
This is why your scriptures contains more additions than the protestant version. Your church as well as the Catholic church in 1500 or so - decided some books were necessary in order to support your doctrines.
It's like you all think the church sat around wondering what to do until the bible was compiled or something.No, we knew what we believed before the new testament was compiled.
Yes that is based on faulty thinking. The church did not wait around. They were using the bible - handed down and accepted by the early church and the fathers. the protestant church did not need the church to compile it.
Ecumenical councils? Forget about that. I've heard the corrupted Roman creed in protestant churches. I've heard the apostles creed.No, protestants forgot tradition. They have an incomplete church, it's the truth.
Yes, you reject the ecumenical councils because they did not always favour the orthodox - Eastern church. The church split over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or whether he did not. the ecumenical church council ruled against the eastern church. No surprise you see no use in them.
As I said above - it is your position that protestants have rejected or forgot tradition. It is therefore for you to instruct how this is the case.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Hmmm great question. I would think it would have to be someone who was there. God, Adam, Eve, or the Snake.Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?
But you use the term "record", which implies writing to some extent. I don't think that they had recording devices at the time. Hence, I suspect it was probably handed down from Adam to his children and then on their children. I guess this might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers. Yet, again prior to the printing press, and as we clearly acknowledge from cultures without literacy, the memory was very good, since it was used so often to recall the events of their history.
We are informed in the OT that Moses eventually recorded most of the events in writing. Or at least collated much of what had been kept and recorded by others. Was it accurate? That is a question which can never be answered unless we have someone else who was independently writing at the same time. I don't have to make that assessment yet as I don't have all of the information. Yet, I am prepared to presume innocence until proven guilty.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The last thing I will touch on, because this OP is way too long already, is the way in which the stories resemble fables such as those used in some other mythologies, the basic summary of many of which being "Because ______ happened, that is why we now have ______." Compare for example the Native American fable explaining why bears have short tails and make groaning noises (http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/the-legend-of-how-the-bear-lost-his-tail/) to the various things that this story claims to explain, including:
If your position is that the bible contains elements of language found in other books - then I agree with you. In other words, all cultures have stories and therefore it is not unusual to see the bible containing stories which have similar elements then we agree. If your point is that the bible has derived its stories from other cultures or that this similarity of language and elements somehow detract from its unique message and authority then I will need to you make your case.
- Modern agriculture (God created us for the purpose of maintaining vegetation)
- Why animal species have names (Adam named them)
- Why men and women leave their parents to get married and become "one flesh" (woman was created from mans flesh)
- Why people wear clothes (Adam and at-the-time nameless woman realize nudity is inherently bad after eating of the tree of good and evil)
- Why men perform physical labor to survive (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why childbirth is painful (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why serpents don't have legs (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- etc.
Ok. I will continue to wait and see your responses.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The first thing in chapter two is Gods famous weekend break on the seventh day. Based on this the chapter seems to be a continuation of the story in the first chapter, but the very next thing that happens is the creation of all plant life, which of course happened already during the last chapter. If this is a retelling of the same story then I am curious as to why the first three verses of chapter two were not put instead at the end of chapter one. This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions and I would like if it was more clear in the book itself whether this is a review, a retelling, a continuation, or what. Today we can use the internet to instantly get information like that directly from people that spent their entire lifetimes studying this book, but it is not at all clear just from a basic reading of the actual text.
God takes a break from creating - not from working. How is it a contradiction? Is it supposed to be chronological? I.E. following immediately after the last part of the story. I seem to recall in chapter 1 had the plants before humanity. This is still the same order. I think it is a zoning in on the story relating to the creation of man. It is not simply retelling chapter 1. 1 was about God and what he did. 2 is about humanity and their jobs. The chapter division was not put in by the author. It was not actually put in until many years later - after Jesus in fact - and by Christians. Division, chapters, verses etc are not part of the original Hebrew or Greek. They are additions - and not considered part of the cannon of Scripture.
Anyway, God makes man out of some dust picked up from the ground and a rough geography lesson in regards to the location of the garden of Eden is given (bookmark this section for if we ever get a biblical literalist in here, they have a lot of explaining to do). Some foreshadowing of the fall is also included in verses 9 and 17 of chapter 2. I remember from the last time I read the Bible (and did not make it all the way through) that the authors do include lots of foreshadowing in many of their stories. In this case I think they did a pretty good job of it. They made it feel natural by working the creation of the trees of knowledge of good and evil and of life into the creation of the worlds overall vegetation so props to them on that. Someone just needs to teach them how chapters work.
As above - the chapters are not the work of the authors.
I now think that we should take some time to talk about common understanding of the Bible and its stories. Regarding the story of the fall, the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan despite a plain reading of the text not lending any credibility to this interpretation. There are numerous examples of technically 'incorrect' elements in Bible stories being believed to be part of the narrative that actually aren't which I will point out as we get to them in this series. It is important to acknowledge these inconsistencies in a study of the book itself despite these ideas not coming directly from the book because this book is the basis of many beliefs, and a cursory understanding of the beliefs based around the book can help to understand the greater context of some of the later parts of the book.
Yes, it is true that the serpent is regarded as Satan. This is because books prior to Gutenberg's printing press were not written the same as we write books today. Let me try and explain my thoughts here. Before the printing press, books were rare and the only way get a copy was to hand write it out. Hence books were not necessarily written chronologically or to be read from front to back but to be read and reread in light of the rest of the book. The idea of this being Satan was drawn not from popular thinking but from the context of the rest of the bible as it was written and handed down over the years. I dare say that in its initial reading - the Hebrews probably knew no more about it than someone today reading it for the first time. As one reads through Genesis one begins to become familiar with particular terms and "buzz words". As we read through the entire bible right down to Revelation - many of these same buzz words are mentioned over and over again. In the time of the writing of these books, they were read to be listened to - not primarily to be read. Most people did not read anyway. And people would listen and hear in one sitting. Most hopefully would not have made assessments of these initial subjects until they had heard the entirety of the story and then once they have understood - then they can draw some conclusions.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This is a follow-up to the previous thread with a similar title. In that thread the most contentious topic seemed to be what version of the Bible I should be reading. Specifically the KJV and NKJV were claimed to be objectively superior to the NIV. I have decided that we should all take this opportunity to perform a small experiment. Instead of stating which version I am now using, I'll simply say that it was randomly chosen from the three above (via rolling a six sided dice).
I think the Hebrew text is the best place to commence in relation to the OT and the Greek in the NT. There are patches of Aramaic which are used - such as in Nehemiah and Daniel, and the LXX is a reasonably good Greek translation of the OT. I think that there are various reasons why some of the translations might be better than others - I like the ESV but acknowledge it is based on one series of texts - different to the KJV. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that the variances don't really detract from the underlying meaning. And if they do - what practical difference is it going to make to us many of thousands of years later.
If I am right and the stories are essentially the same then my interpretation and commentary on the version I am reading should be indistinguishable from commentary on any other version I might read, in other words it will be hard to tell which version I am talking about unless I paste a direct quote from the text or some other dead giveaway. If I am wrong then the message from the different versions is different enough from each other that commentary on one cannot necessarily be applied to commentary on another and it will eventually become clear which version I am using as a source. I wouldn't expect it to be obvious right away even if they are different, but it should eventually. If I am wrong.
I don't disagree with you in principle - but let us see the cake first before such assessments can be made.
With that hopefully out of the way, we continue. Previously I read the first chapter of Genesis. God created the universe and everything in it in a suspiciously similar way to the creation stories existing in several other much older mythologies, all within six days. For this thread I will be reading Genesis 2-3.
Cool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Protestants do not rebel against church tradition. They embrace it. but they protest in favour of the Scriptures as the ultimate authority in matters whether doctrine or tradition.
If you were to know your church history a little better, you would know it was not the protestants but rather the dissenters who were against church traditions per se. The West has a smattering of all types of Christian churches amongst it. Individualism is a distinctly American thing brought through the democratic beliefs of the Baptists. Baptists are the children of the Anabaptist movement - dissenters not protestants.
I reject the notion that the Orthodox Church is the only true church. It is a church and it has its own jurisdiction but it is not the only true church. In fact I would be surprised if its members attending our church would be permitted to participate within holy communion until they were examined by our elders. Our church has a high view of the sacraments and the mystery pertaining to it; although we have not taken on the superstitions of the pagans like some in other churches.
Still, I am pleased that you seem to have a wide reading of different books, even if it was not a thorough or critical look. But you are not alone. These days people seem to read a great deal more - wider but not deeper.
Created:
-->
@linate
is it really conditionally unconditional love? which is really conditional love.is it just unconditional if you are a christian? how far would that go? supposedly you can't slip up if you are a christian, but then again if you started sinning seriously people would say you were never saved to begin with. so whether you look at this from catholic or protestant type thinking, there are things that can cause you to lose God's favor.even if it was unconditional as a christian, it's still conditional on having the proper faith in Jesus.is God's love based on whether you are good or bad?my personal stance is God loves unconditionally, but that the bible does not truly reflect that in an ideal way. i think you can salvage the bad depiction from the bible, by saying God loves us unconditinally, but that doesn't man there aren't consequences to our actions.
Where does it say in the bible that God loves unconditionally or unconditionally?
Your first passage uses the term love and the concept of salvation interchangeably.
God loved Jacob and he hated Esau. This was prior to their birth - so how does sin or not come into it? Or in other words, what conditions were applicable?
Protestants - tend to take the view that Christians are saved by grace - not by good works. Hence salvation is an act of mercy, not based upon a condition. Mercy like Grace are by definition - things which are undeserved or unconditional. There is a natural and logical extension to this - if you cannot be saved by good works - then you cannot lose your salvation by doing bad works.
This of course does not mean that Christians can do bad works without consequences. We are saved by grace unto good works. In other words, if someone calls themselves a Christian but does not do good works, then it is natural to question their salvation. Losing God's favour is a strange thing to talk about. It almost implies a God who is not omniscient.
God wants his people to comply with his covenants. Yet God is also quite aware that people are sinners. Yes, all of us. We will all go to the grave still as sinners with a sinful nature. Yet, together with the Holy Spirit, we are able - to do good works.
Non-believers by definition cannot do good works. I am defining good as those things which bring glory and honour to God. Hence an atheist may well do good in accordance with humanities standards - and many if not most do. but an atheist can never do good in the sight of God, because nothing he or she does is with the intention of bringing honour and glory to God.
Hence, Christians can slip up, but God's favour is not dependant upon the Christians perfectness or not. God's grace towards his people is not based upon a condition - but only upon his own mercy and grace. We choose to love him - and this ought to be unconditional - yet most people love God when they are happy and reject him when they are upset or feel wronged. Or when they are chastised by God.
I ask again - where does the bible talk about love conditionally or unconditionally and how is this related to salvation? Or to his good favour?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Using the black swan example is not an example of a strawman argument. The black swan example is quite apt. The original position was premised on a generalisation, not truth. It was their observation, on their current evidence at the time. Nevertheless, like those before Galileo they were wrong. I think dead people stay dead. I base this however on a theological premise before a biological one. Dead people stay dead because they are sinners. sinful people MUST die and stay dead. The fact that biology accords with this is well and good. And clearly is what we observe in history and even in the bible. Dead people stay dead or if resuscitated like Lazarus inevitably die anyway. Jesus was not resuscitated, he was resurrected. Death could not hold him down. He saw no decay. This is the claim of the NT believers. And so far you have said nothing that draws me to conclude this is false.
You continue to say no evidence for Jesus death. You deny the bible's record. If Josephus has stated that he had seen Jesus alive, you would not believe it either. Gee if Einstein saw Jesus alive - after he has died, you would deny it. Why? Because it is not in accord with your prejudice. That is why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It seems to me that you lack fundamental skills in logic and reasoning and in scientific methodology.Classic hypocrisy. There isn't a scientist on the planet who would agree with anything you're saying about people coming back from the dead. They understand the concept of dead tissue, where clearly you do not. They base their understanding on the biology and not just on the fact that 100% of people who died stay dead. Their bodies immediately begin to decay and will never work again.For you to continuously invoke science only tends to destroy your argument, not mine.
Well you are incorrect. I know many scientists who are of the view that Jesus did rise from the dead. And like me they are unafraid of asking the difficult questions.
Created: