Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 17, 2008 12:11:01 GMT -4
Believing that god helps people wither they believe it or not is just that, your belief. It CANNOT be demonstrated by any evidence to actually exist. I didn't claim it could be demonstrated. In fact I was arguing from almost the opposite point - that it cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. Still, a person's beliefs are irrelevent to whether they really are being assisted by God, or whether God really exists in the first place. EDIT: As another example, if I left a spade in my garden the last time I worked in it, my belief that I put my spade away last time I worked there has no effect on the spade's presence in my garden. How does a parent teach his or her children to clean their room? When they're very young you offer them a bribe. "Clean your room and then you can have a popcicle/watch TV/play with your favorite toy." If they exert an effort, even if it's only to pick up a few items for a few minutes, then you compliment their work and give them the reward. As they get older you offer lesser and lesser rewards and demand more and more actual work out of them until, hopefully, they reach the point where they see cleaning their room as something that is good and that they should do without any outside prompting or motivation from you. The bribe at first is a tool towards learning the value the action has in itself by prompting the child to try the action. If the child never tries the action they will never learn that it is good.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 17, 2008 12:54:03 GMT -4
I didn't claim it could be demonstrated. Yet you compared it to gravity, which can be demonstrated.It seems to me you were trying to imply that it didn't matter if one believed in gravity, because gravity would always effect you. You CANNOT compare that with anything that has to do with god...where belief is everything. You keep presenting this "parent/child" analogy as if it is viable. You don't mind being treated as a child, no problem, but others might take it as an offense, particularly when (as you've posted) the only difference between god and man is a "more detailed" understanding of physics. god should be careful how he treats his "creations", or they might just kick him off his throne.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2008 17:31:52 GMT -4
People do that right now without any "help" from any god. Do they? Can you provide an example of someone that only does good? Someone that has never lied, never stolen, never in some way done something that has either broken a law or affected someone else negitively? I'd have to say that it depends on what you mean by "religon." If you mean "a belief and faith in God and the understanding of God's will" then the purpose is to have an unchanging morale standard, as well as a comfort and peace in what it to come, a belief in a higher purpose to existance. Now, fine if you think that morality should be allowed to change over time and you consider that there is nothing after death but well nothing, then fine, you have probably have little need of God... in this life. BTW, this sort of belief doesn't "interfer" it is guildance to those walking the pathway. Now if you mean religion as in organised religion, well then I'd say that there is not a lot of good purpose to it anymore. Once it did, and some places still do, having a purpose of guiding, teaching, and fellowship. But most organised religion has become a binding restriction on those involved, pulling them away from and hiding God, not bringing them closer and revealing him.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2008 17:32:45 GMT -4
god should be careful how he treats his "creations", or they might just kick him off his throne. I believe that was already tried once....
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 17, 2008 17:36:54 GMT -4
RAF gravity can be demonstrated but would you like to explain it.
What is gravity?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 17, 2008 18:20:55 GMT -4
It seems to me you were trying to imply that it didn't matter if one believed in gravity, because gravity would always effect you. You CANNOT compare that with anything that has to do with god...where belief is everything. On the contrary, I most certainly can. Your belief in God or lack thereof has nothing to do with what effect He can have on your life. Specifically, not believing in Him will not make Him go away or leave you alone. I did not say that the only difference between God and man was a more detailed understanding of physics. I said that the way God works miracles is through a more detailed understanding of the laws of the universe. The comparison between mankind and children is apt because it is the actual relationship between us and God. Yeah, good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2008 19:02:51 GMT -4
Yes, I was. Which is convenient, because I can correct several of your misconceptions about Catholic belief. Please don't think I was just talking about Catholism. Personally I think that too many people give Paul a bad rap based on their own pre-conceived ideas. You can't read the letters of Paul and compare what he is saying to our times, nor can you apply all his teachings to us in our time. The letters were written to people nearly 2,000 years ago, they had a different culture and understood the world differently. Once you explore the letters from their point of view instead of ours things start to become far clearer. For instance, much of what people today call Paul's anti-female writings in fact changes once you understand the historical significance behind what he wrote. The fact that some people today still try and push the social taboos of 2,000 years ago onto people today shows to me that while they read the words, they are not interested in reading the meaning of the words. Nice Simpson's quote; however it again seems to come from a lack of understanding. Leviticus is the Book of the Law. Paul points out quite clearly in Romans that the Law only applies to the living and since the Christian has died with Christ on the cross and been raised with him from the tomb, they are no longer under Law. That doesn't mean we ignore the Books of the Law, they are still useful to us, and often give a good insight into life at the time, as well as viewing God's caring nature for his people. Many of the laws are hygiene related and meant that the Israelites and then Jews were protected from many of the diseases that ravaged other peoples (including the Black Death in Europe,) however Paul makes it quite clear that we are not bound by the Law any more, in fact that to do so is to refuse Jesus' sacrifice. To follow the Law means all the Law, including the sacrifices. Since Jesus' mission was to provide the final and ultimate sacrifice to follow the Law is to deny that mission and its result. Paul thought this was such an important topic he spent nearly a third of the letter to the Romans on it almost exclusively. Jesus himself stated that he come to fulfil the Law and in his own teaching re-established nine of the ten given commandants (he missed the Sabbath, which is interesting in itself and an entire other area of study to learn why.) So in the end, not following the letter of the Law isn't actually ignoring parts of the Bible, but rather coming to a full understanding of it and which parts are there for which groups of people. Once you separate those under Law and those under Grace, things tend to make more sense. Fair enough, I used the wrong word; at the time I was fishing for the right one and didn't hit it. My point was this: If Mary could be born to two human parents and be without original sin… what was the point? If she could be born like that, why couldn't Jesus? It's just pushing the whole thing back one generation. It also creates the question of "Did she sin between birth and the Birth of Jesus?" If not, then why have Jesus at all, if she was perfect then why not just have her fufill the role? If so, then what was the point of having no original sin in her? The entire issue to me seems like a fabrication so that the "Mother/Child" imagery from many other religions could be incorporated into the church rather then having a true scriptural basis. When one gets right down to it, Biblically Mary is not shown as important. Apart from Jesus' Birth she gets five more brief mentions and is generally referred to only as his mother, during Jesus' first trip to Jerusalem, the wedding in Canaan, her trip with his brothers to see him, at his death, in the room with the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. After that she vanishes from sight. If she was to be so venerated, and even bodily ascended into heaven, then surely the early church should have made a bigger things about it. Two of Jesus' brothers wrote letters that become part of the New Testament (James and Jude) and even they don't mention their mother, why not if she was so important? I believe that good works are not important to salvation, which is by faith alone, but rather it is an outcome of faith and a love of God, for without works, faith is dead. A Christian should want to do good works because in doing good things for people not only does it show God's grace, but also it pleases God. Works, to my understanding of the Bible, are our offerings to God, a fruit of what we should be, but they won't get you to God in the first place. I believe that Christ pointed out that you could know a tree by its fruit. If a tree claims it is an apple tree, but only produces figs, then it's not an apple tree no matter how much it protests otherwise. In the same way, no matter what a person claims, if they aren't living a Christian life, following the path set out by God, and producing both the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance) and good works, then they aren't a Christian, regardless of their protests otherwise. Some people would say that this is the "no true Scotsman" argument, but I'd point out that if you were born in Scotland then you have the evidence that you're a Scotsman, and if you are Born Again, you'll have the evidence that you're a Christian. If you don't have that evidence then regardless of your claim, it's unsupported, and we know all about unsupported claims here, right? The issue here, however, is that if a person is truly repentant they aren't going to ignore God's voice. Confession was put in place to give the Church power over people and it puts a person between God and us. Christ is our only Priest and it is to Him we should go to confess and seek forgiveness. The Holy Spirit is our mediator and it is Him that should speak to God on our behalf. Honestly, there is no need for someone to talk to you and tell you what to do; the truly repentant know it in their hearts without someone else there telling them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 18, 2008 0:45:46 GMT -4
If you're already a good person--which I believe I am--why should you have to change yourself to be what someone else thinks you should? My Goddess wants me to be good to people, including myself. I came to Her after many years of lengthy thought about what I really believed; by the sound of it, you came to your faith in much the same way. That means you made decisions based on what you already believed just as I did.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 18, 2008 14:55:30 GMT -4
It seems to me you were trying to imply that it didn't matter if one believed in gravity, because gravity would always effect you. You CANNOT compare that with anything that has to do with god...where belief is everything. On the contrary, I most certainly can. Thanks for reminding me why participation in this discussion is pointless...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 16:26:25 GMT -4
If you're already a good person--which I believe I am--why should you have to change yourself to be what someone else thinks you should? Well if a person is a "good person" then obviously very little change is going to be needed, as the two greatest commands that Christ gave are "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind," and, "Love your neighbour as yourself." These obviously aren't so hard for a "good person" to achieve. However having said that, being a "good person" isn't enough. It might seem harsh, but the bar is set at perfection, and that is something we just can't reach, regardless of how many good works we do or how good we try to be. Here's the problem. If we believe what God says about Himself in the Bible, He is perfection, and perfection and imperfection cannot dwell together, the imperfect would be burned away and destroyed in God's presence. That means we have to achieve perfection to get to God. Now obviously that is an impossible call, and since God wants us to be able to dwell with him, he has a serious problem. He created humankind to be a family and enjoy being in His presence for eternity, but humanity is not perfect and thus can't remain in the sight of God because that imperfection would destroy us. How do you solve that? That is why He had to figure out a way to make the imperfect, perfect. That was the entire mission of Jesus. With His reaching the standard that has been set for us, he could enter into God's sight as perfect. Our acceptance of Him, and what he did on the cross, where he took on our rebellions, means that when God looks at us, he no longer sees our imperfection, but rather sees Jesus covering us, allowing us to stand before Him without being destroyed, thus God solved the problem and made a way for us to enter his presence. With all respect it sounds like you choose your religion to match how you wanted to live your life, you worked out what you wanted and then matched a goddess to that lifestyle, choosing Christianity doesn't, or at least shouldn't, work that way. You are right that it took me a long time and a lot of thought, but I always came back to one significant detail. Personally if I were to pick a religion that suited what I wanted to believe, I'd go for Karma and Reincarnation. I like the idea that people get to live many lives and over time build up the "good" they do until they have reached enough that they can get to be with God. That'd be a great system, but no matter how I try and look at it, Christianity has one very unique difference. In all over religions it is what the practitioner does that determines whether they get to God or not. They have to work there way there by being a good person, doing good works, praying towards a certain spot three times a day, abstaining from certain foods or drinks, whipping themselves, and so on and so forth, some more extreme, some not so extreme. True Christianity doesn't have that (which is another reason I have a dislike of many mainstream churches because they bring in these very things that God kicked out.) In the pure Christianity of the NT there is just one thing that a person could do to get to God, and it's really easy. Believe. That's it. The reason is because instead of us having to fight and crawl our way to God by what we do, in Christianity God has done all the hard work for us and then reached down to us. All we have to do is being willing to take his hand and accept what He did. To me this just makes sense. People are always saying "If God truly loved us then he wouldn't send anyone to Hell," but the more I learn about him the more I see He isn't. People are already headed out of His will and presence, He's done the one thing that truly can change that, He's offered a way back, and done so at a price everyone can afford, absolutely nothing. What greater thing can a truly loving God do that to provide a path to Him that is totally free for us to follow; one that all you have to do is be willing to walk it? This is what stands out to me about Christianity, and it's the thing I honestly can't get past, because to me, that is exactly what a truly loving God would do, He wouldn't force us to prove ourselves worthy of Him by what we do, He'd make us worthy of Him by doing it Himself, and that is exactly what Jesus did, he made us worthy. That is the reason I choose Christianity, and that is one of the reasons I stand firmly against those that try and pollute Christianity by forcing those that follow it to have to do other things for salvation than just believe, because they are destroying the wonderful and simple gift that God made for us.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 18, 2008 16:44:23 GMT -4
All you have to do for my Goddess is believe in Her. It is, however, what you do after you start believing that matters. Humans cannot achieve perfection. My Goddess only expects you to do the best you can. She knows that, for example, I am not capable--on a lot of levels--of going out and working in an AIDS clinic. She knows that I will sometimes be petty and shallow and human. She doesn't expect me to be perfect; She expects me to be the best person I can be. She expects me to try. She expects me to work at it. She expects me to try to overcome those moments, and to apologize to those I have harmed when I cannot--even myself. She knows that doing bad hurts your soul.
And, frankly, yours is hardly the first dying and resurrecting God. Ours was doing that thousands of years before, depending on which version of our faith you're looking at. Jesus, yes, but Osiris, and Cernunnos--and even the goddess Persephone goes to Hades and rises out again. All we have to believe is that it is the cycle of nature. We do not have to be ashamed that we are so unworthy of it that we deserved such a sacrifice. We do not have to feel shame for the death of our God, though I think you and I both glory in the God's resurrection. Spring comes again. That is the lesson of the dying and resurrecting God.
I'm not saying that the faith you have come to is wrong, so you know. It is what you believe, and that's great--for you. I do, however, think it is arrogant to say that yours is the right faith, and that I have tailored my beliefs to suit my beliefs. Assuredly I have, but so have you. You believe you don't have to follow the Old Testament; good on you. Do you think women should be silent? Do you think women should keep their heads covered in church? Do you think slaves should be returned to their masters? You say you're taking it in context of the era, but you are interpreting. You are saying that certain aspects of what you think is one of the most important parts of the Bible aren't things you have to follow anymore. How is that not leaving out parts of the New Testament?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 18, 2008 17:36:35 GMT -4
Quite frankly I think that everybody chooses a religion to fit them but that doesn't mean that it is the wrong thing to do.
I personally have a problem with the whole 'listen to what I tell you, believe Jesus died for you or you will not be with me in eternity' bit. I cannot understand why we would be given free will if we are to be punished for using it. As humans we have achieved some pretty amazing things, we are an inquisitive species, we hunger for knowledge and we are given the power to reason. Just because a portion of our population decide that there is not enough evidence for God's existence or indeed any form of spiritual world should not mean the auto-damnation button gets pressed. The same goes for choosing the 'wrong' religion. Why not just make everybody into 'sheep', for a better word, who blindly follow.
An individual who leads a pure christian style life but does not follow Christ or believe in a Christian God, should have as much right to get to heaven as anybody.
Do you see my point PW, you are saying God has made it easier for us to be with him, as long as we believe in him and the sacrifice Jesus made for us, and gets upset when we don't, but he shouldn't when he has given us the power to reason which in turn causes some of us to deny his existence by getting it wrong. I personally believe we would be judged by our actions (ones which are not done with getting to heaven in mind i.e. actions for reward) and what is in our hearts. A truly just and loving God would need no other criteria, and anything stricter than that would leave God by himself for eternity. How sad is that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 19:12:42 GMT -4
All you have to do for my Goddess is believe in Her. It is, however, what you do after you start believing that matters. Humans cannot achieve perfection. My Goddess only expects you to do the best you can. She knows that, for example, I am not capable--on a lot of levels--of going out and working in an AIDS clinic. She knows that I will sometimes be petty and shallow and human. She doesn't expect me to be perfect; She expects me to be the best person I can be. She expects me to try. She expects me to work at it. She expects me to try to overcome those moments, and to apologize to those I have harmed when I cannot--even myself. She knows that doing bad hurts your soul. To be honest, it sounds that in this area our beliefs aren't that far apart. As I pointed out above, God doesn't think people are going to be perfect either. However it's also why it's different. You seem to be saying that your goddess doesn't expect you to be perfect, as long as you try hard, thus she'll accept you as imperfect. My belief based on what I read is that God knows that anything imperfect simply will not be able to survive in his presence, thus He can't accept us as imperfect and had to find a way around that problem. This is quite true, and I never claimed that it was. And here's the difference. The Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Celts all believed in a god(dess) that represented nature, that was a cycle of spring to winter. The death of their gods was symbolic of what they saw in the world around them. Jesus' death was and is not related to the natural cycles of the Earth. Nor is it something we should be shamed by, in fact exactly the opposite, it is something that the Christian should celebrate on a daily basis. Jesus was willing to give his life in place of ours, where is the shame in that? His death was meaningful, he died that we didn't have too, it wasn't just a natural cycle that would occur again and again, it was a one for all time thing that opened a pathway to God. Why also should we be ashamed that we can't achieve perfection? You yourself admitted that such a thing is impossible, and if it is not possible, then there is no shame in failing to do it, there is only joy and celebration that God knows that we can't make it and instead provided a way to reach it Himself. What greater love is there than Him dying for us? Who did Osiris, Cernunnos or Persephone die for? What was their purpose? There was none, it is just a natural cycle of life and death, spring and winter. Jesus' death had a purpose, to be a replacement for us. His rising had a purpose, to restore us to life with him. It's not just a lesson of nature, it's something far, far greater. I didn't say it though, Jesus did. 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."John 14:6 (NIV) How is it arrogant to say that you tailored your beliefs to how you wanted to live, when you admit that is exactly what you did? Because Paul states it in black and white, here are just a few examples. 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:19-24 (NIV) 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Romans 3:27-28 (NIV) 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. Romans 4:14-15 (NIV) 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. Romans 6:14 (NIV) It's not a case of belief, it’s a case of the matter being put done in writing so the issue is clear. No need for interpretation on this one. The passage you refer to is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, part of talking about orderly worship. I think that everyone should remain silent in the circumstances that Paul was writing about. At the time of the letter being written most women were ignorant of the scriptures, not through their own fault, but simply because most weren't taught them as the men were (the Jewish male children had to learn the Torah early on whereas the women were even allowed inside the main part of the temple.) This mean that women in the church often had questions about things, and naturally so. However there was also the issue that most churches were Jewish based and in many cases the women and men would sit apart from one another. Imagine the scene where someone is trying to teach and there is an almost constant movement and talking among those being taught as wives seek out their husbands to ask them questions. Under such circumstances was it wrong of Paul to insist that wives wait until after the teaching was done before asking going over and asking their husbands questions? (or worse, just calling out to them.) Is it wrong to expect the same today for people to be quiet and allow those about them to listen to the teaching without being disturbed by others wandering about and talking? If he was writing that passage today to us based on some of the churches I have been in, I'm firmly of the belief that he'd tell everyone, especially those young hoons at the back, to sit down and shut up because it is a disgrace for them to speak in Church. It is also quite clear that Paul did not believe and was not instructing that women not be allowed to speak at all in the meetings since (and we'll cover this one next, no pun intended) he has previously (3 chapters earlier) spoken about women praying and prophesizing before the church. If he had been of the opinion that they shouldn't say anything, full stop, then what he'd already said just a short time previous was rather pointless. It would also make it surprising that he supported a number of women in positions of teaching and instruction (despite his noted reluctance to do so as he stated to Timothy later,) including Priscilla, who was living in Corinth when Paul met her and her husband, and who would then became a missionary, accompanying Paul to Ephesus, and who later went on to Rome. ETA: I thought I would add this passage from The Message, a version of the Bible that tries to turn scripture into modern language. As such the translators do do their own interpretation as they translate rather than most direct translations that just give the words. Hopefully it illustrates the point I was making. 34-36Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you're a sacred oracle determining what's right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?1 Corinthians 11:4-7, is speaking about praying or prophesizing before the church, not just attending. It also is a passage that has an unsure translation. Possible Translation 1: 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.Possible Translation 2: 4Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonours his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonours her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.Now I haven't had the time to delve too deeply into this passage today, but the following verse seems to imply that actually translation 2 is actually the better fit: 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.1 Corinthians 11:14 (NIV) As such it would appear that Paul was stating not that all women needed to have their heads covered by a hat or scarf while in Church, but rather that since it was considered a mark of dishonour to have a shaven head for a woman, or long hair for a man, that people praying or prophesizing before the Church should be attired in such a way that would not dishonour themselves or God Well since we don't have slavery today the question is moot. However, once more taking the historical viewpoint. At the time slavery was entirely normal. Paul wasn't there to demand the abolishment of slavery or to start a political movement to free them; he was giving them instructions on how to live a Christian life. Part of that is respecting the law of the land and since it was illegal to for a slave to run away, it was also against what a Christian should do. As such in being obedient to the law of the land, yes a slave should return and show their master not only that they are respectful of the law, but that they respect them and in doing so, bring glory to God. Now this brings up the question, was it a good law? That I can't answer, the times were different and slavery in Roman times was not the same as slavery in the US last century. Slaves were generally treated well (yes many weren't) and often protected under Roman laws. That said I don't like the idea of slavery myself, and am glad it's not an issue any more, but since it was at the time, Paul had to address it. He did that by giving instructions to both slave and master on how to act, what he didn't do, and I agree on him not doing so, was make it a political issue rather then a religious one. I never said that the Bible didn't have to be interpreted; in fact if you look at the steps I outlined in a previous post one of them is Interpretation. What I am saying is that interpretation has to be done from the POV of the reader that it was intended to given too, not from ours. If we look at the three you have outlined (three quite common ones) and look from the point of view of today's society they obviously don't make sense to us, but our society is very different to the society that the letters were written to. As such how can we take what was written to them based on their society and attempt to apply that directly to ours? (Okay so some things we can since some things haven't changed a lot in 2,000 years, but most things have.) Looking at the reasons a passage was written in a particular way, or something was said, and how those it was being written to understood it does provide a lesson to us though. As such it's not a case of ignoring part of the NT or leaving it out, it's looking at the passage and figuring out what it meant and how that should be applied to us today. That means looking a lot deeper than the words themselves because without an understanding of the culture and people behind those words, they simply become meaningless ritual that is followed for the sake of following, rather than the tool of learning and teaching they are supposed to be. As such all three passages above do still contain very valuable instructions and lessons to us today (Don't disrupt the teaching and fellowship with questions, but instead wait till you are home to discuss them. Don't attire yourself in a way that brings dishonour when you are addressing the church. And finally, obey the laws of the land and respect those with power over you even if you find that harsh and trying.) This isn't leaving out the passages, in fact exactly the opposite; it's looking into them and learning more about what we should be doing rather than just blindly reading the words and totally missing the message.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 20:04:57 GMT -4
Quite frankly I think that everybody chooses a religion to fit them but that doesn't mean that it is the wrong thing to do. I agree that many people do, I also disagree that everyone does. If they did then once you selected a religion there'd be no need to change and since many people do change after choosing, there are obviously a lot of people that choose one that is what they want to be, not one that fits them as they are. They want to fit themselves to the religion, not the other way about. That is because you think it's a punishment, it's not. God simply gives you want you want. If you want to be with Him then He's showed you how to get to Him. If you choose not to do it, but be on your own, then why should he force you to be with him anyway? Wouldn't that be a violation of your free will and a punishment? But it's not because "a portion of our population decide that there is not enough evidence for God's existence or indeed any form of spiritual world" it's because we're not perfect. God knows that if we enter His presence in an imperfect state it will destroy us, that means no one pushed an "auto-damnation button" it means that without intervention, we just can't stand before God. Would you want a family that were mindless robots and only did exactly what you programmed them to do? Apart from the fact that such would be impossible since following Christ and believing in God as the Bible shows him is the centre of the pure Christian life, if you could show me a perfect person that has never done any wrong in their life, then I'd show you someone getting into Heaven without Christ because they'd met the mark that was set. If they aren't though, then better for them to not get in than be destroyed don't you think? I see yours, but I think you missed mine. See, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying that God created a path to Himself where we could stand before him spotless and perfect, that path being believing in Jesus' sacrifice (Jesus stated that himself.) If you don't, then yes it hurts him, exactly as it hurts a parent when they call out to a child, only to see that child walk away and turn their back. You seem to be saying that God punishes people for doing that because He gets upset, this isn't true, he gives them what they want, eternity without Him, after all why should he force those that chose to spend their life without Him to have to spend eternity with Him? Why should He risk a person's destruction by bringing them, imperfect, into His presence when they don't want it? Again it comes to the issue of the imperfect being destroyed in God's pressence. He simply can't allow people that aren't perfect before Him, regardless of what unselfish and great things they have done. Surely no truly just and loving god would so willing doom people to destruction by allowing that to happen? Yet this is what you are asking for. Surely the better way to deal with the issue is to simply provide a way to allow those that want to get there to do so, to provide a way that is totally free and requires no criteria other then acceptance that that is the way? Surely that is the way a truly just and loving god would act, no?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 18, 2008 20:14:38 GMT -4
With all respect it sounds like you choose your religion to match how you wanted to live your life, you worked out what you wanted and then matched a goddess to that lifestyle, choosing Christianity doesn't, or at least shouldn't, work that way.
PW, haven't you yourself done this? You have chosen to ignore parts of the Bible that don't suit you. You seem to have put extensive research into the New Testament in particular, and arrived at a seemingly logical version of Christianity that works for you. I had big problems with organized religion, RC in particular. I felt that Jesus Christ was a real person, and that a lot of what he said was inspiring and uplifting to me. And I tried to strip away the parts of the Bible that I thought were false. Thus I threw away the OT completely and concentrated on the NT. The more I read and learned, the more I was convinced that Jesus was not God, did not pretend to be, and that the Christianity that developed from him lost his message and became a tyrannical government of sorts that ending up causing many atrocities upon mankind. Of course there was good coming out of Christianity too, but such a mixed blessing forced me to deny that Christianity's beliefs and practices were correct. As I got older, my instincts were telling me that not only were most religions false, but illogical and unethical as well. I had to follow my heart on these matters - I guess the Humanist part of me won out - but I couldn't believe things that made no sense to me anymore. Today, I don't even care if God exists or not - it has absolutely no conscious bearing on my life. If he does exist, at least I've tried to find Him and put a lot more effort into the quest than a lot of Christians who read the scriptures on Sunday half asleep. If we have Christian nations, why is there so much wrong with them? Why are there so many people committing crimes? Beating up their spouses, hurting their children, cheating in business? Why are married Christians visiting prostitutes, gambling away their income, getting drunk and driving on the road? Why is porn on the internet so massive in Christian nations? Isn't pornography supposed to be bad? Why are scams so prevalent in our Christian countries, why do we have abortion so easily available, shouldn't we be taking care of our teens instead? Why, when I was growing up was it a sin for me to miss church, or not confess the smallest thing to a priest, but a drunk priest saying mass was okay? Is it because if you have a billion people, that you're going to have some bad apples among them? PW, there are a lot of bad apples! I guess the one thing that has always driven me crazy about religion is how the faith values differ so much from lifestyle values in so-called 'Christians'. And Christians themselves tell me that people who do any of the above are not really Christians at all. Is that in fact the case? Have they 'lost' the message - and what message is it anyway? Is it the message of the OT, with all the judgement, condemnation and wrath by 'God'? Does it include the parts of the Bible that are absurd, illogical and cruel? This confused, unreasonable and hypocritical book makes me want to pull my hair out, or used to. Now most of it is a fairy tale. If it weren't for Jesus being so prominent, I wouldn't have one in my house at all...
|
|