|
Post by kitty on Aug 2, 2009 10:22:42 GMT
Hey ss,
I posted my question in Sonar's thread but she was right of course that my question has different purposes, so here a new thread.
I asked:
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 2, 2009 10:24:52 GMT
Glance answered to that: And here my answer for Glance: Genesis 22:1-24, Binding of Issac read the first sentence For there my question comes.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 2, 2009 11:34:34 GMT
Glance is still right. The New Testament takes precedence over the Old, as the successor to it in Christian belief.
An interesting thought, though: would YOU sacrifice your first born child if it would put an end to religion around the world, Kit? I'd like to know how deep your own belief in Atheism is...
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 2, 2009 11:46:01 GMT
@ Eli -
I'm pro "you have to sacrifice one for the help of many" theory (not in ALL cases, mind you but often) and in this case, if I could rescue the entire world from religious nutcaseness, yes, I would kill my own son.
(and yes I thought about it for longer than 5 minutes)
PS: Atheism isn't a belief, you can call it a theory but not a belief, that would contradict its very nature.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 2, 2009 12:14:41 GMT
It's very nature is to make a claim every bit as unsubstantiatable as any religion and then act as if it were complete fact, Kit. I'd call that a belief.
Outside of science (And Atheism has no more basis in science than any other religious position) a 'theory' is something that is accepted as 'may or may not be true'. But that's not how you see Atheism, is it? You believe it to be true.
Perhaps there are some Atheists to whom it is not a belief. But to someone willing to sacrifice their first born for the cause, the threshold is surely crossed into belief.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 2, 2009 14:16:10 GMT
Yes indeed, I maintain my position. The OT is Christian tradition/heritage, but NOT what defines Christian belief. Actually, while I think of it - are there ANY sacrifice rituals of living beings in Christianity? I believe not - after Christ's death (and claimed resurrection) there is no man nor lamb slaughtered for the benefit or benevolence of the Christian god, is there?
And for kitty, that is a 'head' answer - she said she doesn't want children, and has none (Which does not lessen her personal conviction!). To my knowledge, there is no sacrifice demand of a child to a mother in the bible, and - unless I'm wrong on this - I believe there is a reason. The emotional bonds between mother and child are special to the extent she would sacrifice herself before her child.
(Yes, they were wise those guys... - putting a father and his first (only) born in an otherwise dangerous world which could see his death for a multitude of other reasons is about as extreme as they dared to go. It's male chauvinism as much as going to war for a cause).
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 2, 2009 15:12:31 GMT
Well, not after Christianity got organised, at least. Some of the early Christian sects did practise human sacrifice, IIRC. The Roman church stomped on that idea rather firmly.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 2, 2009 16:34:59 GMT
Well, not after Christianity got organised, at least. Some of the early Christian sects did practise human sacrifice, IIRC. The Roman church stomped on that idea rather firmly. Before I address Kit's post I would like to clarify something EK.. It is against all Judaistic and Christian moral law as well as societal law to kill a human being......other than capital punishment for premediated murder, and only the "law of the land" can execute that... Only the pagan religions practiced that rite...and it was forbidden in the OT ...absolutely.... In the NT, there were rumors started (incorrect ones) that those who followed "the Way" (Christianity before it got a better name.. )..were sacrificing their children because they had a "rite" that is now called "Eucarest, Lord's supper, or whatever in that they partook of a ritual of the "body and blood" of Christ that He had set up for them to do as a constant rememberance of His sacrifice of His body and blood on the cross.. Those rumors got the Christians persecuted, seriously, in that the ones spreading the tales said they were actually "eating their god". As Glance said, no such thing ever existed and would be a blatant contradiction of the "Sancity of Life" which both the Ot and NT teaches. So.....@ Kit....NO, I would never sacrifice my firstborn or any other member of my family...here's why... God has plainly said "Thou shalt not kill" (premediated murder) God cannot compromise His own nature...He would never tell me to so such a thing....quite the opposite.....as Christ (who is God) has also plainly said "Greater love has no man than he lay down HIS OWN life for a friend". So, if I heard such a voice, I would quite properly know where it was coming from....the Devil, not God..... NT teaching (and belief) is that God speaks to us through spiritual revelation in the understanding of His now completed "written" word....we have, contrary to popular opinion, no new continuing revelation....and we do not have Prophets (OT) nor Apostles (NT)...just the Scripture and the Spirit revealing what he will in context to the nature of God as a whole. Not some weird preacher teaching crazy stuff.. ;D That brings me to Abraham....... Abraham had to know that God, whom he believed, and who spoke to him (how I don't know) had already promised him descendents that could not be counted...Isaac had been born miracluously, seeing as Sarah was years past child bearing age, in her 80's and that he would never have another child...God had also told him that Isaac was to be his heir..?? Either God was lying, or Abraham believed his faith was being tested and that, as he told Isaac" ...."God will provide a sacrifice" Now, I can't prove this........but I believe that Abraham either believed that if God was going to have him do something which was against his own commandment...that God was going to bring him back to life......or that Abraham was willing to believe to the point that he knew God would never, in the end, violate His own principles....and provide al alternative...which He did.. either one would fit, or both..
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 2, 2009 17:20:45 GMT
("Thou shalt not commit murder" ss. Just sayin' ;D)
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 2, 2009 18:09:10 GMT
@ Eli - I'm pro "you have to sacrifice one for the help of many" theory (not in ALL cases, mind you but often) and in this case, if I could rescue the entire world from religious nutcaseness, yes, I would kill my own son. (and yes I thought about it for longer than 5 minutes) PS: Atheism isn't a belief, you can call it a theory but not a belief, that would contradict its very nature. Why would you think that "religion" is necessarily and evil thing..? You miss the whole point of the belief in the "fallen" nature of the human race....doesn't matter if a person is religious or irreligious, they all are totally corrupt at the core of their being and would, under the right circumstances, "sell their mother for a crust of bread". And... ? Atheism... You believe their is no God, I believe their is. My concept is "religious"...your concept is not. Hows about that... As I have repeatedly posted...when you grade your own paper, you never flunk any tests... ;D
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 2, 2009 23:16:32 GMT
Religion is an attempt by man to establish an order of virtuous behavior , the problem though is that "God" is no example of such behavior. God is jealous , vengeful , prideful and even full of wrath. These attributes are the lowest of human attributes yet somehow the "potter" manages to slide with this despicable behavior. Some example huh? , he even gambles with the lives of those who love him (JOB), gambling with SATAN, nice work. BTW , Adam and Eve could not have veered one drop from Gods supposed "perfect" design. For if God is perfect is creations can have no flaws , unless he purposely designs flaws into his creation , which would ultimately be his fault. Also God cannot have emotions like anger or sadness, these emotions come from knowledge that was previously unknown. For example , I find out my wife had an affair , that would make me angry , it would be NEW KNOWLEDGE, but since God already supposedly KNOWS EVERYTHING in advance of it happening how can any new knowledge present itself ? it cannot , therefore either everything was always perfect , or God is less than so. ss , you once said that Gnostics act like were in on a secret that the rest of you are not, could you please clarify that a little....
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 2, 2009 23:20:03 GMT
If one is honest with themselves , one might fail , it's called guilt I think. Recently I have thought about posting something I have written called "Aspirations and Failures" , which directly relates to grading ones self.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 3, 2009 1:01:59 GMT
Sounds interesting, Kilgore. Please do I must admit I've never really thought about grading myself as such. Seems like it might be an interesting exercise. Just trying to work out the yardsticks would be hard, I would have thought...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 3, 2009 1:43:52 GMT
I think it's kinda easy , if what you aspire to is not what you daily achieve , I think perhaps a lower grade is what's called for. I would like to work on things like patience or energy , perserverance , compassion, the big one for me, to be more gentle...with my dealings with those I love, not being "short" or unkind, basic stuff of course , I feel I should do better.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 3, 2009 9:12:51 GMT
Religion is an attempt by man to establish an order of virtuous behavior , the problem though is that "God" is no example of such behavior. God is jealous , vengeful , prideful and even full of wrath. These attributes are the lowest of human attributes yet somehow the "potter" manages to slide with this despicable behavior. Some example huh? , he even gambles with the lives of those who love him (JOB), gambling with SATAN, nice work. BTW , Adam and Eve could not have veered one drop from Gods supposed "perfect" design. For if God is perfect is creations can have no flaws , unless he purposely designs flaws into his creation , which would ultimately be his fault. Also God cannot have emotions like anger or sadness, these emotions come from knowledge that was previously unknown. For example , I find out my wife had an affair , that would make me angry , it would be NEW KNOWLEDGE, but since God already supposedly KNOWS EVERYTHING in advance of it happening how can any new knowledge present itself ? it cannot , therefore either everything was always perfect , or God is less than so. ss , you once said that Gnostics act like were in on a secret that the rest of you are not, could you please clarify that a little.... Well Kilg, God gave mankind the majesty of choice, that they could do whatever they wanted. Eve eating the forbidden fruit (and Adam eating it after her) was the first example of man making a wrong choice (see Genesis chapter 3)... God was pretty harsh in the Old Testament because He wanted to show people that it's impossible to be perfect, and redeem yourself by your own "good works." So God put down a whole bunch of rules that people kept breaking, and when you break the rules it's only fair you get punished right (see Leviticus for a majority of them, and quite a few throughout Numbers and Deuteronomy)? Sure it was crazy, but hey, it was the result of their own choices to break the rules God put in place (even though it was virtually impossible for a man to keep every single one). So in the New Testament, God sent Jesus to the World. Not to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved (see John 3:16-17). And when Jesus came, He said that Love is above the law, and that the entire law of Moses (mosaic law) is fulfilled if you Love God and other People (see Matthew 22:37-40). This is the basis of true Christianity. About Job, well, he got back twice as much as he lost in the end (see Job 42). And as it was with Abraham, God probably knew Job would make the right choice in the end, and just wanted to laugh in the Devil's face. (not too sure about the last line I wrote, but hey, who can know the mind of God?)
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 3, 2009 9:21:13 GMT
@ Eli - I'm pro "you have to sacrifice one for the help of many" theory (not in ALL cases, mind you but often) and in this case, if I could rescue the entire world from religious nutcaseness, yes, I would kill my own son. (and yes I thought about it for longer than 5 minutes) PS: Atheism isn't a belief, you can call it a theory but not a belief, that would contradict its very nature. Why would you think that "religion" is necessarily and evil thing..? You miss the whole point of the belief in the "fallen" nature of the human race....doesn't matter if a person is religious or irreligious, they all are totally corrupt at the core of their being and would, under the right circumstances, "sell their mother for a crust of bread". And... ? Atheism... You believe their is no God, I believe their is. My concept is "religious"...your concept is not. Hows about that... As I have repeatedly posted...when you grade your own paper, you never flunk any tests... ;D Amen to that ss. @ Kitty: When do you believe it all started? THE BIG BANG! Well let me ask you something: the big bang says something like "all the matter in the universe was gathered into a tiny dot no bigger than the point of a pencil, this dot whirled around rapidly, and then all the stars, planets, etc. flew out." Well, where did all that dirt come from anyway? You ask us who believe in God "where did God come form, huh?" So basically (think about this) I believe "In the Beginning God..." and you believe "In the beginning, DIRT created the Heavens and the Earth." Not to mention several planets spin backwards from the others, which again proves the Big Bang false... NOTE: I'm quoting a really cool preacher who has a PHD and is just too good at making atheists look stupid, no offense. ;D I'm probably gonna start watching those old videos again, so I can post their scientific logic here...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 4, 2009 0:13:09 GMT
Religion is an attempt by man to establish an order of virtuous behavior , the problem though is that "God" is no example of such behavior. God is jealous , vengeful , prideful and even full of wrath. These attributes are the lowest of human attributes yet somehow the "potter" manages to slide with this despicable behavior. Some example huh? , he even gambles with the lives of those who love him (JOB), gambling with SATAN, nice work. BTW , Adam and Eve could not have veered one drop from Gods supposed "perfect" design. For if God is perfect is creations can have no flaws , unless he purposely designs flaws into his creation , which would ultimately be his fault. Also God cannot have emotions like anger or sadness, these emotions come from knowledge that was previously unknown. For example , I find out my wife had an affair , that would make me angry , it would be NEW KNOWLEDGE, but since God already supposedly KNOWS EVERYTHING in advance of it happening how can any new knowledge present itself ? it cannot , therefore either everything was always perfect , or God is less than so. ss , you once said that Gnostics act like were in on a secret that the rest of you are not, could you please clarify that a little.... Well Kilg, God gave mankind the majesty of choice, that they could do whatever they wanted. Eve eating the forbidden fruit (and Adam eating it after her) was the first example of man making a wrong choice (see Genesis chapter 3)... God was pretty harsh in the Old Testament because He wanted to show people that it's impossible to be perfect, and redeem yourself by your own "good works." So God put down a whole bunch of rules that people kept breaking, and when you break the rules it's only fair you get punished right (see Leviticus for a majority of them, and quite a few throughout Numbers and Deuteronomy)? Sure it was crazy, but hey, it was the result of their own choices to break the rules God put in place (even though it was virtually impossible for a man to keep every single one). So in the New Testament, God sent Jesus to the World. Not to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved (see John 3:16-17). And when Jesus came, He said that Love is above the law, and that the entire law of Moses (mosaic law) is fulfilled if you Love God and other People (see Matthew 22:37-40). This is the basis of true Christianity. About Job, well, he got back twice as much as he lost in the end (see Job 42). And as it was with Abraham, God probably knew Job would make the right choice in the end, and just wanted to laugh in the Devil's face. (not too sure about the last line I wrote, but hey, who can know the mind of God?) I do understand the freewill premise, my thing is this, if God is perfect, his creation must be perfect , unless his design is to create imperfect beings , which still ultimately falls under the cover of his perfect will manifesting itself by creating beings with flaws, his will to create them is still perfect and thus any supposed flaw we as humans would make is very still with in the realm of Gods original perfect design. God= Perfect , Flawless. Gods creations= Flawed? how is that even possible?
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 4, 2009 0:35:35 GMT
[quote author=twoheadedragon board=humanology thread=6319 post=105089 time=12492907 I do understand the freewill premise, my thing is this, if God is perfect, his creation must be perfect , unless his design is to create imperfect beings , which still ultimately falls under the cover of his perfect will manifesting itself by creating beings with flaws, his will to create them is still perfect and thus any supposed flaw we as humans would make is very still with in the realm of Gods original perfect design. God= Perfect , Flawless. Gods creations= Flawed? how is that even possible? In a way I have agree with the premise KGT...But I think I would say that He created everything perfect...seems like only man was given the ability to screw it up...It could be argued that that constituted a flaw. I believe not..and the comparison would be Adam and Jesus. Adam was created innocent, he chose to disobey God....Jesus was born innocent, he chose to obey God. Could Jesus have sinned.. Probably, in that he was born just like Adam...but he chose not to...thereby confirming that the human race, represented in Adam (and the fall) is justly guilty of said disobedence and deserve the penalty, which is eternity without God......in the Lake of Fire.......... UNLESS.....they respond to the forgiveness of God as provided by Him through the death of His son for that penalty...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 4, 2009 0:51:44 GMT
[quote author=twoheadedragon board=humanology thread=6319 post=105089 time=12492907 I do understand the freewill premise, my thing is this, if God is perfect, his creation must be perfect , unless his design is to create imperfect beings , which still ultimately falls under the cover of his perfect will manifesting itself by creating beings with flaws, his will to create them is still perfect and thus any supposed flaw we as humans would make is very still with in the realm of Gods original perfect design. God= Perfect , Flawless. Gods creations= Flawed? how is that even possible? In a way I have agree with the premise KGT...But I think I would say that He created everything perfect...seems like only man was given the ability to screw it up...It could be argued that that constituted a flaw. I believe not..and the comparison would be Adam and Jesus. Adam was created innocent, he chose to disobey God....Jesus was born innocent, he chose to obey God. Could Jesus have sinned.. Probably, in that he was born just like Adam...but he chose not to...thereby confirming that the human race, represented in Adam (and the fall) is justly guilty of said disobedence and deserve the penalty, which is eternity without God......in the Lake of Fire.......... UNLESS.....they respond to the forgiveness of God as provided by Him through the death of His son for that penalty... If it comes down to choice , why would it be that only ADAM and Jesus actually have the choice to make? It seems that we all must pay for the poor choices of adam , and praise the good choices of Jesus. It seems that each one of us would have had a choice then , I don't thin it's impossible to live like christ did. To make the choices he made seems to me not that hard. maybe i'm a bit disjointed tonight...but with adams sin we are not allowed to live like Christ... I still think that either choice made is made according to Gods perfect will and plan, couldn't be any other way...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 4, 2009 1:07:05 GMT
If your preaching Predestination, KGT, your preachin to the choir.. ;D
The problem is not with your logic, the steps make sense, it is just that the basis is not solid.
Adams sin caused all his progeny to be born "fallen" ...(original sin)...
If this is true, then you are TOTALLY FREE to choose. the proplem is that you "fallen" nature is only to do evil..or be in rebellion against God. So when you choose, freely, it will be in accordance with your nature...it cannot and will not be spiritually in tune with God.
Why do you think so may religions (all except Orthodox Christianity) tell people that they CAN be like Christ and live a life like him...when they can't ?? They are, under the penalty of Sin, already LOST.....and must be redeemed...and this redemption is (for the present) only of the spirit.....Paul taught that before he was converted, he was a stickler for the law...lived it breathed it.. Then he realized that all the law could do was show him how totally lost he was...as you CANNOT BREAK ONE COMMANDMENT ......EVER....or you are guilty of it all....
He said...I didn't know it was a sin to covet until you wrote a law saying thou shalt not covet. When the realization came that I knew I was violating the law, then I knew I was lost.
The teaching concerning Jesus was that He never, ever, sinned, making Him the only human being in the universe not guilty of the sin of Adam, thereby qualifying to be the "sin bearer" and take the penalty of God's judgement on sin...which was carried out on the cross, by his death.....the substitute must be innocent of the crime....
|
|