I wonder if people do only truly believe in God 'for the bad stuff'. . . .
Printable View
I wonder if people do only truly believe in God 'for the bad stuff'. . . .
As a mass of people, it can seem like that, look at what happened right after 9-11. But I guarantee you that there are many, many chistians who pray and thank God simply for the lovely day! ;)
i agree with shea. You also have to remember...alot of ppl get caught in the trap of relying on God just for thier own selfish needs. That is part of human nature...i'm guilty of it...and i'm sure many others are too. That's why i work hard to rely on God for every aspect of my life...not just the bad or the good. :P
Like Rinbo, I don't believe that Christianity is latent in nature. And for those who've never come to experience it, what then when they die?
Shea, did you ever see the episode of 'Seinfeld' in which Elaine's boyfriend (I think his name was 'Puddy') got all dressed up in New Jersey Devil's fan makeup and dress and beat on that old Catholic priest's car, screamin': 'Yeah, man! we're the Devils!', sending him into a coma?
if i read your reply correctly, Kinch...umm...that is something that we take by faith. No one is perfect...not even your strongest Christian...and this may be a shocker to alot of catholics...but the Pope is not perfect either!!! ^-^ Christianity is something you have to explore on your own. God gives us signs all around us so we don't have to take everything by faith.
If he was agreeing with what I said, then you are mistaken. I had pointed out earlier that tribal members in the uncharted regions of the world who have never heard of Christ or Christianity are only vaguely accounted for by the Bible (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). Is nature a model of the Bible? If so, why aren't things like black holes, general relativity, or even dinosaurs (et cetera) mentioned in it? Would you say that those things do not exist? Because the sciences that prove their existence are the sames ones that prove yours; if you reject them, you become prey to nihilism.
dinos are mentioned in the Bible...so is the pangea thingy. SHEA!!! I need Bible refrences!!! PLEASE! ^_* You know we only do this to you b/c your so good at it and we love you lol!
As evidence that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, my grandma doesn't even believe they ever existed, and she's a Lutheren. Heh, in fact she wouldn't take me to see 'Jurassic Park' when I was a kid . . . and I never forgave her.
is that a fact...that is sad...I do think dinos existed...but i don't think your grandmother's beliefs are the basis of the Bible. Yeah, she may know alot but i can vouch for this...there are some crazy ppl out there that believe in crazy things. Trash the denomination crap. If you are a Christian...that's that. What your grandmother believes is wrong...but it doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't mention creatures like dinos etc. Even the laviathen is mentioned. Like i said before...ppl have some wacked-up ideas/views.
Believe it or not, I've been searching for that reference to dinosaurs for a while now. I saw it months ago, it was pre-flood (or speaking of it), and it talked of great beasts roaming the earth. But I can't remember! I'll keep looking. :o
When Paul was rebuking the gentiles in Romans 1 for disobeying the laws of nature, that had nothing to do with black holes, etc. Frankly, those things have nothing to do with salvation. Nature, though simple, has too much complexity for things just to 'happen'. The gentiles should have known that there was God just because of this complexity. Instead they chose to worship the creatures rather than the creator, and turn away from the laws of nature, for example, by practicing homosexuality (yes it's a sin) which is not evident anywhere else than by human choice.
WOW you hit that right on the head!!! ::applause applause::
First of all, when archaeologists discover fossils, they aren't discovering the actual bones or fragments of bones, rather, they are discovering rocks that were once pieces of an animal's skeleton that were saturated with a very rare mixture of silt and water which trickled down into the pores of the bones at a very precise moment and hardened into their shape so that when the bones decomposed, the form remained preserved. That process takes thousands of years. Don't believe me? Listen: no one discovers dinosaurs preserved in ice like they do pre-historic humans or mammoths; of course this is very reasonable when you consider hold old some of these fossils are. Some of them are over 100 million years old. Carbon dating may be arguably flawed, but common sense tells us that a dinosaur fossil cannot harden like that in less than something along the figure of 50,000 years (or more). Besides, the Bible doesn't explain how they all died so suddenly. (You'll say the Great Flood wiped them out, of course, but why is there no record of the Flood in the Orient, where genealogical records show their civilization to be older than that of the West? You're putting your faith in mere wishful thinking if you believe that the Bible is entirely literal.)
I don't know what homosexuality has to do with Relativity exactly, but on the topic, no one knows for sure if God considers being gay a sin or not. The Bible is too ambiguous on that issue and 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. 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.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
These passages don't sound very amibuous to me.
For most of everthing else that you said, which I'm not very interested in because it's not important, it has nothing to do with salvation, (which I beleive is what we were discussing). I found that most of that is an exuse for people who do not want to obey God.
But, to humor you, here is an idea:(and I think I've posted this before, forgive me.) Suppose you were able to go back in time to see Adam five minutes after he was created. Adam is only five minutes old but his not an infant. Wouldn't it stand to reason, that God could also have created an 'old earth' as well? But like I said, it's not really important. ;) I would rather have my security blanket, than to cast it away and find out too late that the Bible was all true.
You're quoting a translated text. (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'.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
As for the nature stuff, it really isn't very important--you're right--, but it's 'logical' and it does undermine theology no matter how you look at it (you never really answered any of it, either). I was trying to make it clear that you are hiding under a security blanket (which is something I'm guilty of too), and that quoting the Bible to skeptics to prove you're right is just a big waste of time.
Oh and by the way, you've said that you renounced Catholicism because of the 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic' mentality, which you disagree with. I've told you earlier that the reason I don't consider myself an agnostic is because I believe in that mentality (a Catholic education is a permanant memory). Honestly though, I don't see how someone could give it up like that so easily, and for such a vague reason. Because, based on what you've said, you abdicated it because you felt that your church and/or family would force you to stay (in the same way that teenage-angst makes rebellion seem appealing because we know our parents don't want us to rebel). I don't want to impose, but if you would like to tell me about it I would be interested.
can i have a say in this too? I resent that teenage comment ^_^ lol. Ummm...the homosexuality thingy...can you read hebrew? I'm assuming not...so you can't say for sure that, that is what the texts say or don't say. Secondly, this is turning into presumption etc. Shea remember this? I really don't want to get into this again. BUT how can thousands of different translations be that far off...NIV, King James, Catholic, New American, Morman...etc. Most of them all say the same thing it's just the way a person prefers to understand it. The Catholic and Morman bibles have more books than the Prodistent Bibles but that's beside the point. I would have to agree with Shea on this one.
Catholoism...well, i believe they have more enphasis on tradition and ritual than Jesus and God. I also think they mess with verses until they do not have the meaning that they once held. Now don't chew me out. I believe that there are many Catholics that are spiritually lost and don't understand that Jesus died so that we don't have to preform all the rituals etc and that the Pope does not have the final word. He is no more closer to God than the average Christian. He is human too. There is so much i would like to talk to you about but i'm at school so i don't have time right now. Now, i'm not saying that they other denominations are the 'true' way...which they aren't. Only Jesus is the true way and our society is too focused on how you worship than if you worship at all. It's sad...very sad.
Exactly. Some people prefer to interpret the Bible one way and others in another. That was my point: it's not a Grand Theory.Quote:
Most of them all say the same thing it's just the way a person prefers to understand it.
you can rationalize but the bible is clear. One can choose to interpitate it one way and twist the words another inorder to have it fit thier pupose. Again, I feel like the Bible is straight forward about this topic.
If you say so.
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.
Which Theologians?Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
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
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 would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
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 AbdoRinbo
Taking the Romans verses again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinch
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:
. . . 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 . . .
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinch
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.Quote:
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
I also have to go home (at risk of being locked out), so I'll probably continue tomorrow.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eloise
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)
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.Quote:
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.
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
Really? Tell me, why were those books 'added' to the Bible then? I bet you don't even know.
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 :rolleyes: ). 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. ;)
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?
Eternity is two hours spent in a church.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
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.
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.
Jay, the Pope wasn't always part of the Church.
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. ;)
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 :D 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?
George Washington wasn't our first president, but who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
I don't understand what your arguement is anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo
Chardata, the trouble with the Catholic Church, is that there is so little truth and so much man made rules, that it has become dangerous. This is a very strong arguement from Paul:
Galatians 1:6-10
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
The Catholics are doing what Paul himself wouldn't dare or he would allow himself to be 'eternally condemned'. This dosen't just go for the Catholic church, but for anyone. That's why you always find me quoting scripture because I want to stay as close to it as I possibly can. ;)
Shea, I think you're just saying you don't understand, that way everything I say will seem irrelevent. But if you really want me to be direct and up front with you, and--therefore--come off as insulting, then so be it.
I'll rephrase it: who cares who the first pope was?
The Catholics care. I thought that's what we were talking about. Anyway, it never occurs to them that their religion was started 350 years after Christ's death. If Peter was the first pope, he must have been pretty old by that time.
Let me ask you an entirely unrelated question, Shea. What does the Bible mean to you? What is God saying to us? Let me hear your opinion.
My husband just gave his first mini sermon last Sunday. When I get an opportunity, I'll post it here. The info is really good, and it will answer your question. But he's been working on getting a website started, so I don't have much access to our computer. If he's still working on it by Tuesday, I print it out and type it on the computers at school. ;)