The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Celebrimbor on September 25, 2008, 02:23:46 PM
-
SOP's signature has got me thinking. Funny thing is, some of the hardest are those regarding God. I have some others:
Can God change His mind?
Does God love things because they are good, or are they good because God says they are?
How do numbers less than 0 exist?
How is it possible two truths or groups of truths almost blatantly contradict each other?
I know I trully exist...but How to I know that?
How exactly do any two bodies with no physical relation to one another exert on each other have a gravitational pull?
If I say to someone, "You're a liar," and he replies, "very true" does that really turn my argument upside down? :suspect:
What is 2+2?
That's enough for now. Can anyone else come up with others? Then, maybe we can reationalize these one by one and figure out all the world's problems. :twisted:
-
what is justice? a) when everybody gets what they deserve? b) or when everybody gets the same? (and if the ansewr is a, how can God be just, if he is merciful?)
-
Ahem
1) If you believe God to be omiscient, and being all knowing of things past, present and future, one would conclude that he has no need to change his mind. His focus would not require change as it would always be working towards a purpose He has had forever.
2) Part 1 of this I find confusing, as most Christians would consider God loving of all things, not just those we perceive to be good. The reality to Christians is God has set rules (commandments in Biblical speak) that dictate what makes you 'good'. The line is not so clear cut as to describe in this post, but following the rules God sets makes you 'good'. He doesnt change the rules arbitrarily, although they will update with changes in the plan He has set (this is in case anyone decides to mention the fact that Christians dont live the Mosaic Law of sacrifice, because Christians believe the need to follow this ended with Christ' sacrifice).
3) Numbers less than zero only exist in certain circumstances.
Example - I have 3 brothers. If you have 2 or less brothers, your amount of brothers represent a less than null amount, which is concept I still attempt to work out.
When it comes to numbers think of this - x2+1 = 0
4) I need an example :mrgreen:
5) If you can ask the question, then you may have answered it
6) Read Principia Mathematica... its painful
7) Truth is relative in each personal situation. Absolute truth is a different matter. To which are you referring?
8) The integer value of 2 in addition to an integer value of 2. Basic algebra says an integer value of 4.
I have no questions.
-
@ Gizlivadi
The example I was taught.
A man takes a loan from another. He signs a contract stating he will pay the loan back on a certain date. Sometime later, the time comes for him to pay. He cannot pay. He pleads for mercy, the creditor demands justice. Fulfilling both seems impossible.
What is the solution?
An advocate.
A third party intercedes, pays the debt, and requires an achievable debt from the original debtor.
Sound familiar? ;)
-
what is justice? a) when everybody gets what they deserve? b) or when everybody gets the same? (and if the ansewr is a, how can God be just, if he is merciful?)
Gizlivadi, I'd have to say A, Justice is getting what we deserve. He is just and merciful. He does not show justice to all, but also shows mercy to his chosen elect.
-
I have to disagree with Gate Troll. God cannot be a partial God, and grant one level of justice and mercy to one and then mete out a different amount to another. To do so would directly contradict what the Bible teaches about God.
-
I have to disagree with Gate Troll. God cannot be a partial God, and grant one level of justice and mercy to one and then mete out a different amount to another. To do so would directly contradict what the Bible teaches about God.
How so? The Bible clearly states that Jesus doesn't intercede for all, otherwise everyone would go to heaven.
-
He intercedes for all who follow his commandments (see my earlier answer 2)
-
You are too fast for me! ;)
Each time, I am about to reply, this topic gains a new post!
1) No
2) God loves us all
3) -3 is mostly the same like -(+3), so you have a positive number! (But mathematic is tricky. Triangles have not always 180°!)
4) Depends on which is true (Triangles! Even Euklid was not ever right :)) E.g: State theory vs Big Bang!
5) Cognito ergo sum! As long as you are able to doubt, you exist!
6) They have physical relation in an certain area called "gravitations field" - at least in german. If you have an force, there will alwasy be an antiforce. Its like two magnets - they have fields, no visible physical contact and they have an force on each other though.
7) If he is an liar, it doesn't mean that his statement was an lie!
8) Actually 4. A computer might think its 22. It depends on the system between you and your opponent.
About Justice:
Read: Mathäus, [MT 20, 1-16]
-
He intercedes for all who follow his commandments (see my earlier answer 2)
No, he intercedes for all those who put their trust in Jesus. Christianity is not a works-based religion.
-
The Christianity I follow is. Faith without works is dead.
-
God has the same standards for everyone as he is perfectly just. All sin is punished the same. The important point here is that for Christians their punishment was taken by Jesus on the cross. Those who do not give their lives to christ are judged by how they have kept Gods moral law. Gate Troll is right in that Christianity is not a works based religion. Christianity is all about what Jesus did and not about what we do. In fact Jord your earlier point needs clarification. To what extent do people need to follow Gods laws before they can be clarified as good? Where's the line? In fact the Bible teaches that none of us are 'good' in and of ourselves because God's standard is a perfect one and we have all fallen short of it. As Christians we only become 'good' because we inherit Jesus's rightousness. I'm sorry Jord but if the Christianity you follow relies on works it is not Christianity at all. It is missing the point.
-
The Christianity I follow is. Faith without works is dead.
Yes, but works without faith is similarly dead. Look, TheJord, I'm not trying to condemn works, after all, the Bible says that faith is like a tree and works are like the fruit. Our works give evidence of our faith, a man who said he was a Christian but murdered, stole and committed fornication would obviously not be a Christian. Oh, and well put, turin08.
-
Squeezing these in:
How do numbers less than 0 exist?
I guess you could turn that around and say how do numbers greater than 0 exist? Numbers are abstract objects; you can point at the table and say "I see two plates," but it wouldn't make sense to say "I see a two." So if negative numbers (or hey, imaginary numbers) help whatever you're trying to do, well there you go.
How is it possible two truths or groups of truths almost blatantly contradict each other?
Doublethink FTW! Well, it's possible two truths may seemingly contradict but just describe two parts of a whole. Or maybe the two "truths" each have some truth in them and both can find a middle ground.
what is justice?
Check out The Republic by Plato. ;)
-
The Jord correct me if I am wrong but I believe that your last statement is reffering to the Book of James and what that has to say about faith and deeds. You have fallen into a trap which is sadly common among Christians when it comes to this scripture and that is that you take it to mean that James is saying that you need both faith and works to attain salvation. However this is horribly incorrect and is disproved by other passages in the bible which state clearly that all is needed is faith in Jesus, the most famous of these of course is John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life". What James is saying here is something quite different. He is saying that faith without deeds is dead because if real true faith is present in a person deeds will naturally follow. He is saying that if someone proclaims that he has faith in Jesus but lives a totally immoral life then he does not actually have a real faith in jesus and is not saved. As christians it is our relationship with God and our faith in him which changes us into better people, this process is called sanctification. James 18 addresses this issue directly saying, But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
-
turin you have explained that truth very well.
The true christian lives his/her life according to God's commandments as best they can, but this is not because they are trying to earn their way into heaven. It is spured by knowing about Christ and what he did for us on the cross. Christ has made us clean, and if we truly believe in Him and this perfect sacrifice, then we will willingly do our best to serve Him in our lives.
Its a rehash of sorts, but yeah.
-
Ok, when it comes to God, I have to answer!
We are not good, the Bible makes it very clear. Christians are no better persons than those who are not christians. Christians only know that they are not good and that they rely only, and only on the work of Jesus. Matthew 5 says it. We have to have love for all around us, even for those who hate us, for only then we show our bond with God, for he is the #1 in loving his enemies.
When it comes to works, it is a must. But it is a must in a way that it makes perfectly sense. I must love my wife, I must show interest, I must take care for her, but I don't mind because I love her. If I had to do those things for someone I don't like, I wouldn't be to fond of those things I must do. Works make sense, not to work - loving those around you, caring for those around you, strengthen you and others in faith around- doesn't make sense at all! If I state to love my wife, but it doesn't show in my daily life.....well, you know. Practise what you preach!
When it comes to justice, it is hard to talk about it, because we have other moral standards as God. I think justice in biblical term is: when God's requirements are done. This means that when any person puts his trust in Jesus, he has the right to be freed of his sin! Faith is the answer. And faith has a lot of consequenses, 1 being the practising side of faith.....I could go on for hours, for this has my heart, but if there are questions: please let me know ;)
-
I like to belive in evolution and natural selection (maybe because i´m a biologist?). I do belive in enthropy but i´m not for cientific determinism (too many variables to deal with). I respect every belief you may have (be religious or not), if you call your god Jesus, Alá, Geová, Echu, Geová, Zeus or if you have plenty of them (as some cited are part of polytheist religions) as far as you respect other belives. I think that science is a kind of religion too cause you have a lot of explanation for observable natural phenomena (although have some important diferences to most of religions).
The question of if some god exist is a personal choice and for me it´s impossible to prove that it does or not. Having faith usually is good, seems to give us some hope in life.
Well, the central fact is that everything is relative! Which answers most of the questions of this topic. I live in a country where, besides being declared "laico" (don´t know the word in english, means without official religion) are mostly catholic. I see good and bad things in this as i see good and bad things in my believes so, whn it comes about religion i say that i learned to respect other choices and try to make respect mine.
I guess ES have a good point about the number thing...
-
And we agree on the proove of God, scientific there isn't any. Therefor it is called faith ;)
-
I like to belive in evolution and natural selection (maybe because i´m a biologist?). I do belive in enthropy but i´m not for cientific determinism (too many variables to deal with). I respect every belief you may have (be religious or not), if you call your god Jesus, Alá, Geová, Echu, Geová, Zeus or if you have plenty of them (as some cited are part of polytheist religions) as far as you respect other belives. I think that science is a kind of religion too cause you have a lot of explanation for observable natural phenomena (although have some important diferences to most of religions).
The question of if some god exist is a personal choice and for me it´s impossible to prove that it does or not. Having faith usually is good, seems to give us some hope in life.
Well, the central fact is that everything is relative! Which answers most of the questions of this topic. I live in a country where, besides being declared "laico" (don´t know the word in english, means without official religion) are mostly catholic. I see good and bad things in this as i see good and bad things in my believes so, whn it comes about religion i say that i learned to respect other choices and try to make respect mine.
I guess ES have a good point about the number thing...
:-X I hate the mindset that you pick out whatever god works for you and he is your 'pet' god. That is ridiculous. There is only one God and he says very clearly in his word "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me."
-
Ok, when it comes to God, I have to answer!
Wow, someone thinks highly of themselves! :P
Sorry, G-E, couldn't miss the joke!
Now, to get on topic, what can I say about the subject? I'm not a religious person, simply wasn't raised that way (my family is, though, mostly). That being said, I strongly believe tehre's a HUGE difference between religion and God. Just because I don't follow a specific doctrine, doesn't mean I'm an atheist either. ANd even though I'm a science guy all the way, I HAVE to make an exception, because I don't believe in coincidences (ok, some, but not a whole lot), so I believe everything, and I mean basically EVERYTHING, happens for a reason. And if it happens for a reason, something governs this reason, and THAT something, to me, is God.
I like to see, though, the differences between doctrines, for instance salvation through sheer faith and salvation through works, while following the "same" religion. Carry on, I'm really amused!
-
:-X I hate the mindset that you pick out whatever god works for you and he is your 'pet' god. That is ridiculous. There is only one God and he says very clearly in his word "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me."
The thing is, everyone believes that. An atheist/agnostic/deist steps back and looks on everyone else like they're crazy, and treats God as a fairy tale that means nothing outside of making people feel good. If that is the case, then sure, why not pick your own personal God and go with that? The fact, GT, isn't that he's picking his own personal God, but that he just doesn't think there is one, or doesn't think its worth thinking about. Note that I do not agree with this, and I'm definitely a Christian, but I think the number one failure of Christians is in the absence of effective communication. Which leaves others looking on us as just another religious fringe group.
-
Hey, that's not true. I'm a deist, and I just stated otherwise!
-
FM, how did you know I wanted to say the answers instead of to....:) lol. But when something doesn't happen on coincidence, it doesn't mean that there is an other reason than natural laws. FM, is it that you think there is, so to say, a first mover? One who put the whole thing in motion?
And GT, I have to agree with NB here. Just because you believe that God is the only one, doesn't mean that is being proved. I agree with you, but to use that as an argument is kinda poor. It is said in the Bible, therefor it must be true. As a christian -imho- I think we have to be humble. The bible says - and when I 'm speaking to a christian I can use biblical prove- that faith isn't something we found ourselves, or is something we have picked, it is God's incredible mercy when we have faith. Ephesians chapter 1 tells us that.
So when we are granted with the gift of faith, we should be living in gratitude, telling others what happened to us. We can not expect that others believe the same as we, for it is not the natural way we chose. So if others ask us, we should ...."Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope. 16 Give a kind and respectful answer and keep your conscience clear."..... (1 Peter 3:15)
-
the question I have...is how can two intelligent, articulate people, who both know how to debate, and are both very reasonable, take opposite sides on an issue...
-
Hey, that's not true. I'm a deist, and I just stated otherwise!
Was talking about Pepin. I know you're a deist.
-
Yeah, I have to give it to God for the kick-off, and I believe in destiny (or a very close thing to it), so I also think there's at least a kind of... "force" that drives things around, steering the world in the right direction. Surely, sometimes it swerves a bit, but hey, even omnipotent beings can't REALLY watch out EVERY SINGLE PERSON at all times, right? Sometimes, one slips by unnoticed and takes a wrong path, but generically speaking, the world tens to drive them back to their right path. A simple example of this would be the independence of several countries, of course, there ARE still countries that are being opressed by colonizers, but that number IS decreasing as it always did as history progressed, that's undeniable.
-
I understand how the majority of Christians on this forum feel, especially with regards to faith and works. I have debated it many times and the arguement has never been settled.
I believe God gave us Jesus Christ to allow us to return to His presence if we do what he asks of us. Part of this is, as you state, accepting Christ. But I believe to fully accept Christ into your live you must make your life a reflection of His, or at least to the best of our ability, as we are not perfect, as He is. This is why I believe you must have works also.
Anyway, back to the original topic...
-
even omnipotent beings can't REALLY watch out EVERY SINGLE PERSON at all times, right?
"At all times" is assuming that said omnipotent beings exists within, not outside of, the time-space continuum. Which I would contest that God does not. Hence various Biblical references such as "a thousand ages in His sight are like a day gone by and vice versa." (Yeah, not word-for-word, I know.) Also the weird grammar in the statement "Before Abraham was, I AM." isn't just a weird way of making a statement for a powerful effect, but exemplifies that the past and present aren't necessarily different.
C.S. Lewis had a chapter on that in Mere Christianity which, even if you don't agree, is an interesting theoretical look at how things would look from outside of time. Also brings in some interesting connections between fate and free will (which, honestly, I don't believe are really mutually exclusive, but that would take forever to explain, and is part of that whole Dark Ages-era Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse influence in my worldview. If we're gonna argue about that one, we might need a whole new thread. Maybe I should write up an argument for that. :twisted: )
-
What exactly do you mean by "works", TheJord?
-
I think he means good deeds, and/or good morals.
-
Actions that reflect your dedication to follow Jesus Christ.
EDIT: what SoP said
-
Interesting...
-
wow! I'm out for one day (I think) and have 20 minutes to read all the answers for the questions (specially mine), and for what I've read, both turin and Jord are partially right. turin, Christianity is about Jesus, and what Jesus did. In fact, the deciding point of Christianity is Jesus resurrection, if He never had resusrrected, whole fith would be vain. it's
about Jesus death and mercy that we can be saved, not for our merits (now forgot in which passage this was), BUT, and here I give reason to Jord (and sorry, BTW, what is a jord??? if you can tell me?), We have to reflect Jesus' compassion to others, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SAVED FOR NOTHING, WE WERE SAVED WITH A PURPOSE, so, we have to follow all His commandments (in His name, of course), but, and let me clarify, it's Jesus who saves, not acts, it's Jesus' compassion what saves, not our "goodness"
that would, of course, resolve only one problem, one that came secondary to the question, but one I think most important
-
Our works don't save us, but they are what show that we are saved.
-
Our works don't save us, but they are what show that we are saved
bingo! if you don't want to read 9 lines, that would resume it.
-
My name is Jordan, which became TheJord in college. Dont ask why, I'm not really sure ;D
-
Okay, this is one conversation I might be able to bear being involved with.
My chosen path in life is youth ministry, and I also really highly believe that a growth of faith can primarily come from a test of faith. I really love religious debates!
I'll love them a lot more once I go to a Christian college and figure out how to pull verses for every situation out of nowhere (I know there's a google Bible somewhere, though...) but for now I'll answer with how I believe.
First of all, I'd like to go ahead and say that one Christian's beliefs don't often express others'. The Bible is often "open to interpretation" (hence denominations), however, something I don't think is in debate amongst Christians is the existence of one undeniable truth. My belief is probably flawed, because it's based on mostly what I think and the best arguments presented to me. Present a good enough argument and I can change what I believe (somewhat).
Anyways, some of Felipe's statements just really made me want to respond, because I can come back to some of that stuff. Plus, I've always wanted to discuss religion with him, just to see what happens. :P
Yeah, I have to give it to God for the kick-off, and I believe in destiny (or a very close thing to it), so I also think there's at least a kind of... "force" that drives things around, steering the world in the right direction.
Well, I think God=Destiny, in the way you're thinking. The Bible says that God has a plan for the world, and every person in it (or at least that he knows what's going to happen to the world and every person in it). The world is going to end up where he says it's gonna end up. There's your destiny.
Surely, sometimes it swerves a bit, but hey, even omnipotent beings can't REALLY watch out EVERY SINGLE PERSON at all times, right?
See definition of omnipotent. God DOES see every singe person at all times. Because, well, he's different than a human. That's why you called him a "being," eh? He can (obviously) do stuff we can't.
Sometimes, one slips by unnoticed and takes a wrong path, but generically speaking, the world tens to drive them back to their right path.
Untrue. God is omnipotent, and as such, he knew that said person was going to make that specific wrong decision from the beginning.
The point is free will. People don't make wrong decisions because God "slips up" but because they do. God doesn't railroad us like a bad DM, but he still knows where things are going. God made humanity with the aptitude to choose right over wrong, or vice versa.
Which leads to the question, obviously, of why "evil" exists in the world. I could throw out the "Cold Doesn't Exist" argument to solve that one, but I also think that God allows evil to exist (although he could destroy it right now, if he wanted to) because of free will. I don't claim to know why God created humanity (I assume someone with a kid could make some comparisons), but it wasn't because he wanted little mind-slaves. He HAS to allow evil to exist (until judgment day) because that's just a result of free will.
C.S. Lewis had a chapter on that in Mere Christianity which, even if you don't agree, is an interesting theoretical look at how things would look from outside of time.
Ever read "The Bloodstone Chronicles"? An only okay series of books, but they do have some interesting thoughts on why God created people, and a God that exists outside of separate dimensions that people do.
I think it went something like this: people can observe a three-dimensional world, and exist in four dimensions (the fourth being time, eh?). So assume that you could create a world in only two dimensions. People in that world would consider it perfectly normal, but should you try to influence it, they couldn't understand the magnitude of your actions.
By their reasoning, God exists outside our field of understandable, observable dimensions, but he's still there.
Like I said, interesting thoughts, and probably not entirely untrue.
Also brings in some interesting connections between fate and free will (which, honestly, I don't believe are really mutually exclusive, but that would take forever to explain, and is part of that whole Dark Ages-era Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse influence in my worldview. If we're gonna argue about that one, we might need a whole new thread. Maybe I should write up an argument for that. Twisted! )
See above post. Enjoy.
I believe God gave us Jesus Christ to allow us to return to His presence if we do what he asks of us. Part of this is, as you state, accepting Christ. But I believe to fully accept Christ into your live you must make your life a reflection of His, or at least to the best of our ability, as we are not perfect, as He is. This is why I believe you must have works also.
My favorite argument of all.
What it boils down to is this: You MUST believe in God and Jesus Christ to go to heaven.
But what is belief? Lots of people believe in God the way they believe in a table. They know it's there, and they trust it to perform its function (for the most part), but they don't bother getting into any sort of personal relationship with it.
Obviously not the definition of belief.
Maybe, you think believing is just knowing God exists. Well, I LOVE this Bible passage. Read James 2:19. It says:
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Demons go to heaven? Not likely. So that's not the answer either.
Even non-Christians can agree with me: there are some (a lot) of fake Christians in this world. People who say they believe in God but make wrong choices and do evil regardless, with the idea that either a) it doesn't really matter or b) because Jesus will forgive me anyway. Think those people will go to heaven? I don't either.
That's not to say if you make a mistake, you go to #$&*@!. Not at all. I'm just saying that people who take (consciously or unconsciously) spiritual "advantage" of being "saved" to do whatever they want don't believe. Agreed?
My old youth pastor told me this about baptism, although I think it applies to this situation also:
"It's not required. But if you really believe in God, and you have the opportunity, you'll do it."
Real belief in God, the kind that it takes to get to heaven, is trying to live a Godly life (a life following Jesus' and God's commands, in case that can be misinterpreted) not because it's required, but because you know it's right.
-
And Elf, for all the reasoning you gave, especially the last part, I think we need to focus on the maingoal of our lifes, or our faith. It is not to get to heaven, for that would give a fear-based religion. I think the maingoal is a life in which you share with God. Faith is a walk with God. Like Adam and Eve in the early days, wandering with God, talking to him. Prayer should not only be done on the regular moments -which is also good ofcourse- but God should be involved in every step. What sums it up for me is James 5:13 If you are having trouble, you should pray. And if you are feeling good, you should sing praises.
So in every part of your life, involve God. I think that is a godly life and our main purpose in life. I know God has put us on this earth for that reason, to walk/live with him.
http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bijbel=Bijbel&l=en
-
I see your point, EL. Basically, as an example, you could say that God knows said person is gonna derail at some point, but allows it so that other people can stand in the way and become martyrs and heroes, and so that humanity can learn from that and not let it happen again, thus making for LESS people derailing ON THEIR OWN, without God interceding. Did I get it right?
-
If it is okay with you FM, I will give you my 2 cents. If not, just choose not to read this. I don't think God makes people suffer so we can help instead. If things like that happen, I think it has to do all with the sin in the world.
I think God doesn't act because of the consequenses of the choice we made back in paradise. We wanted to take matters in own hands, and from that moment we have to deal with people suffering.
Believing in God doesn't mean you get a life full of prosperity, for God's blessings are for all his children. But as a christian -as being said before- you have the responsibility to stand up for others. I love the part in Matthew 25 where Jesus says that each time you look after someone, even when they seem unimportant, it is like you did it to Jesus.
-
I see. Well, I AM "new" to this, to thanks, G-E, for the lesson. :D And that last part, well, I'll look into it, since it fits perfectly with some things that happened to my life recently.
And for the record, you, like everyone else, is always welcome to give me your 2 cents on anything (even bash me, though do it through PMs... :P)!
-
I think its hard to have religious debates. Debating religion is never a good idea. Sharing ideas and opinions is much better, as it saves a lot of aggro. I'm sure some of you will understand when you are trying to explain something that seems so clear to you, but the other person wont accept it ](*,) - hence, best to just share beliefs!
-
But debating is SO MUCH FUN! :P
-
Debating is something different from explaination. So as long as someone has questions for me, hit me. I'm nowhere close to thinking I can pursuade someone into my religion, for that is never my intend.
And then again, debating is cool.....
-
I believe only in 2 things: Everything is god or nothing is god. It makes it more easy! If everythings is god then everyone and every stone, star or whatever is god and all ethic rules are legal to it. And if everything is god then everything is uncounsesly connected with eachother what can explain telepathy and other esp things. This is called pantheism = everything is god.
Dano't know what you people think about it, but it makes sure that you respect other things and other liveforms. Actually you exclude nothing.
regards, jw
-
I believe only in 2 things: Everything is god or nothing is god. It makes it more easy!
So, wait... you're saying that the reason to believe this is because it's easy? Quantum physics isn't easy, molecular biology isn't easy, rocket science isn't easy, et cetera. It's easier to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth.
If everythings is god then everyone and every stone, star or whatever is god and all ethic rules are legal to it.
So Hitler was a goodguy. I mean, if you want to try to argue that, fine. But you might have a problem. Especially since he didn't respect other things, lifeforms.... eh... under your philosophy, he didn't respect God (the other life forms, et cetera.) Oh, yeah. Throw in all the other psychopaths throughout history, too.
And if everything is god then everything is uncounsesly connected with eachother what can explain telepathy and other esp things.
Even assuming you believe that stuff, there are so many different ways to explain those phenomena that the fact this potentially explains it is no support at all. For example, some explanations would be: 1. a connection in the mass unconscious suggested by Jung (Think Freudian psychology) 2. a sense existent on some sort of spiritual or mental plane, rather than physical plane (which is sort of how I figure the so-called 'women's intuition') which could fit into a large number of religions which consider the soul to be connected to, but separate from, the body 3. an ability of the mind (or societal mind) to define reality (think New Agers or Postmodernists)...
I could go on for a long time. And all that's assuming you even believe the stuff exists. No comment there.
This is called pantheism = everything is god.
You know, I've always sorta wondered about the etymology on the 'pan' prefix. Was it derived from Pan, or was it connected later? I sorta get the sense that it was derived by a sort of metaphorical relation, not a direct relation. ie, Pan is the god of nature, and since one could say that in a sense, everything exists within nature, Pan would sort of encompass everything. But he's not actually the god of everything, which is what I know a bunch of New Agers/Neopagans claim these days. As I recall, some of them also call Thor a female.
GET A FREAKING CLUE!!! READ THE BLOODY POEM!!! THOR IS MOST DECIDEDLY NOT FEMININE!!!
Sorry. My inner Norse fanatic wanted to complain about the complete corruption of the old myths by the neopagans. Back to the point at hand.
Dano't know what you people think about it, but it makes sure that you respect other things and other liveforms. Actually you exclude nothing.
Not necessarily. Let's run with your reasoning for a moment. That means that you are God just as much as everythign else. That means that you can do whatever you feel like. Including killing, slaughtering, *coughcough*holocaust*coughcough* et cetera. And you would, assuming this is true, be perfectly justified because you are part of God.
On the other hand, you could be a nice person and believe this. OR any number of other things and respect other life. Christianity, Judaism, (and, as I understand it, Islam as well) and I'm sure more others than I can list, also stress the importance of respecting other life, and non-life. The mentioned three for the reason exactly opposite what you suggest. Because they're not a part of 'you' and so you can't just do whatever the heck you want with them. Because they belong to some higher power, and you are, at most, a steward, assuming the belief system in question even argues that. Whether that Higher power is the Christian God, the Islamic God, or whatever is beside the point. You;re using someone else's stuff, and if you mess it up, lighting bolts might just start falling. Besides, presumably you don't want to go messing up other people's stuff. (I dunno. Maybe you do, but that's a whole different argument right there.)
I'm not trying to gun you down personally, just your argument. If you can come up with supporting claims and arguments, I'm all for going at it. ;)
Alright. Gotta go. I have to run to the store to pick up College Survival Supplies.
AKA, food.
-
With a disproportionately high number of professing Christians on this site, maybe there should be a "hot topic" forum for religious/political discussions. As for this thread, I just now had a chance to read it. Where to start...? I don't have a lot of time, but a few comments:
God changing His mind? I don't believe He does, but from a human perspective it might seem so. There are some verses that indicate a "change" -- like God refraining from destroying Israel due to Moses' intercession. Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." On the other hand... I Samuel 15:29: "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." Nineveh was promised to be destroyed, but God relented when they repented. The pattern I see is not that God is changing His mind, but that He is acting according to His character and responding with mercy to repentance. There are many passages -- one example being Leviticus 26 -- where God says He will reverse punishment if people turn back to Him.
Gizlivadi / justice: The answer is in Romans 3:21-26. I won't quote it all here, but the basic gist of it is that God can be both wholly "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Any mercy shown by God for man's sin comes only because of His grace. However, it is not that He simply chooses to bend the rules for a moment and forgive. The just requirement--due penalty for sin--was paid in full by Christ, giving those who believe a chance to be reconciled to God. It's important to remember that even in the Old Testament, sin was not really paid for by animal sacrifices. Hebrews 10:4: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Connected with the Romans passage, God passed over the sins of Old Testament saints because of their faith, and their sins were dealt with completely by the atonement. It is the same for us -- God doesn't forgive just because we are "really sowwy" but because the price has already been paid. He is still a Righteous Judge and does not tolerate sin.
Faith vs. works... gah, we could debate until we were blue in the face. Having studied both Romans and James I can understand both viewpoints. I don't think that Paul and James were conflicting. My belief (already expressed by others) is that faith is necessary for justification, and works are evidence of a living faith. There are many places that say that one cannot be justified by works. For those interested, and willing to do some careful study, see Romans 4 (was Abraham saved by works? before/after obeying God?), Ephesians 2:8-9 (even faith is a gift), John 3:14-16 (Numbers 21:6ff story of serpent is key to understanding Jesus here... what did the people have to do to be saved from the poison?), Galatians (the entire book, for a teaser read 3:11)...
I'm not really the in-your-face arguing/debating type, but I couldn't help putting out my :gp: :gp:'s worth. :P
-
amen........nothing more to say or add....
-
the one thing that I always wonder about in faith vs works. is the one passage where Christ is separating the sheep from the goats...and the main criteria seems to be, how they treated people...IDk...and the ones who are the sheep don't even recognize Jesus or something like that...
-
With a disproportionately high number of professing Christians on this site, maybe there should be a "hot topic" forum for religious/political discussions. As for this thread, I just now had a chance to read it. Where to start...? I don't have a lot of time, but a few comments:
God changing His mind? I don't believe He does, but from a human perspective it might seem so. There are some verses that indicate a "change" -- like God refraining from destroying Israel due to Moses' intercession. Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." On the other hand... I Samuel 15:29: "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." Nineveh was promised to be destroyed, but God relented when they repented. The pattern I see is not that God is changing His mind, but that He is acting according to His character and responding with mercy to repentance. There are many passages -- one example being Leviticus 26 -- where God says He will reverse punishment if people turn back to Him.
Gizlivadi / justice: The answer is in Romans 3:21-26. I won't quote it all here, but the basic gist of it is that God can be both wholly "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Any mercy shown by God for man's sin comes only because of His grace. However, it is not that He simply chooses to bend the rules for a moment and forgive. The just requirement--due penalty for sin--was paid in full by Christ, giving those who believe a chance to be reconciled to God. It's important to remember that even in the Old Testament, sin was not really paid for by animal sacrifices. Hebrews 10:4: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Connected with the Romans passage, God passed over the sins of Old Testament saints because of their faith, and their sins were dealt with completely by the atonement. It is the same for us -- God doesn't forgive just because we are "really sowwy" but because the price has already been paid. He is still a Righteous Judge and does not tolerate sin.
Faith vs. works... gah, we could debate until we were blue in the face. Having studied both Romans and James I can understand both viewpoints. I don't think that Paul and James were conflicting. My belief (already expressed by others) is that faith is necessary for justification, and works are evidence of a living faith. There are many places that say that one cannot be justified by works. For those interested, and willing to do some careful study, see Romans 4 (was Abraham saved by works? before/after obeying God?), Ephesians 2:8-9 (even faith is a gift), John 3:14-16 (Numbers 21:6ff story of serpent is key to understanding Jesus here... what did the people have to do to be saved from the poison?), Galatians (the entire book, for a teaser read 3:11)...
I'm not really the in-your-face arguing/debating type, but I couldn't help putting out my :gp: :gp:'s worth. :P
A debating forum would be nice. 8-)
-
nah...a subforum would be nice if anything...
and GT, if you quoting a massive block of text and saying one sentence...PLEASE just quote the relevant part.
-
matthew 25 is the part where the final judgement is being descriped. I don't see a conflict between the faith vs works thing. The first step is one in faith, but it has consequenses. Read Malachi 1. The people thought they were serving God, but He means business.
-
Are there any english bibles? I have never heared of mathew...what is his original name?
Are you all katholic? In my country, there are nearly all katholic. Just a few are ancient katholic and protestants. (I guess 1 percent)
-
Are there any english bibles? I have never heared of mathew...what is his original name?
Yeah, there's dozens of different English translations. It's sorta funny sometimes to listen to people argue over which one's best. I like the old King James Version, then after that the New International Version. There's a few other good translations which I like, but I never remember what they're called, because I don't have a copy in that translation. Matthew is one of the gospels... I can't actually remember his Hebrew name if it wasn't originally Matthew. It's the first book of the New Testament (at least, in the standard English translations; could be different in other languages.) The apostle Matthew was the tax collector, if that helps you recognize which book it is.
Are you all katholic? In my country, there are nearly all katholic. Just a few are ancient katholic and protestants. (I guess 1 percent)
Well, I'm not sure what everyone else is. I'm Lutheran, actually. German and Scandinavian branch of Protestantism. Lots of protestants here in the US, and as I understand, most Christians in England are Anglican (go figure....) I'm not sure what the ratio of Catholics and Protestants is in the US. I should find out.
-
Charismatic myself.
-
Nondenominational.
I prefer the New American Standard (NASB) translation myself because it is widely considered to be one of the most literal translations from the original Hebrew/Greek. (rather than a translation of a translation through the Latin Vulgate) But when recommending a version to people that are just gaining interest in reading the Bible I usually recommend the New International Version because it is the most easily understood text from a modern speech point of view, and is still a fairly accurate translation.
-
Reformed, so we dislike katholics....no not true.....had you there...waiting for a new debate. Like to consider myself christian in the first place, allthough I am reformed for a reason.....
-
I'm LDS :)
EDIT: Better known as Mormon's, its the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormon will do!
-
Whats LDS?
-
Let's try to keep this at least semi-civilized, please?
Vicious arguments, sure. Blatant insults, no.
-
Comment removed... :whistle:
-
whoops, sorry, i guess that did sound like an insult. gate troll please remove the link.
but seriously, i am wondering if the mormons have special undergarments that they wear. i heard this and want some confirmation.
sorry,
-mm
-
Why would they?
-
that's another thing i don't know, but i have heard from multiple sources that they have special underwear. i'm just asking for some clarification, if it's not true, fine. if it is, then i would ask the same a FM, why have special underwear?
-
I appreciate your curiosity, but this is something very personal and sacred. I took offence a bit too quickly (sorry mm) when I should have taken the chance to explain.
The answer yes we do have special garments we wear. It is an outward reflection of an inward commitment to follow Christ. Think of it in the same vein of a Sikh's dagger and turban or a Jew's yamaka. Its important to the one wearing it, but seems a bit odd to others.
-
ok, thanks. i will inquire no further.
-mm
-
OMG, NOW I'm curious! :( I hate to admit, but other than the usual jokes people go around telling, I know NOTHING about Mormons, and I feel kinda bad about it (we don't have a lot of mormons 'round here). Where could I read more about them?
-
When I was out teaching people about my Church, we would direct them to www.mormon.org It contains all the basics outlined.
There are almost 1 million members in Brazil, but I guess there are none near to you.
I'll stop before I start reeling off boring facts
-
Well, 1 million in a country of over 175 million is not that big a number. Also, a lot of them are probably grouped near the southeast region, in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and if you consider my city has 300,000 inhabitants, there can't be THAT big a number here, yeah. Thanks, though, TheJord, I'll check that website.
-
I was checking F_M and do you live anywhere near any of these places?
Manaus
Recife
Porto Alegre
Campinas
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
All of these places have a LDS temple, so should have lots of members nearby.
EDIT: Strong and Old Sao Paulo lol
-
I was checking F_M and do you live anywhere near any of these places?
Manaus
Recife
Porto Alegre
Campinas
Curitiba
Sao Paulo
All of these places have a LDS temple, so should have lots of members nearby.
EDIT: Strong and Old Sao Paulo lol
Curitiba is a 3-hour drive away, it's close enough. Next time I'm there, I'll try to drop by and check it out. Also, about the undergarments I asked, I read about Temple Garments, is that what you mean? If so, I might want to have a word with you through MSN sometime! ;)
-
Yeah go ahead I dont mind discussing it over MSN! Any other questions you have I can answer on here!
-
i have a couple questions if you don't mind.
1. Do you believe that it is possible for people to become Gods?
2. Do you believe Joseph Smith became a God?
3. Do you believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?
-
Course I dont mind
1. The simple answer to this question would be yes.
The longer answer would involve quoting Bible passages stating we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ", that in my Church we believe in a pre-existence (that we lived with God and Jesus Christ before we came to this Earth), and during this time a plan (often referred to as the plan of happiness, salvation or redemption) was given to us. Those who fully accepted Christ and did all that was expected would receive "all that the Father" has. Even that answer barely explains it all, but I hope it shows the point of why we believe that.
2. In answering the first question, he will at some point. Unless I'm mistaken, the second coming, resurrection and Judgement would need to happen before anyone that came to this Earth was "exalted". So, I guess the quick answer there would be 'not yet'.
3. Yes, Christ's appearance was a physical one. I hope that I am understanding this question properly, but I think the answer is yes.
-
1. The simple answer to this question would be yes.
The longer answer would involve quoting Bible passages stating we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ", that in my Church we believe in a pre-existence (that we lived with God and Jesus Christ before we came to this Earth), and during this time a plan (often referred to as the plan of happiness, salvation or redemption) was given to us. Those who fully accepted Christ and did all that was expected would receive "all that the Father" has. Even that answer barely explains it all, but I hope it shows the point of why we believe that.
You've probably guessed that I would disagree, but I would like to know the Mormon church's interpretation of passages such as Isaiah 44:6-8 (in KJV since I believe that is what you prefer):
"6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God?; I know not any." (emphasis mine)
In fact, this theme is restated and occurs in many different wordings throughout Isaiah (43:11, 45:5-6, 45:21...) as well as elsewhere in Scripture. I have heard that LDS believe in the plurality of Elohim, but what is your understanding of a passage that, in my opinion, is so clear-cut as this?
-
Interesting...
-
wow...what a spammer...
Kraliks brings up good points TheJord
all I can add is, i've bene to the mormon temple and it looks cool ;)
-
Isaiah! Good stuff to quote.
But first can you answer some questions that will help me answer you.
Who do you believe Jehovah is?
Is he the same person (or being, however you refer to Him) as God?
What is Jesus Christ relationship to God?
If you dont mind answering them first, then I can go ahead with what you believe to give you an answer.
Which temple did you see SoP? Washington DC is pretty cool, or San Diego.
-
are they for us all to answer? Or just Kralik?
-
I guess anyone can answer them. Might as well encourage some opinion sharing.
-
Ok. I believe Jehovah is God. That is, when you agree that Jehovah comes from Jahweh, I am who I am, the name God presented when Moses was summoned to confront the Pharao and was send out to free the Jews.
So yeah, I believe Jehovah is God. I believe there is only 1 God. God who created heaven and earth, and us humans to have a relationship with. And I do believe that Jesus is His Son, but that He is God as well. At least, that is what I read in the gospel of John, chapter 1.
-
I visited salt lake city
-
Yeah that one is amazing, especially all the time and effort it took to build
-
I like the big reflecty pool thingey ;)
one question...you often here about the big battle thingey in new york or whatever that there should be archaeological evidence from it and isn't or something...basically do mormons believe there was some huge battle in present-day new york?
-
Hey theJord, what translation of the Bible do Mormons use? :-k Just wondering.
-
@ SoP - You are referring to the final battle in the Book of Mormon, where the once righteous people are utterly destroyed by the wicked nation. Where this final battle took place is up for debate, but as the plates containing the record of the battle (and the rest of the Book of Mormon) were found in New York state, it may have taken place near there. I dont think my Church states specifically where the battle took place
@ GT - We use the KJV, the King James Version. I have read a few others, including the Jehovah's Witness edition.
-
Would King James have any relation with St. James?
-
Would King James have any relation with St. James?
No, the reason it is called that is because King James I authorized the translation of the Bible into English
and the result was called the King James Bible.
-
Who do you believe Jehovah is?
Is he the same person (or being, however you refer to Him) as God?
What is Jesus Christ relationship to God?
Well, I would like to hear your response without it playing off of mine, but here's a quick summary:
I believe that Jehovah, YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, and so on are all names for the same being: God, the Creator of all that exists (other than Himself, of course). The universe, the skies, the earth, the seas, angelic beings, humans, animals... you name it. This is the God of Abraham who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3).
Jesus identifies Himself as one with the Father (John 10:30) and I AM (John 8:58). It is precisely because He claimed to be God that the Pharisees were enraged enough to want to kill Him (John 10:33 and 8:59). He also has control over the weather (for example, Matt. 8:23-27), something which belongs to God (see Job 38-41). He is even audacious enough to claim the authority to forgive sins, and He does (Mark 2:1-12... who can forgive sins but God alone?) Paul describes Christ as being "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) and actively involved in Creation itself (Col. 1:15-20). Perhaps the best summary of who Jesus is is in John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
-
I believe only in 2 things: Everything is god or nothing is god. It makes it more easy!
So, wait... you're saying that the reason to believe this is because it's easy? Quantum physics isn't easy, molecular biology isn't easy, rocket science isn't easy, et cetera. It's easier to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth.[/quote]
Actually everything is quite easy.. everything is just a point of view. Didn't Einstein said that his theories were quite simple.. You only have to know the theory.. and who decides if Earth is round or flat.. to a being who can only think 2-dimensional the earth is flat my friend... And doesn't everything circel around everything? Isn't everything connected?! We actually think 3-dimesnional and are not yet able to comprehent dimensions beyond that, but we are allowed to speculate on it!
[/quote]
If everythings is god then everyone and every stone, star or whatever is god and all ethic rules are legal to it.
So Hitler was a goodguy. I mean, if you want to try to argue that, fine. But you might have a problem. Especially since he didn't respect other things, lifeforms.... eh... under your philosophy, he didn't respect God (the other life forms, et cetera.) Oh, yeah. Throw in all the other psychopaths throughout history, too. [/quote]
So you say there is good and evil: Black and white.. there are no more colours? You decide that a god is good or evil.. Maybe god is both.. like we are.. we are not all good or evil. For instance George Bush is a mass-murder as well... and people decide he is on the good side.. To me it seems that in every war there's a maas murder! Just remember this the wealth or the power of the one is some-one else's poverty. Besides that if a big meteor hits earth is this meteor then a bad and evil meteor.
[/quote]
And if everything is god then everything is uncounsesly connected with eachother what can explain telepathy and other esp things.
Even assuming you believe that stuff, there are so many different ways to explain those phenomena that the fact this potentially explains it is no support at all. For example, some explanations would be: 1. a connection in the mass unconscious suggested by Jung (Think Freudian psychology) 2. a sense existent on some sort of spiritual or mental plane, rather than physical plane (which is sort of how I figure the so-called 'women's intuition') which could fit into a large number of religions which consider the soul to be connected to, but separate from, the body 3. an ability of the mind (or societal mind) to define reality (think New Agers or Postmodernists)...
I could go on for a long time. And all that's assuming you even believe the stuff exists. No comment there. [/quote]
Yep.. Just think about a hyve-mind by insects.
[/quote]
This is called pantheism = everything is god.
You know, I've always sorta wondered about the etymology on the 'pan' prefix. Was it derived from Pan, or was it connected later? I sorta get the sense that it was derived by a sort of metaphorical relation, not a direct relation. ie, Pan is the god of nature, and since one could say that in a sense, everything exists within nature, Pan would sort of encompass everything. But he's not actually the god of everything, which is what I know a bunch of New Agers/Neopagans claim these days. As I recall, some of them also call Thor a female.[/quote]
By my knowing Pan is the greek word for: Everything. And yes Pan is also the god of nature. but one does not exclude the other on that. Nature is also everything isn't it? Normaly you have first a word and after that you named something it. By the way what was first Bastet or the godess Bastet. Or was she first a woman who became a godess later???
Well some people call Pim Fortyun a man.. so?!!! :D Maybe Thor was castrated after he had a son and a daughter with his mistresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
-
I believe only in 2 things: Everything is god or nothing is god. It makes it more easy!
So, wait... you're saying that the reason to believe this is because it's easy? Quantum physics isn't easy, molecular biology isn't easy, rocket science isn't easy, et cetera. It's easier to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth./quote
Actually everything is quite easy.. everything is just a point of view. Didn't Einstein said that his theories were quite simple.. You only have to know the theory.. and who decides if Earth is round or flat.. to a being who can only think 2-dimensional the earth is flat my friend... And doesn't everything circel around everything? Isn't everything connected?! We actually think 3-dimesnional and are not yet able to comprehent dimensions beyond that, but we are allowed to speculate on it!
So, you argue then that POV defines truth? Alrighty. My point of view is that there are objectives which are absolute, and not dependent on viewpoints. So that, being my viewpoint, must be true, then. So there are objective truths, and your viewpoint is therefore self-contradictory and self-destructive. Which, as Aristotle pointed out in his Law of Noncontradiction, means that your argument must be false. It demands that two mutually exclusive facts both be true: that truth and reality are subjective and that they are objective (that is, my subjective truth of objectivity is just as valid as your subjective truth of subjectivity. My subjective truth of objectivity can only be true if yours is false because mine is inherently overruling by nature.)
Or let's try this. Let's say that my point of view is that you are, by nature, incapable of defining truth. So now what? Which of us is right? I'd love for you to explain how we're both right.
Next, as for the Earth being round or flat... The spherical nature of the Earth is not defined by our beliefs. Whether we are capable of perceiving it is a different matter. The Earth did not change shape when the Greeks suddenly said "you know what? It's a sphere!" or when Sturlusson titled his book "Heinskringla" ("the world is round") As for "doesn't everything circel around everything? Isn't everything connected?!" Why would everything circle around everything? Why would everything be connected? I mean, to some degree, you can throw in Chaos theory, and say that things are connected that way. Molecule 1 bounces off the butterfly's wing, and hits molecules 2 and 3, which hit 4,5,6,7 etc which hit 8,9,10.... and two years later, there's a hurricane in Florida. But I get the feeling you're not talking about physical cause-effect here.
Next, we are, in fact, able to comprehend addition dimensions. Hence Einsteins theories. By the way, he had multiple theories, some of which are quite simple. But again, I'd love for you to explain how the Special Theory of Relativity and the vibrations of Supers Strings and the Nature of Old Norse Poetry are simple. I mean, I wrote a 25-page paper on the Norse stuff there, and believe you me, it is sure as **** not simple.
And as for speculations... we're not 'speculating' on these more advanced dimensions and ideas. Ever heard of CERN? Or that supercollider thing they have? Look it up. We're not speculating. We're discovering ways to affect the observable three dimensions through additional dimensions in order to learn about them indirectly.
If everythings is god then everyone and every stone, star or whatever is god and all ethic rules are legal to it.
So Hitler was a goodguy. I mean, if you want to try to argue that, fine. But you might have a problem. Especially since he didn't respect other things, lifeforms.... eh... under your philosophy, he didn't respect God (the other life forms, et cetera.) Oh, yeah. Throw in all the other psychopaths throughout history, too.
So you say there is good and evil: Black and white.. there are no more colours? You decide that a god is good or evil.. Maybe god is both.. like we are.. we are not all good or evil. For instance George Bush is a mass-murder as well... and people decide he is on the good side.. To me it seems that in every war there's a maas murder! Just remember this the wealth or the power of the one is some-one else's poverty. Besides that if a big meteor hits earth is this meteor then a bad and evil meteor.
Given that you obviously don't quite understand the implications of the nature of Good and Evil, let me point something out. Good is not a physical characteristic. It cannot be possessed by a mere physical object. Something which is 'good' or 'evil' must possess something beyond mere lumps of matter, as is the case with an asteroid. Let's start with your first point. Other colors. Good and evil are by nature binary. One or the other. As you move into more complex systems -- containing more than one property -- there may well be a combination of the two. An idea, society, system, et cetera may have elements which are 'good' and elements which are 'evil.' So, within complex systems, Shades of Grey may exist. There is a third option: neutrality. That's what matter is. A lump of iron is neither good nor evil. The purposes to which it may be put, however, are. There is no fourth option. Something is either Good, Evil, or Inherently Unable to Possess Either Quality. Again, within complex systems, you get combinations of these characteristics. That's how you can have "greater or lesser good" and "greater or lesser evil."
God being both good and evil, just as humans are both: I disagree. Humans are not both. I could go into an in-depth description of Christian doctrine on the point, but I'll just throw out a hyper-simplified version because this is going to be long enough as it is. I believe that humans are in a state of being inherently evil. This is not necessarily an active evil (ie, Hitler) as opposed to a passive evil (the lack of good). Darkness doesn't actively exist; it is rather an absence of light. Cold doesn't actively exist; rather, it is an absence of heat. Et cetera. the human nature is an inherent absence of absolute good. Whether or not any good remains at all is beside the point, and is controversial. Mormons, for example (TheJord can correct me if I'm wrong--) believe that there is inherent good in humanity. Anyway, the point is that, because of a lack of absolute good (black and white now,) humans are somewhere in the range of imperfect to passively evil to actively evil. Enter black-and-white. A human, as a unit, is either perfect or imperfect. Justice must be carried out by a perfect God, (else he would not be perfect) and those imperfections must therefore be accounted for. AKA, punished. Enter Jesus, who as a human is able to be the target of such punishment, and as God is worth infinitely more than any number of humans. He, therefore, is able to bear the full brunt of the justification. At that point, for those who accept the substitution, their imperfections and/or evil is considered as having been punished vicariously. For those who don't accept, well, they've rejected the substitution, so...
Upshot of all this relating back to the argument is that humans are also "good or evil, not both." Which? Evil. Perhaps not manifestly and actively, but nevertheless. As for good tendencies they may have, societal pressures and selfish interests can eeasily create those, and even instill a desire to do good for good's sake. Sorta like a reverse version of "The Noble Savage."
As to Bush: The question at hand isn't whether or not we went to war. The question isn't whether or not people die in war. The question is, was it justified? Is war ever justified? Which is the lesser evil the pre-war status quo, or the war? Same question in every war. If it's justified, then it is, by definition, not murder. Murder is, by definition, death by wrongful-- evil-- means or causes. If you;re using a different definition, then you're not speaking Standard English, and communication of your ideas is therefore a two-sided equivocation in which neither side is adressing the points brought up by the other, because both are talking about two entirely different things.
As for which is the greater evil, war or no war, honestly, I'm glad we took out Hitler before he took us out. The war in Iraq was, as far as I am able to determine, inevitable. I could be wrong, of course, but my point is this: it is contestable whether or not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the rest of the world are justified. But they either are or are not. It's not subjective. We argue over whether or not Bush IS a mass murderer, et cetera. Not say "well, I think he is, you think he's not, we don;t really know because we're both right, even though that's impossible." (That is, something cannot be both X and NOT X at the same time.)
Wealth and Power vs. Poverty: Wow. I just learned about that in Shakespeare 380, actually. It's called Infantile Narcissism. The idea that because someone has something, someone else must have lost it. Ie, Duncan has the Crown. Therefore Macbeth necessarily LOST the crown. So he wants it back. Even though he never really had it. the fact that Bill Gates has money does not mean that people are starving. They may be starving, but it's not because Bill Gates stole their money. In fact, from my understanding, Bill Gates is well-known for philanthropy. He's not rich because he took their money, he's rich because he created a product of great value, and others gave him money in exchange for it. did they steal if from starving people? Maybe some of them did, given the massive numbers of people who use Windows. Beside the point. You can't lost what you didn't have. I'm not saying that people starving is good, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the rich person's fault. Sometimes it is. But they're not starving because he's rich. Even if he wasn't, they'd still be starving. False-Cause Logical Fallacy and Infantile Narcissism. The reason it's called that is because, in a much more absolute manner, it's the natural state of an infant, who has not yet learned that the world is not an extension of its own mind. That is, the baby thinks: "I'm hungry. WAAAAHHH!" then it's suddenly fed. It thinks that it got food because there was a hunger. Not because they complained loud enough that another being got tired of listening to the whining and got a bottle, or whatever. This same idea has progressed into a pseudo-comprehensive worldview.
And if everything is god then everything is uncounsesly connected with eachother what can explain telepathy and other esp things.
Even assuming you believe that stuff, there are so many different ways to explain those phenomena that the fact this potentially explains it is no support at all. For example, some explanations would be: 1. a connection in the mass unconscious suggested by Jung (Think Freudian psychology) 2. a sense existent on some sort of spiritual or mental plane, rather than physical plane (which is sort of how I figure the so-called 'women's intuition') which could fit into a large number of religions which consider the soul to be connected to, but separate from, the body 3. an ability of the mind (or societal mind) to define reality (think New Agers or Postmodernists)...
I could go on for a long time. And all that's assuming you even believe the stuff exists. No comment there. /quote
Yep.. Just think about a hyve-mind by insects.
See, there we sort of agree on the fact that it would explain things. Whether or not it's true, well.... I actually believe in an extremely limited "hive nature" of humanity, in that we're all humans. Hive-mind, not so much, although the All-Omniscient Internet is definitely getting us there. :roll: Anyway, my point was that the fact that it's a potential explanation means nothing, because there's dozens of other explanations that work just as well. And I have yet to see evidence of a human hivemind. Besides. The psychologists don't like Freud anymore anyways.
This is called pantheism = everything is god.
You know, I've always sorta wondered about the etymology on the 'pan' prefix. Was it derived from Pan, or was it connected later? I sorta get the sense that it was derived by a sort of metaphorical relation, not a direct relation. ie, Pan is the god of nature, and since one could say that in a sense, everything exists within nature, Pan would sort of encompass everything. But he's not actually the god of everything, which is what I know a bunch of New Agers/Neopagans claim these days. As I recall, some of them also call Thor a female.
By my knowing Pan is the greek word for: Everything. And yes Pan is also the god of nature. but one does not exclude the other on that. Nature is also everything isn't it? Normaly you have first a word and after that you named something it. By the way what was first Bastet or the godess Bastet. Or was she first a woman who became a godess later???
Well some people call Pim Fortyun a man.. so?!!! :D Maybe Thor was castrated after he had a son and a daughter with his mistresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
Okay, etymology not really relevant, just a wandering thought. Bastet: I dunno if there was a human Bastet later deified. I don't know much about Egyptian myth at all. If there was, it doesn't mean that she was or is a supernatural being. I can, however, point out Bragi Boddasson, an Old Norse poet, who was later considered to be the god of Poetry. And Thor wasn't castrated in the myths. If you re-write your mythology to the point where Thor's a woman, then it's not Thor anymore. One of Thor's defining characteristics is his masculinity. And I don't care what you think, just because you think that Thor is real doesn't mean that lightning is caused by a mystical chariot dragged by goats. The nature of the universe doesn't give a **** whether you think lightning is caused by electronic discharge or giant turtles from the heavens. It doesn't change based on a democratic vote over whether people think that the earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same.
Oh, and don't bother linking to Wikipedia for me on Old Norse myth. ;) I've got a copy of the Poetic Edda sitting right in front of me. And I've read the whole thing. With footnotes and introduction, conclusion, index.... Plus all the other resources I've read on the stuff, primary and secondary sources. Translated primaries, of course. Much as I wish I could, I can't read actual Old Norse. Anyway, point being, I'd lay down 40:1 odds that I know more about it than anyone else on here.
Alright, I took so long typing this that TLHH logged me out, and I had to copy-paste it all into a new reply. So I'll give it a rest now. :up:
Well, maybe not. On to the other thread of discussion:
1. WHO IS JEHOVAH? Jehovah, an Anglicization of Hebrew YHWH. The YHWH is itself Anglicized, given that it's a translation from an independent orthography. (Germanic J often = Modern English Y, dittos with W = V; so an early English pronunciation of the spelling "Jehovah" would have been about equivalent Modern "Yaweh".)
2. IS JEHOVAH THE SAME AS GOD? Yes. All a single being with multiple "names." After all, why would an absolutely sufficient being existing outside of time, space, et cetera, have a name? Who would have named the being? Himself? Maybe within the context of a human time/space continuum, but what name would be given outside? What purpose would it serve?
3. WHAT IS JESUS' RELATIONSHIP TO GOD? Jesus is a human incarnation of a manifestation of God. That is, God made himself take on human form. There's a whole long thing I could go into about the nature of Trinity. But Jesus is an incarnation of the same being as Jehovah.
So yeah, and I agree with all of Kralik and ge's answers, too.
-
good heavens thats a massive block of text...and I read it all...I feel...unclean
-
To me
1. Jehovah is Jesus Christ. He represented Heavenly Father (or Elohim to those biblical scholars) in the Old Testament.
2. Jehovah is not Heavenly Father, he is Jesus Christ representing Heavenly Father
3. Jesus is one in purpose with Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, however He is known to you), but they are seperate and distinct individuals. One in purpose, but not one in the Nicean Creed sense.
-
1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
-
TheJord, how does the LDS church interpret passages that state that there is only one God?
-
A.D. Your text is so long I will take the effort to quote it.
Unfortunally you totaly miss my point.
Truth: Well is there any? Your truth is not mine and mine is not yours, would Bilbo say I think :)
You are going back to Aristoteles (wasn't he Plato's Master on who's theory christianity is bould...). Well if you do you should know that it all depends on premisies and axioma's (those words are dutch and I don't know the english translation for it). So point of view doen mater. Who are you to argue someothers view and who am I to argue it. Some name there god Allah, others Yehova and others called it Jip and Janneke. It's their point of view, so it's their truth.
Perception is very important for living beings. Perceptions determines danger, love. So if an animal thinks you must be god you are god to that animal.
I only believe that everything is god, so everything is enclosed: Good and bad. The whole Multiversum and everything beyond comprehension. I don't worry about if God hears me or not. I am part of it and after death I will still be part of it as dust returns to dust;)
But also good and evil are just perceptions. For a Nazi Hitler was magnificent. For the modern wapenindustry Bush is magnificent.. I puke on them both, but it's still a point of view. Is it evil if people get killed? I don't know, but I think that a lot of animals will have an extra breath because of it. There are to much people anyway, maybe murderers do Earth a favor. My point is good and evil does not exist. We are all both.
Well you can call it infantile: Wealth vs poverty. But tell that to someone who has been borne in Ethiopia and starves to death. People with wealth were just lucky they were born in the right places. Anyway wealth is also a big bulb as we just can see with the creditcrisis.
Though it's fun talking to you. Have to go now, but I will work something out for the next time!
-
That Heavenly Father if God. To us, Heavenely Father's children, there is only one God, Heavenly Father.
How do you explain at Jesus Christ baptism that they heard the voice of the Father, and saw the sign of the dove representing the Holy Spirit, if all 3 representations are the same being? And again when Saul was on the road to Damascus, when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, was he standing on his own right hand?
-
TheJord, I'm a main-stream protestant and as such there are several areas in which I disagree with the main-stream LDS views on theological issues. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me your views on Jesus' relationship with the other members of the trinity, the sacraments, and the reliability of the Book of Mormon are, compared to protestant thinking. I don't want to create a 'straw man fallacy' and attack beliefs that you don't even hold so I thought it best it hear what you have to say first. ;)
-
That Heavenly Father if God. To us, Heavenely Father's children, there is only one God, Heavenly Father.
How do you explain at Jesus Christ baptism that they heard the voice of the Father, and saw the sign of the dove representing the Holy Spirit, if all 3 representations are the same being? And again when Saul was on the road to Damascus, when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, was he standing on his own right hand?
Thanks for sharing your beliefs! Let me see if I understand you correctly:
-There is only one God (Heavenly Father), the Creator.
-Jesus (aka Jehovah) is a representative of Heavenly Father, but not God himself.
-In the future, Joseph Smith and all who are "heirs with Christ" will have the opportunity to become Gods.
Is that right so far?
I see the baptism of Jesus Christ as an awesome example of all three members of the Trinity manifested at once. I take it from your words above that you do not believe in the Trinity in the same way as I do... in that case, who/what exactly is the Holy Spirit? As for Saul's vision, I think you may have it confused with Stephen, who saw Jesus before he died of stoning (Acts 7:55-56). I think the problem with understanding the Trinity is that we try to put it in human terms. It's like trying to understand how God is all-knowing, or "how can He hear and respond to millions of prayers at once?" He is not like us, but far beyond out understanding (see for example Romans 11:33-36). Therefore, I don't limit Him to the confines of space and time. It also does not seem impossible to me that God is three persons, each distinct yet 100% God. Although it is mind-boggling at times. :o
So, your take on "and the Word was God"? (John 1:1)
-
I think the reason I have a problem with the traditional view of the Trinity is that it gives God this unrecognisable form. This doesnt seems like the way God would want to appear to us. I think that when we die and return to Him, that we will recognise Him for what he is. We are images of him, and our form and appearance does not alter.
Yes, He is God so if needs required he could change form, but He still remains that image that we were created in. The notion that He is an immutable form far beyond our understanding makes Him only the more difficult to understand, and I think that again we go against what He wants for us.
The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit who works in unity with Heavenly Father. As Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have physical (and glorified) bodies, the Holy Spirit is unique in that he doesnt have a physical body. The reason for this is he has a specific role as a testifier of the Truth to us. For this, he needs to be able to dwell within us (people often refer to this as 'feeling the Spirit') so he can testify the truth to us. He has other roles, but the Holy Ghost's main purpose is to testify of the truthfullness of Jesus Christ.
Christ is often refered to as God in the scriptures because of his role representing Heavenly Father. He also reprsents the ultimate example of how we should act. I thought I had already said something about this?
Some major differences in my beliefs include a belief in a pre-existence, that we were spirits and existed with Heavenly Father before we came to this Earth. We were all given the Plan that He had prepared for us to allow us to return to him, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and obedience to the commandments, and then we accepted this Plan. We understand that those who rejected God and Jesus Christ's plan followed Lucifer, or Satan, and were denied their 'first estate', or a physical body.
Right to answer some questions.
@ GT - With regards to Sacrament, our main Sunday worship revolves around the Sacrament. This, we believe, represents the body and blood of Christ, shed and given in our place so that we need not suffer all the punishment that the commandments dictate. I hope that answers that question, because I understand that some Christian church's have different 'sacraments', but this is the only one in my Church.
From the 8th articles of faith, a declaration of our most basic beliefs - We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
The Bible and Book of Mormon go hand in hand teaching of Jesus Christ divine mission to redeem us.
I hope this answers everything! Keep the questions coming, I love talking religion, no one around here has ANY interest in anything to do with religion :(
-
About the sacraments, Presbyterians as a whole hold two sacraments: The Lord's supper, and baptism.
The Lord's Supper:
The Lord's supper is held about once a month and is similar, but different from the Catholic Mass. In the Lord's supper is held as a memorial to Jesus Christ who said: "This is my body which is given to you; do this in remembrance of me" In the Lord's supper the bread and the wine are passed around in turn and those who have made the commitment to join the church receive the sacrament as a representation of Christ's body and blood. In the Catholic Mass however, the bread is believed to magically become the body of Christ and the wine is believed to become the blood. Unlike in protestant services the Catholics actually worship the 'body and blood' and instead of having the bread passed around walk in a procession past the altar where Christ has been 'sacrificed again' and take a wafer of bread. The congregation does not partake of the wine, for wine it is unlike the grape juice substituted in most protestant services. The main difference between The Lord's supper and Mass is that the Catholics believe they must periodically 're-sacrifice' Christ to continue to remove their sins, hence their imagery of a crucifix instead of cross. On the crucifix, Christ is still suffering, on the cross he has risen, having been sacrificed once and only once.
Baptism:
Baptism is held at birth, if possible and is done as a sign of God's covenant. Baptism is one of the subjects most debated by Christians, the Baptists, for example hold the belief that baptism should only be administered to a person old enough to understand it and as a sign of that person's faith while Presbyterians believe baptism is a sign and seal of the new covenant and should be administered to infants if possible. Form of baptism is also argued, the Baptists believe in submersion, while most Presbyterians believe both sprinkling and submersions are valid forms of baptism. What baptism accomplishes is debated a great deal, while Baptists hold that is a ritual for publicly declaring your faith and does not save you, the Catholics argue that it is necessary for salvation and the Presbyterians believe it to be a sign of the covenant.
What are the LSD views on Baptism and The Lord's supper?
-
I'm kinda out in rogue territory, baptist/pentacostal crossover, kinda, and we hold two sacraments.
Lord's Supper- We pretty much agree. Its a representation of the body and blood, no transubstantiation.
Baptism- Pretty much encapsulated the baptist view as ours. The great commission puts making disciples first, the refers to baptizing the disciples. I'm also not sure your position on conversion, its seems like you said they need to be old enough to understand, where baptists hold they must have received salvation first. Salvation is a voluntary individual thing, and then we are baptized as a sign of the new covenant. But before salvation, there is no covenant, and thus, baptism is meaningless as a sign.
-
For us, our main Sunday meeting is called Sacrament meeting, and there we take bread and water to represent the blood and body of Christ. We also dont believe in transubstatiation.
Baptism is for those who have accepted the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. As Christ said, "except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God". We see baptism as a necessary part of being obedient to God's commandments. We believe that this act must be performed by one in authority, one who has the Priesthood, which is the right to act in God's name.
What kind of Youth programs do your Church's run?
-
We have children's choir for younger children (ages 6-11) and missionary trips for teens as well as a catechism class for younger kids (ages 4-8). What programs do you have at your church?
-
We have Primary for the kids (3-11) and then either Young Women's or Young Men's (12-18) for teenagers. Young men at the age of 19 can serve a mission for the Church, often abroad. I served my mission in Vancouver Canada. On the other hand, my older brother went to London and my younger brother is in Leeds England. I got the better deal lol!
-
For us, our main Sunday meeting is called Sacrament meeting, and there we take bread and water to represent the blood and body of Christ. We also dont believe in transubstatiation.
Why water? I mean, it's pretty readily apparent why people might argue not to use wine, and have grape juice instead, but as I recall, the original Greek refers to the drink used as (roughly translated) "fruit of the vine." (I could be wrong there.) Is there a particular reason you use water, as opposed to some sorta grape juice/wine, or is it more like "any sort of drink will work as a symbol, and water is a pretty basic, cheap drink, and no-one's allergic to it" sort of thing?
-
Yeah water is the generally used, but like you said AD as long as the message is being delivered and received in the right way, you could use 7-Up if you were so inclined! We dont drink alcohol as part of our beliefs, so that plays into the no wine aspect as well.
-
But Jesus drank wine, so why no alcohol?
-
But Jesus drank wine, so why no alcohol?
amen! at least with my church it's so people who have taken vows not to drink alcohol, or who think it is "bad". i personally think alcohol in moderation is fine, jesus seemed to think so.
-
But Jesus drank wine, so why no alcohol?
Well, again, as I recall the original Greek was "fruit of the vine," as far as communion goes, but the first miracle (water --> wine at the wedding) was most distinctly wine.
And I have actually heard some legitimate arguments for not drinking alcohol at all without actually saying that alcohol is inherently bad. Being that while it's not inherently bad, it's better to not even put yourself in the situation where you would potentially cross the line of moderation, intentionally or not.
That said, I actually like wine. And yes, I only drink it when it's legal, thank-you-very-much. (Ie, when I'm in Canada or Britain with a lower drinking age, or at Communion....)
-
exactly. and there are tons of good reasons for not drinking, but that should only be used as personal conviction. each person has to decide for himself.
personally, i don't like wine.
-mm
-
Neither do I but I am in agreement with mm and AD on that while drinking in moderation is fine so is conviction not to drink. Because temptation is deadly thing.