|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 4, 2009 1:36:58 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.... Is god not the author of nature too? Wasn't Jesus without sin because he was not born of man? A child born will have the blood of Adam , which by orthodoxy would mean that he is born guilty, I cannot buy that ... I find the "rebirth" to be purely symbolic, the conversion in thought does not change the blood. I'm not sure if you saw my post about Gods anger and how anger arrives from new knowledge, since God already knows all , he knew his creation would be flawed and then proceeded to create anyway, how can he be angry when he is the author of all, nature perfection choice , imperfection... Another thing , I find it questionable that what we understand are the attributes of God are some of the lowest forms of human weakness, jealousy , vengeance, wrath. I have never been so angry at anyone that I would demand the death of my son in order to forgive them. I have beliefs that I base on logical conclusions , perhaps only valid to me and other Gnostic's. There does seem to be a secret that Gnostic's get , that maybe others don't. That secret , Love, Compassion , Kindness , applied without Judgment , is the message that will carry man into a relationship with God True Gnosis. I believe in God, I just don't think I know what God is beyond the best attributes displayed by a loving heart. To me the bible displays a God with the worst possible anti human attributes. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 4, 2009 10:25:31 GMT
Erm, Why does God have to create something that's perfect? Even better question, what if God wasn't trying to create something perfect, rather he was trying to create something new, something that wasn't him/her/hir/hem/it?
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 4, 2009 14:47:23 GMT
Firstly,
thanks ss for answering.
I kinda expected you would answer that you'd think Satan spoke to you in the case you would be spoken to.
I'm also happy you consider that you aren't sure what Abraham heard there.
I didn't want to argue about it (since it doesn't make sense and we all know it), I just was interested.
@ twohead - there might be errors in the BBT and there are constantly refrasing, correcting and adding to the theory but that does not prove that it is wrong, it simple proves why I and many others agree with science and reasoning and not with religion:
Science is able to see and correct mistakes, it longs for facts and it admits when it isn't working properly. Science is evolving, it's innuvative and honest.
Religion on the other hand rejects all discoveries, is unable to see it's own flaws and forbids its followeres to raise valid concern. Religion doesn't allow critic, it is a hopeless, never-listening student.
And if you really believe that the earth isn't older than the time we started counting by "christ birth", when you really believe god or whoever made the entire earth in 7 days and when you really think there is no evolution, than buddy, I can't help you...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 4, 2009 16:24:42 GMT
I think you are being a little unfair to religion there. Religions that are old and set in their ways don't change, but a lot of the pagan religions are more than happy to change and adapt, but like all religions they don't do so over night, and not without what they would call good reason. The difference is that in pagan religions they believe that the gods still speak to us, and that the gods themselves are imperfect, and learning, changing and growing.
Equally Science is getting harder and harder to change, as if you are disproving an existing, and long standing theory, you need to have one hell of a lot of evidence to back you up. (same's true for religion btw, it's just that the revelation of St. John put the kybosh on that for the christian religion by implying that this would be the last time that god would speak directly to people - what it actually says is that it's the last prophecy god will give - and so you can't get the "proof" required because god doesn't do big reveals any more)
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 4, 2009 18:00:23 GMT
Erm, Why does God have to create something that's perfect? Even better question, what if God wasn't trying to create something perfect, rather he was trying to create something new, something that wasn't him/her/hir/hem/it? Mainly because God is perfect , thus anything he creates cannot be less than perfect , unless he designs it that way which would still be his perfect will creating a perfect being, not matter what kind of "flaw". If God created an imperfect thing it is still perfect by design and desire of his will. |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 5, 2009 0:42:37 GMT
I think you are being a little unfair to religion there. Religions that are old and set in their ways don't change, but a lot of the pagan religions are more than happy to change and adapt, but like all religions they don't do so over night, and not without what they would call good reason. The difference is that in pagan religions they believe that the gods still speak to us, and that the gods themselves are imperfect, and learning, changing and growing. Equally Science is getting harder and harder to change, as if you are disproving an existing, and long standing theory, you need to have one hell of a lot of evidence to back you up. (same's true for religion btw, it's just that the revelation of St. John put the kybosh on that for the christian religion by implying that this would be the last time that god would speak directly to people - what it actually says is that it's the last prophecy god will give - and so you can't get the "proof" required because god doesn't do big reveals any more) But Darki, aren't your contradicting yourself here? You say in your first paragraph that religion does change, only slowly and in your second that, because of that kybosh thingy, things can't be change anymore since god doesn't revel anymore. And whatever it is that makes religion stuck in their ways, it still means they ignore discoveries. There is plenty of evidence for lots and lots of scientific theories (--> Evolution) but religion does not accept any of it because, old problem, religion only accepts set and unquestionable proof but that is not what science is about. Science is based on methodic testing to either discover something new or prove something known. But it never is final - because (good) scientists know that there is always the option that someone else discovers something new as times & technologies change. But again, religion only cares for finality, no matter how much evidence there is for anything and that is what makes it dangerous. (...and ironically, IF one of them decides to actually look into science, he gets punished by his fellows for being a "sinner" or simple ignored. Let's take the new Pope for example, he simply changed the rather liberal declaration of Pope John Paul II towards homosexuality (J.P. II delcared that discrimination towards homosexuality is equal to discrimination towards race etc) to suit his own liking (he basically said homosexuality should be banned for humanity to live more according to the bible) how is that not eyerollingworthy...[since Pops are the direct connection to god...eh.]) |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 5, 2009 0:48:11 GMT
I think you are being a little unfair to religion there. Religions that are old and set in their ways don't change, but a lot of the pagan religions are more than happy to change and adapt, but like all religions they don't do so over night, and not without what they would call good reason. The difference is that in pagan religions they believe that the gods still speak to us, and that the gods themselves are imperfect, and learning, changing and growing. Equally Science is getting harder and harder to change, as if you are disproving an existing, and long standing theory, you need to have one hell of a lot of evidence to back you up. (same's true for religion btw, it's just that the revelation of St. John put the kybosh on that for the christian religion by implying that this would be the last time that god would speak directly to people - what it actually says is that it's the last prophecy god will give - and so you can't get the "proof" required because god doesn't do big reveals any more) Well DPR, good post, but I don't think "Revelations" actually said that God would not speak again...per se....I don't remember it anyway, but being as it was "end time" prophecy, it wa put last in the Scripture.....so it is interesting whether Rev 22:18,19 - "For I testify unto ever man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." --is actually refering to that book, or the whole bible?? could be both I guess, but my opinion is that it refers to Revelations itself. But once the Bible was "canonized" we don't believe that God speaks through the WRITTEN word, (ie..new writings...like the Mormons claim..)but he speaks to us Spiritually...however.....THERE IS NO NEW REVELATION...He only reveals the truths that He has already given in the Scripture...  |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 5, 2009 0:58:56 GMT
Firstly, thanks ss for answering. I kinda expected you would answer that you'd think Satan spoke to you in the case you would be spoken to. I'm also happy you consider that you aren't sure what Abraham heard there. I didn't want to argue about it (since it doesn't make sense and we all know it), I just was interested. ... Kit...I must hold you closer to what I said....I did not say I didn't know what God said to Abraham...I said I did not know HOW he spoke to him...  But as far as Satan....If you believe the Bible, you just can't x out the devil  He is a living entity/creation and was the highest angelic creature ever created..... The bible is replete with angels and demons...they are real an you and I.... I find it mind bogling that people just all want a "guardian angel", don't know the first thing about what they are talking about and at the same time say they don't believe in God.. If I know the truth about the love of God and his atributes, and the reality that He speaks through Scripture, and CANNOT violate His own nature, then if some voice told me to kill ANYONE, for ANY REASON, I definitely KNOW it is not God, so guess who is left for it to be...... ?? |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 5, 2009 1:04:06 GMT
And how come that god suddenly decided to stop talking to people? Couldn't it be that christians just needed an excuse to stick with their book because they would need to accept new ideas when someone came along telling them they heard god.....
.....what if god decides to come down again through, what, some woman in North Korea? What if all christians denied that this woman is indeed god and therefore anger him greatly and he simply decides it never to early for a little apocalypse? What would christians read out of their book then?!
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 5, 2009 2:42:27 GMT
And how come that god suddenly decided to stop talking to people? Couldn't it be that christians just needed an excuse to stick with their book because they would need to accept new ideas when someone came along telling them they heard god..... .....what if god decides to come down again through, what, some woman in North Korea? What if all christians denied that this woman is indeed god and therefore anger him greatly and he simply decides it never to early for a little apocalypse? What would christians read out of their book then?! In all my posts, I have never said "what if"....that is simply a cop out for dealing with any problem....I can apply it just as good to your professed atheism.. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 5, 2009 2:45:19 GMT
I can think of many reasons... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 5, 2009 2:50:59 GMT
I can think of many reasons... ;D Yeah, He might have said "cause you pissed me off"... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 5, 2009 5:49:32 GMT
Firstly, thanks ss for answering. I kinda expected you would answer that you'd think Satan spoke to you in the case you would be spoken to. I'm also happy you consider that you aren't sure what Abraham heard there. I didn't want to argue about it (since it doesn't make sense and we all know it), I just was interested. @ twohead - there might be errors in the BBT and there are constantly refrasing, correcting and adding to the theory but that does not prove that it is wrong, it simple proves why I and many others agree with science and reasoning and not with religion: Science is able to see and correct mistakes, it longs for facts and it admits when it isn't working properly. Science is evolving, it's innuvative and honest. Religion on the other hand rejects all discoveries, is unable to see it's own flaws and forbids its followeres to raise valid concern. Religion doesn't allow critic, it is a hopeless, never-listening student. And if you really believe that the earth isn't older than the time we started counting by "christ birth", when you really believe god or whoever made the entire earth in 7 days and when you really think there is no evolution, than buddy, I can't help you... refrasing (rephrasing), innuvative (innovative), followeres (followers). (sorry, just using my English-German dictionary) ;D Just FYI, Darwinian Evolution IS a Religion. Why? Because THERE IS NO SOLID PROOF! If Evolution WERE true, we'd be 10 miles deep in "missing links," or skeletons of cross-between-man-and-apes. But the fact remains that we haven't found ANY authentic ones yet! And even if you find one (that hasn't been doctored up like Piltdown man, or Lucy's knee, etc. etc. God, they're all fakes anyway), what's the guarantee it reproduced? If you really think about it, when you find a bone in the ground ALL you know is: IT DIED. You don't know if it had ANY kids, let alone DIFFERENT kids. Have we ever seen a dog produce a non-dog (minus the new, completely sick things they do in $ 100,000,000 labs these days)? No, sorry to disappoint you. All that to say, what you believe in is a Religion, NOT science. |
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 5, 2009 5:52:46 GMT
And BTW, if you add up the dates in the Bible (Adam was x age when his son Seth was born, Seth was x age when his son was born, etc.) We can conclude that the World was created in about 4,000 B.C. Of course, you have to believe the Bible to believe this, but I'd rather have a 6,000 year-old World with straight-created human beings that a zillion-year-old World with a man who has evolved from an ape (like I said, that's a Religion too).
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 5, 2009 6:32:55 GMT
Oh yeah, Religions DO change quite a bit, have you ever heard of Reformations? Religion is man's attempt to find a sound system of belief, personally I don't really care what's your Religion. Whether you're Atheist, Catholic, Muslim, or whatever, I believe we are meant to live together in peace and harmony, and not discriminate each other just because what we believe is different. Just don't go calling Evolution "science," when it really is a Religion... Considering the way you look at it, anybody's set of beliefs IS their Religion. Of course, I think that way of looking at it is really wrong. But hey, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, and if you don't want any help then "buddy," there's nothing I can do about it... Of course, believing in God can give you many advantages, such as peace of mind, a sense of fulfillment, understanding the meaning of life, knowing that there's someone who loves you... the list goes on and on, but I think I've made my point clear enough...
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 5, 2009 6:44:57 GMT
And how come that god suddenly decided to stop talking to people? Couldn't it be that christians just needed an excuse to stick with their book because they would need to accept new ideas when someone came along telling them they heard god..... .....what if god decides to come down again through, what, some woman in North Korea? What if all christians denied that this woman is indeed god and therefore anger him greatly and he simply decides it never to early for a little apocalypse? What would christians read out of their book then?! God DOES talk to people, lots and lots of people. Who said He stopped anyway? When He talks to people , it's not in a really loud, thunderous voice that shakes the Earth and splits the ground!But it's a still, small voice you hear in your heart, and it leads, guides, and loves. God doesn't need to come down again, He can still speak through people. So far, the Bible has been extremely accurate as far as prophecy goes, I could give many of examples. Maybe a bit later, after someone else posts. Whatever the case, I'm inclined to believe that the rest of it will be fulfilled, just like the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 5, 2009 8:49:34 GMT
I think you are being a little unfair to religion there. Religions that are old and set in their ways don't change, but a lot of the pagan religions are more than happy to change and adapt, but like all religions they don't do so over night, and not without what they would call good reason. The difference is that in pagan religions they believe that the gods still speak to us, and that the gods themselves are imperfect, and learning, changing and growing. Equally Science is getting harder and harder to change, as if you are disproving an existing, and long standing theory, you need to have one hell of a lot of evidence to back you up. (same's true for religion btw, it's just that the revelation of St. John put the kybosh on that for the christian religion by implying that this would be the last time that god would speak directly to people - what it actually says is that it's the last prophecy god will give - and so you can't get the "proof" required because god doesn't do big reveals any more) But Darki, aren't your contradicting yourself here? You say in your first paragraph that religion does change, only slowly and in your second that, because of that kybosh thingy, things can't be change anymore since god doesn't revel anymore. And whatever it is that makes religion stuck in their ways, it still means they ignore discoveries. There is plenty of evidence for lots and lots of scientific theories (--> Evolution) but religion does not accept any of it because, old problem, religion only accepts set and unquestionable proof but that is not what science is about. Science is based on methodic testing to either discover something new or prove something known. But it never is final - because (good) scientists know that there is always the option that someone else discovers something new as times & technologies change. But again, religion only cares for finality, no matter how much evidence there is for anything and that is what makes it dangerous. (...and ironically, IF one of them decides to actually look into science, he gets punished by his fellows for being a "sinner" or simple ignored. Let's take the new Pope for example, he simply changed the rather liberal declaration of Pope John Paul II towards homosexuality (J.P. II delcared that discrimination towards homosexuality is equal to discrimination towards race etc) to suit his own liking (he basically said homosexuality should be banned for humanity to live more according to the bible) how is that not eyerollingworthy...[since Pops are the direct connection to god...eh.]) 1) Christianity is not the only religion in the world, neither is it the only religion that has a single god - so when i say that the revelation of st. John put the kybosh on getting the required proof for the christian faith, that book, placed at the end of the new testament implies (but does not outright say ss) that god won't be revealing any new stuff to anyone. 2) If you look at the old pagan religions from the greek, roman, and norse religions, they all spanned 1000 years or more, but because their gods were not perfect beings, and had flaws/disagreements, their religion was able to grow and change with the times. Their weakness to the christian religion was that the christians believed in 1 god and so wouldn't be converted away from it, but the pagans were willing to accept that other gods exist and so could be converted to it. 3) Before the council of nicea the christian faith was more that willing to believe that there were new messages coming from God, and that God was spreading his word through chosen people. After the council, and the voting... |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 5, 2009 14:18:02 GMT
I think one has to differentiate between religion and their institutions.
Religions, like philosophies, can, and IMHO do, evolve - if one lets them. Those denying that are representatives of the institutions, who fear loss of control and power.
History has cemented the institutions and their formal (often subjective) interpretations.
The greater ones of the old teachings or scriptures are quite more adaptive (and adaptable) than the formalists want to make us believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 5, 2009 15:26:34 GMT
The other major difference with the pagan religions is that they were mainly passed down by oral tradition. As such, they were BOUND to change over time. The vast majority of pagan religions had regional variations, where one or more deities were more or less important because of local legends.
The difference with the pantheistic vrs monotheistic approach is not really about conversion, though. It's that pantheists are happy to admit your god(s) exist the same way theirs do, coz what's another set of gods, after all?
A lot of the early Christian 'converts' were nothing of the kind. They just added Christ to the list of gods and got on with life as usual. It's the more muscular (sword) arms of Christianity and Islam that have traditionally gained the most 'converts' - through fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 5, 2009 15:39:55 GMT
Professing of faith at the point of a sword...
That's one way to make a point - very convincing, such a point... ;D
|
|
.com