Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678910 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 324

Thread: Dear Mom, I put a couple of people in Hell today.

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    31
    I'm going to be working from the more recent posts back to the beginning of the thread, and apologies in advance for the length and lateness of this post:

    I agree that the Bible is ambiguous about a lot of things, homosexuality included.

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    (The argument for Christian homosexuality is that the Hebrew Bible says nothing bad about it, and that the Theologians just inserted it for their own 'agenda'.)
    Which Theologians?

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    The Bible . . . flat out overlooks a ton of other facts about our Universe making the whole thing seem suspect. Consider this, according to Relativity time might be so slow in some regions of space that Christ might not have even existed there yet. Gravity curves space and slows down time. For example, if you saw me enter a black hole I would appear frozen in space forever at the edge that separates space and time from the mouth of darkness, so who could say for sure if I was truly dead or not? For that matter, who can say for sure that anyone is truly dead? Does seeing it justify it when time is full of curves and bends? Accordingly, who could say for sure that I would appear frozen at the edge of a black hole before falling off the edge of the Universe forever? After all, no one has actually entered a black hole or attempted to.
    I find it interesting that the very things which throw the whole religion thing into question for you don't do that at all for me. I think it highlights mystery of God, someone who could create (however he did it) such bizarre (to me) things . . . :o . Besides which, I figure that he's probably got the time inconsistancies etc organised - I don't think that he himself is bound by a linear time as we are (and even that is cultural - more a western than an eastern way of thinking - I expect the biblical writers themselves wouldn't have thought about it the way we do, though I'm not sure). On who is really dead, I think that's a tricky question even if you leave black holes etc out of it. Is it when the brain stops working or when the heart stops working? Is someone on life-support who is otherwise a vegetable alive or not? I don't know, but I'm assuming God does. I don't think the fact that it's not dealt with in the Bible necessarily knocks the whole thing for six, especially if you take into account the human part of the writing of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    But the same boundaries bind religion too. Who knows what happens when we die? Hoping that there is some paradise waiting for us sure is a nice security blanket to have when the equally plausible prospect of non-existence looms over us in the distance.
    Religion, yes; God, no. I don't think they are the same thing. The who knows what happens when we die question, hasn't (of course) just come up with the newer questions arising from us finding out more about the universe, it's been around for ages. I tend to think that even if I do just non-exist when I die, I won't know about it so it doesn't really matter. Seeing as we can't know for certain (excluding religious revelation) either way, then I guess you could say that believing in a (happy) after-life is a security blanket, in the sense that it presumably makes life more hopeful? bearable? whatever, while you're still alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    (I think there is more evidence that Purgatory exists in the Bible than evidence for indigenous humans finding God without the aid of missionaries or colonialism).
    I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    Is nature a model of the Bible?
    I don't think anyone's arguing that. I would say that nature and the Bible are separate revelations of God's character, both being based on a third entity, God, rather than one on the other. Note revelation is different from model - to me, a model implies completeness, ie. all characteristics of the original are reflected in the model, whereas a revelation doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kinch
    I don't believe that Christianity is latent in nature.
    Taking the Romans verses again:

    . . . since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .
    So it's not Christianity as a whole (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection etc) which is apparent from nature - that'd be ridiculous. What it says is that God's 'eternal power' and 'divine nature' can be seen from the world. Both seem fairly general terms to me, I don't think anyone could say definitively exactly what they mean, but I think it's fairly obvious that what it's talking about are of the order of 'invisible qualities' or characteristics, rather than everything God's done (which the Bible doesn't tell you either for that matter, but anyway . . . ), as distinct from Christianity or the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kinch
    And for those who've never come to experience it, what then when they die?
    Which is the same question as the OP which messes up my nice logical order but oh well . . . : my basic take on this is that I don't know, which is a bit of a cop-out. I tend to think along the lines that I know God, and I know that his character is both a) merciful and b) just and so I can trust him to figure it out satisfactorally. I like to think that this passage might have some relevance:

    That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving of punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

    Luke 12:47-48 NIV
    but I could be misapplying it. It also brings up the purgatory thing again, and the reverse question to the original one - 'wouldn't it then be better not to have heard?' - to which I have no answer. Hmm.

    I also have to go home (at risk of being locked out), so I'll probably continue tomorrow.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Eloise
    Which Theologians?
    St. Thomas Aquinas, King James, &c. But there are better examples earlier on in history that I couldn't name off the top of my head, those two are just examples. Additionally, I'm not claiming to know what their intentions were. Perhaps it was a mistake. But if it is a mistake, we shouldn't pay it any credence.

    I find it interesting that the very things which throw the whole religion thing into question for you don't do that at all for me. I think it highlights mystery of God, someone who could create (however he did it) such bizarre (to me) things . . . :o . Besides which, I figure that he's probably got the time inconsistancies etc organised - I don't think that he himself is bound by a linear time as we are
    It's not a mystery really, it's a paradox (a paradox can be explained, a mystery can't), and if it's a paradox it is a contradiction. How do you feel about contradictions? After all, nihilism is a contradiction, but people still accept it. Why is the belief in metaphysics any better than the rejection of it? They both rest on unstable foundations.

    In case you didn't know, Relativity was the theory that proved Time isn't linear. But even Einstein struggled with a problematic phenomenon: the existence (or, rather, the nonexistence) of zero. So I don't have to type it out again, just go back two pages and look at my post about Achilles and the Tortoise. Obviously, the conclusions are wrong (Time and Space--or, more precisely, Motion--exist), but there isn't a single flaw in the reasoning behind them; they're logical contradictions. But not only that, every statement can be reduced to a similar logical contradiction. You might ask me to define logic, however we'd first have to define definition (but we'd only be chasing our tails). Think about it: a truth is supposed to be objective (eternal), right? Those sorts of truths can never be revealed to us. Signs (e.g. thoughts, words, sounds, colors, sensations, &c.) are not little doorways to some everlasting meaning; instead they act like mirrors distinguishing themselves from other signs that are different. Only with these prior differences do they generate anything that resembles a truth or meaning.

    Religion, yes; God, no. I don't think they are the same thing. The who knows what happens when we die question, hasn't (of course) just come up with the newer questions arising from us finding out more about the universe, it's been around for ages. I tend to think that even if I do just non-exist when I die, I won't know about it so it doesn't really matter. Seeing as we can't know for certain (excluding religious revelation) either way, then I guess you could say that believing in a (happy) after-life is a security blanket, in the sense that it presumably makes life more hopeful? bearable? whatever, while you're still alive.
    I never said it was new, I was just comparing two similar ideas that are older than I am (much older). As far as religion and God making life more hopeful, I don't know if that's true at all. I always thought spirituality promoted sacrifice and modesty, acts that are excruciatingly difficult to many people. Some want instant gratification, others are willing to wait it out for the hope of gaining more than the hedonists. There will always be those who are marginalized. In fact, to some, non-existence after death allows people peace of mind from having to worry--not only about this life--but the next life as well.

    I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)
    Here's what I have for Purgatory right now. Corinthians [3:11], Matthew [12:32], 2 Maccabees, [12: 39-45]. I don't have a Bible handy to quote them (I'm citing the bibliography of a book I own which is titled Hamlet in Purgatory by the Harvard Shakespeare scholar, Stephen Greenblatt, who touches rather heavily on this subject.

    I don't think anyone's arguing that. I would say that nature and the Bible are separate revelations of God's character, both being based on a third entity, God, rather than one on the other. Note revelation is different from model - to me, a model implies completeness, ie. all characteristics of the original are reflected in the model, whereas a revelation doesn't.
    You can say that, but it will come back to haunt you. There aren't multiple 'natures', the Bible has one and, according to its own reasoning, it agrees with the Nature of the Universe and, therefore, agrees with itself. Simple enough, but very tautological (or, in other words, redundant). The essence of God should be present the same in the Bible as He is in Nature. Using Aristotle's logic, the Bible and Nature ought to have the same essence, too. Unfortunately, Man wrote the Bible, not God. So everything you've said falls flat on its face. We don't know what their intentions were nor do we know what God's intentions were, if he does exist.

  3. #63
    ok...i'm going to be a little prig right now...i appoligize ahead of time.
    8)

    I blieve that if you use Catholic Bible refrences...they can't be under the catagory of 'true references' Think about it. Not all bibles have the Catholic books...I would rather we just keep that out of the conversations and focus on the books that everybody has access to. I believe the Catholics have some mixed up ideas...one of them including their extra books in their Bible.

    GTG the bell's about to ring! TTYL
    :Chardata the Fire Mage:

    Out of the darkness I come...
    watch the flames engulf my body,
    watch the flames consume your mind...
    there is no way to break my trance...
    your mind is lost in the flames...
    my flames.
    Oh, my beautiful flames!

  4. #64
    Really? Tell me, why were those books 'added' to the Bible then? I bet you don't even know.

  5. #65
    String Dancer Shea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,931
    Those books were added because the men of the Catholic church felt they needed to be added in order to justify their religious beleifs. Same with the Mormons.

    Abdo, I didn't leave the Catholic church simply because of the mindset of "once a Catholic always a Catholic." I left because most of thier teachings are completely opposite of the Bible (religious titles, rituals, statues, transubstantion, religious holidays, forbidden to eats certain foods, forbidden to marry,... just to name a few ). They have no foundation, their beleifs change when they hold a "meeting". I can't just let someone tell me what to beleive, I have to know for myself.

    To give you the background on what my Catholic family did to me: My parent divorced when I was 6. My Dad re-married when I was 9 and my Mom moved to Ohio and met my step-dad, who showed her the truth in the Bible and so she was baptized to become a Christian then they were married. The first summer that my sister and I went up there (I was 12), they showed us the Bible (because the Catholics never read it), and we saw the truth. But we were still young and didn't have full understanding enough to be baptized. When we got back to Florida, my Catholic family threw a fit, and "converted us back". They got so upset, and because of their history (that's another story), we knew that if we didn't let them beleive that we were Catholic, we would never see our parents in Ohio again (at least not untill we were 18). So I went to Mass regularly, joined a (very liberal) Catholic youth group, even went to Paris to see the Pope at a Catholic function. The whole time knowing that everything was wrong. It wasn't untill I was 18 that I was able to break away from all that, and the only benefit that I have is that I know a lot about the Catholic church, and now even more so. I've studied how they got started and why they believe what they believe. They pretty much throw the Truth out the window, and mostly for the sake of pride and prestige.

    Whew! I hope I'll never have to type that all up again!

    I want to respond to many other comments here but I'll have to do it later.
    Hwt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,/eodcuninga rum gefrunon,/hu a elingas ellen fremedon!
    Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,/ monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,/ egsode eorlas, syan rest wear/ feasceaft funden; he s frofre gebad,/ weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,/ ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra/ofer hronrade hyran scolde,/gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!

  6. #66
    String Dancer Shea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,931
    Actually, now that I think about it, scince Abdo dosen't beleive that the Bible is divinely inspired, and just comes up with a bunch of excuses as to why he shouldn't beleive it despite what we say, I wonder if continuing this is a waste of our time. We said what he needs to know, but he has rejected it, how sad . All his conclusions lead to the hope of absolutely nothing after we die. As for me, suppose that I have beleived in something in vain, but I would rather live the life of a quiet christian ( which I find much easier than trying to live life as a perpetual party), than to find out that God does exist and I was not obedient to Him. Do you know how long eternity is?
    Hwt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,/eodcuninga rum gefrunon,/hu a elingas ellen fremedon!
    Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,/ monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,/ egsode eorlas, syan rest wear/ feasceaft funden; he s frofre gebad,/ weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,/ ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra/ofer hronrade hyran scolde,/gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!

  7. #67
    Eternity is two hours spent in a church.

  8. #68
    About the Catholic Bible: Shea, I thought you of all people would know this. I was directing that question at Chardata, but now the answer I'm directing at you. Why does the Catholic Bible have seven more books in its Old Testament than the Protestant Bible? It's because the Jewish Testament was written in Hebrew, but the Israelites also possessed the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. The Apostles and the New Testament writers quoted from this book hundreds of times, so it's pointless to try and say that it was irrelevent. Besides, the Catholic Bible as we know it today contains all of the books of the oldest existing biblical texts, the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Ephraemi. This means that the Protestant Bible is further distanced from the original texts than is the Catholic Bible, and that the Mormons seem to be more along the lines of your beliefs than those of the Catholics.

    By the way, look at a Catholic priest. He's given his entire life away for the sake of his religion, whereas a Protestant preacher is allowed to live a normal life, have a wife and a few kids. Not a lot of sacrifice there, so we can at least say that the Catholics are more respectable in that regard.

  9. #69
    Good morning, Campers! Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    7,251
    Quote Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
    By the way, look at a Catholic priest. He's given his entire life away for the sake of his religion, whereas a Protestant preacher is allowed to live a normal life, have a wife and a few kids. Not a lot of sacrifice there, so we can at least say that the Catholics are more respectable in that regard.
    Well, why living a normal life is so terrible? Look at the Pope (sorry to anyone who happens so like him). He's Catholic priest and HAS children. Why is it so important for Catholic priests not to lead a normal life? Protestant priests do and so they are not proper Christian priests? I'm not good at quoting the Bible, so Shea feel free to correct me, but doesn't it say (how to say it in English...) something along the lines love and multiply yourselves. Sorry, never held an English written Bible in my hands.
    I have a plan: attack!

  10. #70
    String Dancer Shea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,931
    I have to prepare for a test tomorrow, so I don't have much time. But to support Jay's statement:

    1 Timothy 4:1-3
    1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
    Hwt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,/eodcuninga rum gefrunon,/hu a elingas ellen fremedon!
    Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,/ monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,/ egsode eorlas, syan rest wear/ feasceaft funden; he s frofre gebad,/ weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,/ ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra/ofer hronrade hyran scolde,/gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!

  11. #71
    Good morning, Campers! Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    7,251
    Thanks Shea, but if I got all the formal English (lol) right, that's not entirely what I had in mind. But yeah, it does make a point I think.
    I have a plan: attack!

  12. #72
    Jay, the Pope wasn't always part of the Church.

  13. #73
    String Dancer Shea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,931
    Umm, excuse me, very quickly, the Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first pope because they twisted a passage in Matthew. Peter was also married. But right now I have to go.
    Hwt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,/eodcuninga rum gefrunon,/hu a elingas ellen fremedon!
    Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,/ monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,/ egsode eorlas, syan rest wear/ feasceaft funden; he s frofre gebad,/ weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,/ ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra/ofer hronrade hyran scolde,/gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!

  14. #74
    ok...i think what i said was twisted out of proportion.
    There is nothing wrong with the Catholic blief...just it's miss-guided. There is enough truth in the C. church that they can find the Truth...but they are going to want to think for themselves and not have the priests think for them. Shea, your a thinker you've found the truth and 'left' the catholic church...I have other friends who have done the same. Then i have friends who believe that if you're not a catholic you are going to hell...and they have the priests think for them. That, i believe, is wrong.

    Does that make more sense?
    :Chardata the Fire Mage:

    Out of the darkness I come...
    watch the flames engulf my body,
    watch the flames consume your mind...
    there is no way to break my trance...
    your mind is lost in the flames...
    my flames.
    Oh, my beautiful flames!

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Shea
    Umm, excuse me, very quickly, the Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first pope because they twisted a passage in Matthew. Peter was also married. But right now I have to go.
    George Washington wasn't our first president, but who cares?

Similar Threads

  1. Images of Heaven and Hell
    By Miss Darcy in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-11-2008, 09:46 PM
  2. John 1:12
    By KarenM in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-10-2005, 07:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •