If you actually read my posts, you would see I'm not trying to force anyone to accept anything just because I say so. I just try to make it clear why I say what I do, and I have just as much right to it as you. I don't have the luxury of imagining whatever I please, and since most misunderstandings come from superficial readings of the Bible, I take the time to read up on it give my interpretation. That, and I love learning, so I write as much for anybody who's interested as to clarify my own thoughts about the subject. That's why we have forums. I expect people to differ from me - we're the human race, not the Borg. If everybody followed your reasoning, these forums would be empty. PS. If anybody wanted to complain about my long posts, it would be JustARide or Heart. I try to keep my responses to you simple.
So are you, if I were to believe what you're saying. If God created all of humanity with the same perfectly divine spirit, then the state of our bodies should not matter. The truth is that our spiritual state is connected with our physical state, and you are no more holy or evolved than I am. Spiritual enlightenment is a farce if we are only evolving towards where we started.
I have to admit that it seems I don't. God must have created me a failure. If you hadn't told me there was no salvation or redemption necessary, I would have assumed you meant I was in desperate need of salvation. And you're no great help either, basically condemning me because I've "missed the evolutionary boat". If people are as easily fallible as I am, and god is still creating me in "its" impersonal image, where does that leave me?
I won't admit that Biblical times were a different paradigm? How can I "admit" something that is merely a piece of faith-based speculation based on an old supernatural book? Nothing I've seen or read, save the Bible itself, suggests that there is any sufficient reason to believe life on earth was fundamentally different than it is today. Did people not eat back then? Take a shit? Feel pain? Have five senses? Are you saying the brutal nature of life in Biblical times warranted drastically different behavior from God? Fun with rape.... (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. What woman wants to marry the lunatic who raped her? (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. Hmmm... a little bit better, I suppose. But I'm a tad curious as to why a woman who fails to cry out loud enough while being raped (!) is worthy of stoning? Let me guess. The women who didn't scream loud enough were really enjoying being raped, right? (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. Hmm, now thinking back on our conversation about the Amalekites and your contention that God had to punish all men, women, children, and livestock to make clear the wages of their sin, does not the above scenario show a break in that policy? Why were the ostensibly "evil" young virgin girls allowed to live? Hmmm, young... virgin... girls. I suppose after watching their mothers and brothers be slaughtered, they were quite vulnerable. Perfect time to score with some jailbait, huh? And I've always been curious as to how they knew for sure which women had "slept with a man".... Bet that was a fun inspection. I don't know... not comforting enough? How about consistent with his own words? How about slightly less cruel than Caligula? The reason Biblical accounts of atrocities attributed to God are suspect is not only because they are abhorrent and overly cruel, but because they do not gel with the words of Jesus at all. Comparing Bible apologetics to the scientific method is laughable. Science is the opposite of religion. Take so-called "creation science." Now, science is a method that does not presume the outcome of its experiments; this is precisely why it conducts experiments. Creation science already knows the truth; it is simply looking for the science to justify its beliefs. If your "method" of divining the truth of the Bible is to accept anything it says, then yes, you will likely see no problem with the atrocities, contradictions, and endorsements of horrible behavior. Once again, the idea that God's position was somehow justified or progressive because it was the most humane law of the time period is nothing but a rationalization - like saying, "God ordered that men rape their women more gently than in other cultures." Hmmm. Thanks for that. I'm glad you are the ultimate arbiter of God's will. Imagine if I hadn't found you! Too bad that "consistent set of rules" was neither followed by the Bible-God himself, nor does it offer anything but a vague guide to some forms of behavior. Am I to work on the Sabbath? Am I to eat meat on Fridays? Guess I'll find out the answers to those questions when I die and am judged... a little late if you ask me. Once again, offering laws on how to engage in slavery is a far cry from condemning it. I am. And what exactly does it say about society that the most democratic, secularly-governed nations are the freest, while the most religious are among the most oppressive in the world? Once again, saving humanity from a Hell you created is not all that compassionate. I am not impressed with the "compassion" of murderers who happen to refrain from murdering me. Heaven and Hell are the obvious outgrowths of our greatest fears and greatest hopes. We want a final arbitration (preferably one where *we* are proved right and our godless neighbors are not). Does any human being really deserve eternal punishment or eternal reward? You see, people tend to think of God as a loving father, a parental figure, that we should both love and fear. But you know the key difference? Parents punish to teach a lesson with the hope that their children will grow. Heaven and Hell teach no lesson - they are final judgments and by virtue of their finality, they will not rehabilitate in any capacity. They are infinite consequences for finite decisions (made with a great deal of justified uncertainty). How could a final judgment ever be fair? Jesus' love might be a wonderful model for our behavior, but it is still based in a flawed system of enticement. I believe an atheist who does good for no reason other than to do good is superior to a Christian doing good in order to receive a reward. And the ultimate irony is that, if the Bible is true, then the atheist can expect to be punished with Hell for not wishing after a reward for his behavior! You're correct that Heaven is a powerful catalyst for inspiration. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 certainly testify to that. Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks :m:
Warm and fuzzy opposed to one who is cold and kills? If those are my choices, then yes, I would most definitely want god to be warm and fuzzy. There is a difference in telling someone to protect them - ie A mother telling her child not to play in the middle of the road as someone might hit them- causing injury or worse. And someone who intentionally kills them- ie A mother who tells her child if they touch that tv they are going to shoot and kill them. Both examples in a sense are implying protection- however one is done out of love and one is done as a threat with intent of doing bodily harm. Which mother would you rather have? Why shouldn't people be able to handle God without gloves, so to speak? Must there always be some dramatic thing with god? Must there always be some big production showing off his almighty power? If I wanted others to welcome me- I would make myself approachable- not shoot down lightning from my fingertips and zap every person who didn't stroke my ego or cross every t and dot every i that I commanded. LOL Okay, although that statement is false ...it is cute nonetheless I know this was directed to Josh, but I would like to answer. Yes, I think that does change what happened. It wasn't god killing him because he touched the ark. Plain and simple. pssst... I'm a she Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I am out of time and must jet!
Won't it be embarrassing when Jenyar realizes he made the same mistake with God? But I digress. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
LMFAO!!! Uh huh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the laugh! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have to agree with a lot of that big long post josh made earlier, my personal opinion is god is whatever you want it/him/her to be, some say its a women, some say neither, same say a man, you choose what parts of the bible to believe, the bible hates gay people, but there are gay priests and christians, they just choose to ignore the parts that say they should be killed. As far as im aware there isnt a holy book that doesnt tell you what you want to hear, they seem to have all bases covered so to speak(though im currently investigating this further so i apologise in advance if im wrong).
You're confusing punishment with judgement here. Sin is the measure of our guilt, and the judgment is death - in the same way that the "judgment" of disease (say for instance AIDS) is death. The virus isn't punishing you for anything, but it has passed judgment on your life. You can rant and rave at the injustice and cruelty of life if you want, but in fact life isn't the problem, the disease is. God made you, but you are afflicted with something that removes you from Him and from the life He wishes you to have. Of course He deals punishment, but it does not lead to hell - as heart suggested, it should help us grow. Suffering can strengthen faith; Jesus didn't lose faith because He suffered, He suffered because he had faith. As Paul said "but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" - unless His punishment didn't have any effect on you, in which case hell is still the judgment, only because nothing changed. How could final judgment ever be fair? The fallacy is that our decision aren't finite. They echo in eternity. Parents can't save their children from eventually dying no matter how much they love them. Mortality is the reason there must be a final judgment. At some point, our spiritual lives have to be decided. You're just unfamiliar with the decision of having to choose life, but that's no reason to accept death instead. But there is a catch I think both of you might have overlooked. God only rewards genuine love, and genuine love cannot exist for a reward alone. Therefore someone who does good unselfishly, and someone who does good unselfishly but believes in God are the same - except who will reward the former? Look, God loves you. I know you and heart have been trying hard to deny it, but it's a premise of the faith. It's right up there with God's existence. There is very little "enticement" for God to love you, yet He was willing to exchange His life for yours. I've seen people asking what kind of God dies; well, one that loves you enough to sacrifice His existence for yours. You wonder at the absence of God on earth, but you have only the theory of evolution to explain yours. You criticize God for the few incidents where He acted like an evolutionist, yet you would relinquish your whole existence to the same fate without a second thought. I would rather be an Amalekite, a prostitute or a homosexual who knows my life and death was in God's hands, than a poor ingorant who thought Israel just got lucky, or I was just fodder for people better equipped to handle life, or that I was just a subject to the whims of the religious and secular alike - or that I was killed by a freak electrical discharge, an unfortunate war, a common criminal. You may not understand what I've just said, because you think surely these people are to be punished in hell. No, all that you know is that they died - and death and hell was the same thing until God stepped in with Jesus. Suddenly it's plain and simple, and God wasn't involved anymore just because there's an explanation? How do you know that? PS Sorry about getting your gender wrong. I'm sure it makes no difference to you, and I'm sure it will make no difference to God either.
Call a Hell a judgment, punishment, or a vacation to Steamyville. It's still one of the two possible places we will end up, correct? The question is: how we will end up there and why? If Hell is merely a judgment that just "happens" to us as some sort of automatic result of our sin, then how can one say God is even involved? Is there some deciding authority above God that metes out Heaven/Hell judgments? Interesting that you compare the "judgment" of a virus, which by all accounts, is a medical disorder that degrades the body's ability to function, with the knowing casting of a verdict of on someone's life by God... The applicable dictionary definitions of judgment are as follows: judg·ment also judge·ment n. 1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation. 2. The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense: She showed good judgment in saving her money. Also similar to.... *An opinion or estimate formed after consideration or deliberation, especially a formal or authoritative decision: awaited the judgment of the umpire. Law. *A determination of a court of law; a judicial decision. *A court act creating or affirming an obligation, such as a debt. *A writ in witness of such an act. *An assertion of something believed. *A misfortune believed to be sent by God as punishment for sin. *Judgment The Last Judgment. The Bible is very clear that God's judgment is the final word, and that people will answer for their actions, their faith or lack thereof, etc. How is this in any way comparable to the actions of a disease? Diseases neither carefully deliberate whether or not they should attack someone, nor do they form opinions about that which they are "judging." The Bible depicts God as a wholly conscious arbiter of punishment. Back a few posts, you argued that God sometimes reacted with more mercy to certain situations based on what happened, that he never misjudged people, that he is perfect in his judgment. If people, in effect, judge themselves, or if the judgment of Hell is merely an automatic extension of our sin, then God must have put the Heaven/Hell decision-maker on autopilot. But the Bible argues the very opposite, my friend. It says death is not the end. For all we know, we might die another thousand deaths after the one here on earth. Death, if it were just that, would seem to be final. But the Bible tells us we live for eternity, and if that's true, then there need not be any final judgment at all, only a continuation of it, if it is indeed necessary at all. If we have forever ahead of us, why is a concluding judgment required? Just because we've somehow officially ended the point at which we can make moral decisions? Even the angels in the Bible are depicted as making decisions to defy God. Are humans somehow frozen in time when they enter the afterlife? Rendered incapable of changing any of the opinions they formed while still alive on earth? If it's true that moral decisions can be made or changed in the afterlife (or beyond this life), I see no need for final judgment - reform maybe, but not final judgment. Final judgment implies that God, for whatever reason, has decided to draw the line and he has chosen death as that marker. After that point, though we live on eternally, he has decided to judge us right then and there. What's odd about that decision is that only after death will we truly know if and how God exists, so I would argue that, if the Bible is true when it says that we live after death and we will meet God, the best barometer of our Heaven/Hell-worthiness would be our behavior after we die, not before. And the question is... why does that hypothetical good person believe in God in the first place, if not because he/she wants to please him? If the rewards of Heaven are not even a tiny factor in a Christian's faith, why does the Bible even mention them, if not to add a little incentive? I heard a great quote on "NOW" last week from the former pastor of Riverside Church in Manhattan, something along the lines of... "Maybe it doesn't matter if a good person believes in God, but whether or not God believes in that person." I think what the pastor meant was, regardless of someone's beliefs, does it not perhaps matter more that they answered the call (wherever they interpreted that call as coming from) to act on the best in themselves? I think that's a worthy idea. It's quite presumptuous of you to say that God has little "enticement" to love me or heart or anybody else for that matter. How could you possibly know that? It seems to me you have a very low regard for humanity in general, even when it's at its peak. Funny how Christians seem to have so much faith in God yet so little in themselves, who are, after all, God's creation. Does a creator not have incredible responsibility when it comes to his own creation? That's the way it works on earth anyway. I suppose if you're all-powerful, there really is no requirement that you give a shit about anything - even your own creation. By the way, God did not "give his life" for us. God is still here. Jesus, presumably, is still here. Now, you might say Jesus suffered for our sins and perhaps died an earthly death, but how much does death really mean if it is undertaken with the foreknowledge of ressurrection? I would have far fewer qualms with dying if I knew I was merely going to sit right back up in three days. So everyone who died before Jesus went straight to Hell? Now, come on. Everyone who died, children, newborns, etc., automatically deserved eternal damnation? For what? Being so unlucky as to be born before the savior arrived? Remember how we're told the whole mess began. God created a garden, perfect and holy in all ways, but, for reasons unknown, he made a tree which granted knowledge of good and evil. He ordered Adam and Eve not eat the fruit. At that point, all Adam and Eve knew was that a booming voice in the sky told them not to do something, but they had no way of knowing whether actions were "good" or "evil." So, we can only assume God must have been testing his creations to see whether or not they were merely robots, who would act according to orders without even knowing the meaning of right and wrong. Adam and Eve disobeyed God (showing that they did, in fact, have free will and were not merely automatons) and for that they were punished, presumably with death and hell. So, the whole thing began just as it is now. God creates people, endows them with inferior faculties to make correct (or even informed) decisions, then blames them for their evil behavior and punishes them eternally. Nope. I'm not feeling the love, brother. Christianity: "Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." That doesn't sound weird to anyone else? Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
I'm going to move on unsteady ground here, so bear with me for a moment. Remember we're talking about perfect judgment. In that sense, God himself has no "control" over what it demands. He is committed to be just and has obliged himself to be objective. I think one of the problems people have with God is that He can somehow make and bend the rules. That's not true, because things like love and justice have their own system of "rules". When a judge precides over a courtroom, he is there in the name of justice, not in his own. God similarly judges by the demands of His own name, and the separation between us and Him is just as crucial as the separation between lies and truth. Love is the most unifying force on earth, yet we can't even define it properly - how much less regulate it and subject it to a form of justice? It's therefore unwise to take the comparison between our legal system of justice and God's divine system of justice too far. But it is a useful analogy. The truth is that we only have God's commandments to give us an idea of what is necessary to meet the demands justice places on us. In God's perfect system (described as "holiness"), mercy is the big unknown - that's why I choose never underestimate it. I made the comparison between sin and disease. The law exposes sin, and sin condemns us. Jesus conquered sin and death, and anybody without His intercession is still condemned, in the words of Paul, "still in your sins". You might have heard this before: Rom 6 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Disease is not a judgement, but if left untreated it becomes one, disease doesn't ultimately lead anywhere else but death. Our guilt is more like a disease, or a curse, than a judgment. But it does lead to judgment, because it is by its nature a transgression of the law. Not on autopilot, on Jesus. Sin meant that all would die, but nothing prevents God from resurrecting anybody from it. John 3 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Death is not the end because God chose not to make it the end. Otherwise it would have been. If eternal life was a given, God would not have had to brings us into inheritance of it. It's not a right, it's a priviledge. Death fulfills the contract we have with our lives on earth, but it doesn't fulfill the contract we have with God. Likewise, life fulfils the covenant God made with us, but it does not meet the requirements of justice, because of sin. The Hindus have this view of justice: that we can somehow redeem ourselves if given enough time - enough lives. Death just seems to throw a spanner in the works, a nuisance to overcome. God did postpone final judgement - He postponed it with Adam, He postponed it with Noah, He postponed it with Israel, and He is postponing it for us. But if judgment is postponed forever, is justice ever done? I don't think so. 2 Peter 3 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. You refer to Acts 17:31: For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. Death itself is not really the marker, but it comes down to that. As I said, that's when our contract with life has been fulfilled. Death isn't as much a marker as a signifier. It's something you can't argue with, whether you believe in God or not. You make much of heaven and hell, but in reality there isn't any more difference than between life and death. There just isn't much space for an agnostic view on death. just like death plays such a decisive role in our physical lives, God - as the giver of life - plays the decisive role in our eternal lives. Hebrews 9 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Well, it can't be anything other than an incentive, but it certainly isn't the justifying factor. It's like the bed you're looking forward to at the end of a long journey. The incentive isn't that it's there, it's that it's promised. To put it another way: is the promise of peace an unworthy reward for working towards it? Isn't justice itself just a reward - peace for the peaceful and punishment for the criminal? The incentive is helpful at times when you don't know why you're doing it anymore. When there was no reason to practice love - in fact if you were being persecuted because of it - it's comforting to know that it's worth it. Remember we're not called to a love that is expected, but to one that isn't. Many people would do anyhting for a reward promised in this life, but how many would persevere when they are promised nothing but hardship in this life, and a promise in the next? That promise requires faith, my friend, and that comes at no small price in this life. I didn't mean it that way. I meant "enticement" in the way you described it - as an excuse to love. God loves us because we are His creation, sure, but how many people recognize that love? He doesn't only love Christians, He loves all his creation - especially the prodigal sons. It's unrequitted love for the most part, and love that great shouldn't be. So, do you? Is the promise of resurrection real enough for you? Is the reward certain enough that you will risk your life for it? Jesus' death didn't mean anything because He expected resurrection or not, only because God gave it to Him. If there was no God, then it would have been as Medicine*Woman says: he was just one of thousands who were crucified for his beliefs, nothing special. If it was only in this life that we had hope in Christ, we are fools indeed... They died, and to the Jews - who had no concept of hades as the Romans knew it - thought they went to an eternal grave, sheol, where no-one can know God anymore. It was only later that it became associated with the Roman Hades, or the Greek Tartarus. When they started to believe in the resurrection of the dead, sheol became a prison (as in 1 Peter 3:19). And it is Jesus who possesses the keys to it (Rev 1:18). When He died, He unlocked death (which spans time) and everybody who had ever been justified by faith (Heb.11) shares the inheritance of eternal life. Just as sin of Adam affected all people, so Jesus' atonement overflows across time to all people (Rom.5:15). Christ's death and resurrection is a new deluge, His blood meant to extinguish the fires of hell (death), and He himself is the ark. No; "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam" (Rom.5) Adam's sin wasn't one of doing evil, it was breaking a command. Sin is anything that separates you from God and causes death - even if it isn't necessarily evil. And Adam was aware that they were disobeying God. A child doesn't have to know the consequences of an action before he must listen to his father - and not being able to appreciate the consequences doesn't make them any less after he's done something wrong. Through Adam, death got a hold on all of humanity. If we weren't like Adam ourselves, I supposed we could have just blamed him for everything. But we have free will, too, and I doubt we're doing any better. There is nothing inferior about free will. There is something wrong with disobedience, though. When the information itself is dangerous, being informed is the worst answer. Do you really have to know all evil before you will avoid it? And God din't blame them, he saved them from the consequences, just as He wants to save us. I feel the love every time I'm successful at resisting temptation, and every time I'm succesful at warning someone of danger they were not aware of. I have only this to add: Jer.2:35 you say, 'I am innocent; he is not angry with me.' But I will pass judgment on you because you say, 'I have not sinned.'
Yes, God is the supreme ruler and the only restrictions he is subject to are the ones he subjects himself to. The question is, is he a good King or a bad King? "Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill many men and you are a conqueror. Kill all men and you are a God." Does clucking like a chicken make you a chicken? "Why should I follow the rules of God for raising my childen when he's killed millions of his own." Because you're not God. Christianity at least, is not a Greek religion. We do not do as God does. We do as God tells us to do. God can do whatever he wants for the same reason the government is free to do some things that the common citizen can't do. For the same reason you can blow up a GI-Joe you own and not have a moral dillema over it. Ben
Christianity: "Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." No. Eternal suffering for those who reject his love. As one person stated it long ago, it would be cruel of God to force those who hate him to live with him for all of eternity. And without God there is no comfort. God doesn't force you to love him. Those who reject him do so of their own will. So how can you blame God when you're the one who rejected him? Would you rather God forced you to believe? That you were just a robot? People question God all the time. The problem comes up when your questions lead to hating God. But then as I said, God gives you wanted: seperation from him. Ben
The "do as I say not as I do routine"? Pathetic. So what happens if a person "hears" god speaking to them and tells them to kill someone- are they to do as god tells them? Does "rejecting his love" also include not being and doing as he commands? You know all of those "heavy drinkers, homosexuals, adulterers, etc"? Reason I ask because it seems to me even if they did love him, regardless of their lifestyle- they are doomed. The whole concept sucks! Do as I say or you will rot in hell- manipulative bully of a god if you ask me. The alternative is pretty f'd up.
