ive to admit i find it kind of weird that christians worship the cross. overall the cross KILLED their savior jesus christ so isn't celebrating the cross celebrating his death and kinda against him? i just realized this and i find it to be kind of sick and twisted. in modern times its as if people would wear necklaces with an electric chair and celebrate that.
Christians don't worship the cross.
The cross didn't kill Jesus.
The cross is simply a symbol that Jesus died for our sins.
He chose to die, the ultimate sacrifice and all that.
Since he was without sin (spotless lamb) he covered the worlds sins so that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.
It's also interesting to note that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prior prophesies, with his birth, death, burial, and resurrection.
God (Jesus) knew he was going to die when he came to Earth manifest in the flesh.
I realize I'm prolly feeding a troll here, but if you were really asking this question in all seriousness then there's your answer.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Christians don't worship the cross.
The cross didn't kill Jesus.
The cross is simply a symbol that Jesus died for our sins.
He chose to die, the ultimate sacrifice and all that.
Since he was without sin (spotless lamb) he covered the worlds sins so that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.
It's also interesting to note that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prior prophesies, with his birth, death, burial, and resurrection.
God (Jesus) knew he was going to die when he came to Earth manifest in the flesh.
I suppose the question merits the answer, but maybe a simpler "not really" would have been as good. These topics are such a drag, and they're talked about as if they were a 21st century issue.
I do find it a tad eerie that a majority of the crosses I see, actually have Jesus hanging on it. I understand symbolism of the cross, but to literally have a necklace with a dead guy hanging from a cross kind pinches my side a little bit. I live in a heavily religious area, over 7 local churches, 5 within walking distance of my house. At least 2/3 of the people I see in public, are all wearing some kind of cross. A good 1/3 of the people I work with, all come in with ashes on their forehead after Ash Wednesday.
But hey, people will wear what they want, especially to symbolize their faith. As long as no one criticizes me for my pentacle, you wont hear me complain about anyone else wearing their symbol. My two cents on the matter, aren't even worth two cents.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I don't wear anything to show what I am but yet people always seem to know.
Not really surprising, considering God, Jesus, and just the foundation Christianity in general is successfully sold so well it could make even the most successful business model jealous.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535105/
Unless you're implicitly giving someone, especially a Christian, a reason not to believe you're Christian, they seem to assume you are, as though the truth in Christianity was as obvious to see as the gravity pulling them to earth. Because the instant you tell anyone say within hearing distance of a Christian, that you don't believe in Jesus, or God, or of a god in general... suddenly it's everything they can do as a living person to insist that you be saved. -_-
I've found that calmly and gently asserting myself in the company of Christians that inquest me about my [lack of] faith [in their God] is a surefire way to put the topic to rest for the duration. Letting them know right up front that I'm not interested in hearing their arguments about why I should believe as they do keeps it brief, and we can actually discuss more important things that much quicker.
"Some of my best friends are Christians..." Even the majority of my family is of at least "casual Christian" bent. I've been able to put the matter to rest amongst them over time, and we're all still able to love one another.
Originally Posted by Silveraura suddenly it's everything they can do as a living person to insist that you be saved. -_-
Unfortunately it's not that way where I live. At least at college.
The Atheists have a strong hold here.
Unfortunately? So you're supporting their abnoxious behavior? Why aren't people allowed to believe what they want without a Christian insulting them every chance they get?
Unless of course I'm misunderstanding something here. I don't find it unfortunate that I don't live amounst a bunch of pagans. I do find it unfortunate however that paganism has such a bad name. Christianity on the other hand, needs to be put in its place for its harassment. Not so much its belief, but for the horrible idea that no one else could possibly be right and that everyone needs to conform to morals set in place entirely off their own belief. It's the ugly superiority complex Christians have, that really gets to me the most. Not so much their faith.
Originally Posted by Silveraura suddenly it's everything they can do as a living person to insist that you be saved. -_-
Unfortunately it's not that way where I live. At least at college.
The Atheists have a strong hold here.
I am a Catholic but I don't preach. If someone else isn't Catholic or does something that isn't Catholically appropriate, I don't tell them to do otherwise. I'll live my life as a Catholic and everyone else can live their life as they wish. Unless of course they want to break some laws, like robbing people or committing murder, in which case I'm not gonna go along with that.
I wouldn't have used the word unfortunately, mainly because I don't think it right to push one's beliefs on another.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Unfortunately? So you're supporting their abnoxious behavior? Why aren't people allowed to believe what they want without a Christian insulting them every chance they get?
I don't support any particular behavior, but I am glad that you live among people that have at least have some sort of Christian belief.
Trust me, annoying people will be annoying no matter what religion they are.
I have a feeling that you're blowing things way out of proportion in your own mind because you happen to have a different beliefs than them.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Not so much its belief, but for the horrible idea that no one else could possibly be right and that everyone needs to conform to morals set in place entirely off their own belief.
And I suppose you think you're right about this.
Originally Posted by Silveraura It's the ugly superiority complex Christians have, that really gets to me the most.
Don't let it get to you. There are people like this in every type of belief. You're stereotyping.
Only Christians can worship a God that had to create a loophole in the "perfect" rules he created by impregnating a 'virgin' with himself and had himself killed which supposedly allows you to do whatever crazy nonsense you want so long as you repent before you die...
This theory is a bit more plausible
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Funny, but the points you made to support your argument are invalid.
Firstly, Mary wasn't the mother of God. She was simply the mother of the flesh that God indwelt.
There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan.
When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Repenting alone is not enough to get you to heaven, I suppose that's what they told you in your old church.
Read the Bible, don't rely on other people to save you.
Asatro is the only god religion. All other religions will die.
Jesus was a weakling foreigner. I'm glad he died.
In svartalvaheim will be smit the strongest sword in the world, an with it we will carve out the eyes of jesus!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Firstly, Mary wasn't the mother of God. She was simply the mother of the flesh that God indwelt.
Oh sorry, that makes your world view seem less insane, obviously my cliff notes on the subject were the only completely ridiculous and unverifiable nonsense spewed into the arena /sarcasm
Even with that said, it's much more plausible to infer that Mary had simply slept with someone and would rather make up a story than to risk being killed/outcast for telling the truth.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Repenting alone is not enough to get you to heaven, I suppose that's what they told you in your old church. Read the Bible, don't rely on other people to save you.
There are thousands of different sects within the church that disagree on this subject, and there are many Christians who believe this is exactly the case, (some also add in that you need to be baptized or accept Jesus, but some also insist that in order to repent correctly you need to have already accepted Jesus). And yes, I have read the bible several times, there is no point in claiming that I haven't.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk Funny, but the points you made to support your argument are invalid.
You're following an extremely unreliable source (which has plagiarized elements of former religions) that requires faith to accept as a basis for your entire argument so, if anyone has an invalid argument, it'd be you.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
I don't think you get to mention this free will thing and suddenly discredit that entire part of his argument. Why? Because the free will argument has been debated by philosophers for quite some time (that is, whether or not one could truly have free will if they were not allowed to make a certain kind of decision). I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding what you mean by saying that by that logic all plans are doomed to fail. He didn't state any logic. He just said that it was known that humans would fail. A statement of what He knew, not some sort of logic. By what he said, the plan did anything but fail (to fail the humans could not have).
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk There was no loophole, Jesus coming to Earth was already part of his perfect plan. When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail.
Soooooooooo... a perfect god couldn't come up with a way to give us free choice and not fail? By this logic, anytime someone comes up with a plan, it will ALWAYS fail. I mean, he magically puffed horses into existence, and when a horse is born it can already run on the first day, yet we have not a single natural advantage from birth, other than parents.
I don't think you get to mention this free will thing and suddenly discredit that entire part of his argument. Why? Because the free will argument has been debated by philosophers for quite some time (that is, whether or not one could truly have free will if they were not allowed to make a certain kind of decision). I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding what you mean by saying that by that logic all plans are doomed to fail. He didn't state any logic. He just said that it was known that humans would fail. A statement of what He knew, not some sort of logic. By what he said, the plan did anything but fail (to fail the humans could not have).
Also, didn't MasterM get his answer already?
I don't think you understood what I said.
Because, just because someone is free to choose what they want to doesn't mean that they will fail, which is exactly what he just said "When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail." Which implied that simply because we have free will, we will fail to follow God. This is a ridiculous argument which goes back to the fact that if it is a supreme perfect being, evidence for his existence should be the easiest thing. If a God did not want us to fail at following him, he would provide solid evidence, much better than A) a 2000 year old book of questionable character, and B)"trust me, I know what I'm talking about". A perfect all knowing God would know exactly what would convince me of his existence, and whether or not I pay attention to it or not has nothing to do with it (that whole argument that Christians like to use "god is speaking to you, you just don't want to accept it nonsense"), once again, an all powerful all loving all knowing god would know how to capture my attention and shouldn't have to resort to signs and riddles and televangelists.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk I don't care how many sects disagree or not. If they are in direct opposition of the Bible they're not true Christains anyway.
Of course, everyone is wrong but you. How do you know they're in direct opposition to the bible? (as it is a book written from word of mouth stories at least a decade after the events happened, edited, translated, edited again, translated, picked up by a king to be re-edited, rinse and repeat). Has God attempted to correct them? No. Has God attempted to correct you? No. You'd think that if there were so many people running around skewing his name, he might you know, do something about it, since, you know, he 'cares' about us and all. I guess he doesn't care enough to make sure we follow his outrageously strict rules that if we happen to stray slightly from we get tortured for an eternity, or he just likes to watch us burn. (of course, I'm more inclined to think that the stories are just stories, and if there is a God, it's not the mythological nightmare that are the Abraham religions, and probably something better.)
On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
That's when you need to view it in its context (applies to all religions)
Stoning children sounds harsh, if you read it as an instruction, however it can also be viewed as a way to scare children into submission (behave or daddy will have to stone you to death!) Still not very nice, but consider that these books are written over 3000 years ago. (for comparison, in Scandinavia, people told stories of trolls kidnapping children to keep children from running off alone in the woods)
Another example, in the quran it says that a female heir should inherit 50% of what a male heir would.
Now, in a modern context this sounds quite misogynous. However, if you view it in a historical context, when women wouldn't inherit anything, it actually enforces the womens rights to inherit.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
It's not genocide when they are already dead on the inside
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames On the subject of being in direct opposition to the bible, does this mean you support slavery too? Does this mean you think women are inferior and belong in the kitchen? Do you think it people are justified when they stone disobedient children, people picking up wood on a Saturday, being a fortune-teller/medium, blasphemers, killer bulls, women who aren't virgins on their wedding day and adulterers?
That's when you need to view it in its context (applies to all religions)
Stoning children sounds harsh, if you read it as an instruction, however it can also be viewed as a way to scare children into submission (behave or daddy will have to stone you to death!) Still not very nice, but consider that these books are written over 3000 years ago. (for comparison, in Scandinavia, people told stories of trolls kidnapping children to keep children from running off alone in the woods)
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
My point by bringing this up is that UrbanMonk stated that any Christian that does not follow his interpretation exactly is not a real Christian.
Besides saying "I'm going to kill you" is a lot different than making up some type of supernatural force that would kill you. You'd think a God could come up with something more effective than scare tactics, and regardless of the time period in which it was written (I thought God didn't subscribe to the concept of time? Oh well.), he could have foreseen that his writings would be less effective now as they were during the time they were written.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Does this mean that you also support it when God committed genocide or condoned it?
It's not genocide when they are already dead on the inside
LOL
Edited by HorrendousGames
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
The problem arises when you get a conservative Christian who either believes God wrote it in it's entirety or the more common God wrote the bible through men, thus you get insane nut cases that believe they are doing Gods work by burning people or taking their rights away, and of course the thousands of different sects of Christianity that argue over minuscule details.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Silveraura Unfortunately? So you're supporting their abnoxious behavior? Why aren't people allowed to believe what they want without a Christian insulting them every chance they get?
I don't support any particular behavior, but I am glad that you live among people that have at least have some sort of Christian belief.
Trust me, annoying people will be annoying no matter what religion they are.
I have a feeling that you're blowing things way out of proportion in your own mind because you happen to have a different beliefs than them.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Not so much its belief, but for the horrible idea that no one else could possibly be right and that everyone needs to conform to morals set in place entirely off their own belief.
And I suppose you think you're right about this.
Originally Posted by Silveraura It's the ugly superiority complex Christians have, that really gets to me the most.
Don't let it get to you. There are people like this in every type of belief. You're stereotyping.
No, stereotyping is saying all black men are poor, all Mexicans are dirty, all guys are players, all girls steal money from their boyfriends.
Making a statement about how many Christians feel it's their obligation to convert anyone they feel needs saved, is not a stereotype. That's a generalized statement. To call that stereotyping would be like saying I'm stereotyping Christianity because they all believe in Jesus. Is that stereotyping? I've yet to meet a Christian whose heard about my faith and pulled this little number on me: "I care about you, and I don't want you to go to hell."
Even if I just met them earlier that day. I mean wtf? Is there something in the bible that I'm missing? Christianity is just one religion amounst so many other types of faith and to declare your religion the only right one is flat out arrogant. Even just the way you speak about it here, you act like you're absolutely right about this all.
Sure, you're probably more informed than most of us about different events that happened in history that lead you to believe you're right, but the fact that you stand before all of us all and speak as though every word from your mouth is indisputable fact. The way you word things is would be indistinguishable from someone describing real world physics. At no point do you state "I believe" or "It's generally believed by most Christians". No, you're always right. And honestly, that kind of attitude makes me want to skip every effort to try to distinguish whether or not I can believe you and just dismiss every word you say from now on - whether it's fact or not. Because I don't like listening to people who make me feel like I need to constantly be on guard for when they transition from fact to faith. It's absurd. There's a big leap there and you don't even acknowledge it.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Making a statement about how many Christians feel it's their obligation to convert anyone they feel needs saved, is not a stereotype. That's a generalized statement.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
That's why I wrote supposed authors But I agree with what you're saying here.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
And that goes to the point of why a God would need to write something so ambiguous. Shouldn't a supreme being be able to produce a book that was clear so it could NOT be open to interpretation? The fact that it's written as such only indicates that it is 100% man made and not written by a divine entity (or written by a divine entity through man, like it's supposed to be any different).
The Bible is not written by God. Notice how books in the old testament have names like Book of Joshua and Book of Samuel? That's because Joshua and Samuel are supposed to have written those. Similarly, the four gospels in the new testament are named after their supposed authors.
No argument there, though none of the authors have been or can be confirmed. There's also the fact of the matter that none of the books were originally written down, they were traditionally passed down through word of mouth, and all were separate stories, it wasn't until much later the stories were collected into one book, which further tarnishes the possibility of a divine author.
Divine author? Who? When did the apostles become divine?
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't think you understood what I said.
Because, just because someone is free to choose what they want to doesn't mean that they will fail, which is exactly what he just said "When God gave us free choice he already knew we as humans would fail." Which implied that simply because we have free will, we will fail to follow God. This is a ridiculous argument which goes back to the fact that if it is a supreme perfect being, evidence for his existence should be the easiest thing. If a God did not want us to fail at following him, he would provide solid evidence, much better than A) a 2000 year old book of questionable character, and B)"trust me, I know what I'm talking about". A perfect all knowing God would know exactly what would convince me of his existence, and whether or not I pay attention to it or not has nothing to do with it (that whole argument that Christians like to use "god is speaking to you, you just don't want to accept it nonsense"), once again, an all powerful all loving all knowing god would know how to capture my attention and shouldn't have to resort to signs and riddles and televangelists.
I don't think it implied that at all. He didn't say that having free will means that you will fail, he said that He knew that they would fail. Think of it in terms of every event, every decision ever made splitting reality into two or more dimensions, where each dimension represents the results of each outcome. He knew that we would fail because He knew that this would be the reality in which someone failed. Statistically, it was possible for us not to fail, but we did, and He knew that it was going to happen. I'll try to explain it again if you still don't understand.
Second, His job is not to convince you to believe in Him. I'm pretty sure that everything is written ambiguously and he does those signs and riddles on purpose, because it means more for you to believe in something that logically doesn't make sense to believe in, or whatever, than in something that is sure and proven. That is to say that He refrains from proving himself because faith in Him for no reason other than you believe is more valuable than doing as he says because you know he exists. I had this better worded while I was at work but I don't like quoting multiple posts and writing long responses on my phone.
Divine author? Who? When did the apostles become divine?
How many times do I have to repeat that there are Christians who believe that the bible was either written directly by God or more commonly by God through man?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
I don't think it implied that at all. He didn't say that having free will means that you will fail, he said that He knew that they would fail. Think of it in terms of every event, every decision ever made splitting reality into two or more dimensions, where each dimension represents the results of each outcome. He knew that we would fail because He knew that this would be the reality in which someone failed. Statistically, it was possible for us not to fail, but we did, and He knew that it was going to happen. I'll try to explain it again if you still don't understand.
But even still, why would a perfect God create us purposely to fail? Couldn't he have just fixed the rules at the start without having to go through this elaborate nonsensical plot of questionable credibility?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
Second, His job is not to convince you to believe in Him.
Yes it is. 'God' is the one saying that if I don't believe in him, he'll send me to be tortured for an eternity. 'God' is the one telling me that I need to do things that I feel are morally wrong. If 'God' wants me to do any of these things, 'God' needs to give me a good reason to rather than 'trust me'.
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert
I'm pretty sure that everything is written ambiguously and he does those signs and riddles on purpose, because it means more for you to believe in something that logically doesn't make sense to believe in, or whatever, than in something that is sure and proven. That is to say that He refrains from proving himself because faith in Him for no reason other than you believe is more valuable than doing as he says because you know he exists. I had this better worded while I was at work but I don't like quoting multiple posts and writing long responses on my phone.
Nah, I don't think so. Substitute 'believe in God' with 'jump off a bridge'. You need to 'jump off a bridge' because if you don't, you are morally repugnant and you'll suffer for an eternity. You've got to give me a better reason to jump off that bridge other than threats and spooky language.
There is no good reason for anyone to base their life on faith. There are much better structures out there that don't involve relying on an imaginary friend, and potentially getting you into dangerous situations you wouldn't normally get into without it.
If I decided to start punching children in the face because I wholly believed the leprechaun in the pink jump suit said it was a good idea, would that be a valuable trait to have? No, you'd think I was nuts, and I'd probably be committed.
Granted, there are Christians who do good things because they believe God told them to, but how about all those people who do nasty things because they believe God told them to, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church, or people who kill their children because they felt God told them too, or even recently with the whole 'rapture' fiasco where a woman decided to slit her children's throats to spare them from the rapture?
Can't we just do good things without having to attribute it to a God?
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
Beats me.
Maybe someone can explain this. And no I'm not trolling. I'm dead serious about this.
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Nope. I just got done saying that there are Christians that do indeed do good things, but I point out that there are many who do very bad things that might not have if religion weren't in the equation. Religion is not necessary to do good, so why not ditch it entirely?
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
You see that? There it goes. It's my point, it's gone and you missed it.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by MasterM I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
Beats me.
Maybe someone can explain this. And no I'm not trolling. I'm dead serious about this.
Delve into early Christianity, there were many different Christian practices around that time, and it wasn't uncommon to find different sects of Christianity who did not preach the divinity of Jesus, and some were even very accepting of other religions around the area. It wasn't until the church started to formulate the 'official' version which included deciding if Jesus was divine or merely another prophet, and of course any of the other small sects that did not practice the 'official' version or who were from other religions were labeled as heretics.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
@MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question, here's the answer with scripture references to prove it.
It doesn't take a "sect" to answer this question, the answer is in the Bible.
Originally Posted by MasterM I've admit I wasn't trolling. I just started to think about it when I saw the big do you believe in god thread. I still don't get why Jesus and god and the holy spirit are the same thing. Maybe on the other hand that's just a Catholic believe. I'm a Protestant and if I remember correctly we think Jesus is God's son and not god as well.
Firstly God IS a spirit. A spirit that happens to be everywhere at once, including all time.
A spirit is the type of being that God is, the original Spirit that created everything else. Time didn't even exist before God.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." - John 4:24 KJV
Jesus was *a son.* The son of the flesh, and so is called the "only begotten son of God" by the well quoted scripture John 3:17
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - John 3:17 KJV
This *son* or Jesus, was flesh:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14 KJV
You'll notice that the phrase "the Word" here is used synonymously with Jesus, interesting.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 KJV
So Jesus is *the Word*, and *the Word* is God. The Word became flesh,and the Word was God. So God became flesh. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, or flesh that was controlled by God if you prefer. The body of Jesus was possessed by God.
Jesus Talking- > "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." - John 5:43 KJV
So wait! Jesus came in his father's name?! That means that the father's name is also Jesus!
Later Jesus tells one of his disciples that he is the Father:
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" - John 14:9 KJV
So not only is Jesus the name of the Father, but Jesus himself IS the Father. The flesh that Jesus/God indwelt was simply the physical manifestation of God.
God created a body so he could come to Earth in the form of a man, and go through the same things we as humans do, but at the same time refusing to sin so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for the world's sin. Of course he knew all this when he created us.
It's important to note that we as humans are not just simply flesh, but we also have a spirit/soul. That's the *real* us, but it's in constant battle with our flesh which has wants and desires that sometimes go against better judgment, or God's law. People who give into their flesh are one's who steal, kill, and basically do whatever they want regardless of others, and God's law.
Of course those who believe we are basically good, and are just simply perverted by our society will disagree. For those people I ask where did this society that "perverts" us come from if these "good" humans created it? The answer to the question is in the question itself, so it should be an easy answer.
This scripture from 1 Timothy ties all up nicely:
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
Originally Posted by MasterM It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is getting nailed and shouting "why have you forsaken me" and if he was God at the same time he would be kind of schizophrenic and be talking to himself????
I assume you're talking about the following scripture:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" - Matthew 27:46 KJV
After reading all of the above this question has an easy answer just by thinking about it.
Since the Father and Jesus are one and the same, and Jesus was flesh that God was indwelling then it wasn't God crying out to himself, it was the flesh crying out to the Spirit.
Remember that Jesus took on the sin's of the world. Sin separates us from God, and since the flesh took on our sin's it felt that separation from God. The flesh could no longer feel God which is why it cried out.
"4.Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." - Isaiah 53:4-5 KJV
Remember it's our flesh that makes the decisions (our brain) but there is a part of us that isn't physical and that's our spirit/soul. We were created in the image of God, which is why the *real* us is the same type of being that God is, a spirit. We can either make a decision to follow the Spirit or follow the flesh, but of course since we are locked in our human bodies (till we die) we still have to follow flesh in some cases, like to eat, drink, sleep, ect.
Only when we get to heaven will we be able to totally and completely follow after the Spirit's wants and desires. (To worship God)
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk @MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question
Once again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. Sorry I used history to explain the answer, instead of nonsensical ambiguous ramblings from desert madmen.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk @MasterM: OK, since Horrendous didn't actually answer your question
Once again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. Sorry I used history to explain the answer, instead of nonsensical ambiguous ramblings from desert madmen.
Well, at least he supported it by bible references, which is a lot more than many christians do (unless it involves Leviticus 20:13)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert At the very least I don't like the grand amount of effort you're putting into characterizing Christians as bad people or people that do bad things under the guise of good things, and the way it seems that you try to make out religion as this invariably bad thing.
Nope. I just got done saying that there are Christians that do indeed do good things, but I point out that there are many who do very bad things that might not have if religion weren't in the equation. Religion is not necessary to do good, so why not ditch it entirely?
The fact of the matter is that for some people, it's the only thing that works. Don't know why, but for some people it is. And my problem was with your pointing out bad people more often than good, saying there is no good reason to base a life on faith [in a possibly non-existent being], such and such. I don't do good things because my religion tells me, and I don't avoid bad things because my religion tells me not to, I just avoid doing the things they say not to do (within reason, for example I don't go and protest outside abortion clinics because abortions are their decisions, not mine) and do the things they tell me to do (like go to church, not like protesting abortion or anything). And as far as what I said about him being ambiguous on purpose, I'm pretty sure that is how I was taught, and when you say "You've got to give me a better reason" that's fine if you need a better reason, you're just not likely to get one.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert Since when does believing in something that may not exist amount to jumping off a bridge?
You see that? There it goes. It's my point, it's gone and you missed it.
Look, you could have used any other sort of thing as an example, like "moving to the desert" or "building a giant tower" or anything that doesn't sound negative and dangerous, so my question is why did you choose "jump off a bridge"? As far as it goes in my life, it amounts to not having sex before marriage, not killing people, going to church once a week, praying every night, and confessing sins. Nothing extraordinary, nothing difficult, no terrible sacrifices of my time or energy or anything. Also, it is no individual Christian person's place to declare who or who isn't going to go to heaven, as it isn't their decision.
Originally Posted by Silveraura Making a statement about how many Christians feel it's their obligation to convert anyone they feel needs saved, is not a stereotype. That's a generalized statement.
Oh yeah, hey! Thanks for reading the rest of my post. Yeah, glad you have such a thought provoking response. Yeah, I'm just going to assume you agree with everything I said about you.
The problem I see with debates of this nature is that humans are bound to thinking of things in terms of humans. Asking why a [potentially existent or non-existent] supreme being does something is like an ant questioning the workings of a supercomputer. Humans, as a species, have absolutely no fathomable way of perceiving something so [potentially] vastly different. Yet we spend large amounts of money, time, effort and other more violent approaches (including increasingly more heated forums posts ) trying to prove otherwise.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Originally Posted by Rob Westbrook The problem I see with debates of this nature is that humans are bound to thinking of things in terms of humans. Asking why a [potentially existent or non-existent] supreme being does something is like an ant questioning the workings of a supercomputer. Humans, as a species, have absolutely no fathomable way of perceiving something so [potentially] vastly different. Yet we spend large amounts of money, time, effort and other more violent approaches (including increasingly more heated forums posts ) trying to prove otherwise.
Yet people still find some way to insist that they know the truth and will fight tooth and nail to support it.
Debates themselves are fine. It's always interesting to hear what other people might be willing to contribute. It's when you get people who stand up and say that they're right and that they've heard every excuse in the book for why they're wrong, that the debate turns into an argument. If people can discuss the topic without insisting they're right and walk in with both an open mind and be willing to acknowledge that their faith is just that, faith. When people confuse, literally... confuse, their faith with established fact and blur the lines between the two, is when the fabric of debate starts to unwind and people quickly begin dismissing anything someone has to say.
If you tell me most plants need sunlight to grow... that makes sense, most plants probably do need sunlight to grow. I wont question you even if I'm not entirely informed on the topic (I don't know how many plants don't need sunlight to grow).
If you happened to have insisted before that though, that it's impossible for pancakes to be made in any other shape besides squares, and your only proof is that your kitchen is stocked exclusively with square pans... well, suddenly I'm less inclined to take your word about most plants needing sunlight to grow. It may be true, it sounds true, but seeing how shallow you invest your logic... I'll still double check just to make sure, before I continue discussing anything further with you.
Originally Posted by Rob Westbrook The problem I see with debates of this nature is that humans are bound to thinking of things in terms of humans. Asking why a [potentially existent or non-existent] supreme being does something is like an ant questioning the workings of a supercomputer. Humans, as a species, have absolutely no fathomable way of perceiving something so [potentially] vastly different. Yet we spend large amounts of money, time, effort and other more violent approaches (including increasingly more heated forums posts ) trying to prove otherwise.
That's not what the debates are usually over, however. The debates are over a blatant man made God that tries to use concepts like that to try and keep disproof away from it. If you take a look at some of the ancient religions that came before the Abrahamic God, many of them put their Gods in situations where eventually humans could disprove it (such as Gods living on Mt. Olympus, or don't go into the forbidden zone or any of that crap), the Abrahamic God puts their god in a place no human could ever go and it says that if any human were ever able to come into contact with God, their head would 'splode, and that you'll never ever be able to actually know he exists only through blind faith. Now if that doesn't send up any "this is BS" red flags to anyone, I don't know what will.
When you bring up the question of "Asking why a [potentially existent or non-existent] supreme being does something is like an ant questioning the workings of a supercomputer." Is a good question, but if you've got a "perfect" being that contradicts itself on so many levels (i.e. condemning humans for murder, yet he's perfectly fine murdering people on a whim or granting other people permission to do so), you get into the realm of "is this of divine qualities or of human qualities?". It would be completely different if this God were actually doing things beyond human comprehension, but when you have a "perfect" being that is supposedly above the petty workings of humans yet he constantly falls prey to countless errors, jealousy, rage, etc.
I don't know what you guys classify as a "heated forums post" but neither this thread nor the enormous "do you believe in god?" thread are anywhere close to heated. Just because someone disagrees with someone does not turn it into a heated argument. And I don't know how the heck you can equate words to violence? You might have a point on that one if there was actually hate speech, but there isn't. If you can go through either thread and find someone saying "all theists must die" or "kill those filthy terrorist liberal atheists", then by all means, maybe they should be shut down.
But other than that, both threads are great, in fact, they are the only interesting thing happening around here as of late, if anything is promoting growth around here, it would be giant forum topics that gets everyone involved, and I find it especially refreshing that they aren't getting heated (However, it's common for a person to read something on the Internet that disagrees with their standpoint and the person interprets the author as screaming every word of it at the top of their lungs. JUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO USE ALL CAPS OR THEY'LL THINK YOU'RE REALLY ANGRY.)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
