Is jesus the messiah - SciForums.com

c20H25N3o

11-01-04, 05:56 AM

so we've got to have a fantasy figure before we can read, or find hidden nonexistent meanings, my elder brother sadly dead now, used to write between the lines of books saying you've got to read between the lines, unfortunately he was in a lunatic asylum.

however I must say that is the biggest cop out from answering a direct question, I've ever seen.
example: I cant answer you damning evidence, as you cant possibly know, what is written in the bible because it does'nt say what it say, you can only read if you have xray specs on, or if gawd is reading it for yah.
what a crock of s@#*

Try and see through the eyes of a child rather than an adult and then you may see Jesus clearly enough to trust in Him. Jesus stands there at the door knocking. The child turns to his father and says "Someone is knocking at the door. Shall I answer it?" The father says "Let me see who it is? I want to be sure they are for you and not against you before you let them into the house"
When the child opens the door, the father sees that it is only Jesus and says "Welcome friend". The child now knows Jesus is 'safe'. Their father said so. Jesus says "Hello Friend" and "Peace To You". Jesus has confirmed to the child that his father was correct to let Him in by his actions. What shall Jesus do when He enters the house? Is he likely to run amock and cause havoc as the honored guest of the child's father or is He likely to bring peace and friendship? I think His words state His intentions more than clearly enough. Who kows what gifts this friend brings for the child of the father whom he loves? Jesus gives the child a gift. The child opens the gift and is amazed to find it is what the child had always wanted! The child looks to his father and says "I like Jesus. He brought me a gift", the father says "I like Jesus too son, Jesus is so generous is He not?". The child says "Yes father He is generous.". Jesus smiles and says "Come on let's go and sit in your garden where we can tell stories of monsters and dragons". The child is all agog and sits on Jesus' right hand side as He begins His tale. The father smiles and makes coffee for his friend. His child receives apple juice and stories. All are at peace. Jesus is good to His word. God is Love. Peace flow out from Him to you.

peace

c20

fahrenheit 451

11-01-04, 08:49 AM

c20 :if I do that, then I will allow myself to be indoctrinated, and brainwashed, I've already been down that road.

many people have allowed there so called friends, near there kids, sadly.
their words, were taken as friend also.
also these so called friends told there children stories of dragons and monsters.
have you read or seen the news or seen something like jerry springer these are friends.

what word is jesus good to, where is god love, as only you can read between the lines of the bible, I am but a mere mortal.

but admitedly it better to have a fantasy friend they only harm your mind.

you truly are blinded by faith, wake up and come into the real world.

Medicine*Woman

11-01-04, 10:23 AM

c20H25N3o: You can never hope to interpret the bible without the Holy Spirit. It is just stories and myths to you because you have heard the message of Jesus and have rejected it.
*************
M*W: You still don't seem to understand that Paul wrote and influenced the writings of the NT. These writings may have been about Jesus, but they don't contain the TRUTH about Jesus.
*************
c20H25N3o: You wish to make Jesus out to be a liar when He is Who Is.
*************
M*W: No one wants to make Jesus out to be a liar. That is not our intent. In fact, there are more atheists out there who know Jesus better than you! The Jesus you believe in remains a myth, it's just that you don't see it. You've been blinded by the lies of Paul, and that is what you believe.
*************
c20H25N3o: Accept Jesus and then your eyes may be opened to the mysteries of the gospels. Without Jesus your spirit cannot hope to fathom the mind of Christ. Without Jesus you are blind to the mysteries that lay within the text.
*************
M*W: Several of us have given you quotes and links to read, but I suspect you haven't read any of them. In other words, you don't want to learn anything about your belief system. You choose to remain blinded by the lies.
*************
c20H25N3o: Without understanding the Spirit behind The Word you are like a man reading a "Keep Out! Danger Of Death" sign attached to a power station fence who then says to themselves "I will not die! What liars!" but still you know to keep away from the dangers within. You miss the care and concern for you in the spirit behind the words although consciously you follow the directive without hesitation. The Word of God is good and it is for you! Do not attempt to find issue with something that is for you!!
*************
M*W: The NT is not for anyone, it is about Paul and not Jesus. One doesn't need a mythical spirit to understand its words. One only needs to learn about Paul and his evil motivation to self-aggrandize himself to his peers and make a fast buck while he CONTINUED TO PERSECUTE the followers of Jesus.

You claim you love Jesus, but you worship Paul, so your words contradict your understanding of your religion. You follow the Anti-Christ and don't even know it!

c20H25N3o

11-01-04, 10:29 AM

Avatar

11-01-04, 10:30 AM

Why do people always need a saviour? I think that the world is a fantastic place as is and needs no such person.

Medicine*Woman

11-01-04, 10:58 AM

c20H25N3o: Medicine Woman - do you claim Jesus Christ came as a human being? Just yes or no please.
*************
M*W: I have given you my answer in a previous post. Why do you keep asking me the same question? I've explained my position in depth.

c20H25N3o

11-01-04, 11:08 AM

SnakeLord

11-01-04, 12:02 PM

If MW humours you with an answer, do you think you could show the same attitude and humour Musthafakofi with an answer to the questions he asked about 10 posts ago?

There's no point taking if you're also not willing to give.

Preacher_X

11-01-04, 12:19 PM

Why do people always need a saviour? I think that the world is a fantastic place as is and needs no such person.

yes perfect for some but terrible for most, the overwhelming majority of people. anyway sorry to go off topic. im trying to find ome sources and ill try and post a reply about this Messiah thing soon, mustafhakofi :)

c20H25N3o

11-01-04, 12:21 PM

Sorry Snakelord, you are right I should respond to mustafhakofi's questions

mustafhakofi: You xians, believe your christ to be the messiah.

why has he been proclaimed such,as he clearly does not fit the bill.

firstly his name is not Immanuel.

Ok what is his name then and who is he?

secondly he is not a direct descendant of David.

Ok who is he a direct descendant of then and who is he specifically?

thirdly the jewish lands that should of been destroyed were not before he reached maturity.

Sorry??? Who is he again?

forthly he could not have fulfilled the prophecy of zechariah, as he was not a military king and had no kingdom.

You think of military in terms of earthly kingdoms. Jesus is the ultimate military king in the Kingdom of Heaven. Think in terms of spiritual kingdoms with spirits in and you suddenly see that physical machinery is a great way to actually lose the battle. Not a good idea to live by the physical sword therefore ;)

these are but some in the bible that contradict that jesus is the messiah.

lol...

You: Your Honor, that pesky bible is full of lies it dared to contradict that Jesus was the Messiah. I demand that the book be burnt at once for it's heresy! May the Messiah Jesus be honored and that book be burnt!

The Judge: May your honoring of Jesus' name be remembered but please take time to read the message of Jesus. Start with the New Testament if you prefer. The Old Testament was prophecy of what was to come but now that what has come is here what of it? Let the scholars study the prophecies that they may fully marvel at the works of God. Now as for the makers of that book. Well they have received their rewards already as have you. Begone and let us hear no more of the matter!

what do you say.

I have already said it.

thanks

c20

mustafhakofi

11-01-04, 04:03 PM

firstly I would like to ask have you ever read your bible.Sorry Snakelord, you are right I should respond to mustafhakofi's questions

mustafhakofi: You xians, believe your christ to be the messiah.

why has he been proclaimed such,as he clearly does not fit the bill.

firstly his name is not Immanuel.

Ok what is his name then and who is he?read the gospel according to matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

secondly he is not a direct descendant of David.

Ok who is he a direct descendant of then and who is he specifically?The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David, romans 1:3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh. acts 2:29-30 Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
: Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne.
Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies Matthew 1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

thirdly the jewish lands that should of been destroyed were not before he reached maturity.

Sorry??? Who is he again?isaiah 7:13-16 And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
:Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
: He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the NT.

forthly he could not have fulfilled the prophecy of zechariah, as he was not a military king and had no kingdom.

You think of military in terms of earthly kingdoms. Jesus is the ultimate military king in the Kingdom of Heaven. Think in terms of spiritual kingdoms with spirits in and you suddenly see that physical machinery is a great way to actually lose the battle. Not a good idea to live by the physical sword therefore ;) but how can your jesus be the messiah.
so I say beware false prophets

these are but some in the bible that contradict that jesus is the messiah.

lol... why do you laugh and mock your own infallible bible.

You: Your Honor, that pesky bible is full of lies it dared to contradict that Jesus was the Messiah. I demand that the book be burnt at once for it's heresy! May the Messiah Jesus be honored and that book be burnt!

The Judge: May your honoring of Jesus' name be remembered but please take time to read the message of Jesus. Start with the New Testament these are all from matthew NT if this is what jesus preaches forget it. Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

"the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
if you prefer. The Old Testament was prophecy of what was to come but now that what has come is here what of it? Let the scholars study the prophecies that they may fully marvel at the works of God. Now as for the makers of that book. Well they have received their rewards already as have you. Begone and let us hear no more of the matter! why to hot for you

what do you say.

I have already said it.

thanks

c20 but not very well.

stretched

11-02-04, 04:10 AM

Yo,

"Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46"

Now that is not very loving.

Smooth.

Jenyar

11-02-04, 07:58 AM

In other words, the damned are the damned - they have no other source of love. And God does not have to love sin. You might say "that is not very loving", but why should it be?

Jesus believed in hell because God believes in hell. The simple fact is that you can't find love that stretches beyond death anywhere but with God.

Love is not something God is obedient to, it is something He presents - whether you accept it or reject it is up to you.

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 08:33 AM

Hell is a state in which there is no love. If there is no love in the soul then it has essentially died because in order to receive love, first you must give it. Without love we may not even receive a glass of water. We will just thirst and thirst. Sometimes evil people can throw you into that pit. They flatter you, take all of your love for themselves and then cast you aside leaving you with no love whilst they get drunk on yours. When the innocent go to hell like this, hell cannot keep them because hell can only keep those who have stolen love that is not theirs. They had none so they stole someone elses. This is why we see evil people succeed in this world incidentally but that is a matter for the philosophy forum.
We still see a little bit of love in the souls of the common people but really it is the dregs at the bottom of pint of beer and who wants that?
When we say things like "But I am a good person, I wont go to hell" you dont know how close to having an empty glass you really are. People who love evil will drink your spittly dregs when you arent looking leaving you with nothing, they may even smash your glass!
The great thing is that no matter how little you have in your glass, God loves you jealously. He wants to be the one to fill up your glass. He stands their with the worlds biggest bar and charges nothing at all. Jesus is the Great Barman and His Blood Is more than enough to fill your glass, which is why he says "This is my blood that I give you, remember me as you drink it". Jesus' suffering was neccesary. His death was necessary. It was imperative that he came as a human being so that His blood could be poured out for you. Without that blood our glasses would always be near enough empty if not completly empty.
Jesus' glass was overflowing but it was smashed and the blood and water poured out to the earth. That act of love, His sacrifice meant that He was thrown into hell as an innocent soul, in fact the only truly innocent soul to have ever been there. He preached to the souls imprisoned there and those that believed were set free.
Your soul is eternal but where you go at the end of the day is like well up to you. The point is that we cannot fill up our own glasses without stealing dregs from other people and this is not 'good'. Jesus is the only place we can have our glasses filled freely.

peace

c20

mis-t-highs

11-02-04, 08:43 AM

c20 have you any reference material, so we can collaborate your post.
you seem to know a lot about evil, but we need to establish it as fact.
so source material would come in handy.
I'm sorry I've searched but cant find any, I've even gone back to the old system of looking though books but to no avail.
thank you.

Medicine*Woman

11-02-04, 10:35 AM

Jenyar: Love is not something God is obedient to, it is something He presents - whether you accept it or reject it is up to you.
*************
M*W: Jenyar, you always describe "God" as having thoughts, emotions, intelligence, feelings of happiness or grief with his 'unworthy' creation, etc.. Only humans have these higher senses. (I don't disclude higher animals like apes or dogs, because I know my dogs have a high degree of feelings and emotions). If there is a god who created us, then as I've stated many times past, god dwells within all creation, with humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe; therefore, humanity IS God; therefore, we need look no further than humanity to see God.

Now that I realize our creation was a simple act of random evolution (we're still Big Banging as we speak). Sure, it may seem evolution occurs at snail-speed, but that depends on whose or whats perspective is experiencing the velocity.

If a god exists, one who created everything, why would this creator need to have any lowly human or higher animal emotions? It is these same emotions, etc., that make us weaker or stronger. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., why would God even need to experience these very human emotions -- unless God is cumulatively all of creation and is most higly reflected in humanity?

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 01:05 PM

anonymous2

11-02-04, 01:17 PM

Evolution i.e. the universe progresses and wipes out life every 80 years or so is a bit shi* to say the least. What a well crappy idea! Whats the point of it? Why Am I here. Do I just die? Is that it? Hey stop this boat cos I wanna get off! Hey you great big damned big banging thing, I command you to let me off at once! Hey shi* it hasn't stopped spinning to let me off! But I am supposed to be the master of all. Why am I so limited? I am mortal. I have no power. Does not compute. Does not Compute. Overload. Overload. Must get off. Cannot stop. Terminate. Terminate.

Get over it you evolutionists and start to have a little faith huh?

best wishes

c20

Which world view is really more bleak? The universe fading into oblivion, everyone living their lives for what they are and nothing more, or forced eternity, either worshipping/praising God, or an eternal torment for most of mankind? If we are talking about *preferrable* world views, I find the former perhaps infinitely better. Only a fiend could find any comfort in thinking most of mankind will go to an eternal torture pit.

And an omnipotent God could find a way to get rid of "sin", he wouldn't need to keep it on eternal human souls and torment them for eternity. That's why it makes little sense to me. So God doesn't need to love sin? Fine. Then why doesn't he destroy it? He can't? You gotta be kidding me. And if he can't, why not just remove it from humans and put it in a pile "over there"? You yourself admit that God removes "sin stain" from Christians, right? So he can do it. If he can do it, why doesn't he do it for everyone? It just does NOT make sense to me why a God would NEED to put people in an eternal torture pit.

That you hope for eternal life, great. Good for you. But if you actually thought about the reverse of what Christianity offers humans, you might think differently.

There are many people who reject Christianity because they think it's false, not because they're "wicked". Are those who already have religious traditions and reject Christianity "evil"? They could be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil for rejecting what they actually believe is wrong, does it?

And, if YOU were wrong about your religious beliefs, do you think it to be fair that a "just, loving" God would torture you for eternity for being wrong? If, for instance, Allah is God, do you think that it'd be just for you to be in an eternal hell because you were sincerely wrong in your faith?

Like I said, if YOU are happy believing you have eternal life, good. To me, the flip side is so incredibly unacceptable that I find it improbable that I could find happiness in thinking I have eternal life as a Christian.

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 02:13 PM

Which world view is really more bleak? The universe fading into oblivion, everyone living their lives for what they are and nothing more, or forced eternity, either worshipping/praising God, or an eternal torment for most of mankind? If we are talking about *preferrable* world views, I find the former perhaps infinitely better. Only a fiend could find any comfort in thinking most of mankind will go to an eternal torture pit.

c20's response :

Oh boy. You really have missed the mark havn't you. God loves you. Understand? God wants you to be faithful to Him as a wife to her husband. Is that so bad? If you have ever known an unfaithful wife then you will know why she cant possibly get back into her husband's good books unless she repents. Since the husband in this case is God Everlasting, I cannot imagine what seperation and divorce from Him would entail. Some people refer to that state as hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, everlasting thirst, terrible to be there on the outside, never being permitted inside of God's warm love again. If you go to hell m8 its only cos you were unfaithful to God. You know that bloke Jesus? Well He is God's Son and He reckons your alright really and to prove it, he went up to His Father and said "look, that fella is anonymous2, I would die for that fella if push came to shove." and no sooner had He said it had He done it. But you reject Him too! On the outside you go then with the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Unlucky! :( (quick turn around and say sorry. Believe in what Jesus will say on your behalf.)

anonymous2:

And an omnipotent God could find a way to get rid of "sin", he wouldn't need to keep it on eternal human souls and torment them for eternity.

Response by c20:

To sin is to 'miss the mark'. We all 'miss the mark' when we forget we are little gods created by our big God Dad - you know the big God Dad that said "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" - Err my response to that is "Yes Dad" although it is with resignation just like a child's may be.
Oh and by the way - God did find a way with dealing with 'missing the mark' - He sent His own Son here to be a human being. Jesus told everybody what I am telling you now, this is how I know what I know now. But you reject the message that God loves you jealously like a husband loves a wife and so you continue to 'miss the mark'. Incidentally to 'miss the mark' is also the same as commiting adultery in God's eyes which He declares is punishable by death. Jesus surrendered unto death on your behalf to cover you. The law of God requires life for a life. Jesus gave up His. God then raised Him up again. Obviously!

The rest of your words are babble.

Thanks c20

That's why it makes little sense to me. So God doesn't need to love sin? Fine. Then why doesn't he destroy it? He can't? You gotta be kidding me. And if he can't, why not just remove it from humans and put it in a pile "over there"? You yourself admit that God removes "sin stain" from Christians, right? So he can do it. If he can do it, why doesn't he do it for everyone? It just does NOT make sense to me why a God would NEED to put people in an eternal torture pit.

That you hope for eternal life, great. Good for you. But if you actually thought about the reverse of what Christianity offers humans, you might think differently.

There are many people who reject Christianity because they think it's false, not because they're "wicked". Are those who already have religious traditions and reject Christianity "evil"? They could be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil for rejecting what they actually believe is wrong, does it?

And, if YOU were wrong about your religious beliefs, do you think it to be fair that a "just, loving" God would torture you for eternity for being wrong? If, for instance, Allah is God, do you think that it'd be just for you to be in an eternal hell because you were sincerely wrong in your faith?

Like I said, if YOU are happy believing you have eternal life, good. To me, the flip side is so incredibly unacceptable that I find it improbable that I could find happiness in thinking I have eternal life as a Christian.

anonymous2

11-02-04, 02:15 PM

The rest of your words are babble.

Christian love at its finest. :) Have I said what you say is babble? If you don't have a legitimate response, why not just leave it be?

Sure it's "babble" to you, because I was making a point about what if YOU were wrong about your religious beliefs, what do you think would be a fair punishment for your honest mistake?

And as for "adultery" being punishable by "death", "death" is infinitely better than an eternal torture pit.

Even your wife (ex-wife?) who has your daughter, do you wish death upon her? I seem to recall you saying she was an "adulteress", although I could be wrong.

What a cruel God it appears you worship.

Have a nice day. :)

pavlosmarcos

11-02-04, 02:30 PM

c20 can you ask your god to stop the world, just to see if it can.
thanks

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 05:25 PM

c20 can you ask your god to stop the world, just to see if it can.
thanks

Do not put the Lord Your God to the test.

response by c20: pavlosmarcos - God is alive. Omnipresent. A Saviour for you. On the Wind In the Wind Through The Wind. And pleaase try to be a little humble before Him. Go and look outside at the sky. Go watch a fish swim. Watch a butterfly emerge from its cocoon. Go and look in the flippin mirror! Read the flippin bible and hear His voice! Love Jesus with all your being my friend. Know Him. :cool:

SnakeLord

11-02-04, 05:38 PM

Go and look outside at the sky. Go watch a fish swim. Watch a butterfly emerge from its cocoon. Go and look in the flippin mirror!

Why is it that when trying to point out your god daddy, the best you can manage is to tell people to look at nature? That is all natural, not supernatural..

I also find it somewhat biased that you don't add: "go look at a child dying of the most horrendous and painful cancer imagineable."

Tell me c20, why do you neglect to add that to your list?

Read the flippin bible

Is it ever worth claiming gods love and then telling people to read the bible? It's full of disgusting stuff like 'closing womens wombs', 'mass annihilations of human beings' etc. If you want people to find and love god, pretend the bible doesn't exist.

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 06:31 PM

Why is it that when trying to point out your god daddy, the best you can manage is to tell people to look at nature? That is all natural, not supernatural..

I also find it somewhat biased that you don't add: "go look at a child dying of the most horrendous and painful cancer imagineable."

Tell me c20, why do you neglect to add that to your list?

Is it ever worth claiming gods love and then telling people to read the bible? It's full of disgusting stuff like 'closing womens wombs', 'mass annihilations of human beings' etc. If you want people to find and love god, pretend the bible doesn't exist.

God smote the godless because God is love. Every good father rebukes the child he loves. Trust me it is not for nothing that I tremble before the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

peace

c20

anonymous2

11-02-04, 06:35 PM

God smote the godless because God is love. Every good father rebukes the child he loves. Trust me it is not for nothing that I tremble before the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

peace

c20

What? So you're saying God killed the "godless" because he's love? Don't show me the "God of hate" then. If a human child does evil, the parent doesn't kill it, right? The parent instructs it, perhaps gives it some physical punishment, but doesn't maim or kill it. If a child lies to his parents, the parents don't kill the child, do they? But according to the Bible, Ananias and Sapphira "lied to the Holy Spirit" and the implication, to me, is that they died via divine judgement. This is not the worst thing in the Bible. ;) Sure, hey, if there's an omnipotent God, of course he has the power to do whatever he wants (besides things like destroy himself I suppose). But a loving father? How can I love such a being?

c20H25N3o

11-02-04, 06:55 PM

How can I love such a being?

Because He loves you jealously. More than enough to be made flesh and die for you such is His great love for you.

peace

c20

Medicine*Woman

11-02-04, 08:05 PM

c20H25N3o: pavlosmarcos - God is alive. Omnipresent. A Saviour for you. On the Wind In the Wind Through The Wind. And pleaase try to be a little humble before Him. Go and look outside at the sky. Go watch a fish swim. Watch a butterfly emerge from its cocoon. Go and look in the flippin mirror! Read the flippin bible and hear His voice! Love Jesus with all your being my friend. Know Him. :cool:
*************
M*W: You have proven to the rest of us that God doesn't exist. You make sure to tell us to be 'humble before him,' but you're not 'humble before him!' You're arrogant and demanding 'before him.' You can't see the forest for the trees 'before him.' You have shamed yourself 'before him.' If God does exist, it is not the way you've presented him.

You believe in the same god as Moses -- Aten, the Sun God, but you don't realize it. The God of Moses doesn't exist anymore than your god does. You'd have a better life if you went outside and bowed down to the Sun -- they're one and the same god!

Why must you xians athropomorphize the sun? Belief in astrology has more truth than the belief in 'your' God! Moses wanted the Egyptians to believe in Aten, the Sun God. Those Egyptians, the Habiru, became the Hebrews who believed in 'Moses' God, Aten--the Sun! You don't even know what you worship! If there is a god, then it is all you followers of Moses' god and Jesus' god that will be your doom! But, the god Jesus spoke about WAS the God of Moses! Think about it! You're so doomed!

Medicine*Woman

11-02-04, 08:08 PM

Medicine*Woman

11-02-04, 08:11 PM

c20H25N3o: Because He loves you jealously. More than enough to be made flesh and die for you such is His great love for you.
*************
M*W: Yeah, if the sun died, we probably would all be doomed. Where would your god be then? The sun doesn't love us jealously. The sun is pretty impartial as far as I can tell. It neither loves nor hates nor feels any emotion like you and Jenyar seem to believe. Enough of your fairy tales! Begone, c20, you're evil, begone!

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 04:30 AM

God smote the godless because God is love. Every good father rebukes the child he loves. Trust me it is not for nothing that I tremble before the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

That's charming. Now could you perhaps find it within yourself to answer my question?

Here it is again:

"I also find it somewhat biased that you don't add: "go look at a child dying of the most horrendous and painful cancer imagineable."

Tell me c20, why do you neglect to add that to your list?"

Oh and btw:

Every good father rebukes the child he loves

Complete and utter bollocks.

Jenyar

11-03-04, 04:56 AM

SnakeLord,

In your world, the child is dying, full stop. Phrases like "the most horrendous and painful cancer imaginable" are called qualifiers, which have no place in a world ruled by nature and "the fittest". People die softly in their sleep, or cruelly over prolonged periods. That's the reality you have accepted. Life does not care whether you have inoperable cancer or are the healthiest person on earth. But now you're trying to load it emotionally to make your point. That's already inconsistent.

Maybe you want us to be emotionally biased against God, like you are, in spite of His offer to comfort and restore our lives, and our experience of His love. You *have* to demand those offers in this life, because in your world, this life is all we have. If a child dies "horrendously", he has been wronged by this life - the one God wants us to give to Him for redemption, hope, and restoration - not by God.

You still confuse life (not to mention: your perception of it) with God. That was the problem with our very first discussion as well, if I recall. You feel wronged because you have not experienced God's love, and that's your "case" against Him. You're not the first - the Bible is full of people who felt exactly like you do. But even if you reject God for all He is and promises, it still doesn't make sense to blame the world's suffering on God to justify yourself. If you want to credit Him with your suffering, you must also credit him for your life, happiness, and everything else you have received.

c20H25N3o

11-03-04, 05:12 AM

c20H25N3o: God smote the godless because God is love. Every good father rebukes the child he loves. Trust me it is not for nothing that I tremble before the Maker of Heaven and Earth.
*************
M*W: As you should! The Sun is the creater of the universe. You should fear the daylight, for all you will have is the darkness.

Fear the daylight? Can you even hear yourself? You are telling me that a celestial body within the body of the Creation is all of creation.
That is like saying that the egg of a woman is enough to bear fruit in and of itself. M*W remember that you reap exactly what you sow. You have buckets and buckets of good seeds, ready to be planted so that the fruit from them may heal the nations. Why do you choose to keep that fruit from us? I thought you were a healer? You would make such a beautiful healer in the Kindom of God because of your great knowledge of Him. Why do you waste our time with your folly? If you are chaff you will be destroyed. Do not take that lightly! God is being very very very patient with you because of His great love for you. You even know His voice. You even here His words to you. Why are you so angry with Him? May that bitterness turn to sweetness just as the bitter herbs turn to sweetness as the pain is relieved and the healer smiles.

God bless you

c20

Jenyar

11-03-04, 05:33 AM

What? So you're saying God killed the "godless" because he's love? Don't show me the "God of hate" then. If a human child does evil, the parent doesn't kill it, right? The parent instructs it, perhaps gives it some physical punishment, but doesn't maim or kill it. If a child lies to his parents, the parents don't kill the child, do they? But according to the Bible, Ananias and Sapphira "lied to the Holy Spirit" and the implication, to me, is that they died via divine judgement. This is not the worst thing in the Bible. ;) Sure, hey, if there's an omnipotent God, of course he has the power to do whatever he wants (besides things like destroy himself I suppose). But a loving father? How can I love such a being?
God does not "kill the godless", evidently. That He put life and death before people is indisputable, but God does not need to give reasons for His actions, and it's simple arrogance to demand them. But it's also arrogant to reject his warnings or his love, taking your fate into your own hands. Ananias and Sapphira did something that was clearly recognizable as sin - they literally lied to and stole from God. When something happens that we don't understand, or that scares us, it's wise to look at the reasons, and try to avoid falling to the same fate. But somehow you are just content at pointing to God - like someone pointing to ground zero without bothering to find out where the bomb came from.
Amos 3
5 Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground
where no snare has been set?
Does a trap spring up from the earth
when there is nothing to catch?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.
You ask rightly, "how can I love such a being?" How indeed! But you don't want to find out. You seem much more interested in resenting him. What is really your case against God? I know it's not that you think you're blameless before Him, or particularly worthy of His love. But if His love is available - if there is a way to restore your relationship with Him and be able to love Him - why not look for it? Are you afraid you'll find it, or that it would be "unreasonable" to love God? God's love for us is unreasonable, and that is all that makes experiencing it possible in this world.

We were born in exile, away from Him, without hope or reason to expect to find love - but He came looking for us there where we were stuck without Him, waiting for death to arrive at last. Don't blame food for hunger.

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 05:40 AM

In your world, the child is dying, full stop. Phrases like "the most horrendous and painful cancer imaginable" are called qualifiers, which have no place in a world ruled by nature and "the fittest". People die softly in their sleep, or cruelly over prolonged periods. That's the reality you have accepted. Life does not care whether you have inoperable cancer or are the healthiest person on earth. But now you're trying to load it emotionally to make your point. That's already inconsistent.

What are you chatting about? C20 claimed that if you want to see god you should go outside and look at nature: fish swimming, butterflies coming out of cocoons etc. I merely pointed out that this should then be all encompassing, and asked why he left out the side of life that isn't quite as tender and beautiful. Your post is worthless to that, changes nothing and answers nothing. Instead you try and turn this round upon me as if it were I who made the claim.

You then do a flip turn right at the end with:

If you want to credit Him with your suffering, you must also credit him for your life, happiness, and everything else you have received.

When that's all I'm saying. If you want to credit him with with all the happiness and everything else, you also need to credit him for the suffering - being that he is the creator of everything.

When you get a free moment, make note that I never said life cared one way or the other, nor did I ever mention "my world". I was asking a religious man why he neglected to mention the other side of the coin.

C20 said to go and look outside if you want to see god. Brain tumours, malaria and so forth are an aspect of that, and as such I asked why he left those out of his statement.

In other threads I have seen c20 mention several times that god makes us suffer for a reason, and that "every good father rebukes his child" and other statements of that nature. Given that according to C20 this is the case, I wonder why he failed to mention it here, instead trying to pass it off as all positive, when it is not like that.

I apologise if it was in any way my fault that you didn't understand my post, but I have a feeling it was more to do with emotion, and a sudden need to respond to something that you didn't sit down and digest in full first.

Maybe you want us to be emotionally biased against God, like you are

I am about as emotionally biased against god as I am emotionally biased against the loch ness monster. They're both fictions, and as such your claim is moot. Instead, if you take the time to digest the post, you'll see I asked a question to a religious man about why he neglected to mention the bad side of life after having said "all you need to do is look outside". That bad side is as visible, if not more so, than the good side - and yet it was swept under the carpet. I asked why.

You still confuse life (not to mention: your perception of it) with God.

Where do you get off on saying "confuse", when it's quite clear you didn't even take the time to digest my post, and as such have completely lost the point of it. Who's confused?

Further to which, having been told that all one needs to do is look at life, there is no confusion that can arise. Life includes everything from fish swimming, to bowel cancer. Why neglect one side after having said all one needs to do is look at life? Who's confusing life with god in a biased manner?

That was the problem with our very first discussion as well, if I recall. You feel wronged because you have not experienced God's love, and that's your "case" against Him.

You're quite clearly.. 'lost'.

A) a person cannot be wronged by a non existant being.

B) What I asked was that from a religious persons point of view, is how they reconcile the fact that some people go through severe tragedy, and call out for god to which they never get a response.

You seem to be confusing the issue and looking at everyone as a believer, without actually realising that sometimes people argue from the opposite perspective, in order to get a better understanding of the opposite perspective.

But even if you reject God for all He is and promises, it still doesn't make sense to blame the world's suffering on God to justify yourself.

In the bible we see god saying he creates evil, he makes people blind, etc etc etc. How would it not make sense, considering:

A) It came out of the horses mouth
B) He created everything, yes.. even pubic lice. As such a large part of that suffering could only have come from god.
C) With what do you think you can only look at one side, (the peachy clean stuff), while happily ignoring all the suffering - especially having read the bible which is full to the brim of god displaying his anger, wrath and jealousy. It is there for all to see, some just choose to ignore it completely, and then dare try and blame that on everyone else.

I asked a question which I would like C20 to answer. You quite clearly didn't even understand the post, and perhaps didn't even read it, and as such I would ask whether you could just leave it to him, or whether you could go back, read it again, and then try again.

The thing is, you're doing exactly that which you accuse me of. You have a coin, and refuse to look at one side of it even though that side of the coin is still there.

c20H25N3o

11-03-04, 05:46 AM

God does bring death to those that persist in their sin but for those that believe in His Son, those are set free from the power of sin because they have not loved themselves first.
Oh how I wish your faith was that of mine, that you could see the glory that the Father has set aside for you. The inheritance that is yours through Jesus Christ. For what was His will be mine. Consider that and repent for it is to your most great benefit!
We are not talking here of earthly matter but matters of The Most High God, he who has ordained His sons to be rulers of all, those sons of God that will inherit the Earth. I am that I am.

peace

c20

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 05:54 AM

God does bring death to those that persist in their sin but for those that believe in His Son, those are set free from the power of sin because they have not loved themselves first.

Are you saying that all death is because of sin? A simple yes or no will suffice here.

Oh how I wish your faith was that of mine, that you could see the glory that the Father has set aside for you.

Oh how I wish you weren't a mental vagrant, that you would finally wake up from your delusional state and realise that invisible friends will not cure your problems.

The inheritance that is yours through Jesus Christ. For what was His will be mine. Consider that and repent for it is to your most great benefit!

Well here's the thing...

I don't want what 'was' his. He can keep it happily. And you dare call us non-religious people materialistic? Oh what a surprise that heaven is seen as a city of gold, and that you will inherit all of this.. Shocking really, but then I beg to ask how poor you really are in this life, that you dream of one where you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams. I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do.

As for repenting, I have no need to repent to him. When I smack a man down the road, I say sorry to the man, not the clouds.

We are not talking here of earthly matter but matters of The Most High God, he who has ordained His sons to be rulers of all, those sons of God that will inherit the Earth.

Again, I don't want to inherit anything. I'm happy enough as it is. Such a shame that life is that bad for you.

Jenyar

11-03-04, 05:54 AM

The thing is, you're doing exactly that which you accuse me of. You have a coin, and refuse to look at one side of it even though that side of the coin is still there.
Look at my post to anonymous2. Read Amos 3.

For the rest, I can answer this: only suffering that is experienced in God's presence has any meaning. Otherwise, it is merely life (or death). Sometimes the meaning is punishment, sometimes it's a warning, sometimes it serves as a backdrop for displaying God's work (like the blind man in John 9). Things happen for different reasons, and it does not help us to group them all under a single "why?". "Because God..." might as well display ignorance as wisdom; there's no recipe.

I don't dispute that there are two sides to any coin. That's not what I think is important. I'm interested in who the coin belongs to, and what we're doing with it. Some people bury it, some use it to enrich themselves and others. To some it is everything they have, to others it is poverty. It's value is not intrinsic.

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 06:08 AM

For the rest, I can answer this: only suffering that is experienced in God's presence has any meaning.

I fail to see where you get this from. And what is "merely" life or death? Do you not understand that to a non-believer, life and death is all there is, and as such the word "merely" has no place whatsoever.

Sometimes the meaning is punishment, sometimes it's a warning, sometimes it serves as a backdrop for displaying God's work (like the blind man in John 9). Things happen for different reasons, and it does not help us to group them all under a single "why?".

Here's the thing.. I didn't group anything under a single "why?" I simply asked C20 why he had neglected to include these things in his list. Whether it be a punishment, a warning or anything else, it should still be included in the list no, because if you truly want to see god, it would involve seeing every aspect of that god, not just that which you want to see. Fish swimming is all well and good, but it is meaningless without the cancer.

But tell me Jenyar, when a frog or a mouse gets a severe illness, is that also a warning or punishment from god to the mouse? Did the mouse perhaps sin? How does it differ between the human and the mouse? How could you say, (for instance), that bowel cancer is because of our sins and yet not give the same sentiment when regarding the mouse? Does that cancer not come from the same source? Is it simply bad luck for the mouse but sin for the human? How would you make such a distinction? Is the mouse also being punished or warned?

c20H25N3o

11-03-04, 06:14 AM

SnakeLord - Are you saying that all death is because of sin? A simple yes or no will suffice here.

response by c20 - Yes!

Snakelord - Oh how I wish you weren't a mental vagrant, that you would finally wake up from your delusional state and realise that invisible friends will not cure your problems.

response by c20 - I am in my right mind. I am a programmer who programmes in many languages. As for my invisible friends, just because I cannot see them, does no mean they do not exist, they speak to me on the wind.

Snakelord - Well here's the thing...

I don't want what 'was' his. He can keep it happily. And you dare call us non-religious people materialistic? Oh what a surprise that heaven is seen as a city of gold, and that you will inherit all of this.. Shocking really, but then I beg to ask how poor you really are in this life, that you dream of one where you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams. I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do.

response by c20 - As a city of Gold! It is a city of the purest gold but it is not a gold that you can earn. It is given freely.
As for my own material wealth, I tell you I am a programmer of many years and much experience. You can figure out what I have.

SnakeLord - As for repenting, I have no need to repent to him. When I smack a man down the road, I say sorry to the man, not the clouds.

How kind of you that you should say sorry to that man you smacked down! Bless you sweet lamb :rolleyes:
And what of that man's father - how does he feel that you have smacked his son? Have you said sorry to that boy's father for what you have done to his son? You ought you know. Causing dissention and smacking people that are not your own flesh and blood is surely not a right way to be. What right did you have? How will that man forgive you given that you smacked him for no good reason?

cheers

c20

Again, I don't want to inherit anything. I'm happy enough as it is. Such a shame that life is that bad for you.

response by c20 - Wicked! More to go around for those sons who did run the race! Unlucky m8 but you only have yourself to blame. Your name will be forgotten. Who are you?

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 06:45 AM

response by c20 - Yes!

Does that include the mouse, the butterfly and the stick insect?

If the answer is yes: What sins would they have caused, and would they have the knowledge that they are actually sinning?

If the answer is no: Why do they die then? How do you differentiate an animal dying.. merely because, and a human dying for other reasons?

response by c20 - I am in my right mind. I am a programmer who programmes in many languages.

I fail to see a connection. What would you being a programmer have to do with whether you're in your right mind or not?

As for my invisible friends, just because I cannot see them, does no mean they do not exist, they speak to me on the wind.

The same can be said of everything, an as such this statement is inherently worthless to anything or anyone.

However, you're answering all your own questions: "I cannot see them". That's all there is to know on the matter. You can't see anything.

response by c20 - As a city of Gold! It is a city of the purest gold but it is not a gold that you can earn. It is given freely.

My point exactly. I said nothing about 'earning' anything, and the "freely" makes my point all the more apparent.

As for my own material wealth, I tell you I am a programmer of many years and much experience. You can figure out what I have

And you people dare call the non-religious materialistic. Where did this come from? What made you feel I wanted to know about your earthly material wealth?

When I said: "I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do."

I was actually talking about my wife and daughter's love. Nothing more.

When I spoke of being "poor" in this life, I didn't mean materialisticly poor either.

The materialistic makes up for being poor with regards to life, to love, to care and friendship. Being in a position where you have none of this, the materalistic takes over, and as such you dream of a place full of gold that is given away freely. This just prevents you looking at the state of abject internal misery you actually live in.

How kind of you that you should say sorry to that man you smacked down! Bless you sweet lamb

Well, certainly better than just to apologise to the clouds, as if they'd give a shit. :bugeye:

And what of that man's father - how does he feel that you have smacked his son? Have you said sorry to that boy's father for what you have done to his son? You ought you know. Causing dissention and smacking people that are not your own flesh and blood is surely not a right way to be. What right did you have? How will that man forgive you given that you smacked him for no good reason?

I think you missed the point. This isn't a real occurence, but merely an example. However, you expanded my example by saying who further I should apologise to. Not once did you tell me to apologise to god or jesus, to repent to them for my sins. Instead you told me to apologise to more humans. You should be able to work out the answer for yourself from this point on.

To carry the example on I could state that there's always a reason, and so your "no good reason", statement is moot. Further to that, let's say the man's a christian in which case it is his duty to forgive me. Not only that but it is his duty to turn the other cheek so I can smack that one aswell.

response by c20 - Wicked! More to go around for those sons who did run the race! Unlucky m8 but you only have yourself to blame. Your name will be forgotten. Who are you?

A) We're not mates. Don't ever forget that.

B) I have never sought fame, and so my name being forgotten is inconsequential.

c20H25N3o

11-03-04, 07:05 AM

Does that include the mouse, the butterfly and the stick insect?

If the answer is yes: What sins would they have caused, and would they have the knowledge that they are actually sinning?

If the answer is no: Why do they die then? How do you differentiate an animal dying.. merely because, and a human dying for other reasons?

I fail to see a connection. What would you being a programmer have to do with whether you're in your right mind or not?

The same can be said of everything, an as such this statement is inherently worthless to anything or anyone.

However, you're answering all your own questions: "I cannot see them". That's all there is to know on the matter. You can't see anything.

My point exactly. I said nothing about 'earning' anything, and the "freely" makes my point all the more apparent.

And you people dare call the non-religious materialistic. Where did this come from? What made you feel I wanted to know about your earthly material wealth?

When I said: "I'm overjoyed with what I have in this life. I don't need another one to make up for this one, I don't need anything beyond what I have now, and I feel truly sorry for those that do."

I was actually talking about my wife and daughter's love. Nothing more.

When I spoke of being "poor" in this life, I didn't mean materialisticly poor either.

The materialistic makes up for being poor with regards to life, to love, to care and friendship. Being in a position where you have none of this, the materalistic takes over, and as such you dream of a place full of gold that is given away freely. This just prevents you looking at the state of abject internal misery you actually live in.

Well, certainly better than just to apologise to the clouds, as if they'd give a shit. :bugeye:

I think you missed the point. This isn't a real occurence, but merely an example. However, you expanded my example by saying who further I should apologise to. Not once did you tell me to apologise to god or jesus, to repent to them for my sins. Instead you told me to apologise to more humans. You should be able to work out the answer for yourself from this point on.

To carry the example on I could state that there's always a reason, and so your "no good reason", statement is moot. Further to that, let's say the man's a christian in which case it is his duty to forgive me. Not only that but it is his duty to turn the other cheek so I can smack that one aswell.

A) We're not mates. Don't ever forget that.

B) I have never sought fame, and so my name being forgotten is inconsequential.

Good. You will be happy to be on ignore from now on.

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 07:17 AM

Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?

Jenyar

11-03-04, 07:46 AM

I fail to see where you get this from. And what is "merely" life or death? Do you not understand that to a non-believer, life and death is all there is, and as such the word "merely" has no place whatsoever.
Good, I'm glad you understand what I meant with "qualifiers" having no place in your worldview. Things ("merely") are as they are.

Here's the thing.. I didn't group anything under a single "why?" I simply asked C20 why he had neglected to include these things in his list. Whether it be a punishment, a warning or anything else, it should still be included in the list no, because if you truly want to see god, it would involve seeing every aspect of that god, not just that which you want to see. Fish swimming is all well and good, but it is meaningless without the cancer.
The problem is that you might not see God in all of this, only what you already see: suffering, broken relationships, and death. In spite of people who experience God's love and hope.

But tell me Jenyar, when a frog or a mouse gets a severe illness, is that also a warning or punishment from god to the mouse? Did the mouse perhaps sin? How does it differ between the human and the mouse? How could you say, (for instance), that bowel cancer is because of our sins and yet not give the same sentiment when regarding the mouse? Does that cancer not come from the same source? Is it simply bad luck for the mouse but sin for the human? How would you make such a distinction? Is the mouse also being punished or warned?
That's what I mean. You only see a flat surface - either God or not. You don't take people into account, or the lack or presence of meaning. You also didn't read what I said: the blind man in John 9 wasn't blind because of his own sin, or that of his parents. But through his blindness God's work could become visible. That's meaning; not reason.

It should be clear from the Bible that it isn't a causal relationship. It's not sin - death, sin - death. Paul says that we suffer from death because of sin - much like a person suffers burns because of fire. That doesn't mean fire is always accompanied with someone burning. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

The greatest lie anyone - Christian or non-Christian - can tell you, is that this person is suffering because of that sin. Jesus was sinless, and yet He still suffered. Suffering doesn't need reason or explanation, and sin is equally "unreasonable". Like anonymous2 once said: why would anyone choose hell if it exists? Saying sin leads to death is always true, but it's not always applicable.

anonymous2

11-03-04, 09:49 AM

God does not "kill the godless", evidently. That He put life and death before people is indisputable, but God does not need to give reasons for His actions, and it's simple arrogance to demand them. But it's also arrogant to reject his warnings or his love, taking your fate into your own hands. Ananias and Sapphira did something that was clearly recognizable as sin - they literally lied to and stole from God. When something happens that we don't understand, or that scares us, it's wise to look at the reasons, and try to avoid falling to the same fate. But somehow you are just content at pointing to God - like someone pointing to ground zero without bothering to find out where the bomb came from.
Amos 3
5 Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground
where no snare has been set?
Does a trap spring up from the earth
when there is nothing to catch?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.
You ask rightly, "how can I love such a being?" How indeed! But you don't want to find out. You seem much more interested in resenting him. What is really your case against God? I know it's not that you think you're blameless before Him, or particularly worthy of His love. But if His love is available - if there is a way to restore your relationship with Him and be able to love Him - why not look for it? Are you afraid you'll find it, or that it would be "unreasonable" to love God? God's love for us is unreasonable, and that is all that makes experiencing it possible in this world.

We were born in exile, away from Him, without hope or reason to expect to find love - but He came looking for us there where we were stuck without Him, waiting for death to arrive at last. Don't blame food for hunger.

You want for me to explain "What is really [my] case against God?" When I was younger, I read the Bible and thought it was great. It was all great cause God did it. He was the sovereign and whatever he said went. If God did it, that automatically meant that it was good. That was pretty much my viewpoint from what I recall. I got older and read just how.. "immoral" the God of the Bible appears (Yes, this is my subjective judgement, and if the God of the Bible is a reality, then my subjective judgement is meaningless over his power). Sure, there were things in my life which also helped in turning that "love of God" into "hate". I got older and didn't just read the Bible as a book sent from above. I'm telling you when I was younger I read the story about Jesus to someone I knew and was crying about it, how beautiful it was, and/or how horrible it was that people had a perfect, loving Jesus put to death. That God so loved the world? Who WOULDN'T want to believe that? That Jesus was all good and love, etc. It's sad really; like I said, I got older. I told you before if I could go back in time and return to that mindset, in a way, I'd like to.

I'm telling you that the loss of my faith was the most traumatic thing in my life, or at least one of the most traumatic things in my life. I didn't completely lose it in one day. It was a gradual process. Religion was a source of conflict in my life. That's a big reason why I hate it, although I won't say I hate it totally. Who wants to think people you know might go to hell? I can't go back. How can I go back? I can't look at the Bible in that way anymore. What I used to love, I now hate.

As for the passage you quote, if taken literally, that means every disaster which happens to a city, God caused it, right? So I guess God took Osama's trainees by the nose and put them, with planes, in the twin towers? ALL disaster which comes to a city is from God? Are you sure you really want to espouse that view?

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 09:50 AM

Good, I'm glad you understand what I meant with "qualifiers" having no place in your worldview. Things ("merely") are as they are.

And if things 'merely are as they are', that would include both the good and the bad, no? But what's happened here is that C20 has tried to pile all the good things onto a specific being, while neglecting to include the opposite side.

How would you or C20 be in a position to claim that all the love and goodness is from god, whereas all the evil and badness isn't? Or indeed neglect to mention that the source of all that badness comes from the same place as all the goodness? god himself stated that he caused evil, and being the creator of all, it only stands to reason. My question once more was how C20 could state that all one needs do is look outside, when that includes everything - be it bad or good - but for some reason C20 neglected to mention that side of it, in preference of merely pointing out the good. These things come hand in hand, you can't just pick one you like the sound of and ignore that which you do not. It's along the same lines of someone shouting "god's love, grace" etc etc, without adding "god's anger, wrath, jealousy and vengeance". These things are all part of the same package, but for some reason your kind refuse to acknowledge the latter.

The problem is that you might not see God in all of this, only what you already see: suffering, broken relationships, and death. In spite of people who experience God's love and hope.

I don't know where this has come from. I see a lot more than suffering, broken relationships and death. I see love and beauty etc. What I have been trying to state, is that you cannot happily neglect to mention one while concentrating solely on the other.

Let's use a cigarette to highlight the case:

C20 comes into the thread and says: "A cigarette relaxes you. It relieves your stress, it is wonderful just after you've had a big meal and wonderful just after you have made love. I hereby declare that a cigarette is love".

My point is that the cigarette also causes cancer, causes harm to others, causes you to smell bad and for your fingers and teeth to be stained.

c20 neglects to mention this side of it, and you don't even acknowledge it, although I feel that's more to do with you not fully comprehending the purpose of my post.

I haven't said that the cigarette doesn't do those things that he claims, but have pointed out that there's a lot more to the cigarette than he is willing to show. As such, the conclusion can only be that his 'version' of the cigarette is extremely biased, and one sided. It doesn't show the cigarette as a whole, and is therefore misleading to those who know nothing about cigarettes.

That's what I mean. You only see a flat surface

Alas, your post here does not answer the questions I posed whatsoever. Not to mention that my point is to not see a flat surface which is all C20 presents in his post. He fails to mention the other side, and then does a runner the minute his claims are under question.

You also didn't read what I said: the blind man in John 9 wasn't blind because of his own sin, or that of his parents. But through his blindness God's work could become visible. That's meaning; not reason.

The man is blind because god made him that way. That is the reason. While I doubt god is cool enough to have found a better method with which to show his 'work', instead leaving some guy unable to see solely for the purpose of promoting his own gloriousness - it is this that needs to be seen and mentioned. You can't just say "god is love", without mentioning the poor old blind guy that suffers as a consequence to gods need to show how good he is.

And it is right there where we hit the problem, because you refuse to acknowledge the problem, instead trying to excuse it and justify it when you're in no position to do so. Of course, and here's the bigger problem: you only try to excuse and justify it when someone mentions it. Until that time, you'll happily say god is love without even mentioning the poor old blind guy. That's my whole point. I prefer a level of honesty whereby the blind guy is mentioned right at the start - alongside all the love and grace, as opposed to being completely ignored merely so one can preach "all-loving".

We're talking about one blind man here, and there are many others - who's reasons for being blind will differ - from being sinful and being punished, to being warned, to being a puppet for god to show off how much he works and so on. These are all things that you mentioned, and yet neglect to mention right at the offset.

"god is all-loving... but he can also punish you, making you blind, giving you cancer, killing you etc".

It all goes together.

Paul says that we suffer from death because of sin -

So answer my question: Does the same apply to the mouse?

Suffering doesn't need reason or explanation

But then the same would be true of love, happiness, etc. Here you are pretty much taking the stance that "it merely is as it is", but then on the other hand trying to lump all the good stuff on one sky guy. That is biased.

water

11-03-04, 09:53 AM

Which world view is really more bleak? The universe fading into oblivion, everyone living their lives for what they are and nothing more, or forced eternity, either worshipping/praising God, or an eternal torment for most of mankind? If we are talking about *preferrable* world views, I find the former perhaps infinitely better. Only a fiend could find any comfort in thinking most of mankind will go to an eternal torture pit.

And an omnipotent God could find a way to get rid of "sin", he wouldn't need to keep it on eternal human souls and torment them for eternity. That's why it makes little sense to me. So God doesn't need to love sin? Fine. Then why doesn't he destroy it? He can't? You gotta be kidding me. And if he can't, why not just remove it from humans and put it in a pile "over there"? You yourself admit that God removes "sin stain" from Christians, right? So he can do it. If he can do it, why doesn't he do it for everyone? It just does NOT make sense to me why a God would NEED to put people in an eternal torture pit.

That you hope for eternal life, great. Good for you. But if you actually thought about the reverse of what Christianity offers humans, you might think differently.

There are many people who reject Christianity because they think it's false, not because they're "wicked". Are those who already have religious traditions and reject Christianity "evil"? They could be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil for rejecting what they actually believe is wrong, does it?

And, if YOU were wrong about your religious beliefs, do you think it to be fair that a "just, loving" God would torture you for eternity for being wrong? If, for instance, Allah is God, do you think that it'd be just for you to be in an eternal hell because you were sincerely wrong in your faith?

Like I said, if YOU are happy believing you have eternal life, good. To me, the flip side is so incredibly unacceptable that I find it improbable that I could find happiness in thinking I have eternal life as a Christian.

You judge from resentment.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40982
***

If there is a god who created us, then as I've stated many times past, god dwells within all creation, with humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe; therefore, humanity IS God; therefore, we need look no further than humanity to see God.

This is fallacious, I'll point out just the most obvious logical fallacy.

Is the same as saying:

"Humans have kidneys, therefore kidneys are humans."

Uh.

Secondly, "humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe" is an evaluation statement, that is self-referential, and thus invalid:

If humans are humanity, and we are humans, then:

"humanity being the greatest creation that humanity knows of in our universe".

You've said as much as "This sentence is true because this sentence says so."
Phew.

anonymous2

11-03-04, 10:18 AM

You judge from resentment.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40982
***

I told C20 that if he's happy with his belief, good. I said if he considered the flip side of what Christianity offers, maybe he'd see it differently. If he is happy with his beliefs, fine. I'm not out to destroy his happiness. As for me, if I could find happiness in the Christian belief structure, I'd probably still be in it.

Jenyar

11-03-04, 11:18 AM

As for me, if I could find happiness in the Christian belief structure, I'd probably still be in it.
Did you find happiness outside it?

It seem you wanted religion to explain away why bad things happen. But it only told you that God was there. The logical conclusion isn't that love is the only force at work in the world, and maybe that was the source of your disillusionment. I also grew up with the Bible, and I never cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was - I didn't live in a dreamworld. Conflict was inside and outside it, but at least it gave me a way to address that conflict without being drowned by it, or letting it rob me of hope.

God gives life and He takes away, but He does not hate. He does not fly planes into buildings, but He is there when it happens. That is not immoral. What is immoral is war, and America is just as guilty as Bin Laden in that respect. It just doesn't help taking sides and playing the victim in our personal game of "who's more moral". Morality isn't seen in events, great or small, but in the way people act.

You have pit your morality against God and lost. Did your faith really depend that much on the world working out around you?

Amos doesn't speak about punishment - read it again. Nor does he talk about arbitrary events - God destroying a city just for the kicks. He is not espousing evil, but judgment over evil. That's his point: some things are preceded by other things. If one is present, so is the other. Immorality is present, but you are not its judge. And God is not the author of evil. God has already made his judgment clear through his prophets (of which Amos is one) - and you do not like that either.

The very things you hold God accountable for are the things He will not tolerate. You have rejected God for something He isn't. You have looked at the same things God saw and condemned, but you turn around and blame Him for that. People are not all-loving, and you have to come to terms with that. Your argument sounds like those of Job's friends: "curse God and die!" they said. "Your case is lost before God - who is He that He should answer to you?" But God said they spoke lies about Him. If you believe that God sanctions evil and immorality - it is not because you got it from the Bible.

The world does not spin around you and me. Our powerlessness does not make God unloving - it makes us dependent.

Jenyar

11-03-04, 11:19 AM

SnakeLord,
But then the same would be true of love, happiness, etc. Here you are pretty much taking the stance that "it merely is as it is", but then on the other hand trying to lump all the good stuff on one sky guy. That is biased.
Suffering is a given. Love isn't. That's not bias, it's the terrible truth.

Who healed the poor blind guy? Did he suffer when he regained his sight? I think it's you who only chooses to look at one side of the coin. Your side.

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere. Where might that be? It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to?

the preacher

11-03-04, 11:46 AM

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere. Where might that be? It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to? oh but it does jenyar take a look at the thread "is god evil".

SnakeLord

11-03-04, 12:50 PM

Suffering is a given. Love isn't. That's not bias, it's the terrible truth.

I'm sorry but I would completely disagree with you. While you might not have had a very loving life in human terms, many of us have and you cannot make such a statement on behalf of all of us.

Who healed the poor blind guy?

Who blinded the poor blind guy?

Your question here is inconsequential. I have already said to look at both sides, which would include good and bad, but the best you can manage is to instantly dismiss suffering while focusing solely on love. You are the very problem I speak of.

Did he suffer when he regained his sight?

Sorry, I never met him. But I can say that the majority never regain their sight, instead being left in a position of permanent darkness, unable to see all that beauty some of you would claim was created by god. We're not just talking adults either, but children. Hell, even animals.

I don't see how or why you're trying to justify blindness. I guess you need to suffer from physical blindness to understand it. You already suffer from mental blindness, so it's only one more step. I guess it's not your choice though, it's upto god right?

I think it's you who only chooses to look at one side of the coin. Your side.

Nonsene, I have already concurred to all the good stuff, and have never had a problem that the good does exist. You on the other hand are dismissing any form of suffering coming from the same source instantly and out of hand without cause to do so.

god says "I create evil", and in saying, you shouldn't be shouting 'love' from the rooftops without appreciating the negative side that goes hand in hand with that. Enough with the "does being blind hurt", enough with the sweeping of all that's bad under the carpet without so much as a mention. Start looking at things as a whole.

You are all implying God's love ends somewhere.

Sure, and you're in a position to deny such a thing? god's love is so vast, and yet eventually due to the sin the faulty mankind were doing, god simply had enough and annihilated every living thing on the planet save for a select few. He didn't just condemn man for their crimes, but animals, flowers, trees, and bacteria.

Love always stops somewhere.

Where might that be?

The same place where anger, vengeance, and wrath start.

It doesn't include evil, but do you want really it to?

What doesn't include evil?

[Edit] Oh, and perhaps you can answer the question this time..

Is it the same for the mouse?

anonymous2

11-03-04, 01:45 PM

Did you find happiness outside it?

In a way, yes, before I started posting here and being reminded of why I left Christianity in the first place. ;)

It seem you wanted religion to explain away why bad things happen. But it only told you that God was there. The logical conclusion isn't that love is the only force at work in the world, and maybe that was the source of your disillusionment. I also grew up with the Bible, and I never cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was - I didn't live in a dreamworld. Conflict was inside and outside it, but at least it gave me a way to address that conflict without being drowned by it, or letting it rob me of hope.

Did I say I cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was? I said I cried over the story of Jesus, and I mean his crucifixion/death/resurrection. This is YOUR hope of glory, isn't it? It should be of upmost importance to a Christian, shouldn't it? I was reading it to someone I knew at the time. You can't really blame me for crying, that was actually an emotion Jesus supposedly showed. And didn't people in Acts weep over Paul leaving them? People crying/weeping IS in the Bible, sorry. :)

God gives life and He takes away, but He does not hate. He does not fly planes into buildings, but He is there when it happens. That is not immoral. What is immoral is war, and America is just as guilty as Bin Laden in that respect. It just doesn't help taking sides and playing the victim in our personal game of "who's more moral". Morality isn't seen in events, great or small, but in the way people act.

I didn't say America wasn't guilty. But does that mean I'm guilty because I live in the USA? Are you guilty for everything the South African government does MERELY because you're a citizen? Should we flog you for South Africa's past of Apartheid? Or should I be flogged for the USA's slavery in the 1800's and before? Or should I go live out on a deserted island somewhere so I won't be held accountable for what the government I live under does? But you know who wasn't guilty? Those children which were killed when those planes flew in the twin towers. And you know who wasn't guilty? Those children who have been killed in Iraq by American bombing, etc. Punish who deserves to be punished if you are going to punish and are a "loving" God. A world wide flood destroying children and those in the womb is not something I'd consider "loving". You can say this is "Satan dictating to God", but please be reasonable.

You have pit your morality against God and lost. Did your faith really depend that much on the world working out around you?

I can't apologize for wanting things to make sense to me. Any religion can dominate someone's mind if you simply say "God's thoughts are higher than ours". You can't name me a single thing which can't be justified by that rationale, can you?

The very things you hold God accountable for are the things He will not tolerate. You have rejected God for something He isn't. You have looked at the same things God saw and condemned, but you turn around and blame Him for that. People are not all-loving, and you have to come to terms with that. Your argument sounds like those of Job's friends: "curse God and die!" they said. "Your case is lost before God - who is He that He should answer to you?" But God said they spoke lies about Him. If you believe that God sanctions evil and immorality - it is not because you got it from the Bible.

The world does not spin around you and me. Our powerlessness does not make God unloving - it makes us dependent.

Of course, the Bible is not going to say "Here now, for everyone to see, God is evil, and immoral". Of course not. That doesn't change what MY mind sees though when I read the Bible. A God who operates at times on whim and unnecessary destruction. That's the God I see in the Bible.

Medicine*Woman

11-03-04, 02:56 PM

RosaMagika: This is fallacious, I'll point out just the most obvious logical fallacy.

Is the same as saying: "Humans have kidneys, therefore kidneys are humans."

Uh.

Secondly, "humanity being the greatest creation that we know of in our universe" is an evaluation statement, that is self-referential, and thus invalid:

If humans are humanity, and we are humans, then: "humanity being the greatest creation that humanity knows of in our universe".

You've said as much as "This sentence is true because this sentence says so."

Phew.
*************
M*W: You are one f**king simpleton with the IQ of an amoeba.

Jenyar

11-04-04, 02:09 AM

I'm sorry but I would completely disagree with you. While you might not have had a very loving life in human terms, many of us have and you cannot make such a statement on behalf of all of us.
It's an observation that's easy to corroborate. I did not say there was only suffering in the world (although there might have been, if God and the devil were evil). But since love is something that requires action, the absence of action - and people willing to act on it - leaves only loneliness. It's possible to bear many things if you're not alone.

The default of experience certainly isn't love and compassion. Why do you think otherwise?

Who blinded the poor blind guy?

Your question here is inconsequential. I have already said to look at both sides, which would include good and bad, but the best you can manage is to instantly dismiss suffering while focusing solely on love. You are the very problem I speak of.
But you don't differentate between good and bad. Is being blind good or bad? You seem to say bad:

Sorry, I never met him. But I can say that the majority never regain their sight, instead being left in a position of permanent darkness, unable to see all that beauty some of you would claim was created by god. We're not just talking adults either, but children. Hell, even animals.

I don't see how or why you're trying to justify blindness. I guess you need to suffer from physical blindness to understand it. You already suffer from mental blindness, so it's only one more step. I guess it's not your choice though, it's upto god right?
I'm not trying to justify anything. I say it's there, and it's not "good" or "bad" per se. A blind man of 72 is an organizer and sound technician at a local church, an inspiration to people. And ever heard of Helen Keller?

If people were automatically defeated by the obstacles in the world, then we should all give up at birth. In fact, women would not even give birth.

Did Jesus tell the blind, sick and cripple to accept their lot because they somehow "deserved" it? Because God "made them that way"? No. He showed love and compassion - and restored health, hope and meaning.

Either there is something wrong with the world, or there isn't. I see all these terrible things and I come to the conclusion that yes, there is something wrong. But not that it is hopeless, or that we are somehow fighting against God himself.

Nonsene, I have already concurred to all the good stuff, and have never had a problem that the good does exist. You on the other hand are dismissing any form of suffering coming from the same source instantly and out of hand without cause to do so.

god says "I create evil", and in saying, you shouldn't be shouting 'love' from the rooftops without appreciating the negative side that goes hand in hand with that. Enough with the "does being blind hurt", enough with the sweeping of all that's bad under the carpet without so much as a mention. Start looking at things as a whole.
The whole does not exclude humanity and how we treat the life God gave us. The whole is not "God" - I'm not a pantheist and neither are you. God separates good and evil. You rely on one text alone: Isaiah 45:7. But ra' here is contrasted not with 'good', but with shalom: "peace," "well-being," "welfare," "prosperity," "safety," "health". Evil is not an entity that can exist autonomously. It can't be there if someone does not embody it - put it in motion. God can bring disaster, but then it is a warning:
Amos 4:6 "I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,"
declares the LORD.
If these things were final punishments they would not lead to God, but away from Him. I might have shown you this before, but here it is again:
Luke 13:2-
Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
God doesn't cause disasters everytime someone sins. But disasters are signs of judgment. They should make us think about our lives, and what we take for granted.

Sure, and you're in a position to deny such a thing? god's love is so vast, and yet eventually due to the sin the faulty mankind were doing, god simply had enough and annihilated every living thing on the planet save for a select few. He didn't just condemn man for their crimes, but animals, flowers, trees, and bacteria.

Love always stops somewhere.
Uh. Flowers, trees and bacteria weren't condemned. Where did the dove get an olive branch? Why were there animals on the ark at all? How did Noah brew wine without bacteria? Sin lead to destruction, but God saved practically everything. If he didn't, you wouldn't have been here to complain. God's love didn't stop, or it would have stopped there.

The same place where anger, vengeance, and wrath start.
A person can love as well as be angry. A judge can be fair and good and someone might still end up in prison. The difference is that love is always still available to us. God's anger never outweighs his mercy. You should have picked up at least that from the Bible.

What doesn't include evil?
God's love doesn't include evil. He does not love evil, in other words.

[Edit] Oh, and perhaps you can answer the question this time..

Is it the same for the mouse?
I did answer it. I said it's not a causal relationship between sin and death. Death is an affliction. Much like the flood, the results affect more than only the person involved. It spills over an affects everything. Sin is not the only reason for death. We have natural laws as well - the same principles that allow life also allow death. But natural laws do not determine our lives with God. I can't speak for mice, but I do know that sin kills our chances with God.

c20H25N3o

11-04-04, 02:29 AM

It is easy to blame God. I have done it myself. There are very few woman when in the midst of labour who do not look at her husband with some kind of accusation.
That poor husband, he stands there accused looking on at the wife he loves, nothing he can do, except hold her hand and suffer her nails in his flesh as the child is born. Then they both smile as they hear tiny cries. The father cries as the baby is placed on the mothers stomach and the baby stops crying and suckles contentedly.
Who can blame the woman, who can blame the man, nobody can!

mis-t-highs

11-04-04, 02:46 AM

and your point being c20.
wheres the conparison.
and who blames a fantasy friend, thats just stupid.
a woman does not look at her husband/lover accusingly, it is I'm in pain please help or when will it be over kind of look.

you must have a lot of hate in you, you seem to see it everywhere.

Jenyar

11-04-04, 02:46 AM

In a way, yes, before I started posting here and being reminded of why I left Christianity in the first place. ;)
Because it doesn't let you get too comfortable with your conclusions?

Did I say I cried at how beautiful and blissful everything was? I said I cried over the story of Jesus, and I mean his crucifixion/death/resurrection. This is YOUR hope of glory, isn't it? It should be of upmost importance to a Christian, shouldn't it? I was reading it to someone I knew at the time. You can't really blame me for crying, that was actually an emotion Jesus supposedly showed. And didn't people in Acts weep over Paul leaving them? People crying/weeping IS in the Bible, sorry. :)
I didn't saying there was anything wrong with crying, but it doesn't determine anything. You were trying to show me how emotionally involved you were - how it touched your heart - with the implication that it's just a beautiful story that's supposed to play with your emotions and not address your reason. My answer was that maybe that was why you had to leave it behind. Such an approach can't last long against the realities we have to face. You had illusions about the nature of God's involvement, and they were shattered. With that, your image of who God is was also shattered, and your faith.

I didn't say America wasn't guilty. But does that mean I'm guilty because I live in the USA? Are you guilty for everything the South African government does MERELY because you're a citizen? Should we flog you for South Africa's past of Apartheid? Or should I be flogged for the USA's slavery in the 1800's and before? Or should I go live out on a deserted island somewhere so I won't be held accountable for what the government I live under does? But you know who wasn't guilty? Those children which were killed when those planes flew in the twin towers. And you know who wasn't guilty? Those children who have been killed in Iraq by American bombing, etc. Punish who deserves to be punished if you are going to punish and are a "loving" God. A world wide flood destroying children and those in the womb is not something I'd consider "loving". You can say this is "Satan dictating to God", but please be reasonable.
You have illusions about punishment that must also be shattered, I'm afraid. The world we live in, the world outside Eden, wasn't punishment - it was the consequence of sin. The "punishment" was a mercy: that we would be able to make a living, that pain and suffering would not have to determine our lives, even while it affects us. I can quote Luke 13 to you as well: "Those children who died in the twin towers, were they worse sinners than the rest of us? I tell you, no! But if you don't repent, you too will perish". It's not a sword hanging over our heads - it's a building toppling in on us because of sin: terrorism, hatred, selfishness. And we're caught inside it, whithout hope of saving ourselves - because we are exposed to these things. And what is love and compassion if it doesn't expose you to people? Make you vulnerable? God's love was inside those buildings and around them, being flayed and crucified. Thousands suffered because of the injustice and hatred of a few people. Will those terrorists only be punished for one death each, maybe a hundred, will the body count be spread evenly among them, and then they can go to heaven afterwards?

We can be paralyzed with fear because we expect punishment, or we can accept salvation and give our lives for love, be acceptible sacrifices instead of victims. Because we're dying either way.

I can't apologize for wanting things to make sense to me. Any religion can dominate someone's mind if you simply say "God's thoughts are higher than ours". You can't name me a single thing which can't be justified by that rationale, can you?
No, because I abhor that kind of justification. It only leads to illusion and hopelessness. But only love makes sense. Sin: violence, hatred, all these things are senseless - you will have heard them described this way often enough. Ever heard CNN proclaim, "in another act of senseless love..."? The Bible doesn't explain the origin of sin. It starts out with the effects of sin, and describes how it ruins relationships, especially our relationship with God. If you let sin or its effects come between you and God, you have handed it its victory.

Of course, the Bible is not going to say "Here now, for everyone to see, God is evil, and immoral". Of course not. That doesn't change what MY mind sees though when I read the Bible. A God who operates at times on whim and unnecessary destruction. That's the God I see in the Bible.
Do you think the authors of the Bible were sitting there wide-eyed at what they were writing? Or were they unconsciously serving an immoral God who condemns immorality? That means in the first place that they were writing objectively about something real and independent of their minds, they were not inventing something that served their purposes, or in the second place that you have read them wrong.

Punishment requires a clear link to behaviour to be effective, and you always find that in the Bible. If it seems God acts on a whim, you have taken someone else's punishment and created a rule out of it that you think applies generally even today. It is still part of that strange religion you had as a child.

Jenyar

11-04-04, 02:50 AM

M*W: You are one f**king simpleton with the IQ of an amoeba.
Wow. That was mature.

c20H25N3o

11-04-04, 02:52 AM

you must have a lot of hate in you, you seem to see it everywhere.

:rolleyes:

anonymous2

11-04-04, 03:53 AM

Because it doesn't let you get too comfortable with your conclusions?

You could say that, also because it gets on my nerves, as you saw in my prior posts to you where I "lost it". I'm not 100% sure of my "disbelief". I read the Bible and believed every word (or basically so) when I was younger, that is probably not going to ever completely go away from my psyche. That meme is there and it's there for good, fortunately or unfortunately. A theology can't be 100% proven to be incorrect. I'll never have that certainty in "disbelief", whether it be of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

I didn't saying there was anything wrong with crying, but it doesn't determine anything. You were trying to show me how emotionally involved you were - how it touched your heart - with the implication that it's just a beautiful story that's supposed to play with your emotions and not address your reason. My answer was that maybe that was why you had to leave it behind. Such an approach can't last long against the realities we have to face. You had illusions about the nature of God's involvement, and they were shattered. With that, your image of who God is was also shattered, and your faith.

I just simply stated a fact. Not everything in the Bible was designed for "reason", was it? Do you think the early hearers of Christianity thought "hmmm, for God so loved the world....", well, let's weigh out the pros and cons of this. I doubt many of them did. I think many of them just took it because it offered hope from a possibly poor existence.. "not many mighty, not many noble".. I wasn't saying it was JUST a beautiful story.

You have illusions about punishment that must also be shattered, I'm afraid. The world we live in, the world outside Eden, wasn't punishment - it was the consequence of sin. The "punishment" was a mercy: that we would be able to make a living, that pain and suffering would not have to determine our lives, even while it affects us. I can quote Luke 13 to you as well: "Those children who died in the twin towers, were they worse sinners than the rest of us? I tell you, no! But if you don't repent, you too will perish". It's not a sword hanging over our heads - it's a building toppling in on us because of sin: terrorism, hatred, selfishness. And we're caught inside it, whithout hope of saving ourselves - because we are exposed to these things. And what is love and compassion if it doesn't expose you to people? Make you vulnerable? God's love was inside those buildings and around them, being flayed and crucified. Thousands suffered because of the injustice and hatred of a few people. Will those terrorists only be punished for one death each, maybe a hundred, will the body count be spread evenly among them, and then they can go to heaven afterwards?

You seem to think that I have an idea that God should let everyone in heaven and just "forget it all". That is NOT my problem with Christianity. As you know, my problem with it is one thing wrong = an eternity in hell. Or even worse, being born in "original sin" you're already on the path to an eternity in hell. Horrible. So what is your actual position? Original sin? or a 1 day old child is a sinner? I just want to know the exact view you hold.

Do you think the authors of the Bible were sitting there wide-eyed at what they were writing? Or were they unconsciously serving an immoral God who condemns immorality? That means in the first place that they were writing objectively about something real and independent of their minds, they were not inventing something that served their purposes, or in the second place that you have read them wrong.

Ideas of what was moral and not were different then. Besides, if there's a God, what he says goes. Picturing him as "moral" was not necessary. Look at Zeus. If you are asking me if I think the Bible writers were consciously lying, that I am not sure. That could be asked of any religious writing though. People can lie for good purposes, ultimately. I can't answer how the Bible exactly was written and put together. Maybe there were different traditions which were pieced together in order to satisfy different factions. After all, there is the idea that "One can prove anything from the Bible". If you want a verse supporting this view, here it is. If you want a verse supporting another view, here it is. I can't answer how other religious writings exactly were written and perhaps put together, and why. It's just speculation on my part, or an "educated guess" from a "scholar".

Jenyar

11-04-04, 04:36 AM

You seem to think that I have an idea that God should let everyone in heaven and just "forget it all". That is NOT my problem with Christianity. As you know, my problem with it is one thing wrong = an eternity in hell. Or even worse, being born in "original sin" you're already on the path to an eternity in hell. Horrible. So what is your actual position? Original sin? or a 1 day old child is a sinner? I just want to know the exact view you hold.
I believe that we live in a world that cannot carry its own weight, and it's toppling in on everybody - saints and sinners alike. In isolated, controlled environments, like Israel for instance, it was still possible to separate cause and effect to a certain degree. The difference between those who lived close to God and those who didn't seemed more simple, and their worldview made it possible to "simplify" events. It is madness to extract the way they thought and apply it like that to our worldview. But the advantage of their observations is that give us the greater picture. That's what prophecy was in essence, after all. It gives us a template of faith.

When you realize that all is already lost, that death already rules our lives and things are only getting worse, you can see salvation in a different light. What is called "original sin" is just the human condition. Today, we operate from the assumption that life is a given and survival is possible - it's a cautious optimism that resulted in no small part from what happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. But it's misplaced for the most part.

We place a high premium on human life, even though it dies. We have placed it on such a pedestal that it has become the supreme inalienable right - even surpassing God in authority. We act as if everybody will live forever. That was the first fatal mistake. Life is only a right because God gave it that right; the benefit of existing and being conscious of it.

God places an even higher premium on human life - life that endures forever. Our meager attempts to prolong life and punish those who shorten it pale in comparison to the requirements for a life that has to be - and could have been - sustained for eternity.

That's why we can't understand hell. It doesn't fit into a hypotheticalextention of this life. Because that's all it is that we do, really. We take a moment of life and extend it hypothetically beyond certain death, "because that's how much we value it," we say. But we must ignore the imminance of death to do that, just like we have to ignore the possibility of being dead to God, and being conscious of it.

All through the Bible, hell is not described for its own sake - it changes from being called simply "darkness" and "the grave" to all the classical descriptions - but for the sake of describing eternal separation from God, from the point of view of someone who realizes his dependance on God. Their goal was never to scare someone with how bad hell is, but with how terrible that separation is. I don't fear hell a millionth as much as I fear being separated from God without hope of reconciliation, and it would have meant that I could blame my own insufficiency for that separation, if it were not for God's assurance of forgiveness.

I have much more faith in God than in hell or the power of sin. Some will put an emphasis on Hitler's victims to show his guilt, but I am certain enough that his personal sin was alteady enough to condemn him. Maybe one d