Are my spirtual beliefs wrong?

I could buy reincarnation in the sense that as bio-matter we'd break down into usable components by nature. Meaning that our bodies would in a sense become a part of other living things, but as far as our conciseness being moved into another body, hell no.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I haven't seen the movie. While I'd say we are all "stardust" (everything is), maybe you can explain the reincarnation aspect of it.

Reincarnation doesn't make sense to me because regardless of the fact that everything is made of the same matter and energy, who we are as an individual is due to the particular structure of our brains caused by both genetic and environmental factors. There's nothing that you could transfer from that into another brain. In order to make another person that was the same (and therefore transfer their mind/thoughts/feelings/whatever to another person/thing) would be to make an exact copy of them.

And another thing I just thought of - Who we are is constantly changing and so you could only make a copy of a person at a certain time, past that their different experiences would make them different people.[/quote]

I highly recommend "Sunshine" for the visual aspect (the spaceship is pretty cool too). As for the reincarnation aspect - it wasn't the typical hit-you-over-the-head Hollywood.
As the crew gets closer to the sun some of the members become captivated with it's beauty, it's warmth, it's essence - the sun takes on an almost mythic or divine role in the film (kind of like the island in Lost, but more subtle). The psychologist (who presumably is most in harmony with his humanity) is the first to start longing for the sun's embrace, however in the end even the physicist welcomes the opportunity to become part of a star.
 
[quote name='daroga']What are you personal beliefs (anyone, not just Crotch or Spaz) about death? Afterlife of any sort? Dead and gone? Reincarnation?[/quote]

my theory is that we are born, we live, and we die.
there is no afterlife, and there is no soul.
heaven and hell cant be places, its just impossible.
hell isnt some fiery cave populated by demons with whips.
why do we picture it to be so horrible?
even if it was, we would be dead anyway, so we wouldnt be able to feel the flames or the whips. our bodies stay on earthafter we die.
and furthermore, our brains would be dead too, so there would be no moment of revalation. we couldnt just die and say, "oohhh. so this is what death is like..."

no.

heaven and hell are imaginary "places" invented by man
to make us feel better about dying, and to keep some of us from giong crazy.
religion is a necessary thing; without it there would be chaos.
its not for me though.
i jusst cant make myself believe in something that is so farfetched, and doesnt even have any solid proof to back it up.

reincarnation? nah.
 
[quote name='tlsar']my theory is that we are born, we live, and we die.
there is no afterlife, and there is no soul.
heaven and hell cant be places, its just impossible.
hell isnt some fiery cave populated by demons with whips.
why do we picture it to be so horrible?
even if it was, we would be dead anyway, so we wouldnt be able to feel the flames or the whips. our bodies stay on earthafter we die.
and furthermore, our brains would be dead too, so there would be no moment of revalation. we couldnt just die and say, "oohhh. so this is what death is like..."

no.

heaven and hell are imaginary "places" invented by man
to make us feel better about dying, and to keep some of us from giong crazy.
religion is a necessary thing; without it there would be chaos.
its not for me though.
i jusst cant make myself believe in something that is so farfetched, and doesnt even have any solid proof to back it up.

reincarnation? nah.[/quote]



I don't think thats true at all. It insinuates that ones moral authority derives from religion. I never grew up in a religious enviroment nor am I a believer in any religion but I tend to think I have very strong morals. The whole notion that we get our sense of right and wrong from religion is just ridiculous to me. Imagine in early man times. A man kills another man. The tribe would look down on the killer as he has just removed a person that would have helped in the hunt and the protection of their group.
 
Dilemma.

I don't really believe in a traditional God. On occasion I think about this and usually come to a point where I think I should grab any belief system to A. Reap the possible benefits if there happens to be an afterlife, and B. To avoid a fiery fate, again, assuming there is an afterlife.

However, both of those reasons seem to be out of the spirit of what I think organized religion is typically or should be about. Maybe fear is what religion is based on, it certainly most motivate more than a few people. God fearing is the term I believe...

So, do I continue on my path which could either lead to nothing.. ie. 0, or hell.. ie. -1. Or, do I adopt a religion based on fear that could either lead to 0, +1, or -1.

I think giving up a little extra time might be worth it to add that +1 to my chances, it still a 1/3 possibility, but I dunno, feel like I should play it safe.

And yea, this is more than a minor nod to Pascal.
 
That is indeed Pascal's infamous wager. Once again, I must link to this site for a damn fine examination of the wager.

Why do I keep linking there? Because it's easier, that's why.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']That is indeed Pascal's infamous wager. Once again, I must link to this site for a damn fine examination of the wager.

Why do I keep linking there? Because it's easier, that's why.[/quote]

Reminds me of that scene in "The Mummy" where the mummy is about to kill Beni. Beni pulls out a chain with every religious icon and starts displaying them in an attempt to ward off the mummy :lol:

On the other hand, whenever I watch ghost movies I have to shake my head because just knowing a few banishing rituals could have helped the actors out. It's just supernatural insurance...
 
An interesting read, of course, on the wager, but nothing you couldn't figure out for yourself. Which is why my terms are a little different.

Rather than the 1/2 odds proposed by Pascal, I have a more realistic 1/3, a third option that choosing to adopt a religion still ends up in damnation.

The trade off could be very minimal depending on which religion, though it is comforting to know that even theists have to deal with that worry in the back of their minds, "Did I pick the right one?"

I also thought this was kinda funny:
"A sincere atheist does not disbelieve because he doesn't see what's in it for him - a sincere atheist disbelieves because an honest consideration of the evidence has led him to that conclusion."

As if theres some sort of higher degree of atheism? Lol. Last I checked the only requirement was lack of belief in a god.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Rather than the 1/2 odds proposed by Pascal, I have a more realistic 1/3, a third option that choosing to adopt a religion still ends up in damnation.[/quote]1/3? The choice of religion is limited only by imagination. That's more like 1/∞. And even then, there's the bit about a god who desires people do not believe in it.

[quote name='crystalklear64'] I also thought this was kinda funny:
"A sincere atheist does not disbelieve because he doesn't see what's in it for him - a sincere atheist disbelieves because an honest consideration of the evidence has led him to that conclusion."

As if theres some sort of higher degree of atheism? Lol. Last I checked the only requirement was lack of belief in a god.[/quote]The key word in all of that is sincere, I think.
 
[quote name='homeland']I don't think thats true at all. It insinuates that ones moral authority derives from religion. I never grew up in a religious enviroment nor am I a believer in any religion but I tend to think I have very strong morals. The whole notion that we get our sense of right and wrong from religion is just ridiculous to me. Imagine in early man times. A man kills another man. The tribe would look down on the killer as he has just removed a person that would have helped in the hunt and the protection of their group.[/quote]

thats not necessarily what i mean...
reading it over again i can see i worded it wrong.
ill give you an example.
my dad is an extremely religious man.
i was talking to him one day about religion and stuff and this topic came up.
he was saying that god is what makes him get up in the morning,
and that without god in his life he would probably be an alcoholic.

people need something to believe in. it makes them feel better.
it makes them want to be a better person, so that the day they die, they can go to heaven and be with god for eternity.
im not on of these people.
at least not now.
maybe some time in the future ill be scared of dying and start going to church. but its like what crystalklear was saying about picking the right religion. theres so many, how can we just pick one and hope that its the right one?

i have morals too, as most of us here probably do, but i didnt get them from anything involved with religion. they slowly developed through my life and are just basically what i personally believe to be right and wrong.
 
[quote name='daroga']You've hit at an interesting point in the above-quoted paragraph though. The concept of God punishing me because I was born in a Muslim family/country/etc. God doesn't punish for your family line, but he punishes sin. Of course, certain life situations may make us think, "That's not fair!"

The concept of "just" in these matters always seems to be "what's good for me." In other words, someone going to hell is "unfair" or an "injustice" when the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. The justice is a sinner like you or me being punished forever in hell. The injustice is that Jesus suffered for those sins and by God's grace and through faith we get to go to heaven.[/QUOTE]

See, this is where it all falls apart for me. Even if I could somehow get past my need to base my actions on observable phenomena, I'm just not interested in signing up for anything that works like this. Christ Himself could descend from on high and appear to me amidst an angelic chorus, but if he told me this was just how it had to be, I'd say "No thanks," go back to playing Zack & Wiki, and start prepping myself for eternity in Hell.

And this has nothing to do with what's good for me. Christ just mercifully offered me salvation though direct demonstration of his existence and power. If I've led a good life and accept him as my savior, I'm in like Flynn. But as someone who tries to lead the kind of "good" life that makes up half of that equation, I cannot in good conscience stand by any god who would damn good people simply for not believing in Him. If my conscience is broken or misaligned, that's the very apparatus that's supposed to lead me to him -- HE gave it to me.

So the whole system breaks down. Any god who does that cannot be good. Thus, he cannot be perfect. Thus, he cannot be all-powerful. Thus, he isn't god. Then do I really even have to worry about Hell after all?
 
But you've made the false presupposition that someone, anyone is "good" by nature. All people are evil, wicked sinners. There may be fits of apparent goodness, some glimmers of civic righteousness from where people don't completely squelch their God-given consciences, but sin still oozes from every corner of a person's being.

And that's the reason it works like it does. Everyone needs God's forgiveness in Christ to right that relationship between themselves and God. Without that, we are all sinners, spiritually dead (Ephesians 2). If what you said was right, and someone, anyone was good by nature, then I'd agree that them being damned would be wretched. But it's what we all deserve and would face if it wasn't for Jesus' love for us. In him we have the free and full forgiveness, the complete perfection that God demands. Without him, we're lost, eternal enemies of God.
 
[quote name='daroga']But you've made the false presupposition that someone, anyone is "good" by nature.[/quote]

... like most Christians have with Jesus?

Sorry but the idea of a perfect god fully encapsulated in the corporeal form of a human doesn't make sense to me. Christian pantheism (such as God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) would make more sense but it's still a fairly strange concept IMO.

I still think Jesus was a misunderstood gnostic.
 
[quote name='camoor']... like most Christians have with Jesus?[/quote]Thus the importance of understanding Christology. Jesus is God and man. Sin is not an essential part of being human (otherwise, Adam and Eve wouldn't have been human when they were created), but it is something passed down from two sinful parents to their children. Jesus' miraculous conception make his situation a whole different ball game. I was speaking in terms of "everyone except Jesus." I should've spelled that out. Sorry for the confusion.

[quote name='camoor'] Sorry but the idea of a perfect god fully encapsulated in the corporeal form of a human doesn't make sense to me. Christian pantheism (such as God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) would make more sense but it's still a fairly strange concept IMO.[/quote]Yeah, it doesn't make sense. That's why it's an article of faith. Could you flesh out the concept of a "Christian pantheism"? Those are two terms I'm not sure I've heard used together before.

[quote name='camoor'] I still think Jesus was a misunderstood gnostic.[/quote]Why do you think that?
 
[quote name='daroga']But you've made the false presupposition that someone, anyone is "good" by nature. All people are evil, wicked sinners. There may be fits of apparent goodness, some glimmers of civic righteousness from where people don't completely squelch their God-given consciences, but sin still oozes from every corner of a person's being.

And that's the reason it works like it does. Everyone needs God's forgiveness in Christ to right that relationship between themselves and God. Without that, we are all sinners, spiritually dead (Ephesians 2). If what you said was right, and someone, anyone was good by nature, then I'd agree that them being damned would be wretched. But it's what we all deserve and would face if it wasn't for Jesus' love for us. In him we have the free and full forgiveness, the complete perfection that God demands. Without him, we're lost, eternal enemies of God.[/quote]

Like trq, this is another point that I can't and won't get on with the religion. There are Christians who don't interpret things quite that way, though, so it would be possible to be Christian and not believe in the whole "everyone is evil by nature" thing although it does require a different take on the Jesus thing too.

What I don't get with the "original sin" concept is that the Jews certainly didn't interpret things that way, and they wrote it. So why are they wrong and you right?

Honestly, from reading Genesis I can't really even see how original sin is interpreted out of that. I mean, I get it, Romans, Corinthians, Paul, whatever. What I'm saying is that those are all Christian writings in the 1st century. Why is it that Christians should be considered to have a better interpretation of centuries-old Jewish writings than Jews themselves?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Honestly, from reading Genesis I can't really even see how original sin is interpreted out of that. I mean, I get it, Romans, Corinthians, Paul, whatever. What I'm saying is that those are all Christian writings in the 1st century. Why is it that Christians should be considered to have a better interpretation of centuries-old Jewish writings than Jews themselves?[/quote]The Old Testament has plenty of references to Original sin and the effects thereof. Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, etc. There's others that I'm not pulling off the top of my head, but...

Setting up a false dichotomy or hierarchy of Scriptures will result in simple confusion. We don't say that the Old Testament always wins because it's older nor that the New always wins because it's... newer? Scripture interprets itself. Very often the New Testament will expound upon and explain things only hinted at in the Old, etc. From Genesis to Revelation, each book stands on equal authority and requires the others around it for support.

Christianity is the fulfillment of Judiasm. All the promises God made to his Old Testament people find their being-kept in Christ. Thus, it's not Jews vs. Christians in terms of Scriptures, but the whole Bible working together as a whole. Simply because Judaism missed things in a dogmatic sense doesn't mean they aren't true nor does it mean that they weren't their in their Scriptures. David had a pretty clear understanding of the state of man before God even from before birth, so I guess I'm not willing to say the Judaism had no concept of original sin and it was an invention of the Apostle Paul. In fact, I'd say that's flat-out false.
 
[quote name='daroga']The Old Testament has plenty of references to Original sin and the effects thereof. Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, etc. There's others that I'm not pulling off the top of my head, but...

Setting up a false dichotomy or hierarchy of Scriptures will result in simple confusion. We don't say that the Old Testament always wins because it's older nor that the New always wins because it's... newer? Scripture interprets itself. Very often the New Testament will expound upon and explain things only hinted at in the Old, etc. From Genesis to Revelation, each book stands on equal authority and requires the others around it for support.

Christianity is the fulfillment of Judiasm. All the promises God made to his Old Testament people find their being-kept in Christ. Thus, it's not Jews vs. Christians in terms of Scriptures, but the whole Bible working together as a whole. Simply because Judaism missed things in a dogmatic sense doesn't mean they aren't true nor does it mean that they weren't their in their Scriptures. David had a pretty clear understanding of the state of man before God even from before birth, so I guess I'm not willing to say the Judaism had no concept of original sin and it was an invention of the Apostle Paul. In fact, I'd say that's flat-out false.[/quote]

There certainly are plenty of passages about man being evil, etc. and obviously there was the flood story and other stories of people being evil, but there are also plenty of stories of people being good and God acknowledging that as a legitimate thing. If man was evil and always evil then what was the point of saving Noah and his family in the first place? It simply was not part of Jewish theology that man is irredeemably evil by nature and requires saving by somebody else not to suffer an eternity of torment. Jewish theology treats people as knowing both good and evil and being capable of being good in the eyes of God. By your interpretation humans are evil by nature and incapable of coming anywhere near good enough for God and so they require an intermediary in the form of Jesus.

Judaism wasn't really focused on an afterlife in the first place, so an original sin doesn't really make any sense in that context. Original sin only makes any sense in a Christian context that focuses on the afterlife and the only gateway to the good afterlife being faith in Jesus. Otherwise you have the interpretation that man is capable of evil, but is also capable of good.
 
When people are viewed as "good" in the Old Testament it's the same way they're viewed as good in the New Testament--by faith. Abraham is the crown-jewel example here, "Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him as righteousness." Without faith, everything we do, even the seemingly good things are nothing more than "filthy rags" as Isaiah said. But through faith, by Christ's setting us free from sin (or in the OT people's point of view, the Messiah who would come to set them free from sin), then and only then are we able to do anything good.

I'm not sure where you're pulling the "Judaism wasn't concerned with the afterlife" concept. There were certainly aberrations of Judaism who would reject such things (see the Sadducees at the time of Christ), but Jews who respected their Scripture had the utmost concern for both body and soul. The theology of the Old and New Testaments is the same: death through sin; life through the Messiah. The Old Testament simple speaks in shadows and prophecies of what God would do; the New Testament speaks about the events themselves as they had already took place.
 
[quote name='daroga']When people are viewed as "good" in the Old Testament it's the same way they're viewed as good in the New Testament--by faith. Abraham is the crown-jewel example here, "Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him as righteousness." Without faith, everything we do, even the seemingly good things are nothing more than "filthy rags" as Isaiah said. But through faith, by Christ's setting us free from sin (or in the OT people's point of view, the Messiah who would come to set them free from sin), then and only then are we able to do anything good.

I'm not sure where you're pulling the "Judaism wasn't concerned with the afterlife" concept. There were certainly aberrations of Judaism who would reject such things (see the Sadducees at the time of Christ), but Jews who respected their Scripture had the utmost concern for both body and soul. The theology of the Old and New Testaments is the same: death through sin; life through the Messiah. The Old Testament simple speaks in shadows and prophecies of what God would do; the New Testament speaks about the events themselves as they had already took place.[/quote]

But the Sadducees, like you said, were during the time of Christ, and their difference was with a Hellenistic Judaism. By that time Judaism had changed a lot (as all things do). I'm talking about old-ass Judaism before all that. Maybe it's unfair to say that Judaism was or was not concerned with the afterlife because of all the changes that happen over time, so it's impossible to say many things held over that entire timespan of the existence of Judaism and there have always been differences between Jews/Hebrews from the beginning of the religion (some of which are apparent in the text itself), so I'll try to say something a bit more accurate.

Early Judaism was not that concerned with the afterlife. Every reward and punishment from God is in this life, not another one. Most of the focus of Judaism even now is on this life, not another one and there isn't really much description of what the afterlife would be. There have been various beliefs about an afterlife and many Jews believe in an afterlife now and many have for a long time, but what I'm saying is that their main concern, their focus, is not on the afterlife, but this life.

From your perspective as a Christian I know you interpret the Messiah as coming and saving people from their sins for the afterlife and from my perspective it seems like they thought the Messiah would come to defeat the enemies of the Jews so they could have peace in this life.

I imagine most of this is a difference of interpretation.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I imagine most of this is a difference of interpretation.[/quote]In a sense, that's true. That doesn't mean that everyone's right and happy though. Maybe you didn't intend this, but too often I've seen the "difference in interpretation" to convey our post-modern ideals of "everyone is equally right" or perhaps "everyone is equally wrong so shut up about it." In this case, as in many case of biblical interpretation, one is right, one is wrong. I'll hit that horse carcass once more: use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

The Jews happened to be notoriously navel-gazing, and it's no wonder that even by Jesus' time their view of the Messiah was a political savior who would set them free from Rome. The Jews viewed themselves as being set apart as God's chosen people, and they were. But that was a means, not an end, despite many Jews getting that wrong.

But the Jews' purpose in being set apart was to bring forth that spiritual Savior for the whole world. This is the way Abraham would be a blessing to all nations, not just the Jews. Isaiah's prophecy clearly has God saying that it's too small of a thing to simply bring back the Jews to himself, but that the Servant of the Lord would bring back his people from all nations. If the Messiah was only a political savior for Israel, none of this would make any sense.

Even from the get-go, Adam and Eve recognize that what they did had eternal ramifications, but they were certain that God would follow through on his promise to send the Savior. Adam named his wife Eve because she would be the mother of all the living--a striking statement of faith despite the death they had just brought into the world. Adam knew that they had brought not only physical death on themselves, but spiritual death as well. They wouldn't avoid the physical death, but by faith Eve would be the mother of those that would live because they had a life to live beyond the mortal fold.

In the end, the lack of focus on the afterlife is a later corruption to portions of Judaism, not a foundational brick in their history.
 
[quote name='daroga']In a sense, that's true. That doesn't mean that everyone's right and happy though. Maybe you didn't intend this, but too often I've seen the "difference in interpretation" to convey our post-modern ideals of "everyone is equally right" or perhaps "everyone is equally wrong so shut up about it." In this case, as in many case of biblical interpretation, one is right, one is wrong. I'll hit that horse carcass once more: use the Bible to interpret the Bible.[/quote]

Well I would certainly say that everyone can be wrong, but of course everyone can't be right as things conflict. But, with that, I'd have to say that it's impossible to know which interpretation is right.

I wouldn't say that your interpretations don't have a Biblical basis, they certainly do, and you're as entitled to your interpretation as I am (though one or both of us could be wrong), but I think that it is also important to use historical context to interpret the Bible and you can't really separate their spiritual thoughts from their everyday concerns and how one might affect the other.

Obviously you think that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, a belief that I can't share, so from that I imagine you wouldn't say that the historical context during the writings was important (since their writings weren't really their thoughts, but rather the thoughts of God going through them, no?).

So for the most part we'll probably have to agree to disagree :p.
 
Oh, no, historical background to the books of the Bible is very important. Without the history behind the books, you've just sorta got these nebulous books floating around with no context which isn't going to help you in the least.

Each book was written with a specific purpose (which can vary greatly by book), and likewise to a specific audience generally. That historical context helps us establish a better handle on what was being said and why and how we apply those truths to our lives today. For instance, disregarding the historical context would be a way someone would ask why we don't follow the civil laws of the Old Testament if we "really believe the Bible." Understanding the history, purpose, and framework of those laws makes that blatantly clear.

I guess I'm not following exactly how the historical context of the books does or doesn't factor in to what we were talking about, but it's an important point nonetheless.
 
[quote name='daroga']Oh, no, historical background to the books of the Bible is very important. Without the history behind the books, you've just sorta got these nebulous books floating around with no context which isn't going to help you in the least.

Each book was written with a specific purpose (which can vary greatly by book), and likewise to a specific audience generally. That historical context helps us establish a better handle on what was being said and why and how we apply those truths to our lives today. For instance, disregarding the historical context would be a way someone would ask why we don't follow the civil laws of the Old Testament if we "really believe the Bible." Understanding the history, purpose, and framework of those laws makes that blatantly clear.

I guess I'm not following exactly how the historical context of the books does or doesn't factor in to what we were talking about, but it's an important point nonetheless.[/quote]

Well I mean more like the Babylonian captivity and Zoroastrian influence altered their beliefs, Greek thought altered their beliefs, etc. and you go from the original Jewish beliefs through time and there are various changes until you get to Jesus-following Jews and then Christians.

Historical context as in not the audience the book was written for (though also important), but the things that happened that actually shaped the beliefs they wrote down (which, if coming from God, would be impossible).
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I mean more like the Babylonian captivity and Zoroastrian influence altered their beliefs, Greek thought altered their beliefs, etc. and you go from the original Jewish beliefs through time and there are various changes until you get to Jesus-following Jews and then Christians.

Historical context as in not the audience the book was written for (though also important), but the things that happened that actually shaped the beliefs they wrote down (which, if coming from God, would be impossible).[/quote]Ah, gotchya. Brain's not firing on all cylinders this afternoon. Sorry about that.

It's an interesting study. You can see the Baal worship pre-exile all but destroying the core of the Jewish faith, and certainly

Christianity is a continuation/fulfillment of biblical Judaism, not of a deviating paths from that truth. Jesus is constantly ragging on Pharisee and Sadducee alike because they had both veered (in drastically different ways) apart from the truth. Even at his ascension, Jesus was faced with questions from his own disciples coming from a nationalistic understanding of the Messiah.

I think we might have been talking about two slightly different things. My point was that the Jewish Scriptures were focused on the afterlife. Yours, if I may try to summarize, was that in practice, many Jews weren't concerned with anything beyond the here and now. Is that accurate?
 
[quote name='daroga']Ah, gotchya. Brain's not firing on all cylinders this afternoon. Sorry about that.

It's an interesting study. You can see the Baal worship pre-exile all but destroying the core of the Jewish faith, and certainly

Christianity is a continuation/fulfillment of biblical Judaism, not of a deviating paths from that truth. Jesus is constantly ragging on Pharisee and Sadducee alike because they had both veered (in drastically different ways) apart from the truth. Even at his ascension, Jesus was faced with questions from his own disciples coming from a nationalistic understanding of the Messiah.

I think we might have been talking about two slightly different things. My point was that the Jewish Scriptures were focused on the afterlife. Yours, if I may try to summarize, was that in practice, many Jews weren't concerned with anything beyond the here and now. Is that accurate?[/quote]

Well I wouldn't say that Jesus and the later Christians are a fulfillment/continuation of Judaism, but yeah.

I am saying that in practice Jews aren't concerned with the afterlife, but Judaism is a practice-based religion moreso than Christianity anyway, so the practice is what counts. I think that a lot of their writings also weren't concerned with the afterlife. Some are, yes, but I think that the religion itself, the stories its based on, and the practice of it, are not that concerned with the afterlife, but rather with life.

Christanity - Main point - believe in Jesus
Judaism - Main point - be a good person

Something like that.
 
I can agree with that little main point summary there. That's of course a corruption of what Judaism was supposed to be, but yeah, it has degenerated into works-righteousness.
 
[quote name='daroga']But you've made the false presupposition that someone, anyone is "good" by nature. All people are evil, wicked sinners. There may be fits of apparent goodness, some glimmers of civic righteousness from where people don't completely squelch their God-given consciences, but sin still oozes from every corner of a person's being.[/QUOTE]

Well, I realize it doesn't necessarily change your ultimate point, but I don't assume anyone is good, evil, or anything in between by nature. I judge such things (as much as I'm inclined to do so at all) by the person's actions, which is really the core of my (admittedly basic) stance on this. As a non-omniscient mortal, that's all I can do. If I'm expected to do more (even if God is the ultimate judge of these other people I'm using in my example and I shouldn't worry about it, I still need come to Christ of my own free will) shouldn't my God-given conscience be leading me there?

You'll say, "But it should. It doesn't only because you don't know that this way IS fair, because of original sin." Okay. But that's a tautologically closed system. If I'm not a Christian who already believes in original sin, how is my heart supposed to lead me to something that looks like a monstrous injustice? It won't.
 
[quote name='trq']
You'll say, "But it should. It doesn't only because you don't know that this way IS fair, because of original sin." Okay. But that's a tautologically closed system. If I'm not a Christian who already believes in original sin, how is my heart supposed to lead me to something that looks like a monstrous injustice? It won't.[/QUOTE]
Thats when you block out reason, and have faith.
 
[quote name='daroga']Thus the importance of understanding Christology. Jesus is God and man. Sin is not an essential part of being human (otherwise, Adam and Eve wouldn't have been human when they were created), but it is something passed down from two sinful parents to their children. Jesus' miraculous conception make his situation a whole different ball game. I was speaking in terms of "everyone except Jesus." I should've spelled that out. Sorry for the confusion.[/quote]

I was wondering how you would answer that - you obviously know alot about your religion which is a refreshing change.

[quote name='daroga']Yeah, it doesn't make sense. That's why it's an article of faith. [/quote]

Yeah, the answer I get when I ask Jesus can be God is typically like this:

miracle_occurs.jpg


[quote name='daroga']Could you flesh out the concept of a "Christian pantheism"? Those are two terms I'm not sure I've heard used together before.[/quote]

Don't want to stray off-topic, but in my anecdotal experience most of the Christians I have talked to interpreted God's omnipresence to mean that God encompasses everything (Pantheism).

[quote name='daroga'] Why do you think that?[/quote]

First off, this is all IMHO.

Some men, indeed, realizing that THE ALL is indeed ALL, and also recognizing that they, the men, existed, have jumped to the conclusion that they and THE ALL were identical, and they have filled the air with shouts of "I AM GOD,' to the amusement of the multitude and the sorrow of sages.
- The Kybalion
Click to expand...

I often speculate that this is what Jesus meant. Jesus is depicted as a peace-loving, mellow man and hardly the God depicted in the Old Testament (unleashing plagues, testing faith with torture, commanding fathers to kill their beloved sons, etc). The only way I can reconcile the difference is by figuring that Jesus was misinterpreted or misquoted in his claim of divinity. Admittedly I don't know much about the Bible and I'll say right now that you can probably find some passages to refute this hypothesis. However the other side of the coin is that I can't help but think that St. Paul and Roman bureaucrats may have changed the New Testament to be more palatable to the common Roman, who liked thinking of his Gods as having a human face (indeed, even the original authorship of parts of the New Testament has been called into serious question).

I think Jesus experienced some revelation (going out into the desert alone with an open mind will do that). However if the Bible is a correct rendition, then IMHO he was confused in his interpretation of the revelation.
 
[quote name='camoor'] I often speculate that this is what Jesus meant. Jesus is depicted as a peace-loving, mellow man and hardly the God depicted in the Old Testament (unleashing plagues, testing faith with torture, commanding fathers to kill their beloved sons, etc). The only way I can reconcile the difference is by figuring that Jesus was misinterpreted or misquoted in his claim of divinity. Admittedly I don't know much about the Bible and I'll say right now that you can probably find some passages to refute this hypothesis. However the other side of the coin is that I can't help but think that St. Paul and Roman bureaucrats may have changed the New Testament to be more palatable to the common Roman, who liked thinking of his Gods as having a human face (indeed, even the original authorship of parts of the New Testament has been called into serious question).

I think Jesus experienced some revelation (going out into the desert alone with an open mind will do that). However if the Bible is a correct rendition, then IMHO he was confused in his interpretation of the revelation.[/quote]That's interesting. Thanks for spelling that out.

First of all, to the pantheism thing, generally that term reveals to God being everything. Thus, I could just as well worship a tree, or the sun, or my lamp because it's all God anyway. There's a pretty sharp distinction between that and God's omnipresence where he is everywhere but he is not embodied in everything.

My guess is you were speaking to people who couldn't quite put omnipresence into clear terms (a category into which I have undoubtedly put myself as well). But there is a pretty big difference between the two terms and shouldn't be used interchangeably. I'm not aware of any branch of Christianity that would hold to a pantheistic view of God.

The whole "Jesus was a mellow cat, tolerant of all" concept always kinda makes me laugh. Jesus was about as intolerant as can be. Not only was he overturning the money-changers in the temple and calling down woes on the Pharisees but he also had the audacity to say that he was the only way to heaven. Yeah, he wasn't striking people down and raining burning sulfur from the sky, but that's because he had a different purpose at that time--to submit himself (perhaps the confusion here) to death in our place.

The Old Testament was all about God preserving his chosen people so that the Messiah could come. Jesus did take the nature of a servant for us to suffer the punishment we had coming so that we wouldn't have to face it.

As to the "Roman edits" and other authorship questions, we could make up all sorts of stories about that without finding any evidence for any of it. Unless we have a real compelling set of proof to call the authorship of the books into question beyond "I don't like this--I'm gonna make up some crap to discredit it" you've gotta take them at face value. In fact, compared to all other ancient literature, the preservation of the biblical text is remarkable.
 
[quote name='daroga']In fact, compared to all other ancient literature, the preservation of the biblical text is remarkable.[/QUOTE]
Except for all those books the church removed, of course.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Except for all those books the church removed, of course.[/quote]If by "removed" you mean "recognized the heretical and doctrinally contradicting content of them and recognized that they weren't the inspired Word of God" then, yeah, I wouldn't know much about of their transmission has been.

EDIT:
[quote name='camoor']I was wondering how you would answer that - you obviously know alot about your religion which is a refreshing change.[/quote]To that, it's a nice change to talk to people who have put thought into their beliefs as well and can be respectful of contrary beliefs. This thread is not all "HAHAHA GOD IS STOOOPID!" It's actually pretty remarkable how civil almost everyone is being. There's a bad egg every now and then, but they're ignored easily enough.

Thanks everyone. I actually enjoy this information exchange. It certainly helps to broaden my understanding of different schools of thought.
 
[quote name='daroga']If by "removed" you mean "recognized the heretical and doctrinally contradicting content of them and recognized that they weren't the inspired Word of God" then, yeah, I wouldn't know much about of their transmission has been.[/QUOTE]
Very convenient.
 
[quote name='daroga']If by "removed" you mean "recognized the heretical and doctrinally contradicting content of them and recognized that they weren't the inspired Word of God" then, yeah, I wouldn't know much about of their transmission has been.[/QUOTE]
Well then, thank goodness for the church! They're clearly out to protect us and not themselves. :roll:
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Well then, thank goodness for the church! They're clearly out to protect us and not themselves. :roll:[/quote]I'll regret asking this but: What?
 
[quote name='daroga']I'll regret asking this but: What?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, let me rephrase in a less sarcastic manner - I feel that certain books from the bible were omitted because they undermined what the church wanted the people to hear, and not because they were untrue or "heretical" or some such nonsense (remember - Galileo's studies were also heretical because he felt man was not at the center of the universe). Heck, some of those books might have even been more truthful than what's contained in the bible now! But no, in its infinite and divine wisdom, the church chose to preserve their doctrine in whatever way they could, and those who believe in the absolute gospel truth of the bible have been done a huge disservice because of it. God forbid the church be wrong (again).
 
By "church" do you mean organized Christianity as a whole, the ancient church, Rome, Eastern Orthodox, etc.?

I'd also be curious to know which books--or perhaps more to the point, which doctrines in which books--you feel were suppressed to keep the people under the thumb of the religious authorities.

I certainly won't defend everything Christendom as a whole has done. Either in this thread or elsewhere I touched on the Crusades in that regard. The Inquisition, the mess with Galileo, etc. would fall into the same category. We need to be careful to separate the political power that the church had become (especially Rome) from the faith of Christians in the Bible's teachings. The latter is the salvation of people's souls; the former can very often be seen to be vying for power, money, and influence in a way condemned by the very Scriptures those entities supposedly preached.
 
[quote name='daroga']By "church" do you mean organized Christianity as a whole, the ancient church, Rome, Eastern Orthodox, etc.?

I'd also be curious to know which books--or perhaps more to the point, which doctrines in which books--you feel were suppressed to keep the people under the thumb of the religious authorities.

I certainly won't defend everything Christendom as a whole has done. Either in this thread or elsewhere I touched on the Crusades in that regard. The Inquisition, the mess with Galileo, etc. would fall into the same category. We need to be careful to separate the political power that the church had become (especially Rome) from the faith of Christians in the Bible's teachings. The latter is the salvation of people's souls; the former can very often be seen to be vying for power, money, and influence in a way condemned by the very Scriptures those entities supposedly preached.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember if you've ever said or not, but I'm guessing you belong to a religion.
Option A:
If you don't support what Christianity has done and continues to do, then why follow a faith that stems from it?

Option B:
If your faith doesn't stem from Christianity, why do you think your religion is the "correct" one? And I don't mean, "because its the right one for me."
 
My faith comes from the Bible (and thus, from God), not from a political or religious body known as corporate Christianity. The church [should] follow the Bible; the Bible doesn't follow the church. The way you put it puts the cart before the horse.

Christendom if and when it has veered away from God's Word is to be condemned. Where it has taught and upheld the truth it is to be commended.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']I don't remember if you've ever said or not, but I'm guessing you belong to a religion.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he does. I think a quick skim of the thread will make which one pretty clear.

[quote name='crystalklear64']Option A:
If you don't support what Christianity has done and continues to do, then why follow a faith that stems from it?[/QUOTE]

Oh, even lil' old athiest me can answer this one. In short, "You can't measure the quality of an idea by the people who hold it." In other words, there's no such thing as a perfect implementation of an ideal. Humans, being human, are bound to muck up just about any idea or concept at some point, and if you distance yourself from everything that was ever brought low by human greed, ego, and weakness, there wouldn't be anything left to get behind. Not democracy, not religion, not capitalism, not communism, not anything. For example, if you disagree with anything the US government has done yet still consider yourself an American, you know what I'm talking about.

And anyway, faith doesn't stem from the organization, the organization stems from the faith.

Daroga, feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

EDIT: D'oh. Guess I was sitting on that post for a while.
 
[quote name='daroga']
Christendom if and when it has veered away from God's Word is to be condemned. Where it has taught and upheld the truth it is to be commended.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't this fall under "judge not"?

Who are you to decide when truth needs upholding?
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Doesn't this fall under "judge not"?[/quote]No. We could get into the Pharisaical context of Jesus' words if you want.

[quote name='crystalklear64']Who are you to decide when truth needs upholding?[/quote]I'm nothing; God's Word is the authority.
 
[quote name='daroga']No. We could get into the Pharisaical context of Jesus' words if you want.
[/QUOTE]
No need for this. It'll just come down to interpretation. The Bible is handy like that. I can take it to mean what I want, and you what you want. This is ultimately one of the reasons I dislike the Bible, it may as well be a book full of paintings, but thats another issue.


[quote name='daroga']I'm nothing; God's Word is the authority.[/quote]
Then what did God say about the church after these so called deviations from His word? Some relatively modern examples, if you will.

I'm admittedly not all that hip to the Bible jive, but I have at least read it a few times.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']No need for this. It'll just come down to interpretation. The Bible is handy like that. I can take it to mean what I want, and you what you want. This is ultimately one of the reasons I dislike the Bible, it may as well be a book full of paintings, but thats another issue.[/quote]Mmm, no. That's why I wanted to direct you to context because in that is the key. If you just rip passages out of their context. For instance, in the following quote I could say that you admitted that you weren't hip (and how disappointed the Fonz would be!), but that would be taking a sentence or phrase completely out of its context and wouldn't do justice to what you were communicating.

[quote name='crystalklear64']Then what did God say about the church after these so called deviations from His word? Some relatively modern examples, if you will.

I'm admittedly not all that hip to the Bible jive, but I have at least read it a few times.[/quote]You want biblical quotations that modern day heresies are wrong? Anything in particular you're thinking of?
 
[quote name='daroga']
You want biblical quotations that modern day heresies are wrong? Anything in particular you're thinking of?[/QUOTE]
Lost my train of thought about why I even cared about this, so feel free to ignore me on that.

I did just think of something else though.
As trq said
"Humans, being human, are bound to muck up just about any idea or concept at some point, and if you distance yourself from everything that was ever brought low by human greed, ego, and weakness, there wouldn't be anything left to get behind."

And I'm guessing you agreed with that, since you said
"trq, you put it very well--better than I did I daresay. Thanks"

So, the Bible is supposedly the word of God, correct?
Well, if the apostles, and/or whoever else, wrote the various books, then doesn't it stand to reason that the Bible has the potential to be incorrect, at at least certain times?

I'm pretty sure the Bible itself claims to be the word of God at some point, though I could very much be wrong.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']"Humans, being human, are bound to muck up just about any idea or concept at some point, and if you distance yourself from everything that was ever brought low by human greed, ego, and weakness, there wouldn't be anything left to get behind."

And I'm guessing you agreed with that, since you said
"trq, you put it very well--better than I did I daresay. Thanks"

So, the Bible is supposedly the word of God, correct?
Well, if the apostles, and/or whoever else, wrote the various books, then doesn't it stand to reason that the Bible has the potential to be incorrect, at at least certain times?

I'm pretty sure the Bible itself claims to be the word of God at some point, though I could very much be wrong.[/quote]If it was a wholly human work, then yes. But the Bible was written through verbal inspiration. In other words, the Bible is not just the ideas of some guys or some guys take on what God said but it was God using the human authors to write exactly what he wanted. Peter says that "No prophecy had its origin in the will of man... but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Likewise Paul remarks that "All Scripture is God-breathed."

The Bible is inerrant because it came from God, not from men. Men were simply his "pens" so to speak.

Time for bed. I'll catch ya'all tomorrow. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top