Are my spirtual beliefs wrong?

[quote name='SpazX']Here's the thing about faith - it never used to be nearly as important. Let me explain.

In the past, faith was obviously part of religion. Faith that whatever god would help you through bad times, protect you from bad times, etc., but not faith that a god existed. That's reasonably new. Before there was any other way to explain anything, those religious explanations were only logical to people - they made sense. So now we're supposed to have faith where people used to use logic. I'm going to keep using logic instead.[/quote]Could you explain this further? I'm not really sure what you're getting at, save for perhaps generational bigotry. ;)
 
[quote name='SpazX']In the past, faith was obviously part of religion. Faith that whatever god would help you through bad times, protect you from bad times, etc., but not faith that a god existed. That's reasonably new. Before there was any other way to explain anything, those religious explanations were only logical to people - they made sense. So now we're supposed to have faith where people used to use logic. I'm going to keep using logic instead.[/QUOTE]
The bolded portion hurt my brain... as did the rest, really.

The idea of a 'god' isn't reasonably new at all.

Not to mention that religion hasn't solely been, and isn't always, the faith that a god will protect humanity.
 
I'll try to answer both of you (daroga and Brak).

For Brak, I never said that god was new, I said requiring faith that a god existed was new. I was saying that long ago it was more based on reason and gradually it has moved more towards requiring faith. And there was an "etc." for a reason, I didn't feel like listing everything anybody has ever believed a god was for, so I picked two (one and a half really) that have pretty much always been important (and were vague).

To further explain it, faith (when used in a religious sense) is something you have when there is no proof for believing in something. A lot of the time faith is also used for when you have faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, going from that, when people say that god exists becuase of beauty in nature, organization, any kind of argument (which many people still do), they're not using faith, they're using logic. They're arguing from a premise that because of whatever there is reason to believe in a god. If there is no challenge to that then faith is not required. Akin to that, if you believe what is written in a religious text as history, there really isn't faith involved in that (besides the definition of faith that is just "trust" that the person who wrote it isn't lying, but that's not really the same thing) unless it is somehow otherwise challenged. People years ago simply believed in many things about god because it made sense to them or because it was the only history they knew, not becuase they had faith. Faith in that sense was not an important part of religion, but like I was saying, faith was in what that god might or might not do.

What I wrote was a response to PagingDrUgly's rant about the importance of faith as if faith in god without evidence was what religion was all about and that if there was evidence it would disprove god. That's something more modern that came after various challenges to religion. Before there was evidence. In the Bible there are many parts where God is written to actually do something that everybody saw. That's evidence, not faith. By the reasoning of PagingDrUgly a god doesn't show itself because if it did then that would ruin everything about faith and that's what's important and makes humans unique, but obviously the writers of the Bible didn't think that or they wouldn't have written multiple instances in which God did just that.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What I wrote was a response to PagingDrUgly's rant about the importance of faith as if faith in god without evidence was what religion was all about and that if there was evidence it would disprove god. That's something more modern that came after various challenges to religion. Before there was evidence. In the Bible there are many parts where God is written to actually do something that everybody saw. That's evidence, not faith. By the reasoning of PagingDrUgly a god doesn't show itself because if it did then that would ruin everything about faith and that's what's important and makes humans unique, but obviously the writers of the Bible didn't think that or they wouldn't have written multiple instances in which God did just that.[/quote]God's physical actions, say in the Exodus, were not what faith in the past was. You're right, no one had to believe that God was leading the Israelites by a pillar of fire, or that he parted the Red Sea, or killed all the first born in Egypt. What they did had to believe was the far more important things--the promise of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of the Savior Messiah that would come to pay the price for their sins (foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement, etc.).

So faith in things not see is hardly something new. In fact, most that 1900 years ago, the writer to the Hebrews said, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).

Scientific "proofs" haven't created a new niche for religion and faith. If anything, they've just emphasized them.
 
I'm really sick of you people chiming in with "Wow, haha, if those coicedences have rocked your world, maybe you're no atheist." It's been said 15 times. More original, SpazBrakCrotchDaraogaesque responses, please.
I'm also shocked this thread is still going. I'm getting to read a lot of interesting debate. Thank you!
 
Friend of Sonic, would it help you a bit if I took some time and composed a basic summary of the biblical Christian faith that would be perhaps a departure from weird folks in parking lots?
 
[quote name='daroga']God's physical actions, say in the Exodus, were not what faith in the past was. You're right, no one had to believe that God was leading the Israelites by a pillar of fire, or that he parted the Red Sea, or killed all the first born in Egypt. What they did had to believe was the far more important things--the promise of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of the Savior Messiah that would come to pay the price for their sins (foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement, etc.).

So faith in things not see is hardly something new. In fact, most that 1900 years ago, the writer to the Hebrews said, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).

Scientific "proofs" haven't created a new niche for religion and faith. If anything, they've just emphasized them.[/quote]

I think we're kind of agreeing on some level. Maybe I shouldn't have just said "faith" seeing as it means so many things, but more specifically the faith that PagingDrUgly was talking about. It doesn't seem to me that they were saying they need to believe in those things because there's no evidence for it, or because the evidence contradicts it. They seemed perfectly fine with evidence. The prophets were supposed to have a direct line to God, they were supposed to have experienced him in one way or another and that is their reason for saying a messiah would come (to usher in an era of peace....), etc. That seems quite different to me from what PagingDrUgly (and many other people) say about faith in a god.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think we're kind of agreeing on some level. Maybe I shouldn't have just said "faith" seeing as it means so many things, but more specifically the faith that PagingDrUgly was talking about. It doesn't seem to me that they were saying they need to believe in those things because there's no evidence for it, or because the evidence contradicts it. They seemed perfectly fine with evidence. The prophets were supposed to have a direct line to God, they were supposed to have experienced him in one way or another and that is their reason for saying a messiah would come (to usher in an era of peace....), etc. That seems quite different to me from what PagingDrUgly (and many other people) say about faith in a god.[/quote]Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just don't see how evidence can weigh in on faith one way or another (either extant or non). Because if you have definitive proof in either the positive or the negative, that's knowledge, not faith. I don't think this is in contrast to what you were saying, just my own thoughts on the matter,

I think the thing you and I have come back to before in semi-relation to these matters is trying to find a logical connection to faith, which there is none. Faith in Jesus is worked supernaturally by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. It's not as if everything was laid out for every Christian so that you cannot help but accept it. Apologetics (logical defense of the faith, such as Lewis posted above) have their place, but ultimately they fall short (as also posted above) because you simply cannot argue someone into faith. We just present the truth and let the Holy Spirit do his thing.

A lot of Christian and spiritual groups have a very different ideas of "faith" and conversion, but ultimately that's the biblical definition.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']OP sounds like some Truman Show style crap going on. Maybe the guy that smiled is stalking you and setting you up?[/QUOTE]
See, that's what *I* thought. Like it was some Touched by an Angel bullshit and he was smiling because he was going to set up some harmless coicedences to get me thinking. Bah.
Also Daroga, I wouldn't mind reading anything you would like to come up with. Although, I can promise you this is just out of interest. I'm not looking to switch beliefs-- I'm pretty set in stone. (Although this thread may mislead otherwise)
 
The Crotch -- not quite sure how the counter argument writes itself. A comparison of these cultures will find complex differences in morality, which is true, but there are a great many axioms which will be found as common to all human beings on the planet across all cultures -- i.e. a universal morality. Then again, like God, this is a concept that still requires a certain degree of faith to be able to follow.

I'm a Christian, and after reading Collins' book and Mere Christianity, I find them both interesting defenses of God, Christianity, etc, but they all do require faith or a fundamental yearning for something beyond onesself in order to succeed at convincing the reader. So, one who goes into it without that yearning, even on a very minute scale, will gain nothing from these books. I love these books and find them to be fulfilling, but they're not defenses of ones faith.

Faith in and of itself implies that you can't prove it. You can't prove that God's real or that Jesus walked the Earth, but you know it in your heart and have faith that it's true. Faith is blind, by definition. Nothing can really disprove ones faith -- heck, even proof of different ideas can't necessarily disprove it.

Proof of multiple deities, that Jesus was married and had children, that the resurrection of Christ didn't happen, etc. If these things can contradict the faith of a Christian, then they're faith wasn't that strong to begin with. Then again, this is coming from the Evangelical Christian who believes a) in a more henotheistic viewpoint of the universe whereby other gods may exist, but I worship the god of Jesus, and Moses who says He is the God above all others, and I believe it; b) that all people can be forgiven and be accepted into Heaven, regardless of religious background because any god which would preach and discuss a faith that has as a central tenant forgiveness, could not condemn a person that happened to not be born in a region where its faith isn't practiced; and c) Genesis isn't remotely translated correctly and it'll take a long time before we actually understand how the first followers of the Hebrew/Christian God lived, it's pretty obvious that there were more people than Adam considering his son Cain went out and met others...who he had never seen before...and were not his relatives. But, I'm a far cry from your average Christian on the street...

I've also found, on a slightly related note, that those who become the most obnoxious in defending their faith, are the ones who really need to prove it to themselves...
 
t0llenz:

I have no problem with the yearning and what-not, but I have a bit of a problem when you say "Proof of multiple deities, that Jesus was married and had children, that the resurrection of Christ didn't happen, etc. If these things can contradict the faith of a Christian, then they're faith wasn't that strong to begin with."

You can't prove the things you said so those examples aren't really relevant, but if you could and insisted the opposite regardless I don't see how that's a good thing. If your belief is independent of that and the claims were proven then it doesn't matter (and apparently wouldn't matter if they did or didn't happen in the first place), but if your belief depends on that and it's proven wrong then I don't see how continued belief would be justified. In any other situation that would be considered stubborn and ignorant.

If your faith is very nonspecific and doesn't depend on any events/claims/people then I don't see why you would be part of any organized religion in the first place since they only exist to make specific claims. In other words, why would you be Christian if the life/teachings/divinity/resurrection of Jesus don't matter to you? (Not saying they don't to you individually)


I don't remember if this was discussed in that other thread a while ago daroga, but as a question to both you and t0llenz, what are your positions on Satan and Hell? Their real/metaphorical existence, why they exist if they do, your reason for belief in that, etc.
 
There are few things that could rattle my faith -- my point was to say that the existence of other gods, Christ being married, or the resurrection being not a physical resurrection doesn't change anything in my mind. The Old Testament and even portions of the New Testament more or less reflect my henotheistic view on the world. Christ being married or having children doesn't change his actual teachings or diminish his work. The resurrection being symbolic and not literal doesn't change that I have faith that Christ was the Messiah who came to teach people how to live. The teachings of Christ matter to me and I have faith that Jesus was resurrected...but if that particular fact turned out to be incorrect, then it wouldn't change the fact that I follow his teachings and believe in my heart that he was the Messiah chosen by the Hebrew God. I was more saying that there are these claims people make about Christianity that would rattle the faiths of most, that I can completely fit into my faith and don't see the contradiction. Same idea with evolution, don't see the contradiction with the belief that God put the universe in motion and evolution being a product of that. Especially considering the best known theory of science basically says, "Poof, there was a universe," i.e. the Big Bang Theory. If these things could shake your faith, then you really didn't understand it as well as you thought in the first place...at least that's how I feel.

My opinion? Satan is referenced not nearly as much in the Bible as the average Christian like to claim. In Biblical terms, it seems that Satan/Lucifer was created to tempt people to prove their faith to God. The classic theory is that this went to the point where he tried to tempt angels and got them to follow him instead, thus leading to an etherial battle. My thoughts are similar -- Satan/Lucifer was created by God, he existed to try to help prove the faiths of others, he began to actually tempt others away and thought he deserved that worship despite being made to worship and prove the strength of worship of others for the Hebrew God, God punished his disobedience by creating Hell...which was complete disocciation with God. That's what I believe Hell began as...I believe the perception of Hell as a place of torment by man transformed it into something else entirely, though I still believe complete dissociation with God is what Hell truly is. In a way, for most, Hell would be complete non-existance after this life. Again, the Bible isn't very clear as to what Hell actually is...read it and you'll see what I mean, don't just take the word of preachers who try to convince you that Hell is all fire and brimstone...it hasn't been really discussed to nearly that extent.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']The Crotch -- not quite sure how the counter argument writes itself. A comparison of these cultures will find complex differences in morality, which is true, but there are a great many axioms which will be found as common to all human beings on the planet across all cultures -- i.e. a universal morality. Then again, like God, this is a concept that still requires a certain degree of faith to be able to follow.[/QUOTE]

Well, my point about "universal morality" is that no higher power needs to be invoked to explain it. Arguments based on this are little more than rationalizations of faith.

I suppose I'm just more ticked off because it comes off as another case of goddidit. Looking at shared morality in humans is an interesting area ripe for research and discussion. Then there's the whole humans are special idea, pretending that we are somehow fundamentally different from all other living things. Just look the great apes, I think they make it pretty clear that the whole universal morality thing isn't an exclusive human trait.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']There are few things that could rattle my faith -- my point was to say that the existence of other gods, Christ being married, or the resurrection being not a physical resurrection doesn't change anything in my mind. The Old Testament and even portions of the New Testament more or less reflect my henotheistic view on the world. Christ being married or having children doesn't change his actual teachings or diminish his work. The resurrection being symbolic and not literal doesn't change that I have faith that Christ was the Messiah who came to teach people how to live. The teachings of Christ matter to me and I have faith that Jesus was resurrected...but if that particular fact turned out to be incorrect, then it wouldn't change the fact that I follow his teachings and believe in my heart that he was the Messiah chosen by the Hebrew God. I was more saying that there are these claims people make about Christianity that would rattle the faiths of most, that I can completely fit into my faith and don't see the contradiction. Same idea with evolution, don't see the contradiction with the belief that God put the universe in motion and evolution being a product of that. Especially considering the best known theory of science basically says, "Poof, there was a universe," i.e. the Big Bang Theory. If these things could shake your faith, then you really didn't understand it as well as you thought in the first place...at least that's how I feel.[/quote]
Well that makes more sense then, I thought you were just picking examples.

My opinion? Satan is referenced not nearly as much in the Bible as the average Christian like to claim. In Biblical terms, it seems that Satan/Lucifer was created to tempt people to prove their faith to God. The classic theory is that this went to the point where he tried to tempt angels and got them to follow him instead, thus leading to an etherial battle. My thoughts are similar -- Satan/Lucifer was created by God, he existed to try to help prove the faiths of others, he began to actually tempt others away and thought he deserved that worship despite being made to worship and prove the strength of worship of others for the Hebrew God, God punished his disobedience by creating Hell...which was complete disocciation with God. That's what I believe Hell began as...I believe the perception of Hell as a place of torment by man transformed it into something else entirely, though I still believe complete dissociation with God is what Hell truly is. In a way, for most, Hell would be complete non-existance after this life. Again, the Bible isn't very clear as to what Hell actually is...read it and you'll see what I mean, don't just take the word of preachers who try to convince you that Hell is all fire and brimstone...it hasn't been really discussed to nearly that extent.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was bringing up the discussion mostly because of the lack of really much of anything in the Bible to base the ideas on. It seems most people just accept the battle in heaven thing even though there isn't any Biblical basis for it and it basically just came from Paradise Lost. It was Milton's (and others' I'm sure) interpretation of some Biblical passages of course, but it's not a very solid interpretation, IMO. Do you go with that out of tradition or did you just come up with a similar explanation?

From what I know from Milton's story Satan was thrown out before the fall of man and so it wouldn't really fit well chronologically with Job, where Satan obviously works for God. It doesn't really matter if you think of Milton as a fictional story anyway, but if there was a battle in heaven scenario it apparently would have to come after Job. Job, though, seems intended to be a fictional story anyway, but that's almost all you've really got to go on from the Old Testament. It's really quite confusing...
 
Matt... Matt.. you're being glib.

God will never talk to you in license plate form

trust me

it will be more like a game show host communicating with you telepathically

possibly even a stuffed animal that haunts your dreams with prophetic visions of doom, or a mechanical spider watching you from another dimension

never a government issued title document though

that's just silly
 
Since in the Old Testament his only references are merely him as a temptor of God and by the New Testament, he's literally trying to tempt Jesus away, I interpreted it that way. I came to a similar conclusion based on the Biblical passages, not identical as I have no idea the timeline and he clearly did still work for the Hebrew God during the time of Job.

Most of the modern concepts of Heaven and Hell come from Dante's Divine Comedy. I personally don't think man can truly understand it...and I'm fine with that. I have my own ideas about how it's going to be, but frankly, I won't know unless I get there...
 
[quote name='t0llenz']b) that all people can be forgiven and be accepted into Heaven, regardless of religious background because any god which would preach and discuss a faith that has as a central tenant forgiveness, could not condemn a person that happened to not be born in a region where its faith isn't practiced; [/quote]I hate to be "that guy," but this completely undermines the whole of the Bible.

The entire point of the Old Testament ceremonial law was to point ahead to the coming Messiah, the Savior that would come from Israel. So also, they would be a light to the Gentiles. The Savior wouldn't just be for the Jews but for the entire world.

Jesus said very clearly and very exclusively, "No one comes to the Father except through me." Forgiveness of sins is found in the faith of the coming Messiah for the people before Christ and in the saving death and resurrection of Jesus after the fact. God made it clear through Isaiah that those who were worshiping chunks of wood or stone were out of their mind. Those idols couldn't save; they couldn't even stand up without being nailed down. The same is true of the idols of false religions today. There is no god apart from the true, triune God. And there is no forgiveness apart from the death of Jesus.
 
How does that undermine the whole Bible? No one gets to the Father except through the Son, the Son's blood washed away the sins of all mankind, not merely the Hebrews. Why is the view that forgiveness is granted just for being a person contradictory with the Bible?

Examples of what I mean --
Genesis 12: 2-3
I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find their blessing in you.
Click to expand...
God speaking to Abraham, where he basically says that the Hebrews were his chosen people not as the only to get to Heaven...but as those to be a beacon of hope to the world so that they understand and save God's word.
1 Timothy 4:10
For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially those who believe.
Click to expand...
In this verse, in context, Paul describes how God forgives and saves all mankind, and is especially kind to those who believe. Jesus came to wash away the sins of all man, including those who do not believe in Him. The words of Paul, not mine. For comparrison's sake, here's the King James version of the same line --
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Click to expand...
Many Christians, myself included, like to point to the poetry that is John 3:16. But look closer at the verse and the surrounding context of that Gospel --
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Click to expand...
Christ did not come to condemn all mankind or the non-believers, he came to save them all. He brought light into the world so that all who believe in Him are saved and all that follow his light, even if they don't understand why, can be saved as well.

I'm sure I just opened up a terrible can of worms doing this, but I'm merely trying to point out that my view on salvation through Chist is no indefensible, even by Biblical standards.
 
I took a class once called "Philosophy of Relgion" and we considered all sorts of arguements for and against the existence of teh tri-omni western G-d. That is Omnibenevolent (all good) Omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing).

We read, discussed, and debated all sorts of arguments from all sorts of religious philosophers. It was pretty rockin'. Yeah I know I'm a big dork.

Anyway one of my favorites attacked His omnipotence, I think it was Aquinas:

G-d is so powerful He can create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot lift it, or He is unable to create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot lift it. Either way, there is something that He cannot do and therefore it logically proves no omnipotent G-d can ever exist.

That was 6 years ago and it is pretty much the only thing I remember from that class except for the professor, his name was Richard Gale and he was some foul mouthed New Yorker who used to swear in class, it was great.
 
[quote name='t0llenz'] Many Christians, myself included, like to point to the poetry that is John 3:16. But look closer at the verse and the surrounding context of that Gospel --Christ did not come to condemn all mankind or the non-believers, he came to save them all. He brought light into the world so that all who believe in Him are saved and all that follow his light, even if they don't understand why, can be saved as well.

I'm sure I just opened up a terrible can of worms doing this, but I'm merely trying to point out that my view on salvation through Chist is no indefensible, even by Biblical standards.[/quote]The sins of the whole world have no doubt been forgiven. But those who reject Christ reject that forgiveness. Consider Jesus words, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
 
As I mentioned before, I never said rejected Christ -- what I discussed were those who were never granted exposure to Christ. Those who have never known God's love or never heard His word, I don't believe to be insta-condemned to Hell. That's what I was getting at with my post and my comments.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']As I mentioned before, I never said rejected Christ -- what I discussed were those who were never granted exposure to Christ. Those who have never known God's love or never heard His word, I don't believe to be insta-condemned to Hell. That's what I was getting at with my post and my comments.[/quote]And yet living without faith in Christ is rejecting Christ. God makes no exceptions. Those without faith in Christ ("whoever does not believe") are condemned.
 
How many religions are there in the world? Hundreds or possibly thousands right? And that edict (accept Jesus or be condemned) is THE ONLY right one?

So all these religious people who lead virtous lives and are good moral people who help others and are just generally good and righteous people will be condemned? Sounds fishy to me, I just don't know how there can be only one "right" religion. If G-d is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, then how can He condemn the righteous?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']How many religions are there in the world? Hundreds or possibly thousands right? And that edict (accept Jesus or be condemned) is THE ONLY right one?

So all these religious people who lead virtous lives and are good moral people who help others and are just generally good and righteous people will be condemned? Sounds fishy to me, I just don't know how there can be only one "right" religion. If G-d is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, then how can He condemn the righteous?[/quote]Yes. Kinda makes you wonder about all those people claiming that Jesus taught us religious and moral tollerance, doesn't it?
 
[quote name='daroga']Yes. Kinda makes you wonder about all those people claiming that Jesus taught us religious and moral tollerance, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned before, I disagree with that sentiment. BUT, I think there are more Christians out there who agree with you, (my wife included), than with me.

Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it according to all accounts in the Bible. How would it be that a God who supports such salvation and forgiveness would put people on Earth specifically just to die and be condemned by never hearing and thereby, by your definition, rejecting His word? I can't accept that this is the case. It doesn't even match what Jesus taught, loving your neighbor as you love yourself and forgiveness.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']As I mentioned before, I disagree with that sentiment. BUT, I think there are more Christians out there who agree with you, (my wife included), than with me.

Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it according to all accounts in the Bible. How would it be that a God who supports such salvation and forgiveness would put people on Earth specifically just to die and be condemned by never hearing and thereby, by your definition, rejecting His word? I can't accept that this is the case. It doesn't even match what Jesus taught, loving your neighbor as you love yourself and forgiveness.[/quote]Now you're on really dangerous turf here. You're blaming God for people's condemnation which is wholly false. Remember, the injustice is not that some people go to hell. The injustice is that some people go to heaven. Justice is that we be damned for our sins. Injustice is that Jesus suffered for our sins.

If what you claim is true, then the whole of Jesus' commands to his disciples makes no sense. If only active rejection of Christ damned and ignorance = heaven. So if what you say is true, then Jesus' command to the disciples would've been "Go, and keep this under your hats." Because it would've been far better for no one to know about it and thus get into heaven through ignorance than to have the opportunity to actively reject the message.

But Jesus commanded his disciples to go and teach the world everything he had commanded, the whole message of the gospel. Why? Because he wants people to be saved, he wants people to benefit from his sacrifice. The only way anyone benefits from that is to have faith in Jesus as Savior from sin. That's why Jesus sent them out with the message and that's why we continue reach out to those who do not know. Shame on us if we let people be condemned to hell because we in an idle, complacent, apathetic state let them live on in their ignorance.
 
I never blamed God for the condemnation of others, I don't think they're condemned (see the difference).

Why would Jesus tell his disciples to keep it under their hats? If you just discovered that all mankind can be saved and granted access into heaven, wouldn't you want to go tell everyone about it? Especially since Christ basically told you how to live your life so that acceptance into Heaven is all but assured. Also, I never said that all who are ignorant are instantly accepted into Hell. My understanding, and my view on this, is that those who were ignorant to God's word will be judged not on their faith, for those people never had the opportunity, but on the content of their hearts/souls.

Also, realize this -- there are many non-members of any Christian denomination who live their life in a Christ-like fashion...and I do not believe that these good people are condemned merely for never hearing his word and I'm certain that we're not going to change each others mind on this :p
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Why would Jesus tell his disciples to keep it under their hats? If you just discovered that all mankind can be saved and granted access into heaven, wouldn't you want to go tell everyone about it? Especially since Christ basically told you how to live your life so that acceptance into Heaven is all but assured. Also, I never said that all who are ignorant are instantly accepted into Hell. My understanding, and my view on this, is that those who were ignorant to God's word will be judged not on their faith, for those people never had the opportunity, but on the content of their hearts/souls. [/quote]Could you point me to something in the Bible that says any of this? That's gotta be our source for these teachings, not whatever whims and philosophies we may come with on our own.
 
I point you to my previous post...but, I doubt you'll get the same views out of the Bible verses I post that I find. People interpret the word of God differently...it happens, that's what leads to the multitude of variety within all those that follow Christ.

I also am perhaps one of the few who finds Biblical reasons to not condemn same-sex marriage (points to his own blog), so...perhaps I'm the odd man out here...but this is how I understand my own personal relationship with my God and my Savior...yours can and should be different.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']but this is how I understand my own personal relationship with my God and my Savior...yours can and should be different.[/quote]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "People's observations of their faith are as varied and as unique as people themselves."

Regarding your and daroga's earlier posts, injecting reason and logic into faith is like trying to fit the triangle into the circle slot, they simply don't fit.
 
Well this got pretty active in my absence.

Well with this talk of Biblical support for various things, do you only accept Biblical canon for support or do Christian writings outside of the Bible have any authority? And what if there are contradictions?
 
I look to the Bible first and my own understanding of it first. I look to other Christian writings as sources to find other interpretations and ideas of the Bible. I know the Bible itself is not a perfect rendition of the word of God, especially considering how many times its been translated and retranslated, but the core tenants and aspects of faith are still there and I can take a lot of this at face value. I accept the concept of the great flood, though I don't think Noah was the only one saved. There are flood stories from all the major cultures of the world -- how do so many people who had no contact with one another come up with such a similar concept without it having some basis in reality? But, I digress...
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well this got pretty active in my absence.

Well with this talk of Biblical support for various things, do you only accept Biblical canon for support or do Christian writings outside of the Bible have any authority? And what if there are contradictions?[/quote]The Bible is the sole and inerrant (that one burns a little for many I'm sure ;) ) source of our faith. Other religious writings can and very often are helpful in expounding on things, but if and when they contradict the Bible, the Bible wins as it is God-breathed.

You'll find different views on this, however. What I've just described is the Lutheran stance of sola Scriptura ("by Scripture alone"). The Roman church takes great offense at this and says the the rulings of councils and words of popes hold equal authority as the Bible. Many other branches of Christendom hold reason over and against Scripture, so you'll find them rejecting things dealing with Baptism or the Lord's Supper because they don't make any sense despite being what the clear language of the Bible says. Reason is useful to a Christian, but in-so-far-as it is a slave to God's Word. Once reason contradicts the words of God, it is ignored. Some things don't make sense; they are believed by faith.

and t0llenz, I hope that you understand that what we were talking about was not just a different understanding or interpretation of Scripture. What you were stating clearly contradict God's Word and puts a dangerous tug on the tavesetry of God's Word that can unravel it all. The message of the Bible is clear: All are sinful from conception, sin is punished with hell. Those without faith in Christ have only sin in their hearts and will receive the punishment due them. Those who trust in Christ solely forgiveness are indeed forgiven. There is no gray area here.
 
[quote name='daroga']The Bible is the sole and inerrant (that one burns a little for many I'm sure ;) ) source of our faith. Other religious writings can and very often are helpful in expounding on things, but if and when they contradict the Bible, the Bible wins as it is God-breathed.

You'll find different views on this, however. What I've just described is the Lutheran stance of sola Scriptura ("by Scripture alone"). The Roman church takes great offense at this and says the the rulings of councils and words of popes hold equal authority as the Bible. Many other branches of Christendom hold reason over and against Scripture, so you'll find them rejecting things dealing with Baptism or the Lord's Supper because they don't make any sense despite being what the clear language of the Bible says. Reason is useful to a Christian, but in-so-far-as it is a slave to God's Word. Once reason contradicts the words of God, it is ignored. Some things don't make sense; they are believed by faith.[/quote]

What about odd things, for example, Jesus riding two asses into Jerusalem in Matthew. Is that just ignored because it doesn't really matter or considered an error on the writer of Matthew's part?
 
[quote name='SpazX']What about odd things, for example, Jesus riding two asses into Jerusalem in Matthew. Is that just ignored because it doesn't really matter or considered an error on the writer of Matthew's part?[/quote]In that case, I'd say it's Matthew that has the more complete account. Jesus was going to ride into Jerusalem on a young donkey that had never been ridden. Matthew fills us in on the details that he saw fit not to separate the young animal from its mother so had them both brought for the task. The other Gospel accounts that leave out this detail aren't wrong, they just opted to record fewer details in this case.

EDIT: edited for clarity.
 
[quote name='daroga']In that case, I'd say it's Matthew that has the more complete account. Jesus was going to ride into Jerusalem on a young donkey that had never been ridden. Matthew fills us in on the details that he saw fit not to separate the young animal from its mother so had them both brought for the task. The other Gospel accounts that leave out this detail aren't wrong, they just opted to record fewer details in this case.

EDIT: edited for clarity.[/quote]

So Mark's account being written before Matthew and agreeing with Luke doesn't lend it anymore credence in your view?

From reading Matthew it would seem more like the writer was just trying to show a fulfilled prophecy as he did throughout his writing and so he added a little detail he thought was necessary. Zechariah doesn't even seem to require two animals so it could've worked regardless, it looks like the writer of Matthew misread it or for some other reason thought it made sense with both animals.

That's not a possibility to you?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So Mark's account being written before Matthew and agreeing with Luke doesn't lend it anymore credence in your view?

From reading Matthew it would seem more like the writer was just trying to show a fulfilled prophecy as he did throughout his writing and so he added a little detail he thought was necessary. Zechariah doesn't even seem to require two animals so it could've worked regardless, it looks like the writer of Matthew misread it or for some other reason thought it made sense with both animals.

That's not a possibility to you?[/quote]Mark is probably the latest of the synoptics, written after the time of Peter's martyrdom, so no, that doesn't have a whole lot of credence.

If you mean adding a detail to make the fulfilled prophecy more clear, then sure. Matthew's goal in writing to a primarily Jewish audience is to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Thus he would clearly be more apt to include smaller details to make his point that others, for their purposes audiences, would've deemed unnecessary.

If you mean adding a detail as in fabricating to make it forcibly fall in line with Zechariah when the events didn't happen that way, then no, I would not consider that a possibility.
 
[quote name='daroga']Mark is probably the latest of the synoptics, written after the time of Peter's martyrdom, so no, that doesn't have a whole lot of credence.

If you mean adding a detail to make the fulfilled prophecy more clear, then sure. Matthew's goal in writing to a primarily Jewish audience is to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Thus he would clearly be more apt to include smaller details to make his point that others, for their purposes audiences, would've deemed unnecessary.

If you mean adding a detail as in fabricating to make it forcibly fall in line with Zechariah when the events didn't happen that way, then no, I would not consider that a possibility.[/quote]

So you're going with Matthew->Luke->Mark then?

And so you think Zechariah reads as two animals and not one?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So you're going with Matthew->Luke->Mark then?

And so you think Zechariah reads as two animals and not one?[/quote]Mmm, I'd have to check some notes on the approximate dating the gospels, but that sounds about right. Possibly Luke before then because he like wrote that before Paul was imprisoned in Rome. I'll do some checking into that as I don't have a full-fledged command of those fact at the tip of my fingers.

And no, I don't think Zechariah demands 2 animals. "On a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey" is just normal Hebrew poetic parallelism where the first cola expands upon the one before it. I think Matthew's emphasizing that this was indeed a foal, so much so that Jesus sought not to separate mother and baby.
 
Which of the Gospel resurrection stories to I consider the most accurate? As I've stated before on the Bible -- they're translations of translations -- so I think it would be somewhere between them all that we find the most truth.

John is the most flowery languaged one meant to invoke a sense of poetry, and also the latest to be written. It wasn't written with accuracy of exactly when events happened, but instead how they were felt by the people involved. Mark was written the earliest by a follower of Paul and is a bit shorter than the others. It was written based on the notes of his master and was a more bare bones Gospel, just keeping with the way he understood the story of Christ. Luke, who also wrote Acts, wrote in a more literary style in order to make the story of Christ's life, death, and resurrection more accessible to people. Matthew? His was written for a non-Jewish community, so its worded a bit differently and at times, is a little harsher on the Jews. So, in all of them one finds truth -- but in the end, I think the exact story is not able to be describe by each of them individually...but by all of them.
 
Bit 1: I'm not seeing a contradiction here. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (and Salome per Mark's account). They found no one in the tomb and ran to tell Peter and John. They came back, saw the empty tomb and went back home (per John). Then the women see the angels, and in the midst of that discussion, Mary and the "gardener" talk. The other women receive the message from the angel and scamper off to tell the disciples while Jesus reveals his identity to Mary Mag. who then finds the disicples and can then confirm the angels' message with proof, "I have seen the Lord!" The Gospels are in harmony on this unless I'm missing something.

Bit 2: Matthew doesn't say they didn't see him in Galilee or that this was their first time seeing him (though some were still doubtful as to what happened--Luke records in the intro to Acts that at the ascension some of the disciples still didn't get it as they were still waiting for the Messiah to restore physical Israel. It won't be until Pentecost that we really see everything "click" for all of them). Galilee was the "main event" so to speak where Jesus would ascend and commission the disciples to go into the world with his message. There were certainly auxiliary
appearances in Jerusalem, on the road to Emmaus, etc.

Once again, I don't see any contradictions here. But good questions :) It is a little bit difficult to piece the events of those days together when you have different men recording different pieces of the story.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Matthew? His was written for a non-Jewish community, so its worded a bit differently and at times, is a little harsher on the Jews. [/quote]This may be nit-picky, but this statement is pretty false. Matthew was writing for the JEWS. His emphasis on showing the connection between Jesus and the OT prophecies bear that out. His Greek style is much more akin to Hebrew / Aramaic than the other Gospel writers. Some ideas have been thrown around that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew and then translated it into Greek for Jews not in Palestine. However, I've never seen any actual evidence for that; the only manuscripts we have are Greek ones. I think it's far more likely it was just the Greek style of man for whom Hebrew styling left a great mark on his literary structure.
 
Thanks for that, daroga. I was bringing all of my stuff on memory from the last time I took a course on historical Biblical studies, so it's been a while.

Also, where does it specifically outline that all are born of sin? I can't find a Bible passage that specifically states that.

I also don't see the contradiction or danger in the idea that Christ came to wash away the sins of all mankind, including those who did not know His word. Sin is still sin and weighs heavy on the heart and those who don't know Christ will not necessarily understand or know about forgiveness, but my faith lies in a forgiving God who's son washed away the sins of all of man -- not specific men. I don't find it to be contradictory to Christian faith and I don't think it makes me less of a Christian for having this viewpoint.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Thanks for that, daroga. I was bringing all of my stuff on memory from the last time I took a course on historical Biblical studies, so it's been a while.

Also, where does it specifically outline that all are born of sin? I can't find a Bible passage that specifically states that.[/quote]Not a problem! Goodness knows I know well how a little bit of time inbetween a class and attempting to remember the facts can cloud that recall. :)

For the passage, the most famous and appropriate passage would be David's words in Psalm 51, "Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
 
I took an entire course on monotheistic religions when I was a Freshman in undergrad...that was...2002, the second half of my freshman year. Since then, it's been merely personal Bible studies or discussions at church. It's been more than a little bit of time since that class...

Eh, I don't take the Psalm of David after he admitted to committing adultery as a definitive take that God called us as sinful from birth. David was accepting fault and groveling before his Lord to state that he was a weak man who gave in to sin. In such a prayer, I'm sure most of us would come out stating something very similar. I was looking more for a commandment or comment from God, Jesus, or a prophet stating that man was born into sin as opposed to in the middle of a prayer of forgiveness.

I love the Psalms, but I know that they're really a collection of the prayers of King David. His prayers and his views on life and how he acted are not necessarily specifically thoes of God. These weren't forms of revelations from God...but how he prayed and we all pray differently and, again, have a different relationship with our God. Man is falable and each person's relationship won't be perfect for someone else...but if it's genuine, it will be perfect for them.

It's been great discussing this with you -- it's good to see someone have such passion in their faith. It's hard to find others, like myself, who are passionate...and faithful. The most passionate people I've found tend to be atheists after coming out of Grad school...and it's hard to debate with someone who won't listen, as they didn't listen to me. This is not to say that all atheists are closed-minded...just the ones I happened to know :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top