View Full Version : Woman's reaction to forming tornado...
Instead of seeking cover, this woman feels it's more prudent to pray, and is apparently so overcome by the holy spirit that she begins to speak in tongues. Mental illness, if you ask me. I've seen weak minds deal with fear in some interesting ways, but this is by far the strangest.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/03/vo-nat-west-liberty-tornado-prayers.cnn
Eurodriver
03-05-12, 18:22
Instead of seeking cover, this woman feels it's more prudent to pray, and is apparently so overcome by the holy spirit that she begins to speak in tongues. Mental illness, if you ask me. I've seen weak minds deal with fear in some interesting ways, but this is by far the strangest.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/03/vo-nat-west-liberty-tornado-prayers.cnn
She survived, and her house was relatively undamaged.
What now?
She survived, and her house was relatively undamaged.
What now?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
ETA: And Euro, this same storm dropped a tornado right on top of the town and took lives, BTW.
Mental illness for sure...and certainly a weak mind.
Religious folks do some amazing things:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ABbktVDIc&feature=related
Mental illness for sure...and certainly a weak mind.
Religious folks do some amazing things:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ABbktVDIc&feature=related
In my childhood, I was dragged to Pentecostal services where people often spoke in tongues. What I've wondered, since even before my teenage years is if:
- They've fooled themselves into believing that speaking in tongues is not self generated...that they actually believe an outside force is moving their lips and guiding their tongues.
OR
- If they know it's a lie, but they're keeping it up for social reasons (attention, fraternity, fear of shame, etc.)
I don't think any rational people doubt that speaking in tongues is self generated. And that's why it's weakness, IMO.
Mental illness for sure...and certainly a weak mind.
Religious folks do some amazing things:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ABbktVDIc&feature=related
Someone has been watching too much "Children of the Corn."
I agree totally, but not just about speaking in tongues. I'm always wondering if people truly believe in certain things in religion, or if their just perpetuating something for social acceptance, or whatever other reason they may have.
I could go on and on about this topic, but I wouldn't make any friends I'm sure by doing so:p
They were showing this woman right before my video today when I did another interview. I was almost they were going to ask me about it.
Sounded like jibberish to me.....
I was sick last night and prayed to the easter bunny that i would feel better, damned if i didnt start feeling better......i didnt even throw up again!
In my childhood, I was dragged to Pentecostal services where people often spoke in tongues.
Those people actually frighten me in a very real way.
I'm sure many actually believe they are "speaking in tongues", I'm sure some know they are faking it and wish the spirit would actually possess them as it does others and I'm sure others know everyone else is delusional or full of shit.
But in each and every case they still frighten me.
Mauser KAR98K
03-05-12, 20:27
Yep, just one state away from that. :rolleyes:
sniperfrog
03-05-12, 21:21
There's a small group of pentecostals that beleive in "snake handling" too. This is mostly in some very, very rural appalatian churches. They pick up copperheads and rattlesnakes and believe if you have faith in God he will protect you and you must be a true believer and some other crap like that.
Problem is people do get bit and sometimes die. They also will sometimes drink poisons because they believe it won't hurt them. :confused:
If someone does get bitten then they just figure it was Gods will and it was their time to go. :confused::confused::confused:
I wouldn't know...I pray to Joe Pesci.
The_War_Wagon
03-05-12, 21:30
The gift of tongues died with St. John the Apostle (the end of the Apostolic age) on the Isle of Patmos around A.D. 100. Apparently she's NOT a member of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Ashland, KY. ;)
There's a small group of pentecostals that beleive in "snake handling" too. This is mostly in some very, very rural appalatian churches. They pick up copperheads and rattlesnakes and believe if you have faith in God he will protect you and you must be a true believer and some other crap like that.
Problem is people do get bit and sometimes die. They also will sometimes drink poisons because they believe it won't hurt them. :confused:
If someone does get bitten then they just figure it was Gods will and it was their time to go. :confused::confused::confused:
At least they are deciding on their own about their own lives. The ones that drive me nuts are the ones who don't believe in certain kinds of medicine and make decisions about the well being of their kids.
At least they are deciding on their own about their own lives. The ones that drive me nuts are the ones who don't believe in certain kinds of medicine and make decisions about the well being of their kids.
I am shocked you are writing this ?
so who should be in charge of kids then the GOV ?
no thanks I do agree when certain things are for sure dangerous and they dont do stuff but where is the line of freedom drawn ?
I bet lefties who think any kid ever handles a gun should be taken away from their parents ! is that the same as meds ? some would argue it is (I dont of course)
again I hear ya but I am shocked you wrote that ?
its like the movement some people like van jones and some other loons who want to ban homeschooling cause they think its all religious freaks brainwashing their kids !!!!
yeah public schools are so good
I am shocked you are writing this ?
so who should be in charge of kids then the GOV ?
no thanks I do agree when certain things are for sure dangerous and they dont do stuff but where is the line of freedom drawn ?
I bet lefties who think any kid ever handles a gun should be taken away from their parents ! is that the same as meds ? some would argue it is (I dont of course)
again I hear ya but I am shocked you wrote that ?
its like the movement some people like van jones and some other loons who want to ban homeschooling cause they think its all religious freaks brainwashing their kids !!!!
yeah public schools are so good
I wish I had the perfect answer, but it doesn't exist.
And I'm talking about parents who deny children critical medical attention that leads directly to a preventable death because they honestly believe everything is Gods will.
To me that is like standing by and watching somebody be murdered and declaring it Gods will.
Now I don't know what laws I would or wouldn't advocate, because that is a very slippery slope and DCF has proven incompetent and dangerous on more than one occasion.
I'm just saying it is appalling.
Well when the tornado was grinding the house up around us last May, what was coming out of my mouth might not have been too intelligible either. Our survival was not the result of anything we did or said, though. Wanna feel truly powerless? Try having an F5 sitting over your house for 1.5 minutes with you and your family lying in a hallway. Some would say we were simply lucky, I believe otherwise. After all, was it luck that the hinge pins were pulled out of two interior doors that just happened to land across my back and shield us from all the crap flying through the air at 200mph? I don't think so. Just sayin...
Well when the tornado was grinding the house up around us last May, what was coming out of my mouth might not have been too intelligible either. Our survival was not the result of anything we did or said, though. Wanna feel truly powerless? Try having an F5 sitting over your house for 1.5 minutes with you and your family lying in a hallway. Some would say we were simply lucky, I believe otherwise. After all, was it luck that the hinge pins were pulled out of two interior doors that just happened to land across my back and shield us from all the crap flying through the air at 200mph? I don't think so. Just sayin...
The only problem with you believing God saved you was that means he didn't save all those other people for some reason.
I can understand somebody wanting to believe God intervened and protected their children, but I don't think they consider that such a belief means God killed other peoples children on purpose, or at least didn't save them for some reason.
And I'd like to think that if there really is a God, that he doesn't kill peoples children or do any of the other horrible shit that constantly happens as some sort of master plan.
At any rate, I'm glad you and your family made it through ok, that is a truly frightening experience.
montanadave
03-06-12, 08:12
The only problem with you believing God saved you was that means he didn't save all those other people for some reason.
I can understand somebody wanting to believe God intervened and protected their children, but I don't think they consider that such a belief means God killed other peoples children on purpose, or at least didn't save them for some reason.
And I'd like to think that if there really is a God, that he doesn't kill peoples children or do any of the other horrible shit that constantly happens as some sort of master plan.
At any rate, I'm glad you and your family made it through ok, that is a truly frightening experience.
That's what really grinds my gears (props to Peter Griffin). Praise the Lord for all the good things that happen but when it all turns to shit, hey, blame it on "original sin" and "The Fall" and all the rest of that doctrinal dribble. What a convenient loophole.
I was always taught that if you're going to take the credit when things go right, you damn well better be prepared to take the heat when things go south.
That's been my problem with faith as well. How do you reconcile the concept of an omnipotent and benevolent deity with the fact that bad shit happens to good people? If God exists (which I don't necessarily discount, but I don't necessarily believe either), then he can't be both. If he's omnipotent, then every time a child suffers and dies he proves he's not benevolent, in which case he is not worthy of worship. If he's benevolent, then every natural disaster that takes innocent lives proves he's not omnipotent, in which case what's the point of worship?
But you're almost never going to convince any of the faithful of this, and honestly, as long as they don't try to impose their belief system on me, I don't see any reason to try. This is America, and people have a right to follow their religious beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on people who don't want to follow them.
On a lighter note, I grew up so far out in the Appalachian sticks that even the Presbyterians handle snakes. :lol:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pat-robertson-if-enough-people-were-praying-god-would-have-stopped-the-tornadoes/
Heavy Metal
03-06-12, 10:21
If God exists (which I don't necessarily discount, but I don't necessarily believe either), then he can't be both. If he's omnipotent, then every time a child suffers and dies he proves he's not benevolent, in which case he is not worthy of worship. If he's benevolent, then every natural disaster that takes innocent lives proves he's not omnipotent, in which case what's the point of worship?
...because if God selectively interfered, it would destroy free agency.
...because if God selectively interfered, it would destroy free agency.
Does an infant dying of cancer have anything to do with free agency? I could at least understand a deity going hands-off on person-on-person violence, or allowing personal stupidity to be fatal to one's self, but when a tornado comes out of nowhere and kills people, there's no free agency involved.
Does an infant dying of cancer have anything to do with free agency? I could at least understand a deity going hands-off on person-on-person violence, or allowing personal stupidity to be fatal to one's self, but when a tornado comes out of nowhere and kills people, there's no free agency involved.
God's purpose is on an eternal timescale. He is more worried with the things that happen [that we have control over] that may harm us on the eternal scale.
He allowed us to come to the physical world so that we can learn to deal with adversity and develop faith by being out of His presence. That would not be possible for the sort of "benevolence" you equate with what God should be like. God does not judge us by what happens to us [infant getting cancer for example], but rather by how we live our lives, and the things that we do that could affect our eternal salvation [coming back to Him, partly].
Free Agency is part and parcel with that experience, but so is allowing natural laws to run their course.
--
montanadave
03-06-12, 11:39
After many hours of study and contemplation, I have concluded that free will theodicy is a load of crap.
But, hey, to each his own.
And, no, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate. Been there, done that. Everybody needs to seek their own path and I've chosen mine.
God's purpose is on an eternal timescale. He is more worried with the things that happen [that we have control over] that may harm us on the eternal scale.
He allowed us to come to the physical world so that we can learn to deal with adversity and develop faith by being out of His presence. That would not be possible for the sort of "benevolence" you equate with what God should be like. God does not judge us by what happens to us [infant getting cancer for example], but rather by how we live our lives, and the things that we do that could affect our eternal salvation [coming back to Him, partly].
Free Agency is part and parcel with that experience, but so is allowing natural laws to run their course.
--
I think I'd have preferred a simple orientation and lecture. I think a global pow wow with God would also clear up the "Is there really a God" question and we could all get down to productive business.
I think the people in the holocaust were capable of the same personal development and growth without the need to see their families executed. If that really is "the plan" then IMO it isn't a very good one.
Heavy Metal
03-06-12, 12:30
After many hours of study and contemplation, I have concluded that free will theodicy is a load of crap.
But, hey, to each his own.
And, no, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate. Been there, done that. Everybody needs to seek their own path and I've chosen mine.
Well, good luck with that.
I think I'd have preferred a simple orientation and lecture. I think a global pow wow with God would also clear up the "Is there really a God" question and we could all get down to productive business.
I think the people in the holocaust were capable of the same personal development and growth without the need to see their families executed. If that really is "the plan" then IMO it isn't a very good one.
You ignored the part that people suffer due to bad choices made by others and this needs to be allowed to happen, or else it really isn't "free agency".
Draws some parallels to so-called "tough love". Parents often need to let their children make their own decisions and suffer through the consequences. It is not a perfect analogy and is not meant to perfectly explain things. It does, however, give you some ideas to help you better understand.
--
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 12:35
I do believe there is such a thing as evil in the universe. People blame God for things that evil is responsible for. No, I do not believe in the cartoon Red Devil with horns and a pitchfork, but I have encountered true, spiritual evil enough times in my life to know that evil is an intelligent force with a purpose.
You ignored the part that people suffer due to bad choices made by others and this needs to be allowed to happen, or else it really isn't "free agency".
Draws some parallels to so-called "tough love". Parents often need to let their children make their own decisions and suffer through the consequences. It is not a perfect analogy and is not meant to perfectly explain things. It does, however, give you some ideas to help you better understand.
--
Well we can always go back to the "kids dying of cancer" example. The kind of "tough love" you are talking about would more correctly be "brutal and sadistic" but if you want to call that Gods love then that is up to you.
I personally don't think there is a god, and if there is I don't think we are a concern of his any more than anything else in the universe. I think I'd actually prefer a creator who made everything but doesn't get involved, it would at least explain things.
Because if parents watching their children die painful deaths and guys like Joef Mengele living full and natural lives is part of "the plan" then the plan really sucks.
I also believe religions are nothing more than the product of mans earliest attempts to explain and rationalize the things around him combined with a personal wish for an afterlife organized to the best of his thought processes a few thousand years ago and occasionally revised and updated over time to try and reconcile these beliefs with modern understanding.
I do believe there is such a thing as evil in the universe. People blame God for things that evil is responsible for. No, I do not believe in the cartoon Red Devil with horns and a pitchfork, but I have encountered true, spiritual evil enough times in my life to know that evil is an intelligent force with a purpose.
If you believe in God, then he created all the evil in the universe.
But evil is simply a concept of man. When a wolf kills a sheep, is that evil? Or is it simply a wolf finding a meal in order to remain alive? The only difference between men, wolves and sheep is that we have invented civilization and rules and we would prefer to not be a meal.
The traditional Christian answer to the child dying of cancer is the notion of original sin. In Christian doctrine, the actions of Adam and Eve resulted in all men being born guilty, in need of God's grace if they want to be saved. Worldly hardships are the result of original sin, and salvation is the way out. This is the essence of Christianity.
My interpretation of the above ideology is this:
God creates us broken, sick, and wicked, and then orders us, under threat of eternal torture, to love and worship him. We must love the one we fear (sadomasochism, anybody?).
The Christian God is a rapist, holding a gun to a woman's head and saying "truly love me, don't just say you love me but truly love me" and I will not rape you. Isn't that a fair offer? It's a free gift of salvation, just take it. Don't you know how much I love you, too?"
And how does this rapist prove his love for the woman (humanity)? Well, first he watches the woman (humanity) for 100,000 years (or however long you believe humans were on earth before the time of Christ), he watches the suffering and then pain, the famine and war, and then at some point he says "enough is enough."
So he sends his son to earth to offer them salvation. And how is this salvation offered? Through a human sacrifice.
This is nonsense.
I wish folks would just understand it's our faith and nothing more...there is scripture that is hard to wrap your head around on the O.P. and suffering, but it's foolish for me to prove God when it's nothing more than child like faith. I have seen Him work in my life but can't prove it to you.
My daughter suffers from seizures, she is one year behind in school but the dr's told us she would be dead or retarted by now. They are baffled and at the same time she is not 100% healed yet.
I thank God for bringing her into my life as she has made me a better person but don't blame Him for any negative issues with her or any of the going ons in my daily life. He never promised to keep the enemy from biting us in the ass after adam & eve screwed it all up for us.
Why good stuff happens to turds & bad thing to solid people will be one of my first questions...I lean on this a lot because there is just so much I do not understand:
1 Corinthians 13:12
King James Version (KJV)
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We've been down the topic before and it just kinda sticks in my craw to see the same arguements from the gents I highly respect and consider to be much wiser than myself. I do wish everyone would find salvation but I respect the rules and people enough not to witness with an in your face attitude. I swear, we are own worst enemy at times and can't blame you for being pushed away.
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 13:11
If you believe in God, then he created all the evil in the universe.
No, but he gave some beings free will and a lot of them chose to rebel. The concept of "Mysterium Iniquitatus" has been debated for centuries, so we certainly won't settle it here. Believe what you want.
But evil is simply a concept of man. When a wolf kills a sheep, is that evil? Or is it simply a wolf finding a meal in order to remain alive? The only difference between men, wolves and sheep is that we have invented civilization and rules and we would prefer to not be a meal.
This gets into some heady debate and I do not think anyone will be able to give a satisfactory answer. If you believe in the Bible, it talks one day of the lion lying down with the lamb, so in that sense you could argue that the wolf is evil when he kills a sheep.
I prefer to think this is a flawed, fallen universe and perfection will not exist in it ever.
Ultimately, the whole God/evil/belief unbelief thing comes down to a famous quote.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
― Stuart Chase
Well we can always go back to the "kids dying of cancer" example. The kind of "tough love" you are talking about would more correctly be "brutal and sadistic" but if you want to call that Gods love then that is up to you.
No.
I did not claim the analogy was perfect and that was referring to the actions of others.
God put us in a natural world and we live a natural life. That includes getting sick, etc. We have the "whole enchilada" of life experiences. The good and the bad.
I emphasized in a previous post that God's concern is our spiritual eternal well being and salvation. He does not judge us by what happens to us. Only by our own actions.
I personally don't think there is a god, and if there is I don't think we are a concern of his any more than anything else in the universe. I think I'd actually prefer a creator who made everything but doesn't get involved, it would at least explain things.
Because if parents watching their children die painful deaths and guys like Joef Mengele living full and natural lives is part of "the plan" then the plan really sucks.
I also believe religions are nothing more than the product of mans earliest attempts to explain and rationalize the things around him combined with a personal wish for an afterlife organized to the best of his thought processes a few thousand years ago and occasionally revised and updated over time to try and reconcile these beliefs with modern understanding.
The traditional Christian answer to the child dying of cancer is the notion of original sin. In Christian doctrine, the actions of Adam and Eve resulted in all men being born guilty, in need of God's grace if they want to be saved. Worldly hardships are the result of original sin, and salvation is the way out. This is the essence of Christianity.
traditional, non-biblical Christianity. (i.e., the Bible does not say this -- it is the interpretations of centuries of councils and get togethers by clergy trying to figure things out).
My interpretation of the above ideology is this:
God creates us broken, sick, and wicked, and then orders us, under threat of eternal torture, to love and worship him. We must love the one we fear (sadomasochism, anybody?).
The Christian God is a rapist, holding a gun to a woman's head and saying "truly love me, don't just say you love me but truly love me" and I will not rape you. Isn't that a fair offer? It's a free gift of salvation, just take it. Don't you know how much I love you, too?"
And how does this rapist prove his love for the woman (humanity)? Well, first he watches the woman (humanity) for 100,000 years (or however long you believe humans were on earth before the time of Christ), he watches the suffering and then pain, the famine and war, and then at some point he says "enough is enough."
So he sends his son to earth to offer them salvation. And how is this salvation offered? Through a human sacrifice.
This is nonsense.
I agree. That would be nonsense.
It is not the essence of God's plan either. It is a straw man argument.
-
God's purpose is on an eternal timescale. He is more worried with the things that happen [that we have control over] that may harm us on the eternal scale.
He allowed us to come to the physical world so that we can learn to deal with adversity and develop faith by being out of His presence. That would not be possible for the sort of "benevolence" you equate with what God should be like. God does not judge us by what happens to us [infant getting cancer for example], but rather by how we live our lives, and the things that we do that could affect our eternal salvation [coming back to Him, partly].
Free Agency is part and parcel with that experience, but so is allowing natural laws to run their course.
--
But God created the natural laws. He created cancer, genetic diseases, etc etc. What kind of benevolent creator would do such a thing?
A creator who would brutally murder an innocent child just to teach the parents about 'handling adversity' is a psychopath, and not worthy of worship or respect.
And if it's done to further an 'eternal timescale' plan, how is it any different than a government that allows its people to die so that 'the people' can live on? That's all well and good if the people in question choose to do so, but to be forced against one's will to sacrifice yourself is called murder.
Beyond the theological debate, there is the very real issue of the fact that the world's major religions have not had any kind of direct divine inspiration for millennia. Religion may have begun as a way to explain phenomena for which the humans of the time had no rational understanding, but it has evolved into a tool of social control. The various holy books, especially the Christian bible, have been edited, retranslated, and collated numerous times over the centuries, often by people with a vested interest in subjugating the faithful. To suggest that these books are the unfiltered, divinely-given word of God is to ignore the very real socio-political nature of religion's role in the world. If God came down from heaven and announced to the world that he was here to set things aright, I'd still be skeptical. But at least it would be more believable than the world's oldest remaining bureaucracy telling me how to live every aspect of my life.
I mean seriously, has anyone actually read Leviticus, specifically chapters 11 through 26? Wearing blended fabrics is an abomination unto the Lord, as is eating shellfish, talking to a woman on her period, etc etc. How many Christians still follow these archaic rules, despite Christ telling his followers 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' (Matthew 5:17)
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
― Stuart Chase
There is likely much truth to this. But I like hearing other people's viewpoints on the subject, if only to better understand them. By understanding where they're coming from, and how they think, I can better avoid unnecessary conflicts, and better execute the necessary ones :)
But God created the natural laws. He created cancer, genetic diseases, etc etc. What kind of benevolent creator would do such a thing?
He did?
A creator who would brutally murder an innocent child just to teach the parents about 'handling adversity' is a psychopath, and not worthy of worship or respect.
God does this? Really?
Or is this another straw man argument where you DEFINE God and then shoot down that definition?
And if it's done to further an 'eternal timescale' plan, how is it any different than a government that allows its people to die so that 'the people' can live on? That's all well and good if the people in question choose to do so, but to be forced against one's will to sacrifice yourself is called murder.
Beyond the theological debate, there is the very real issue of the fact that the world's major religions have not had any kind of direct divine inspiration for millennia.
Really?
Religion may have begun as a way to explain phenomena for which the humans of the time had no rational understanding, but it has evolved into a tool of social control. The various holy books, especially the Christian bible, have been edited, retranslated, and collated numerous times over the centuries, often by people with a vested interest in subjugating the faithful. To suggest that these books are the unfiltered, divinely-given word of God is to ignore the very real socio-political nature of religion's role in the world. If God came down from heaven and announced to the world that he was here to set things aright, I'd still be skeptical. But at least it would be more believable than the world's oldest remaining bureaucracy telling me how to live every aspect of my life.
I mean seriously, has anyone actually read Leviticus, specifically chapters 11 through 26? Wearing blended fabrics is an abomination unto the Lord, as is eating shellfish, talking to a woman on her period, etc etc. How many Christians still follow these archaic rules, despite Christ telling his followers 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' (Matthew 5:17)
Smuckatelli
03-06-12, 13:37
Well we can always go back to the "kids dying of cancer" example.
Not a good example, usually when kids are dying of cancer....God is found by the kids & family.
He did?
God does this? Really?
Or is this another straw man argument where you DEFINE God and then shoot down that definition?
If God is omnipotent and created the very framework of the universe, then he created all these, yes. He created the laws of physics, which in turn define chemistry, which in turn define biochemistry.
Not a good example, usually when kids are dying of cancer....God is found by the kids & family.
So... God is happy to painfully slaughter innocent children just so that their parents might worship him? Is God related to Kim Jong Il?
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 13:43
Back on topic, my answer to the woman and the tornado is Mark 11:23. " Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.
Cross references:Mark 11:23 : Matt 17:20; 1 Cor 13:2Mark 11:24 : Matt 7:7f
Just food for thought. Just keeping an open mind.
I'm not trying to foist my beliefs on anyone, but I do believe in a metaphysical realm.
Just suppose for the sake o'supposin' that it really did work?
What then?
Maybe if people learned to use that there might never be another tornado death.
Not a good example, usually when kids are dying of cancer....God is found by the kids & family.
This is sort of like the deathbed confession, the romantic Christian notion that an unbeliever renounces his wickedness as he faces his own demise.
Funny how it's looked upon so dearly that a person's fear should overcome their reason, that Christianity penetrates a person at their weakest, not their strongest.
I reject this also.
Well said sir, we think a lot alike:)
Personally I feel religion for most people is a coping mechanism for the self awareness that all humans share....aka the fear of death.
I don't doubt the sincerity of some people's belief. It's real, and not to be discounted. But that doesn't mean I can't question it, dissect it, and try to understand it.
Smuckatelli
03-06-12, 14:46
I reject this also.
I really don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone rejects or accepts it. I just posted an observation that I have been seeing since we were forced into childhood cancer in September 2007.
Does it make me an expert? No, but I can guarantee that it gives me insight into something that is being used in this thread as an example.....as I posted, it is bad example.
I really don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone rejects or accepts it. I just posted an observation that I have been seeing since we were forced into childhood cancer in September 2007.
Does it make me an expert? No, but I can guarantee that it gives me insight into something that is being used in this thread as an example.....as I posted, it is bad example.
Hey listen man, I'm sorry for the pain that you and your family are going through (cancer has claimed many lives in my family also...young and old), but you realize this is just a philosophical debate, right?
If because of life circumstances, you are unable to separate yourself emotionally from this discussion (and thus not get angry), then maybe it's a good idea to sit it out.
This is a friendly, although frank and direct discussion, where in the end we all go back to shooting guns and doing things we like to do.
That's what civilized people do, they discuss disagreements and perhaps learn something. You "not giving a rats ass" runs counter to this civilized discussion and is going to lead to this thread getting locked.
Let's try not to bring emotion into this.
If God is omnipotent and created the very framework of the universe, then he created all these, yes. He created the laws of physics, which in turn define chemistry, which in turn define biochemistry.
You are making some big assumptions and some logical fallacies.
First, I do not believe God "created" the framework of the universe in the sense that "poof" it is there. I believe that God is Omnipotent BECAUSE He has a perfect understanding of physical laws and can manipulate them to his will perfectly. Natural laws are just that, existing physical laws.
And the logical fallacy is that if God were to create a natural system, in which natural laws exist and control and govern things (such as "evolution", gravity, and everything else), to claim that God creates all the individual outcomes of the system. Creating the system and seeding it with his creations of life does not mean He willfully creates, with malice [or not], the outcomes of that system. He would create a system and let that system persist through the physical laws.
The_War_Wagon
03-06-12, 14:59
That's been my problem with faith as well. How do you reconcile the concept of an omnipotent and benevolent deity with the fact that bad shit happens to good people?
False premise.
Why does the BEST thing (our salvation) happen to BAD people (us sinners), at the expense of the ONLY perfect man who ever lived (Jesus)?
Get back to me, when you have the answer. ;)
So... God is happy to painfully slaughter innocent children just so that their parents might worship him? Is God related to Kim Jong Il?
Your mistake is to think that God creates the pain. He allows the pain, because He created a system within natural law for His children to experience life, the good and the bad. He does not "will" it. He allows it since in the big scheme of things, it is a necessary part of Free Agency and living within the natural boundaries that exist.
--
I don't doubt the sincerity of some people's belief. It's real, and not to be discounted. But that doesn't mean I can't question it, dissect it, and try to understand it.
You need to question the right things. So far, you have set up straw men arguments based on your UNDERSTANDING of things, your creations of what you think God is like, and knocked those down. You have not knocked down God at all.
-
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 15:05
False premise.
Why does the BEST thing (our salvation) happen to BAD people (us sinners), at the expense of the ONLY perfect man who ever lived (Jesus)?
Get back to me, when you have the answer. ;)
Excellent answer. The Force is Strong with This One. :cool:
False premise.
Why does the BEST thing (our salvation) happen to BAD people (us sinners), at the expense of the ONLY perfect man who ever lived (Jesus)?
Get back to me, when you have the answer. ;)
How do you know that salvation happens? Have you personally experienced going to heaven after you shuffle off this mortal coil, or are you going by what you've been told by priests or read in a book?
You need to question the right things. So far, you have set up straw men arguments based on your UNDERSTANDING of things, your creations of what you think God is like, and knocked those down. You have not knocked down God at all.
-
I have asked questions based on my understanding of things, which is the way that we learn. If my understanding of things is incorrect, it is only by questioning that I might discern this and have a better understanding of them. I'll be the first to admit that my understanding is imperfect and limited. All of us labor under the same limitations. Thus why I am suspicious of anyone that claims to have all the answers :)
I wish I had the perfect answer, but it doesn't exist.
And I'm talking about parents who deny children critical medical attention that leads directly to a preventable death because they honestly believe everything is Gods will.
To me that is like standing by and watching somebody be murdered and declaring it Gods will.
Now I don't know what laws I would or wouldn't advocate, because that is a very slippery slope and DCF has proven incompetent and dangerous on more than one occasion.
I'm just saying it is appalling.
I hear ya with that explanation a bit more then :)
I think its one of those on the few rare times then :)
Smuckatelli
03-06-12, 15:26
Hey listen man, I'm sorry for the pain that you and your family are going through (cancer has claimed many lives in my family also...young and old), but you realize this is just a philosophical debate, right?
Relax, I'm relaxed..;) I just pointed out that childhood cancer is a bad example. Everyone wants to use the little baldheaded kids to push an agenda, I just don't think it is appropriate for attacking someone's beliefs.
Your "I reject this also" read like what a preacher would say during Sunday services.
I really don't give a rat's ass but I do care about the children. :)
How do you know that salvation happens? Have you personally experienced going to heaven after you shuffle off this mortal coil, or are you going by what you've been told by priests or read in a book?
how about what people have experienced when they have died and come back to life ?
you know when you really love someone ? if you have kids you know what you will do for them ? yet you can not tell someone or express this to others yet its real and its there !
can you explain that to me ?
Not a good example, usually when kids are dying of cancer....God is found by the kids & family.
I always hear that and it always amazes me that people think that is a good rationale. Should missionaries simply start killing children so the parents can find God?
I wish folks would just understand it's our faith and nothing more...
I do understand that, just as I do for Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. But sometimes religious people frighten and mystify me. Keep in mind almost every person I know considers themselves a "Christian" and I have no problems with them. Of course they aren't playing with snakes, babbling like retards or claiming God helped their kid win a soccer game.
The_War_Wagon
03-06-12, 15:36
How do you know that salvation happens? Have you personally experienced going to heaven after you shuffle off this mortal coil, or are you going by what you've been told by priests or read in a book?
Either the Word of God, is THE Word of God, or it's all a lie. There is no middle ground.
I have reviewed the evidence substantially, & considered it carefully. I believe Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and His promises are true. Believing that my salvation - and the salvation of ALL believers - lies beyond this life - is crucial to Christian faith. Either you understand that, or you don't.
I'd be happy to do explain the sedes doctrinae of salvation further, but I'm loathe to do it on-line, because the give & take is far too slow. If you're near Pittsburgh sometime, just sing out.
how about what people have experienced when they have died and come back to life ?
you know when you really love someone ? if you have kids you know what you will do for them ? yet you can not tell someone or express this to others yet its real and its there !
can you explain that to me ?
Show me someone who has died, and I mean really died, not just gone flatline for a minute or two before being jumpstarted, and then come back to life. Show me a modern-day Lazarus, who was well and truly dead, and then came back to the land of the living. People who have near-death experiences shouldn't be completely discounted, but oxygen deprivation and trauma can do really odd things to the brain, including hallucinations.
I suppose I am the doubting Thomas. I need to put my hand into Jesus' side, and probe the nail wounds with my fingers. Incredible claims demand incredible proof.
No, but he gave some beings free will and a lot of them chose to rebel. The concept of "Mysterium Iniquitatus" has been debated for centuries, so we certainly won't settle it here. Believe what you want.
Ultimately everything, including beings with a capacity for evil, was created by God according to your beliefs.
This gets into some heady debate and I do not think anyone will be able to give a satisfactory answer. If you believe in the Bible, it talks one day of the lion lying down with the lamb, so in that sense you could argue that the wolf is evil when he kills a sheep.
I prefer to think this is a flawed, fallen universe and perfection will not exist in it ever.
Ultimately, the whole God/evil/belief unbelief thing comes down to a famous quote.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
― Stuart Chase
The wolf would die if it didn't kill the sheep, that is the way of nature and the produce of God according to your beliefs.
Either the Word of God, is THE Word of God, or it's all a lie. There is no middle ground.
I would agree with you there, but I think we come to different conclusions as to which of the two it is. And that's fine. This is America, we each have the right to believe as we wish, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
No.
I did not claim the analogy was perfect and that was referring to the actions of others.
God put us in a natural world and we live a natural life. That includes getting sick, etc. We have the "whole enchilada" of life experiences. The good and the bad.
I emphasized in a previous post that God's concern is our spiritual eternal well being and salvation. He does not judge us by what happens to us. Only by our own actions.
I understand all that, I'm just saying it is a brutal, and often sadistic plan. I think we'd all have a much better chance at that "spiritual eternal well being and salvation" with a "simple orientation and lecture."
If there really is a God, and this really is the plan, then I don't think it is a very good one.
He did?
If you believe God created everything...yes.
Smuckatelli
03-06-12, 15:45
I always hear that and it always amazes me that people think that is a good rationale. Should missionaries simply start killing children so the parents can find God?
Come on now, you know better than that.
Do they think it is a good rationale for finding God?
When the child is DX'd with cancer your world is completely turned around. Same thing happens with God and fighting holes.
Is it rationale, only the person with the belief can answer that.
Your comment about missionaries is really childish...just sayin..;)
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 15:45
Ultimately everything, including beings with a capacity for evil, was created by God according to your beliefs.
I believe God created the universe with His perfect will, and it was corrupted by some of the beings in that universe who chose evil over good. He could have created a perfect universe with no capacity for evil, but chose to give beings free will instead.
I believe God created the universe with His perfect will, and it was corrupted by some of the beings in that universe who chose evil over good. He could have created a perfect universe with no capacity for evil, but chose to give beings free will instead.
And that accounts for people who choose to do evil over good, which I don't dispute. But it doesn't account for things that happen with no agency whatsoever. Did evil people by their very presence cause cancer to spring into being ex nihilo?
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 15:50
And that accounts for people who choose to do evil over good, which I don't dispute. But it doesn't account for things that happen with no agency whatsoever. Did evil people by their very presence cause cancer to spring into being ex nihilo?
I probably should let someone with more knowledge than me address this, but IIRC there is a theory that once evil was introduced into the universe that it "corrupted" everything: created entropy, introduced death and disease, smelly feet, and whatnot.
Someone with more knowledge can probably explain that better, but that is what I personally believe.
I probably should let someone with more knowledge than me address this, but IIRC there is a theory that once evil was introduced into the universe that it "corrupted" everything: created entropy, introduced death and disease, smelly feet, and whatnot.
Someone with more knowledge can probably explain that better, but that is what I personally believe.
A theory based on what evidence?
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 16:08
A theory based on what evidence?
Again, I'm sure someone can explain it better than me. Ultimately, if you do not believe in the supernatural then none of this works for you.
Again, I'm sure someone can explain it better than me. Ultimately, if you do not believe in the supernatural then none of this works for you.
I don't necessarily discount the possibility of the supernatural, but I have yet to see any evidence of it, and I hold such claims to a higher burden of proof.
If you believe God created everything...yes.
No. That is a logical fallacy. Creating a system based on laws is not the same thing as willfully creating everything in that system.
-
No. That is a logical fallacy. Creating a system based on laws is not the same thing as willfully creating everything in that system.
-
But if God is omniscient, he would be able to foresee that the system and the laws he was creating would include these things. Ergo, he chose to include them.
But if God is omniscient, he would be able to foresee that the system and the laws he was creating would include these things. Ergo, he chose to include them.
Only if you assumption(s) are correct.
Assumption: God created the laws versus worked within eternal physical/natural laws to create the system.
I believe God is omniscient, all knowing, and knows perfectly how to manipulate eternal natural law to his doing (knowing how it will turn out).
I also believe that God's plan for His children (i.e., us, humans) is that he wants us to choose to do the right thing based on our own desires/wishes and not through coercion. He wants us to come back to Him but does not want to force us to come back to Him. We need to have the experiences of this mortal life to grow and reach our potential, and that includes the good and the bad. You cannot know the good if you don't have any ideas of the bad.
" For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so,... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."
"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. "
God knows what we need (being omniscient) in order to progress. He set up a system, based on eternal natural laws, that allows us to experience the things we need to experience. He gave us Free Agency so that we can choose the right, or the wrong. We are not judged according to what happens to us, but by our actions.
Some people fall victim to natural processes (cancer for example) and others to the bad choices of others (murder for example). That merely cuts short the mortal existence on earth. It does not stop the eternal progression of a person and that person is not judged according to what happens to him either.
And I do not believe in the "supernatural" either. God is not "supernatural" in the typical sense, meaning "above natural", but is "supernatural" in a literal sense -- "super natural". We don't have the understanding of things yet to be able to understand how God works through natural laws and processes, but science brings us closer to that goal every day. (But we probably still only understand an infinitesimally small bit of it right now and I don't believe that science will ever reveal all truths about nature and physical laws but we should not stop trying).
Some traditionalist Christians may find offense in some of what I said, which I find sad, but I stand with them nevertheless to testify of God and his Son Jesus Christ. Each person needs to achieve that faith himself. It does not come through reasoning and logic, but through experience with deity itself. Reasoning and logic can help one understand it better and can open the heart to that experience, but will not bring the testimony itself to one (to a person).
--
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 16:52
But if God is omniscient, he would be able to foresee that the system and the laws he was creating would include these things. Ergo, he chose to include them.
Imagine you are God.
You can create the universe any way you want to.
You can make a perfect world where everything is subject to you and serves you like an automaton.
But, suppose as God, your sincere desire is to have your creation serve you willingly.
Now you have to introduce free will into the system. And because you want your creation to serve you willingly, ergo you have to allow for the possibility that it will not. You have to create the universe imperfectly so that there is a possibility that your creation can screw up, rebel, not serve you, and by that token if it does serve you, then you know it is voluntarily.
Now humans may have their own idea as to what "serving God" means. People will probably always disagree over this. God knows what he likes, but people in their imperfection don't always see it. These unfortunate people will be "damned".
For the people that lament the fact that God will send these people to Hell, all I can say is, "He's God. If he's omnipotent then by definition He may make some decisions you are not going to like. You may not live up to His standard." Deal with it.
Similarly, God would not just announce Himself at the beginning of creation or hold a press conference to declare Himself the Big Guy or some such nonsense because (of course) in the face of undeniable Deity your creation is going to see "the light" (pun intended), and you, as God, have defeated your own purpose to allow free will.
That's why the fallen angels will receive no mercy, because they were the closest that beings can come to seeing God in all His Glory without having to have "faith", and yet some of them still rebeled.
But for humans, who have to live by belief, and cannot see God, how do you as God get them to serve you willingly?
You leave clues to your existence and love for them.
You may even do some supernatural things to allow them to say, "Oh, I get it. This visible world isn't all there is."
You allow them to screw up, but you also provide the way of salvation which, what a coincidence, means that you have to rely on God's power and love to be what is called "saved." Because if you could get there on your own efforts, then why would you need this "God" person?
In essence, I think that sums up my philosophy.
Believe what you want.
Show me someone who has died, and I mean really died, not just gone flatline for a minute or two before being jumpstarted, and then come back to life. Show me a modern-day Lazarus, who was well and truly dead, and then came back to the land of the living. People who have near-death experiences shouldn't be completely discounted, but oxygen deprivation and trauma can do really odd things to the brain, including hallucinations.
I suppose I am the doubting Thomas. I need to put my hand into Jesus' side, and probe the nail wounds with my fingers. Incredible claims demand incredible proof.
ahhhh flatlining is not dead to you then ?
having a doctor declare you dead is not good enough for you then ?
if someone has a experience and tells you about it I bet you will not believe it and discount it anyway ?
why not believe someone from the get go !
again if you have kids ? and most who do would say I would die for them ? do you say OK prove it then kill yourself ? NO because their are some common things most parents share and know they will put their lives in front of their kids their is no need to prove it or show it ! it is just something most parents would do
trying to describe that kind of love to someone without kids or who does not care is impossible and cant be proven
so even with people that have been dead according to doctors you would not believe ?
if you produced someone who was dead for a week you would again come up with a excuse ! and not believe
this once again shows their will always be a excuse to not believe so why bother going any farther
ahhhh flatlining is not dead to you then ?
Nope. Cells can survive for a time without oxygen. People get resuscitated all the time from a flatline state. That's not 'dead', that's 'going to be dead if someone doesn't start oxygenated blood flowing again very soon'.
this once again shows their will always be a excuse to not believe so why bother going any farther
What you call an excuse, I call healthy skepticism. Incredible claims, i.e. those that challenge scientific understanding, require incredible proof, not quotes from a book that's been modified and tailored for millennia to support social control. Theories require evidence, and that evidence must be repeatable under a given set of circumstances.
I don't necessarily discount the possibility of the supernatural, but I have yet to see any evidence of it, and I hold such claims to a higher burden of proof.
question for you :)
do all things need evidence or proof ?
or do only some things need evidence or proof ?
and if for some things what is the deciding factor ?
is it that you cant grasp it or you don't believe in that certain thing ?
a good example would be people thinking the same thing like identical twins who think the same thoughts at the same time even though they are in completely dif rooms or even across the country
experiment two twins one on east coast one on west
both in a dark room the one on the east is asked what is going on over on the west coast and to describe what he feels
so on the west a guy shines a flash light in the face and the guy on the east coast senses and says he is having a bright light shine on him ?
do you believe that or not ?
and if you were there and saw it happening can you explain it ?
if you cant explain it did it really happen then !
or do you realize their are some things we just cant explain !
do all things need evidence or proof ?
the simple answer to this is yes.
Heavy Metal
03-06-12, 20:52
How about 17 hours?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2032591/Woman-comes-back-to-life-after-being-dead-for-17-hours.html
in a rough analogy
as Gods children he has gave us the tools to do what we choose and we choose our own path
just like our kids we raise them with values try to give them tools and education and hope they do the right thing
even if your child strays you forgive them and still love them and hope they do the right thing but its really out of your control as your child grows its their choices that make them who they become not yours !
example you raised them to love shooting and maybe have conservative values but not believe in God
maybe they will find God and still love guns but be more liberal ?
maybe they will be a radical liberal anti gun atheist
maybe they will be ...
I think you get the point you give them freedom to become who they are ! and you have FAITH and HOPE they will be a good person in your eyes
The_War_Wagon
03-06-12, 20:58
A little light reading, for unbelievers & the faithful alike.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.divineandhuman.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.whysome.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.lutherdevilsfraud.html
Let those who have ears to hear...
If, for some INEXPLICABLE reason :rolleyes: , our current deviation from "speaking in 'tongues' at tornadoes in KY" gets locked, feel free to PM me with any questions or further investigations into the mysteries of faith.
the simple answer to this is yes.
really ?
so you need proof and evidence if I cut someones head off they will die ?
or do you know this will happen ?
if you know is it because others have seen this ?
or you know cause certain facts are known !
how did they get known
if I decide to put someone under the water for a hour do you know they will die ? or do you need proof it will happen ?
needing proof of everything just shows that you dont believe so in your eyes you dont believe if I cut your head off you will die then !
Nope. Cells can survive for a time without oxygen. People get resuscitated all the time from a flatline state. That's not 'dead', that's 'going to be dead if someone doesn't start oxygenated blood flowing again very soon'.
What you call an excuse, I call healthy skepticism. Incredible claims, i.e. those that challenge scientific understanding, require incredible proof, not quotes from a book that's been modified and tailored for millennia to support social control. Theories require evidence, and that evidence must be repeatable under a given set of circumstances.
so how long do cells live in your opinion ?
also its a excuse ?
when the earth was flat and you would sail off the end
their was no incredible proof needed other than a guy sailing around ?
really it was just people were wrong and refused to believe in something that was in front of them and real the whole time ! they were just so stuck in their way no to believe ! it was really that simple
just cause you think its incredible others might not think so ?
its only your level of understanding that needs proof
if you went back in time and tried to tell people the earth is not flat ? I doubt you would get through to them and you would be the nut case
yet you KNOW for a fact it is
and yet think about it everyone except a few would think you are nuts and know way could you be correct cause all the proof at the time was it was flat !
again while you need proof many others do not so are they wrong or you ?
if you have not experienced something that someone else has how can you say you they are wrong !
again while you need proof many others do not so are they wrong or you ?
if you have not experienced something that someone else has how can you say you they are wrong !
I don't say they are wrong. But I don't say they're right until I see proof that satisfies me.
As for the flat earth question, who was it that was so opposed to it? Oh right, the church. The same goes for the solar-centric theory of the solar system. Religion tends to fight every scientific theory that dares to contradict their holy texts. We're still seeing it today with regards to creationism vs. evolution.
Come on now, you know better than that.
Do they think it is a good rationale for finding God?
When the child is DX'd with cancer your world is completely turned around. Same thing happens with God and fighting holes.
Is it rationale, only the person with the belief can answer that.
Your comment about missionaries is really childish...just sayin..;)
My analogy is no more childish, absurd or offensive than the notion that dying kids are somehow a good thing if it helps bring their families to God.
The motivation I completely understand, the rationalization that it is somehow a positive in the grand plan is offensive and ridiculous.
I believe God created the universe with His perfect will, and it was corrupted by some of the beings in that universe who chose evil over good. He could have created a perfect universe with no capacity for evil, but chose to give beings free will instead.
So God deliberately created a product with potential flaws and now blames the product because it has flaws.
That is pretty much like me making a crappy chair the breaks and then blaming the chair because it broke. Not to mention then damning ALL the other chairs I made because some of them are really crappy.
No. That is a logical fallacy. Creating a system based on laws is not the same thing as willfully creating everything in that system.
-
It is not a logical fallacy, it is what some believe. And if you create the system that results in the creation of other things, then you are the responsible creator for them as well.
For example, everyone blames Satan for evil. But if God didn't create Satan there wouldn't be a Satan. So ultimately God is responsible for the creation of everything IF you believe God is responsible for all original creation.
Certainly an omnipotent, supernatural being KNEW what his creations were capable of. If I make a bomb and put it in a building full of people I can't claim that I'm not responsible for the explosion because I didn't physically cause it to happen.
If I claim I only created the conditions where an explosions "could happen" depending upon the natural order of things that doesn't make me any less responsible for the explosion and resulting deaths.
But, suppose as God, your sincere desire is to have your creation serve you willingly.
If I was God and capable of making anything I'd hope I wouldn't be so insecure and vain as to need to create beings who exist to satisfy my will or suffer damnation.
I don't say they are wrong. But I don't say they're right until I see proof that satisfies me.
As for the flat earth question, who was it that was so opposed to it? Oh right, the church. The same goes for the solar-centric theory of the solar system. Religion tends to fight every scientific theory that dares to contradict their holy texts. We're still seeing it today with regards to creationism vs. evolution.
when you say so opposed to it ? you do mean the church was saying it was round ! like it says in the bible in Job about 1500 BC correct ?
or are you saying the church was saying NO its flat and the scientist were saying it was round ?
which is it ? cause the way you wrote it sounds like yeah the church was opposed to the flat earth idea ?
just want to be clear :)
I do understand that, just as I do for Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. But sometimes religious people frighten and mystify me. Keep in mind almost every person I know considers themselves a "Christian" and I have no problems with them. Of course they aren't playing with snakes, babbling like retards or claiming God helped their kid win a soccer game.
All I can do is say I'm sorry for from the ding-dongs...Not one group that doesn't have their fruit cakes mixed in. I do not claim any denomination. I am sinner saved by grace that happens to attend a southern Baptist church. I will continue to do so unless I feel their direction does not follow the Bible as written. That in itself can be just as confusing & starts a whole other thread.
I'm a bad example of a person that has been saved by grace & undeserving for sure...really just glad to have the kitchen pass & will leave it at that. Religion is what kills most from finding salvation (in regards to Christians anyway)
I've been told that I'm going to hell cuz I enjoy adult beverages, curse & that I'm not Catholic...I've heard some say all Catholics are going to hell as well. You will not find denominations in the Bible and it's all counter productive and sinful to say such things.
It's my personal opinion that many what I call 'pew sitters' will have to answer and be denied simply due to the fact that their faith lies in their head and religion and not their heart. The Bible is pretty clear about that.
I just wish there were more positive folks in your path as the only way to get it is to search with an open heart & most Christians do not know how to shut up, pray and let God do the work.
Bickering about the specifics online sucks and puts up walls.
If I am wrong and nothing but worm dirt, then I've wasted a some Sundays and taught my kids that unconditional love trumps all...If I am correct as I know I am from what He has shown me in my walk, then I have eternity with no pain or sadness. I may be a janitor in Heaven, but at least I got there.
I wish this was easier to do for me as I kinda dig seeing soul searching in general.
If I was God and capable of making anything I'd hope I wouldn't be so insecure and vain as to need to create beings who exist to satisfy my will or suffer damnation.
Well said.
Doc Safari
03-06-12, 23:04
If I was God and capable of making anything I'd hope I wouldn't be so insecure and vain as to need to create beings who exist to satisfy my will or suffer damnation.
But you are not God. God is God and He has His own personality and His own way of doing things. You cannot say what you would do if you were God because that is an impossible premise.
Further, I would not be so quick to presume I had the wisdom to judge God as either "vain" or "insecure." No one could ever claim to have what it takes to fathom the Supreme Being's purposes.
As to the latter part, and this is probably going to be an unpopular view, but ultimately the Big Guy is in charge and you may have to concede that you just don't like it, and you don't like doing what it takes to serve Him. God states repeatedly in the Bible, for example, that he will not share His Glory with anyone else. He even calls Himself jealous. Yes, you will go to Hell if you reject His way.
For those that don't believe the Bible, I stand by the statement because if you are all-powerful you logically do not have to bow to anyone's will but your own, and so it's not an unreasonable assumption to say that this personality trait would belong to God no matter what name he calls Himself. He calls the shots and that's it, period.
I take back what I said about your not being God. In fact, you are God in your own world, and that is the problem. The real God wants you to make Him your Master, not yourself.
I do not understand every aspect of it. Milton suggested in Paradise Lost that this might have been Satan's motivation for the rebellion :
"the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."
Some will argue whether God "sends you to Hell" or if you are in fact "sending yourself" to Hell through your own rebellion. I won't split hairs to try to unravel that argument.
The bottom line is you can follow God's plan and spend eternity with Him, or you can reject it and be damned. You may not like it, but you may end up having to accept it.
Satan wanted to be God and not serve the real God, and His fate is sealed. If you (or anyone else) wants to be their own God, you will share his fate.
I'm explaining it as I understand it.
This is just a discussion and you are of course free to believe what you want. I'm just trying to spell it out reducing the basic premise to its bare bones.
.
All I know is that woman can pray for me anytime...
I know the wind blows because I've seen and felt evidences of it.
I know God exists because I've seen and felt evidences of Him.
I know how rotten I was, how unhappy, how foul-mouthed, and troubled and evil and mean and cold hearted blah, blah, blah... and then "poof" I was different, a new man... a struggling weak new man but still a new man.
I am not the best proof but proof, none the less, that God does exists ...
People trying to figure God out from books, theology, debates, etc. aren't much better than the internet commandos we try to educate.
You want to know if God exists, want proof he exists, then grow some nads, humble yourself, get on your knees and then, sincerely and honestly ask Almighty God to reveal Himself to you. What do you have to lose?
You might be surprised...
But maybe it's just me...
.
I don't say they are wrong. But I don't say they're right until I see proof that satisfies me.
As for the flat earth question, who was it that was so opposed to it? Oh right, the church. The same goes for the solar-centric theory of the solar system. Religion tends to fight every scientific theory that dares to contradict their holy texts. We're still seeing it today with regards to creationism vs. evolution.
you blindly follow what some people write when it fits what you want ? yet when it does not you demand proof !!! heheheh
some history about the flat earth !
the bible said it was ROUND ! about 1500 B.C !
most including the greeks were figuring it was round about 600BC at the start and about 300 BC got accepted and around 200-100 BC some were also trying to figure circumference back then
WOW before there even was a CHURCH !!!!
the Egyptians/muslims thought it was flat or disc like for a longer time about 9th century some say !
Chinese also thought so longer than most about the 15th century
so even early as 300 BC pretty much known earth is round by most at least !
many around the first 100 AD also knew as by then it was old news ! most all sailors did back then
go forward to about the 300s and early christian scholars were even figuring out the circumference ! as many were trying then
so jump forward some 1000+ years it was pretty much a given it was round !
this is how much they knew it was round the early sailors like Christopher Columbus and Magellan knew it was round as everyone did then !!!!! just happens to be this is when larger mapping and exploring and history was made and recorded that we use today
some people have people believing that the leaders in both church and power were saying NO you will sail off the edge of the earth ! yet this was so far from the truth and yet somehow gets taught as truth !!!! pure ignorance on teachers and sadly its not taught in schools so most people like yourself only know about it from movies and such where that is what the movie told !!!!
yet you sadly never learned the real truth that the so called flat earth stuff was all fiction and before the churches existed most knew it not to be flat except a few
while a few held out through time thinking NOPE I have to have proof even though everything and everyone was telling them it was round ! they did not believe !!
IRONIC you would have been one of those people a nut
the reason I reversed it when I posted it as I know very very few unless you are a avid historian or sailor know the truth about flat earth and its sadly not taught
so to think people like you who wont believe things to be known by most not to be true !!! much like those few holdouts
lucky around 1500 Magellan sailed around and proved it to some of those people who did not want to believe the rest of the people !!!
so yup for a few thousand years there was a very small handful of people that would not follow what was known for over a thousand years !!!
so the issue is you learned that people until the 1500s though the earth was flat and most likely learned it was Christopher Columbus (1500) sailed around the world ! and proved them wrong ! and people were saying NO you will sail off !!!
and actually it was Magellan ! and everyone thought the earth was round at that time ! and they thought that for over a thousand years !
so your view was from movies ? and most likely thought the leaders in the 1500s told Christopher Columbus or Magellan no cause you will sail off the earth !!! yet that was so so so far from the truth !!!
and to think it was pretty much a known thing before their was a CHURCH !
All I can do is say I'm sorry for from the ding-dongs...
You don't need to apologize for them. But by the same token when we are talking about them, please realize you are also not part of our criticism.
Most people I know call themselves Christians, but more than a few believe very different things. Most of them I consider sane, but there are a few exceptions.
But you are not God. God is God and He has His own personality and His own way of doing things. You cannot say what you would do if you were God because that is an impossible premise.
Well if God wished me to be God, then I would be God so therefore it is not an impossible premise. This is the quandary you get into when you discuss an omnipotent, supernatural entity.
I of course don't happen to find such an entity likely to exist at all. But if it turns out there really is a creator of everything, I'd hope that such an entity wouldn't be so flawed and vain and that the meaning of our existence is something more substantial than the satisfaction of the creators ego.
That would be hugely disappointing.
Doc Safari
03-07-12, 00:08
Well if God wished me to be God, then I would be God so therefore it is not an impossible premise. This is the quandary you get into when you discuss an omnipotent, supernatural entity.
LOL. I'd love to get into some other metaphysical discussions with you. I always wondered: if you invented a time machine, and went back in time to prevent yourself building a time machine, would that create a temporal paradox that would just royally screw things up? Would you be caught in an endless loop between the day you went back in time to the day you arrived in the past?
I of course don't happen to find such an entity likely to exist at all. But if it turns out there really is a creator of everything, I'd hope that such an entity wouldn't be so flawed and vain and that the meaning of our existence is something more substantial than the satisfaction of the creators ego.
That would be hugely disappointing.
It would be disappointing, but that's from my human point of view. There are a lot of things that "I wouldn't have done it that way." But I can't fathom God's reasoning. That's why He makes the big bucks.:D
.
All I know is that woman can pray for me anytime...
I know the wind blows because I've seen and felt evidences of it.
I know God exists because I've seen and felt evidences of Him.
I know how rotten I was, how unhappy, how foul-mouthed, and troubled and evil and mean and cold hearted blah, blah, blah... and then "poof" I was different, a new man... a struggling weak new man but still a new man.
I am not the best proof but proof, none the less, that God does exists ...
People trying to figure God out from books, theology, debates, etc. aren't much better than the internet commandos we try to educate.
You want to know if God exists, want proof he exists, then grow some nads, humble yourself, get on your knees and then, sincerely and honestly ask Almighty God to reveal Himself to you. What do you have to lose?
You might be surprised...
But maybe it's just me...
.
Hey, nice post - especially the first part. Although baptized a Methodist, educated in Catholic schools, and married to a Greek Orthodox wife, I'm not the most devout church-goer. I still consider myself Christian, but more like the Diet Coke of Christian - one calorie. I will say that most of my acquaintances who try much harder at their faith and devotion seem to be very happy people. It looks like you may have achieved this which is rare indeed.
If it is evil for a government to take away our liberties and force us to be act and think in a certain way, is any less evil for a god to do the same?
You guys ever stop to think there is more, much more to our existence than this very brief span of mortality?
The_War_Wagon
03-07-12, 05:42
You guys ever stop to think there is more, much more to our existence than this very brief span of mortality?
Routinely. ;)
Smuckatelli
03-07-12, 08:31
My analogy is no more childish, absurd or offensive than the notion that dying kids are somehow a good thing if it helps bring their families to God.
Okay from your perspective it wasn't childish, your question:
"Should missionaries simply start killing children so the parents can find God?"
The answer to your question is; No, missionaries should not start killing children.
Regarding your statement about dying kids are somehow a good thing......where in the world did you come up with that?
Okay from your perspective it wasn't childish, your question:
"Should missionaries simply start killing children so the parents can find God?"
The answer to your question is; No, missionaries should not start killing children.
Regarding your statement about dying kids are somehow a good thing......where in the world did you come up with that?
I believe he's referring to your earlier statement here:
Not a good example, usually when kids are dying of cancer....God is found by the kids & family.
If it takes my son dying from cancer to find God... I'd rather he stayed hidden.
A flood is expected to wipe out a small town and evacuation is begun. A jeep is driving through town and comes across a guy standing on his front porch. "Hop in," they said, "The flood will be coming in any minute." "Don't worry about me," the man replied, "I have faith that God will save me." Unable to change his mind, they drove on without him.
Soon the flood waters began to roll in, and a rescue team drifted by this man's house in a boat. "Hop in," they requested, "We'll get you out of here." "Don't worry about me," was the man's reply, "I have faith that God will save me." Unable to change his mind, the rescue team continued on without him.
Not long after that, the flood waters had completely covered this man's house, and he was hanging from the chimney. A rescue crew in a helicopter spotted him and dropped him a ladder. The man refused the ladder insisting that God would save him. Unable to change his mind, the helicopter went on without him.
The water continued to rise and the man drowned. On his way through the pearly gates, he met up with God and exclaimed, "You really let me down! I had faith that you would save me and look what happened!" "I am not sure what went wrong," was God's reply, "I sent you a jeep, a boat and a helicopter."
If it takes my son dying from cancer to find God... I'd rather he stayed hidden.
I think that you totally misunderstood or are mischaracterizing what he said.
--
It is not a logical fallacy, it is what some believe. And if you create the system that results in the creation of other things, then you are the responsible creator for them as well.
Someone's belief in a system where God created all, "poof", is no excuse for a logical fallacy. Unless you are debating exactly those people, you example has no meaning since it is a logical fallacy.
For example, everyone blames Satan for evil. But if God didn't create Satan there wouldn't be a Satan. So ultimately God is responsible for the creation of everything IF you believe God is responsible for all original creation.
Again, logical fallacy. If God "created" Satan, that does not make Him responsible for Satan's actions. Satan too would have Free Agency.
Certainly an omnipotent, supernatural being KNEW what his creations were capable of. If I make a bomb and put it in a building full of people I can't claim that I'm not responsible for the explosion because I didn't physically cause it to happen.
Bomb's don't have Free Agency.
If I claim I only created the conditions where an explosions "could happen" depending upon the natural order of things that doesn't make me any less responsible for the explosion and resulting deaths.
I think that you totally misunderstood or are mischaracterizing what he said.
--
That's entirely possible, and I'd love to hear a different explanation.
Smuckatelli
03-07-12, 09:59
I believe he's referring to your earlier statement here:
If it takes my son dying from cancer to find God... I'd rather he stayed hidden.
Are you trying to be cute with the hidden statement?
You guys really should read what is being posted. I pointed out that his analogy of a child with cancer was a bad example.
It is a bad example because usually the people involved; the child, the parents, the family.....all of a sudden find God.
Using the "kids dying of cancer" as proof that God doesn't exist is pure unintentional bullshit, there is no other way to put it.
It is very easy to use the poor little bald headed children to push an agenda.
Are you trying to be cute with the hidden statement?
You guys really should read what is being posted. I pointed out that his analogy of a child with cancer was a bad example.
It is a bad example because usually the people involved; the child, the parents, the family.....all of a sudden find God.
Using the "kids dying of cancer" as proof that God doesn't exist is pure unintentional bullshit, there is no other way to put it.
It is very easy to use the poor little bald headed children to push an agenda.
I am most emphatically not trying to be cute. I'm 100% serious. Maybe it's just a difference in how various people are wired, but if my son were taken from me in such a manner, I'd wager my reaction would be very different.
That said, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. Since cancer (Or any other seemingly random disease. How many children were killed by measles, dysentery, smallpox, etc etc ad nauseum over the centuries?) isn't caused by free agency, then that whole argument goes out the window, and we're left with a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God who nonetheless feels it appropriate to kill innocent children. That makes zero sense. So if God does exist, he can't be both omnipotent and benevolent if he allows these kinds of things to happen to people who haven't even had the chance to sin. If he's not omnipotent, then he's a liar. If he's not benevolent, then he's not worth worshipping except out of fear. At that point, he's no different than any other tin-pot dictator.
Smuckatelli
03-07-12, 10:29
I am most emphatically not trying to be cute. I'm 100% serious. Maybe it's just a difference in how various people are wired, but if my son were taken from me in such a manner, I'd wager my reaction would be very different.
I would wager that your reaction would be along the lines that just about everyone that lives in that world is...
Please God, spare my child.
I am only speaking from experience.
Many here can speculate how they would react, some here will continue to use the defenseless cancer children as proof that God doesn't exist. I have yet to see a parent or child in the cancer battle not praying for help from God.
On this forum we talk about SMEs all the time. The SMEs will post about a bad rifle, some will reject the advice and then many dog pile the guy that rejected the advice.
I only said that it was a bad analogy....I've been in the childhood cancer world since September 2007. I've known many children that have died. My son watched 4 kids his age die when he was between the ages of 5-8.
He and I pray every night for at least 12 kids by name and an overall cure for childhood cancer.
Yeah, I am an unwilling SME and not by choice.
Why is it too much to ask you guys not to use the cancer children as proof that God doesn't exist?
Use a FTF, FTE, or even a papercut to show that God doesn't exist but please stop using the children fighting for thier lives as tool to forward your agenda.
Is that really too much to ask?
If I was God and capable of making anything I'd hope I wouldn't be so insecure and vain as to need to create beings who exist to satisfy my will or suffer damnation.
And I don't think God "created" beings to satisfy his will or to suffer damnation.
I will agree that some Christians may believe that, or that may be a logical explanation of some Christian belief. But the argument is only good against those espousing such belief, not as a generic argument against the existence of God.
--
I don't believe God created man in the sense that "poof", man (an animal) was created from nothing and now he is there, a toy or plaything for God.
I believe that our spiritual being (and that each person is a fusion of a spiritual being and a mortal physical body) is a literal child of God. God does not speak of us as His children as a metaphor. Being omnipotent and omniscient (I believe "due" to perfect knowledge of things), He designed a system using existing matter and existing physical laws (both of which are eternal), that would allow physical bodies to be "created" for his spiritual children so that they could gain the experiences necessary to progress (on an eternal scale / in an eternal perspective) and become more like Him and inherit all that He has (as spoken of, for example, in the Bible).
One aspect of that is Free Agency. Meaning, God gives each of his Children the right to choose to do good, or to not do good. He does not force us to follow his commandments (which are geared to us doing the right thing so that we are able to come back to him). He knows that every one of us will make mistakes.
Damnation is NOT God casting one out into fire and brimstone. That is a metaphor. Just as we feel uncomfortable around others we have wronged, or a person in the dark cannot suddenly go into the bright light and be comfortable, when "Judgement Day" comes, we, knowing we have done bad / evil / sinned, will not want to be in God's presence. We will self-judge ourselves and willingly remove ourselves from God's presence as we will not be able to abide his presence, through our own guilt and ill feelings at having done wrong. ETA: The feelings of guilt and anguish, that we often feel when we have done something wrong, are compared to "fire and brimstone" [and on a much bigger scale when we talk the sum of a person's life at the final "Judgement"]
God knew this, and prepared a way for us to be absolved of this. But we have to willingly choose it. We cannot be forced to do so. That way was to offer his only-begotten in the flesh, his Son Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice to cover our sins. Jesus, being a literal physical child of God, was also God, and did not sin. But he willingly suffered the guilt and punishment of all our sins, for Justice cannot be denied. But Justice can be counterbalanced through Mercy. Through His Mercy (Grace), He took the punishment instead, so that we, if we choose, do not have to have those sins accorded to our account. But we have to choose to do so, of our own free will. He cannot force us to do so. This manifests itself by an inner conviction of Christ's Atonement (as this self sacrifice and suffering for us is often called). This is also called "Faith." "Faith" is not simple belief. "Faith" is that driving belief, that inner conviction, that leads to action. That action is obeying the commandments to the best of our ability; it is helping those in need; it is serving others selflessly.
Once we have decided to try and develop this faith, and to live our lives according to what God asks us to do, we are on the path that leads back to God, such that we will want and willingly be able to abide his presence. However, it is not an 'on-off' switch. We have to stay on the path ourselves, through our faith (which, remember, is coupled with our actions). Our actions do not get us to heaven, so to speak. We cannot atone for our own sins through our own actions (a.k.a. "works"). The atonement for our sins is a gift of God through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, through the Mercy and Grace of God and his Son Jesus Christ. However, we have to accept that gift, and that is through our faith, which is manifested by our sincere actions. Insincere lip-service does not save us because we have not accepted the Atonement of Jesus Christ in our lives (for the Christians, this is mentioned, for example, where James talks about "faith without works is dead [faith]").
A simple example to illustrate the Justice and Mercy and how the Atonement could be described: There was a school class, and there had been a rash of lunch thefts. The teacher did not know what to do about it. There were also a bunch of bigger bully type kids in the class. The teacher went before the class to discuss the lunch thefts. They talked about it and what should happen if the thief were to be discovered. The class agreed that if the thief were to be discovered, there would be 10 lashings with a leather belt as punishment (this is obviously in older times, and not in the US). Finally, after several days, a poor, skinny little boy, not popular with his classmates, was caught stealing the lunch. The teacher was pained to his soul because this kid obviously was not well to do or a trouble maker. But Justice had to be served. The law had been set and the punishment agreed to by the students. So the teacher called the boy up to the front of the class, and got the leather belt. Suddenly, when the first blow was about to be struck, a big strong boy, one of the bullies, raised his hand and asked if he couldn't take the punishment instead. His heart had been moved by the situation and he did not want this little kid to be beaten. The teacher thought about it and discussed it with the class, who decided it would be OK since Justice would be served -- punishment for the law would be given, but Mercy would also be able to play it's role and satisfy the need for Justice. So the big boy came up and took the lashings instead. Now, the original thief had some sort of debt of gratitude to the big boy, and they probably ended up being friends and the little boy stopped his thieving ways.
This example is not perfect -- Jesus was not a bully or anything. But it illustrates how Justice can be served yet Mercy play its role as well in saving the little boy from being beaten, similarly to how Jesus took our punishments willingly upon himself. His only "price" was that we strive to obey God's commandments and accept his offering in our souls and hearts and to do likewise to those we meet who are less fortunate and serve and love others.
(another illustration would be debtor who has his debts paid by another man, before he is thrown in prison. The original debt was paid and now that man is "indebted" to this new savior [small s], who paid his debt for him).
So back to "damnation". God wants us all to return to Him. He does not want anyone "damned". However, because we have sinned, we cannot abide his presence. This is due to the gift of Free Agency. We choose not to be in his presence. But, as explained, God prepared a way for us to be absolved of these "debts". This allows us to have these burdens lifted from our shoulders so that we are able and happy to be in His presence. God, in his mercy, has prepared places for those who do not choose to accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ and whose burdens are not lifted. He has prepared places for these people to go where they will feel comfortable in their surroundings. There is much more detail to this idea, but it is not important right now in this discussion.
This bit I have written explains "creation" in the sense of good and evil, and how we fit into it, and how it works out, just a little. It disabuses us of the notion that we are "playthings" of God and created to satisfy some vanity of His. We are literally His children and he has set up, using eternal matter and laws, a system for us to progress and become more like him and be able to inherit all He has. To do this it is necessary for us to come to this mortal, physical world and take on a mortal and physical body, so that we can learn, of our own free will, to be obedient, instead of being coerced.
A friend of mine (agnostic Jew btw) has the following saying in his signature line in his email: "Character is what you are in the dark"
- Dr. Emilio Lazardo
This is a good saying that shows that our true character, our true "us", cannot come to light and be manifest (or developed even) when we are under the bright lights with everyone looking at us. In other words, without a separation from God where we have to develop faith in Him without the coercion of being in His overwhelming presence, we cannot develop the faith necessary to achieve His goals for us. Another example is a kid, told not to eat cookies out of the cookie jar, will most likely not do it when his parents are around and in the room, even if he really wants to. But when they step out of the house, the real test of character takes place and we see if that person's character really is such that they are obedient and do the right thing or if they really are sneaks and cheats. (And by exercising obedience, we strengthen our ability in the future to be obedient when even bigger temptation appears).
God will manifest Himself to each of us, if we ask with true sincerity of heart. This manifestation happens in communion with our spirits. But we have to ask and want it. We cannot grow and progress otherwise.
You will never have "scientific" proof of God as long as this mortal world exists as it does now. Because His children could never develop the faith they need to progress and become more like him if His overwhelming presence were obvious to all. Our own internal character would be overshadowed and overwhelmed, and not allowed to manifest itself, through His awesome presence. (AND, because God works through natural laws, his works appear to be "natural", because they are, and if you expect supernatural out-of-nature things from God, you will be disappointed).
God does manifest himself to us, and does call men (meaning humankind) to work through, which we can learn to recognize and use to increase of faith. Miracles have not ceased. Neither have the gifts of God. But we have to ask for and expect them.
Anyway, that is my faith and belief in a nutshell. (There is more to it but that addresses what has come up as a topic in this thread). Details may differ between what I have described and the beliefs of other Christians and denominations, but the essence I believe is probably shared by most Christians who are not Christians of tradition or convenience [the Easter and Christmas only sort], but have truly tried to put themselves on the path back to God.
Hopefully this will put to rest the notions that God willfully created "cancer" and all other bad things as a way to torment his creations, his playthings, or that he willingly afflicts people with bad things in order to gain devotees or worshipers.
--
I would wager that your reaction would be along the lines that just about everyone that lives in that world is...
Please God, spare my child.
I am only speaking from experience.
Many here can speculate how they would react, some here will continue to use the defenseless cancer children as proof that God doesn't exist. I have yet to see a parent or child in the cancer battle not praying for help from God.
On this forum we talk about SMEs all the time. The SMEs will post about a bad rifle, some will reject the advice and then many dog pile the guy that rejected the advice.
I only said that it was a bad analogy....I've been in the childhood cancer world since September 2007. I've known many children that have died. My son watched 4 kids his age die when he was between the ages of 5-8.
He and I pray every night for at least 12 kids by name and an overall cure for childhood cancer.
Yeah, I am an unwilling SME and not by choice.
Why is it too much to ask you guys not to use the cancer children as proof that God doesn't exist?
Use a FTF, FTE, or even a papercut to show that God doesn't exist but please stop using the children fighting for their lives as tool to forward your agenda.
Is that really too much to ask?
As a parent, I feel for you. That's an awful thing to have to bear, and I don't blame you a bit for looking anywhere and everywhere for some hope.
So let's change the question. A person of indeterminate age, who has been a good and just person all their life, finds out they have Lou Gherig's disease and will slowly die in increasing pain. Nobody gave them that disease. They didn't do anything to deserve or earn it. It just... happened. If God exists, how is that not his fault? What could possibly justify inflicting that kind of suffering on an innocent person?
That right there, in whatever form it takes, is why I can't bring myself to serve or worship such a being, even if he exists.
That's entirely possible, and I'd love to hear a different explanation.
That God would afflict people with Cancer in order to get devotees is just a dumb and foolish example. Obviously, his point is that people who do have these afflictions, tend to reflect on life in a different way and come to the knowledge of God through their experience.
--
I am most emphatically not trying to be cute. I'm 100% serious. Maybe it's just a difference in how various people are wired, but if my son were taken from me in such a manner, I'd wager my reaction would be very different.
That said, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. Since cancer (Or any other seemingly random disease. How many children were killed by measles, dysentery, smallpox, etc etc ad nauseum over the centuries?) isn't caused by free agency, then that whole argument goes out the window, and we're left with a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God who nonetheless feels it appropriate to kill innocent children. That makes zero sense. So if God does exist, he can't be both omnipotent and benevolent if he allows these kinds of things to happen to people who haven't even had the chance to sin. If he's not omnipotent, then he's a liar. If he's not benevolent, then he's not worth worshipping except out of fear. At that point, he's no different than any other tin-pot dictator.
The fallacy is your idea that God is some supernatural being holding all the strings of us puppets and uses us as playthings.
Natural law and matter exist independently of God (in the sense of where did it come from). God organized it in the creation, but it is not "poof" and there it is. Cancer and other ailments are not created by God. They exist due to the natural laws of the universe.
See my long posting of 3-4 minutes ago.
-
That God would afflict people with Cancer in order to get devotees is just a dumb and foolish example. Obviously, his point is that people who do have these afflictions, tend to reflect on life in a different way and come to the knowledge of God through their experience.
--
Some people do, some people don't.
The fallacy is your idea that God is some supernatural being holding all the strings of us puppets and uses us as playthings.
Natural law and matter exist independently of God (in the sense of where did it come from). God organized it in the creation, but it is not "poof" and there it is. Cancer and other ailments are not created by God. They exist due to the natural laws of the universe.
See my long posting of 3-4 minutes ago.
-
And where in the Bible does it say anything about things existing before God? God created all, according to Genesis.
Some people do, some people don't.
That is fine. Not all people do. I am not claiming they do. However, it disabuses the notion that God purposefully afflicts us with cancer and stuff, for whatever reasons He wants.
--
That is fine. Not all people do. I am not claiming they do. However, it disabuses the notion that God purposefully afflicts us with cancer and stuff, for whatever reasons He wants.
--
How does it disabuse us of that notion? Yes, you have your own personal belief that natural law predates God, and is immune to his otherwise omnipotent power, but what evidence do you have to support that belief? We can't even prove that God exists. People have faith, and there are things in the world that we can't yet understand or explain, but that's always been the case. As science marches onwards, we learn and understand more and more. There will likely always be something we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we simply hold up our hands and say "Insh'allah". We go out and we study it, we learn about it, we figure it out.
And on a separate note, this has got to be the most civil discussion of the merits of religion I've ever seen in an online forum. It speaks well of M4C that we can go four pages now without getting locked ::laugh:
And where in the Bible does it say anything about things existing before God? God created all, according to Genesis.
Where in the Bible does it say that matter and natural laws did not exist?
If I say, I created a new piece of art, say a sculpture, does that mean that I, through some magic, caused marble to appear for me to work with, out of nothing? No. The word "creation" does not say ANYTHING at all about the pre-existence of matter (materials in my case).
The Bible says one line. (KJV) Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Everything after that describes the process after the initial creation of heaven and earth, and how it was "perfected" (light given, animals and people placed, etc).
So that is all we have. And since there is no definition of "create" which means to "cause to appear out of nothingness", I don't know how you get that notion that it means "cause to appear out of nothingness."
From the FRAME OF REFERENCE of the original author of Genesis (popularly ascribed to be Moses, but who it actually was is not important), since his whole reference point is INSIDE of the creation, it may appear to be out of nothing, since he cannot comprehend nor experience anything outside of this frame of reference. He only knows and lives inside that world. Especially written thousands of years ago, when the understanding of science and the vastness of the world and the eternal nature of matter and energy were not understood.
---
How does it disabuse us of that notion? Yes, you have your own personal belief that natural law predates God,
Yes, exactly. Your argument merely was an argument against God IF your assumptions were correct. I rejected the assumptions, and therefore your conclusions. Your assumptions do not speak for me, and I do not think they speak for a lot of people who have faith in God (from whatever denomination or religion they may be).
and is immune to his otherwise omnipotent power, but what evidence do you have to support that belief? We can't even prove that God exists. People have faith, and there are things in the world that we can't yet understand or explain, but that's always been the case. As science marches onwards, we learn and understand more and more. There will likely always be something we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we simply hold up our hands and say "Insh'allah". We go out and we study it, we learn about it, we figure it out.
Which is what we should do. Go and figure it out.
As the example someone gave earlier about the guy who drowned in the flood: God sent a boat, helicopter (or whatever, doing this from memory) to save the guy. God works through us to achieve his aims usually (I will not rule out his use of natural laws, perhaps that we don't yet understand, to directly influence things in some cases) and that includes giving us our brains to figure things out with. God should not be about the waving of hands and saying "God wills it" [I know it is for some people] and being resigned to it. God is about the hope of salvation from our shortcomings, and also the celebration of His gifts to us, including the ability to advance and figure things out, including science.
I know that not all people believe this. Many do fit the mold, through tradition or whatever other reason, that you put believers in. That does not mean that that mold is true. But that mold not being true does not disprove God overall, it just means that particular belief is not true.
--
Where in the Bible does it say that matter and natural laws did not exist?
This is my point. You can't prove something by a lack of evidence. You can only prove something by supplying evidence to support the theory.
From the FRAME OF REFERENCE of the original author of Genesis (popularly ascribed to be Moses, but who it actually was is not important), since his whole reference point is INSIDE of the creation, it may appear to be out of nothing, since he cannot comprehend nor experience anything outside of this frame of reference. He only knows and lives inside that world. Especially written thousands of years ago, when the understanding of science and the vastness of the world and the eternal nature of matter and energy were not understood.
And this is why I don't take scripture for any kind of proof. It was written by primitive tribes without any knowledge of the underpinnings of natural laws or physics. Hell, we still don't know much about why sub-atomic particles do what they do, but we know a considerable bit more than the Hebrew tribes of the pre-modern era. The Old Testament was a combination of an origin mythology, a food and health safety guide, and a code of laws. We have the technology to dispute the first, completely rewrite the second, and give serious consideration to the third (since it was based upon the first two).
All I can do is say I'm sorry for from the ding-dongs...Not one group that doesn't have their fruit cakes mixed in. I do not claim any denomination. I am sinner saved by grace that happens to attend a southern Baptist church. I will continue to do so unless I feel their direction does not follow the Bible as written. That in itself can be just as confusing & starts a whole other thread.
I'm a bad example of a person that has been saved by grace & undeserving for sure...really just glad to have the kitchen pass & will leave it at that. Religion is what kills most from finding salvation (in regards to Christians anyway)
I've been told that I'm going to hell cuz I enjoy adult beverages, curse & that I'm not Catholic...I've heard some say all Catholics are going to hell as well. You will not find denominations in the Bible and it's all counter productive and sinful to say such things.
It's my personal opinion that many what I call 'pew sitters' will have to answer and be denied simply due to the fact that their faith lies in their head and religion and not their heart. The Bible is pretty clear about that.
I just wish there were more positive folks in your path as the only way to get it is to search with an open heart & most Christians do not know how to shut up, pray and let God do the work.
Bickering about the specifics online sucks and puts up walls.
If I am wrong and nothing but worm dirt, then I've wasted a some Sundays and taught my kids that unconditional love trumps all...If I am correct as I know I am from what He has shown me in my walk, then I have eternity with no pain or sadness. I may be a janitor in Heaven, but at least I got there.
I wish this was easier to do for me as I kinda dig seeing soul searching in general.
Ecellent post Artos! Your beliefs mirror my own.
I really try not to get into "religious", political, or other debates of these kind on here (this or other forums) just because its hard enough to get your point through in person much less on the internet...especially where "religion" is concerned.
But I'm going to try to simplify this as best I can...
This whole debate has centered around "religion" and an Omnipotent Being who "causes" bad things to happen, or even "kills" little children Himself.
First "religion". Its NOT about "religion", its about a Relationship. God doesn't want you to do rituals, good works, or any other thing that many religions say you need to do to get to Heaven. All he wants is for you to have a RELATIONSHIP with his Son, Jesus Christ. This can be seen in John 14:6 when Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
It's pretty simply put, right there, no exceptions or additions. He doesn't call for you to go to confessionals, do good works, pray to the Virgin Mary, or pray your deceased loved ones into Heaven. It just doesn't work that way, you're either going or you're not based on the RELATIONSHIP.
Now, why do kids die at birth, or why are there kids with cancer? Who knows really? I wish it wasn't the case, but it also says in the Bible that we are all born sinners and fall short of the Kingdom of God. We are born into a sinful world and are subject to that sin. That doesn't mean that God actually had a hand in killing the baby, or causing the cancer in the young child. He just allows it to happen. He also certainly doesn't do things like that so that someone else will find Him. That may or may not happen, but again, its your free will to choose to believe in God/Jesus then, just as if that event never happened. Why sickness/death happens to some and not others, I wish I knew.
But what I do know is that we will always fall short unless we believe that Jesus is the Savior who died for that sin that we are born into. If we are lucky enough to live long enough to hear His word, we are given free will to accept or reject it. I believe that God will bless you as long as you walk in a relationship with Him. Since God cannot be a part of sin, he cannot bless you and watch over you while you choose not to walk with him.
And, since I know this question will come up, NO, I don't belive that babies/children go to hell because they die without getting the chance to accept Christ as their Savior. You have to hear the Word of God first and choose whether or not to follow it before you can become accountable for your sin or the sin that you were born into.
There is alot of unknowns, gray area, and topics of debate when it comes to "religion". But I firmly believe that this is the case BECAUSE of "religion". "Religion" is man-made and subject to the imperfections of man, this is why so many get turned off from the Word of God and never get a chance to see that its really about a Relationship with Christ and Belief/Faith that he is the Savior and the way to Heaven.
This is my point. You can't prove something by a lack of evidence. You can only prove something by supplying evidence to support the theory.
I am not trying to prove anything through the Bible.
And this is why I don't take scripture for any kind of proof. It was written by primitive tribes without any knowledge of the underpinnings of natural laws or physics. Hell, we still don't know much about why sub-atomic particles do what they do, but we know a considerable bit more than the Hebrew tribes of the pre-modern era. The Old Testament was a combination of an origin mythology, a food and health safety guide, and a code of laws. We have the technology to dispute the first, completely rewrite the second, and give serious consideration to the third (since it was based upon the first two).
The Old Testament is a history of peoples [including their laws, wars, and kings], and a testament of God's relationship with groups of people, written by and from the frame of reference OF THOSE PEOPLE. The Bible never claims to say how anything happened, just that it did. And you have no technology to dispute that, since no claims are made that detail how.
The Bible as scripture is useful in detailing God's dealings with His children, and His plan for us, from a spiritual basis. It also includes historical references. The historical references are not God's word. They are historical references. The spiritual blueprints contained deal with our eternal progression and God's plans for us, and are not involved with scientific explanations of anything. There is no contradiction because the subject matter of the two, science and spiritual progression, don't really overlap.
The problem, and I will admit that this exists, is that through our tradition, dating back to when humans did not have the knowledge and experience to understand natural phenomenon, we [humankind as various groups] used the fact of something happening as its explanation also. We "filled in the blanks" with something that we could understand. So we made assumptions about HOW something happened, based on our knowledge that it did happen, founded on the knowledge we did have, which thousands of years ago, was not a lot. And this tradition has been handed down and became the foundational traditions of many religious groups. So we make the mistake of taking testaments of spiritual nature, i.e., Bible and God's actions, and turning it into explanations of physical things when that was not God's intent at all. His intent was to let us know His plan for us, and that He created the world for us to fulfill that plan. We turned it into a HOW he did it through lack of knowledge. And that tradition was passed down until it became firmly established [witness the young earth tradition, the "poof" out of nothing tradition, etc]. What we should have been doing instead, was, as our scientific knowledge advanced on how things probably happened, we should have adjusted our HOW God did things notion [but NOT the WHAT he did notion, i.e., He created the earth notion does not change, just the assumptions we made on how He did it do change as we advance in knowledge].
So I will grant that there are a lot of religious traditions out there that are wrong, with respect to HOW things happened. But those traditions of HOW things happened being wrong, do not disprove the notion that THEY happened in the first place. Only that our assumptions on HOW were wrong, due to our lack of knowledge and making assumptions to fill in the blanks.
-
Doc Safari
03-07-12, 11:43
And, since I know this question will come up, NO, I don't belive that babies/children go to hell because they die without getting the chance to accept Christ as their Savior. You have to hear the Word of God first and choose whether or not to follow it before you can become accountable for your sin or the sin that you were born into.
That's a good explanation. In essence, you are not guilty until you can be aware of the law. I worried for many years that babies might indeed go to Hell (albeit a very tolerable level of damnation). I prefer to think that is not true.
But this also suggests that some tribesman living in a remote village somewhere who has never heard the Gospel is not accountable as well, and this I dispute. I say the line is drawn at a person's capability of knowing good and evil (just like in the Garden of Eden). So an infant would not have to worry, but we know there are young children who do evil even at a young age. Dr. Laura Schlessinger famously claims that people in her profession can predict that certain children, even at a very young age, are destined to be sociopaths because they already exhibit what we might term an "evil" dispositon and/or "evil" acts.
Agree, or disagree, it brings up a fascinating subject.
The fallacy is your idea that God is some supernatural being holding all the strings of us puppets and uses us as playthings.
Natural law and matter exist independently of God (in the sense of where did it come from). God organized it in the creation, but it is not "poof" and there it is. Cancer and other ailments are not created by God. They exist due to the natural laws of the universe.
See my long posting of 3-4 minutes ago.
-
Where in the Bible does it say that matter and natural laws did not exist?
If I say, I created a new piece of art, say a sculpture, does that mean that I, through some magic, caused marble to appear for me to work with, out of nothing? No. The word "creation" does not say ANYTHING at all about the pre-existence of matter (materials in my case).
The Bible says one line. (KJV) Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Everything after that describes the process after the initial creation of heaven and earth, and how it was "perfected" (light given, animals and people placed, etc).
So that is all we have. And since there is no definition of "create" which means to "cause to appear out of nothingness", I don't know how you get that notion that it means "cause to appear out of nothingness."
From the FRAME OF REFERENCE of the original author of Genesis (popularly ascribed to be Moses, but who it actually was is not important), since his whole reference point is INSIDE of the creation, it may appear to be out of nothing, since he cannot comprehend nor experience anything outside of this frame of reference. He only knows and lives inside that world. Especially written thousands of years ago, when the understanding of science and the vastness of the world and the eternal nature of matter and energy were not understood.
---
Chad, you seem like a very smart guy, but I think you're missing something in your debate.
LHS's argument is that he can't worship someone/something that has "created" sicknesses and diseases like cancer and causes people to die from them.
Now natural law is all good and fine, but what you missed is that God, the Creator, did NOT create these things because He couldn't. He is perfect and free of sin. Cancer and the like are obviously NOT perfect, in fact nothing in this world is.
You have to go back to Genesis. God did in fact create a PERFECT world as shown in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, that "opened the door", so to speak, for sin to enter and disturb God's perfect creation. That is absolutely not to say that God wasn't in control, and couldn't prevent sin from entering. But, from the very beginning, he has given man free will to make his own decisions. Unfortunately for us, Adam and Eve made the wrong choice. Fortunately for us, we can still get to Heaven through the Son.
Now, of course, if you don't believe Scripture none of this makes any difference to you. But that is why you have to have FAITH. Additionally, faith can never be proven or disproven by science.
LOL. I'd love to get into some other metaphysical discussions with you. I always wondered: if you invented a time machine, and went back in time to prevent yourself building a time machine, would that create a temporal paradox that would just royally screw things up? Would you be caught in an endless loop between the day you went back in time to the day you arrived in the past?
Current conventional belief holds that you would simply create an alternate reality. The reality you left would continue on exactly as it was unchanged and you would now exist in a new reality where "time traveler you" prevented "previously existing you" from building the time machine. Some use this notion to support the idea of infinite parallel universes where every possible contingency exists. So basically everytime you would go back in time you wouldn't actually change anything, you would simply move to or create (depending upon belief) an alternate reality.
It would be disappointing, but that's from my human point of view. There are a lot of things that "I wouldn't have done it that way." But I can't fathom God's reasoning. That's why He makes the big bucks.:D
Well for some eternity with such a deity would actually be hell. But I don't think it is one that is a big concern. It really does seem likely that early man created the Gods (all of them) in his own flawed image based upon his limited understanding of everything around him.
I think Yahweh is simply an upgrade from Zeus.
thopkins22
03-07-12, 12:24
Who's law? The laws and word as voted by the Council of Nicea? The dozens of councils held since then to determine which books we should hold as holy and use to guide us to salvation?
Is it correct now? Did all the Christians before 13xx not have the chance to worship properly? Do we not have the chance to worship properly now because we haven't been exposed to the correct word of God because a bunch of dudes voted wrong seven hundred years ago and therefor all of us are saved?
Should I listen to the Southern Baptists? The Catholics? Perhaps the word of God is properly promoted by the LDS? I've been offered all of them and can't decide, or chose the wrong one, do I go to hell? Perhaps the Westboro freaks are right and it's time to start hating gays? Am I going to hell because I don't believe Pat that Katrina wiped out New Orleans because of tolerance?
Should I in fact promote and commit acts of cruelty because someone chooses to not live according to laws found in the Old Testament? Jesus simply created an EZ-Tag to salvation but he himself was Jewish...those laws should still at the very least be our guidelines right?
To me, Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible down to the only version I find tolerable. The "actual" words of Jesus which leave out all of the hocus pocus and are simply a collection of stories to help one live a good life. Then again, I sometimes want to stand in the street and quote Paine for a few hours at a time.
Someone's belief in a system where God created all, "poof", is no excuse for a logical fallacy. Unless you are debating exactly those people, you example has no meaning since it is a logical fallacy.
I think we are discussing God in general terms according to most popular beliefs so theirs would be included. At best my comments might not specifically apply to your beliefs and you need only clarify that to be exempt.
Again, logical fallacy. If God "created" Satan, that does not make Him responsible for Satan's actions. Satan too would have Free Agency.
Satan isn't just a man who is evil, he is a supernatural being that is evil. So I think God would have to assume responsibility for creating the most dangerous thing in the history of man, something that screwed things up right from the beginning and has caused harm ever since.
Bomb's don't have Free Agency.
It might go off, it might not. Certainly seems a lot safer than making a Satan.
This is my point. You can't prove something by a lack of evidence. You can only prove something by supplying evidence to support the theory.
One word: Faith
You either have it or you don't.
And this is why I don't take scripture for any kind of proof. It was written by primitive tribes without any knowledge of the underpinnings of natural laws or physics. Hell, we still don't know much about why sub-atomic particles do what they do, but we know a considerable bit more than the Hebrew tribes of the pre-modern era. The Old Testament was a combination of an origin mythology, a food and health safety guide, and a code of laws. We have the technology to dispute the first, completely rewrite the second, and give serious consideration to the third (since it was based upon the first two).
If you don't beieve that Scripture was originally written through Divine Intervention, then yeah I guess that argument would be valid. But again, this all goes back to Faith. You have to have Faith, first, that there even was a God who created the Heavens and the Earth. Second, that He, through human beings, wrote the scripture for us to use as a guide. And third, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, rose again, and is the only way to Heaven (through belief and a relationship with Him).
The Old Testament was "old law" before Jesus Christ. That is what people followed to become closer to God. After Jesus Christ, the acts, rituals, and laws that you had to follow (such as not eating pork, not working on the Sabbath, animal sacrifice, ect...Jewish Law) pretty much became obsolete (for lack of a better term) now that you have Jesus Christ as the way to Heaven through his sacrifice on the cross.
That's not to say that the Old Testament doesn't have good stories to follow as a guide, or things to adhere to, such as the Ten Commandments. But after Jesus, it was no longer about acts, but about Faith/Belief and a Relaionship with the Son.
Also, if you truly have that Relationship, then the "acts" that you carry out in everyday life WILL reflect Him.
It can be thought of a one way road: Relationship--->Acts and NOT Acts--->Relationship.
That is fine. Not all people do. I am not claiming they do. However, it disabuses the notion that God purposefully afflicts us with cancer and stuff, for whatever reasons He wants.
--
The problem is that your views on this matter are actually the ones that are unique and are at best an interpretation of what the Bible says. Many literalists would strongly disagree with many of your views.
To me, Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible down to the only version I find tolerable. The "actual" words of Jesus which leave out all of the hocus pocus and are simply a collection of stories to help one live a good life. Then again, I sometimes want to stand in the street and quote Paine for a few hours at a time.
Funny, never heard of that one. For all the versions of the Bible and it's previous root stories, that is one I never knew about. I'll have to look into it.
thopkins22
03-07-12, 12:40
Funny, never heard of that one. For all the versions of the Bible and it's previous root stories, that is one I never knew about. I'll have to look into it.
From a letter to John Adams,
In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.
Basically he stripped out all the notions of deity, the supernatural, miracles, and left us with a code on how to live life.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot available on it if you google "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html
Now, of course, if you don't believe Scripture none of this makes any difference to you. But that is why you have to have FAITH. Additionally, faith can never be proven or disproven by science.
Why is it that when a politician asks us to take something on faith, we question him, but when a religion, run by men, asks us to take their gospel on faith, it is somehow noble to do so?
Doc Safari
03-07-12, 12:52
Satan isn't just a man who is evil, he is a supernatural being that is evil. So I think God would have to assume responsibility for creating the most dangerous thing in the history of man, something that screwed things up right from the beginning and has caused harm ever since.
I think He does assume responsibility. That's why Hell and the final judgment were created.
**********
To others who wonder which denomination to join: join none of them.
All of them have taken the Truth and added the trappings of religion to it.
The only pure Christianity is the one practiced by the apostles/disciples during Christ's lifetime and right after His death/resurrection.
Seek a Christian body that tries to adhere to the pure Word of the Bible as closely as possible (and it still won't be perfect, but at least you tried).
That's a good explanation. In essence, you are not guilty until you can be aware of the law. I worried for many years that babies might indeed go to Hell (albeit a very tolerable level of damnation). I prefer to think that is not true.
But this also suggests that some tribesman living in a remote village somewhere who has never heard the Gospel is not accountable as well, and this I dispute. I say the line is drawn at a person's capability of knowing good and evil (just like in the Garden of Eden). So an infant would not have to worry, but we know there are young children who do evil even at a young age. Dr. Laura Schlessinger famously claims that people in her profession can predict that certain children, even at a very young age, are destined to be sociopaths because they already exhibit what we might term an "evil" dispositon and/or "evil" acts.
Agree, or disagree, it brings up a fascinating subject.
I definitely see where you are coming from, but I boil it down as simply as this. The bible says specific things such as: *paraphrasing* (to Christians) "spread the Good Word to all the world so that they may know me and inherit the Kingdom of Heaven".
I can only interpret what I directly and indirectly read.
Directly: Go spread the Word since that is what He called me to do as a Christian.
Indirectly: There are those who don't know the Word (those who have not actually heard it, not those who reject it).
From that, I gather that if you don't have the mental capacity (babies, children, or the mentally ill) or have just plain never heard the word (remote tribesmen), then you won't be accountable for sins that you didn't know to abstain from. In either of the two above "groups", your actions are only that of what your culture deems socially acceptable.
Of course, there is still room for debate in my inference above, since I don't presume to know exactly how God will judge particular cases, such as those who show "evil dispositions" from a young age...or even those who have been taught a certain RELIGION all their life and know nothing else to be true. Being of Cuban descent, I have family members who have lived and died in Cuba and were raised Catholic. They believe some different things than I do, but again, that is all they have ever known. I would like to believe that they won't be punished for not having the same Relationship with Christ that I do (or try to) since they weren't told otherwise, but that's one of those gray areas that I don't know how it works...
To others who wonder which denomination to join: join none of them.
All of them have taken the Truth and added the trappings of religion to it.
The only pure Christianity is the one practiced by the apostles/disciples during Christ's lifetime and right after His death/resurrection.
Seek a Christian body that tries to adhere to the pure Word of the Bible as closely as possible (and it still won't be perfect, but at least you tried).
Nailed it!
Why is it that when a politician asks us to take something on faith, we question him, but when a religion, run by men, asks us to take their gospel on faith, it is somehow noble to do so?
Again, this is not about "religion" but about a Relationship with Jesus Christ. For centuries people have had their Relationship clouded by the religion that they were raised in.
Anything that MAN does, polititian or priest, should not be accepted through faith. Man is sinful by nature and to put faith into something that is sinful would be flawed from the start. So, yes, "religion" is flawed. "Religion" is man-made. Jesus didn't ask us to create 50 different religions. He simply said to believe in Him.
Now, circling back to the Word of God, which was written by MAN, how can one have Faith that what is written is true? Its not faith in the man who put ink to paper, but Faith in the Holy Spirit who worked THROUGH that man.
Again, this is not about "religion" but about a Relationship with Jesus Christ. For centuries people have had their Relationship clouded by the religion that they were raised in.
Anything that MAN does, polititian or priest, should not be accepted through faith. Man is sinful by nature and to put faith into something that is sinful would be flawed from the start. So, yes, "religion" is flawed. "Religion" is man-made. Jesus didn't ask us to create 50 different religions. He simply said to believe in Him.
Now, circling back to the Word of God, which was written by MAN, how can one have Faith that what is written is true? Its not faith in the man who put ink to paper, but Faith in the Holy Spirit who worked THROUGH that man.
But how can you know which of the scriptures, if any, were written via divine revelation, which were altered over the centuries by church councils and translations, and which were penned by charlatans seeking to control the population?
But how can you know which of the scriptures, if any, were written via divine revelation, which were altered over the centuries by church councils and translations, and which were penned by charlatans seeking to control the population?
That is, admittedly, the hard part. I won't claim to know everything there is to know about translations of different Bibles, but, as far as I know, the King James Version is generally considered one of the better translations of the old original text (Greek and Hebrew text). The New King James version is a direct translation from the King James, but with more modern English.
Doc nailed it when he said to find a Bible believing church, not a "religious" church. The pastor at my church actually reads the Greek and Hebrew text and does a ton of research when he teaches The Bible on Sundays. He is the real "SME", not me. If he teaches from the KJV or the NKJV, then I would assume that that text is the one that is most accurate and unaltered.
I would start with the New King James version since it is easier to read, but understand, The Bible is a guide to how you should live your life. None of it matters if you don't have the Relationship with Christ. There are plenty of atheists who read The Bible.
Oh, btw, the pastor at my church used to be a rock n roll druggie from California doing all sorts of things that you would never imagine a future pastor would do. Its hard to dispute the fact that there is power in a Realtionship with Jesus to be able to turn around a life like that...its a pretty incredible story actually.
Doc Safari
03-07-12, 14:08
It's interesting to note that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were reassembled, the people studying them made a remarkable discovery: that copies of the Old Testament books that had been hidden in caves for thousands of years were remarkably identical to their modern forms.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html
What archaeological discovery has had the all-time greatest Biblical impact?
"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. They have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
—Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research
And again:
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls.htm
Based on various dating methods, including carbon 14, paleographic and scribal, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 A.D. Many crucial biblical manuscripts (such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 61) date to at least 100 B.C. As such, the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament. Phenomenally, we find the biblical texts in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text, as well as variant translations of the Old Testament used today.
Chad, you seem like a very smart guy, but I think you're missing something in your debate.
LHS's argument is that he can't worship someone/something that has "created" sicknesses and diseases like cancer and causes people to die from them.
Now natural law is all good and fine, but what you missed is that God, the Creator, did NOT create these things because He couldn't. He is perfect and free of sin. Cancer and the like are obviously NOT perfect, in fact nothing in this world is.
You have to go back to Genesis. God did in fact create a PERFECT world as shown in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, that "opened the door", so to speak, for sin to enter and disturb God's perfect creation. That is absolutely not to say that God wasn't in control, and couldn't prevent sin from entering. But, from the very beginning, he has given man free will to make his own decisions. Unfortunately for us, Adam and Eve made the wrong choice. Fortunately for us, we can still get to Heaven through the Son.
Now, of course, if you don't believe Scripture none of this makes any difference to you. But that is why you have to have FAITH. Additionally, faith can never be proven or disproven by science.
I don't really disagree with you, except on the particulars of the Garden and the Fall, but that is for another discussion.
My point was that the logic that God created everything so therefore he must have created cancer and stuff is flawed. That is parallel to your argument.
--
The problem is that your views on this matter are actually the ones that are unique and are at best an interpretation of what the Bible says. Many literalists would strongly disagree with many of your views.
Fine. Btw, my views are not unique. (At least the main points of them -- my particular descriptions and take are probably unique since they are "modified" by my understanding, just as yours are probably unique, and each person, whether of faith or not, has a particular set of beliefs that are unique, though they may be very similar to another persons)
And I do not claim to derive them from the Bible (exclusively), though I surely use the Bible as a source for God's dealings with mankind (revelations to mankind about the Gospel). I happen to believe in ongoing revelation, and do not draw my faith strictly based on interpreting the Bible.
If you want to use anti-literalist arguments against literalists, go ahead. But anti-literalist arguments don't mean a thing to me since I am not what you are referring to as a literalist (of the Bible). Anti-literalist arguments are not arguments against the existence of God. They are merely arguments against the so-called literalist viewpoint of God.
--
Why is it that when a politician asks us to take something on faith, we question him, but when a religion, run by men, asks us to take their gospel on faith, it is somehow noble to do so?
Your definition of "faith" is probably a little bit different than what Ironman8 and others are talking about.
Your definition seems to be something akin to "hope" or "bling acceptance". His definition is probably something more akin to spiritual knowledge born of spiritual experience. His own personal experience with Deity gives him personal spiritual knowledge, which a believer defines as "Faith."
No one is asking you to blindly accept God's existence. What they are offering to you is for you to test it yourself through your spiritual being. To try and "find" God for yourself through your own spiritual explorations, learning, study, etc.
If you have a pre-conceived notion or a priori reject God, then going through the motions without sincere effort won't let you experience that what others have experienced and which is the basis for their faith. A truly open mind and heart (not assuming the acceptance, but not a priori excluding the possibility either) can help you to experience those same things in my personal experience.
--
Your definition of "faith" is probably a little bit different than what Ironman8 and others are talking about.
Your definition seems to be something akin to "hope" or "bling acceptance". His definition is probably something more akin to spiritual knowledge born of spiritual experience. His own personal experience with Deity gives him personal spiritual knowledge, which a believer defines as "Faith."
No one is asking you to blindly accept God's existence. What they are offering to you is for you to test it yourself through your spiritual being. To try and "find" God for yourself through your own spiritual explorations, learning, study, etc.
If you have a pre-conceived notion or a priori reject God, then going through the motions without sincere effort won't let you experience that what others have experienced and which is the basis for their faith. A truly open mind and heart (not assuming the acceptance, but not a priori excluding the possibility either) can help you to experience those same things in my personal experience.
--
My own experiences have had just the opposite effect, in that I used to be a fairly devout and believing person. But over the course of my life, I've seen too many things that just don't jive with the notion of a benevolent and omnipotent creator, and have yet to hear an argument to the contrary that satisfies me. I do not a priori reject the possibility of a supernatural agent, or even a creator, I just don't see how it's possible for such a being to be both benevolent as well as omnipotent, given the evidence I've seen of how the world works (exclusive of man's inhumanity to man, which I will happily concede falls under the 'free will' doctrine). We both view our own spiritual journeys as ones of enlightenment, and that's fine. Mine's certainly not over, and who knows where it'll end up? For the nonce, it seems we've chosen different paths for our respective journeys. I, for one, am happy to live in a nation where neither of us feels the need to slaughter the other to prove the point, unlike so many other places on earth (and I don't just mean religious folks; the Communists did more than their fair share of slaughter of religious people in order to enforce their own atheism).
My own experiences have had just the opposite effect, in that I used to be a fairly devout and believing person. But over the course of my life, I've seen too many things that just don't jive with the notion of a benevolent and omnipotent creator, and have yet to hear an argument to the contrary that satisfies me. I do not a priori reject the possibility of a supernatural agent, or even a creator, I just don't see how it's possible for such a being to be both benevolent as well as omnipotent, given the evidence I've seen of how the world works (exclusive of man's inhumanity to man, which I will happily concede falls under the 'free will' doctrine). We both view our own spiritual journeys as ones of enlightenment, and that's fine. Mine's certainly not over, and who knows where it'll end up? For the nonce, it seems we've chosen different paths for our respective journeys. I, for one, am happy to live in a nation where neither of us feels the need to slaughter the other to prove the point, unlike so many other places on earth (and I don't just mean religious folks; the Communists did more than their fair share of slaughter of religious people in order to enforce their own atheism).
I commend you for your journey and encourage you to continue on it. Hopefully some of the things I or others have said may help you "reconcile" your notion of omnipotence vs. benevolence and how they are not really in opposition to each other. If you had further things on that particular topic to discuss I'd be happy to by PM or in a dedicated topic to that subject.
I also am constantly reevaluating my information and beliefs as I continue on the journey.
--
Fine. Btw, my views are not unique. (At least the main points of them -- my particular descriptions and take are probably unique since they are "modified" by my understanding, just as yours are probably unique, and each person, whether of faith or not, has a particular set of beliefs that are unique, though they may be very similar to another persons)
And I do not claim to derive them from the Bible (exclusively), though I surely use the Bible as a source for God's dealings with mankind (revelations to mankind about the Gospel). I happen to believe in ongoing revelation, and do not draw my faith strictly based on interpreting the Bible.
If you want to use anti-literalist arguments against literalists, go ahead. But anti-literalist arguments don't mean a thing to me since I am not what you are referring to as a literalist (of the Bible). Anti-literalist arguments are not arguments against the existence of God. They are merely arguments against the so-called literalist viewpoint of God.
--
Ok, important things first.
I might be off but I'm sensing a "defensive tone" and while I believe I'm just explaining my thoughts, in these kinds of discussions it is all too easy to misread things and believe people are beating you up a bit. And in my opinion this discussion is hardly important enough to have you feel bullied and that is not my intention.
Secondly, it is "my belief" that your beliefs are actually rather unique. This comment alone is very unique for the vast majority of Christians I am aware of...
"And I do not claim to derive them from the Bible (exclusively), though I surely use the Bible as a source for God's dealings with mankind (revelations to mankind about the Gospel). I happen to believe in ongoing revelation, and do not draw my faith strictly based on interpreting the Bible."
Now you are certainly not the only one who is unique. I know a handful of Christians who believe all religions are valid and that the same God presented himself to different peoples in different ways. Obviously most Christians do not subscribe to that kind of notion either.
Now I personally find your brand of Christianity to be somewhat enlightened and I prefer such views to dogmatic fundamentalism. And if you don't find your approach to be unique you probably know fewer fundamentalists than I do.
Also let me reemphasize if my descriptions or misgivings about Christianity or beliefs don't actually apply to you, then please consider yourself exempt from those criticisms. As an example, I know more than a few people who think dinosaurs never actually existed and that those fossils in the ground were put there by Satan do deceive us. I happen to think they are the same kind of loons who honestly believe we never went to the moon. But I understand that isn't a common view held by all, or even most, Christians.
Ok, important things first.
I might be off but I'm sensing a "defensive tone" and while I believe I'm just explaining my thoughts, in these kinds of discussions it is all too easy to misread things and believe people are beating you up a bit. And in my opinion this discussion is hardly important enough to have you feel bullied and that is not my intention.
sorry, not my intention either, to emanate such a defensive tone. I may get a little enthusiastic during an argument (in the rhetorical / debate sense of the word, not the animosity sense of the word) and that may come across through this medium like that. Again, sorry, not my intent.
I have rather enjoyed the discussion and like to learn from others as well as "joust" rhetorically :)
Secondly, it is "my belief" that your beliefs are actually rather unique. This comment alone is very unique for the vast majority of Christians I am aware of...
It is different than many groups of people who label themselves Christian, but there are many who hold similar beliefs, at least in part, or when they come into contact with beliefs similar to what I have explained, can agree that they make sense and don't find them objectionable.
There are others, "fundamentalist" or "literalist" as you might call them, who would be rather offended by my beliefs.
"And I do not claim to derive them from the Bible (exclusively), though I surely use the Bible as a source for God's dealings with mankind (revelations to mankind about the Gospel). I happen to believe in ongoing revelation, and do not draw my faith strictly based on interpreting the Bible."
My belief is not in the Bible, but in God the Father and in his Son Jesus Christ. While I use and respect the Bible as scripture, I recognize it for what it is. A book written by many people over the long period of history represented therein that details both historical narrative, some literature, as well as God's interactions with men as recorded by his prophets. As such it is valuable for me to use to understand God's message better.
Now you are certainly not the only one who is unique. I know a handful of Christians who believe all religions are valid and that the same God presented himself to different peoples in different ways. Obviously most Christians do not subscribe to that kind of notion either.
Now I personally find your brand of Christianity to be somewhat enlightened and I prefer such views to dogmatic fundamentalism. And if you don't find your approach to be unique you probably know fewer fundamentalists than I do.
Also let me reemphasize if my descriptions or misgivings about Christianity or beliefs don't actually apply to you, then please consider yourself exempt from those criticisms. As an example, I know more than a few people who think dinosaurs never actually existed and that those fossils in the ground were put there by Satan do deceive us. I happen to think they are the same kind of loons who honestly believe we never went to the moon. But I understand that isn't a common view held by all, or even most, Christians.
I was coming at it more as a rhetorical viewpoint. In other words, I was using counter arguments to the argument against God's existence that based on the so-called "fundamentalist" viewpoint of absolute creation.
--
There are a lot of superstitious people on this planet. Many of them consider certain superstitions to be "religion", and take their cherished rituals and beliefs very seriously.
I don't care if you believe in the tooth fairy, unless it affects your ability to function as a responsible adult. So while some people draw a big (and completely arbitrary) distinction between make-believe and religion, the only distinction I personally draw is whether a person is making rational decisions. Sending telepathic messages to imaginary friends is clearly not rational, but hey, it's a free country and we're all human. Your mileage may vary.
sorry, not my intention either, to emanate such a defensive tone. I may get a little enthusiastic during an argument (in the rhetorical / debate sense of the word, not the animosity sense of the word) and that may come across through this medium like that. Again, sorry, not my intent.
No need to apologize, I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting into unfriendly territory because it simply isn't worth it.
I have rather enjoyed the discussion and like to learn from others as well as "joust" rhetorically :)
Well we are getting plenty of that.
I was coming at it more as a rhetorical viewpoint. In other words, I was using counter arguments to the argument against God's existence that based on the so-called "fundamentalist" viewpoint of absolute creation.
--
Gotcha, like I said I think you are more objective than a lot of Christians.
For me I have a basic problem with any "creation" belief. If everything needs a creator, then where did the creator come from? And if the creator can come from nothing or be eternal than so can the universe without the need for a creator.
In reality a "creator" doesn't answer any of our "where did it come from" questions, it only relocates the question.
thopkins22
03-07-12, 23:08
Gotcha, like I said I think you are more objective than a lot of Christians.
I actually think most have reasonable thoughts on the subject. They just usually aren't as loud as the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Fallwell's of the world.
Perhaps that's a function of being raised Episcopalian and my view of what's out there is distorted.
I actually think most have reasonable thoughts on the subject. They just usually aren't as loud as the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Fallwell's of the world.
Perhaps that's a function of being raised Episcopalian and my view of what's out there is distorted.
There is quite a lot to that. Normal Christians who simply eat their potato chips and tortilla shells regardless of burn marks that could be construed as "resembling a person" just don't make the news.
But I have also met more than my fair share of "Dinosaurs are a satanic trick" kind of Christian to write them off as some kind of anomaly. The ones who really make me want to get to my car and drive away from them are the spiritual warfare crowd who seem to flock to south Florida for some reason.
I think I'd actually rather discuss my thetan levels with a scientologist than talk to another person about spiritual warfare. I think they frighten me more than Satan frightens them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.