Questions about Christianity

[postmortemjoe]

Silly me. I keep forgetting that my posts are invisible in EC.

You said:

I assume the atheist icon is a dark brain because those who do not accept Christ are darkened in their understanding. They do not have the light of God within them, giving them His wisdom.

So why don't Christians have an illuminated brain as their symbol instead of a torture device?

 

[PaladinValer]

If the originals don't exist, then how can you know what they say as a whole? But more than that, who decided what stayed and what went? It all goes back to interpretation.

Do we have the originals of Romeo and Juliet? No; they are lost. We have no clue whether the play you read or watch is the exact same as it was when it wrote it.

However, we do have manuscripts, and what you see and read today is based on that. And on the whole, the play, as experts will probably tell you, is essentially the same.

Again, translation isn't the same always as interpretation.

No, the word I'm looking for is interpreted. Whoever wrote the books of the Bible may have embellished certain ideas and changed them from what they originally were creating their interpretation of the events.

When we have so many excerpts and texts from the time and when they all say practically the same thing in each and every one, we know what you fear isn't to worry about.

How can you be sure that that didn't happen with the books of the Bible?

How? Because we have ancient texts and have compared them.

I don't know how to make this question clearer. I was asking if the Bible accurately depicts the events that it claims to. My point was that if it had, they could then be verified by an external source. I'm aware that it hasn't changed in 2000 years.

If you mean whether the Bible is factual history? Not always, particularly when it comes to the Torah, although the information on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea (and when they were United as one under Saul, David, and Solomon) is extremely reliable. Other parts are hit and miss.

Then again, the Bible is a theological book, not a science or history textbook. It is inspired and inerrant not on those or any other topic other than faith, doctrine, and salvation.

I'm not saying you said it, but the fact that some Christians (on this board nonetheless) believe it is proof of the inconsistencies in the interpretations of the book itself.

Then they are wrong. If certain Christians think the devil is being inconsistencies in the translation or interpretation of the Bible, then they are giving him far too much credit. We have our own problems unrelated with the devil.

Not to say that you don't sincerely believe this, but this is an explanation according to you whereas others may have (and do have) completely different opinions on this topic.

While in Christianity you will find different interpretations on theological issues, there are not necessarily contrary. When that is true, two or more views can stand side-by-side (and probably should). When they contradict, then obviously only one can be true.

My view is based on not just the Holy Scripture but also its early interpreters. A part of Christian theology that all Christians agree on is that the Holy Spirit aids in our interpretation. However, that doesn't mean that every single time you crack it open and begin to read and "get an idea" that it is due to the influence of God the Holy Spirit.

Think of studying the United States. Where do you start? Obviously its history, but there is a lot about the country that is equally important: the sociology of its people, the geography of its territory, and the anthropological aspects of its people have a lot of play as well. You couldn't study the USA or any other country without looking at all the dynamics, especially when they all interweave.

The Holy Bible is no different.

Furthermore, part of the very nature of truth is that truth is eternal and absolute. There is never a time when truth is anything but truth, so that makes sense. When we interpret the Bible and say "the Holy Spirit has guided me to this interpretation," we must be careful, for billions of people have read it. Most of the time, we arrive to the same conclusion. Sometimes, we arrive to a different one, although as I said above, different doesn't mean contradictory. We need to go way back to the original interpreters, and thankfully, we have their writings. So long as there is no contradiction, we're fine. If there is, then we go back to the drawing board. Not entirely unlike science in a way.

So why couldn't he just "override" the devil and make the world a great place and have humans living in peace and prosperity?

Part of it, again, is free will. God did not create robots; He allowed his creations to make choices.

The other part is, we really don't know. How do you fathom of the mind of the infinite with a finite mind of your own. It just doesn't work (and this is only logical).

That is why faith is part of the Christian religion. We believe that God is All Good, All Knowing, All Powerful, etc. We believe He has a plan for all to work out in the end. We haven't a clue of the entirety of it because we as finite people cannot understand an Infinite Him, but He has revealed the idea of it, and we must trust in it because we cannot knowingly understand it all.

It seems very narcissistic and sadistic to create a race of people, create a supreme evil being, and then smite the people for all of eternity because they ate from the tree of knowledge after being convinced by a serpent, who was the devil and now the only way to be forgiven for doing something you had no hand in is to submit to the supreme being that put all of this into motion in the first place.

Except it wasn't for all time. And the devil originally was not evil and evil is not supreme. In Christianity, we have no concept of dualism. The physical is not lesser than the spiritual, nor is it an illusion or evil. The physical is good (again, see Genesis 1). Evil is the lack of good, not a essence of its own; chaos is the lack of law and order. Consider light; darkness isn't anti-light, but the absence of it. Christians have this theology about good and evil.

Furthermore, all the evil we do, we truly do. It isn't the devil's fault (except in the ridiculously rare event), it is our own. We need to learn to take culpability and responsibility for our own faults and mistakes, not blame everything on the devil. The serpent didn't force Eve and Adam to partake, after all. They tried the blame game...it didn't work.

That is exactly why I am opposed to religion. It teaches people that humans are by nature bad and sinful, being "corrupt" and having "broken souls". I think humans as a whole are ok and it's not fair to hold them to standards that force them to be something they are not.

No. Christianity, as I said, teaches that creation is inherently GOOD. Substance is GOOD. Humanity is inherently GOOD, even though it is broken. God wishes to save which is good; if we were truly evil, then we wouldn't even exist. Christianity absolutely opposes the idea that humanity is somehow inherently evil.

We have a broken soul; that means that we cannot save ourselves. That doesn't mean that the soul is completely destroyed. We are still capable of doing things that are meaningful, beneficial, and, yes, good. Feeding the hungry, doing kind favors without desire for reward; we are indeed capable because the soul is broken, not annihilated. However, these are not enough to save us; we are incapable of saving ourselves because we are broken and corrupt.

 

[drich0150]

You've proven my point. What I was getting at was that the Bible does not in any way relate to real world events, yet Christians base their entire set of beliefs on this book. Had these events actually occurred, there would be some kind of record in the real world.

Can you point to any other records written in the same time period, of the events you are questioning? Please list your references that catalogs time, people or events that contradict or even run a parallel course to the events you are questioning.

The Bible is not in any way a record of history. And not all the questions were derived from the Bible.

Anything dealing with God, morality or biblical figures does indeed originate with the bible. So what does that leave from your OP? your bonus question?

A lot of them are just common sense questions, like about Abraham, good things happening to bad people, etc.

Which I have pointed out without the bible/God their is no standard of good. What is left is a selective interpretation of the word. For instance Oscar Scheindler was a "good" Nazi that saved a few hundred people from Hitler's death camps. In the End, He still was a Nazi/War profiteer that contributed to Germany's war effort in WWII. By all our current standards he was not a "good" man.

Even Here in our society "good" is equally subjective. What is "good" now, was not "good 50 years ago. So logically speaking without a true standard their can not be "good" people. Just people who can be deemed better than others. So again without the standards the bible offers your question is invalid. If you insist on using the standard of "good" provided by the bible, then you must accept Christ's teaching on "good people." In that there are no "good people." Only God is Good.

So to ask why does God let bad things happen to "good" people? the answer being there are no good people. If you discard God the Son's definition of "Good people" the you can not ask why God allows Bad things to happen to them. Because God the Son says: "There is no one who is good no not one. Only God is Good." If you wish to discard the bible completely then know you question becomes invalid because you have discarded your acknowledgment of God.

Quoting the Bible doesn't answer anything. I could write a book about space aliens attacking France and claim it to be true and that it happened hundreds of years ago.

Here is where your faith/logic takes a nose dive and apparently you either can not ,or will not see the fatal flaw in your thought process. Meaning your "logic' is not "logic" at all, but a fool's faith in what you want to believe to be true.(As demonstrated by the last paragraph)

It's ironic to see those who would strive to reticule one for having faith, be subject to the same faith they ignorantly protest in others.

Another example:
If you write the book you are speaking about, and I ask questions derived from an understanding that I have from your book. then in order for my questions to be valid I must accept the answer you give sighting your book. Because in the realm in which I ask these questions I have accepted everything to be true up to the point the question is asked. In the case of Abraham and God's command to kill his son. you have to accept everything up to the point where God gives the command and Abraham decides to carry it out. Otherwise your question is based in a misleading or deductive fallacy. thereby rendering your efforts moot. Which means it is not logic you offer, but blind faith in what you believe is right.

So go ahead and quote the Bible, it won't make a difference.

Again, This is not about God yet. this is about your failings in the logic you pretend to serve. I am simply trying to hold you accountable to what you claim to be doing here. If you are the bringer of logic then should your efforts not reflect this very logic?

Or are you here for another reason?

 

[drich0150]

You said:



So why don't Christians have an illuminated brain as their symbol instead of a torture device?

Why do you not address my answer to your bonus question? Or do you need more time to "think" out a proper response?

 

[postmortemjoe]

Do we have the originals of Romeo and Juliet? No; they are lost. We have no clue whether the play you read or watch is the exact same as it was when it wrote it.

However, we do have manuscripts, and what you see and read today is based on that. And on the whole, the play, as experts will probably tell you, is essentially the same.

A play, regardless of how high you hold it is still a play and is regarded as entertainment more than anything else. This is a system of belief we are talking about here. People live their lives according to the words on those pages. There's a big difference.

Again, translation isn't the same always as interpretation.



When we have so many excerpts and texts from the time and when they all say practically the same thing in each and every one, we know what you fear isn't to worry about.

But they don't. The four gospels tell the story of Jesus' life in different ways.

How? Because we have ancient texts and have compared them.

But all of the ancient texts in their entirety are not available.

If you mean whether the Bible is factual history? Not always, particularly when it comes to the Torah, although the information on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea (and when they were United as one under Saul, David, and Solomon) is extremely reliable. Other parts are hit and miss.

So it's inconsistent.

Furthermore, part of the very nature of truth is that truth is eternal and absolute. There is never a time when truth is anything but truth, so that makes sense. When we interpret the Bible and say "the Holy Spirit has guided me to this interpretation," we must be careful, for billions of people have read it. Most of the time, we arrive to the same conclusion. Sometimes, we arrive to a different one, although as I said above, different doesn't mean contradictory. We need to go way back to the original interpreters, and thankfully, we have their writings. So long as there is no contradiction, we're fine. If there is, then we go back to the drawing board. Not entirely unlike science in a way.

If two people can take a "truth" such as the teachings of the Bible and arrive at different conclusions, then it's not the eternal and absolute truth you speak of.

The other part is, we really don't know. How do you fathom of the mind of the infinite with a finite mind of your own. It just doesn't work (and this is only logical).

Giving up and saying god did it is not a satisfying answer.

Except it wasn't for all time. And the devil originally was not evil and evil is not supreme. In Christianity, we have no concept of dualism. The physical is not lesser than the spiritual, nor is it an illusion or evil. The physical is good (again, see Genesis 1). Evil is the lack of good, not a essence of its own; chaos is the lack of law and order. Consider light; darkness isn't anti-light, but the absence of it. Christians have this theology about good and evil.

Throughout the Bible god is unleashing his wrath on humble believers for giving in to satan, meanwhile satan pretty much does whatever he wants and god allows it. I'd say satan is in league with god if god can't destroy him.

No. Christianity, as I said, teaches that creation is inherently GOOD. Substance is GOOD. Humanity is inherently GOOD, even though it is broken. God wishes to save which is good; if we were truly evil, then we wouldn't even exist. Christianity absolutely opposes the idea that humanity is somehow inherently evil.

Original sin declares humanity as inherently bad. The only way to cleanse the evil is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior, so no I would say it teaches the opposite. Christianity's views on homosexuality and sexuality in general are anti-human.

We have a broken soul; that means that we cannot save ourselves. That doesn't mean that the soul is completely destroyed. We are still capable of doing things that are meaningful, beneficial, and, yes, good. Feeding the hungry, doing kind favors without desire for reward; we are indeed capable because the soul is broken, not annihilated. However, these are not enough to save us; we are incapable of saving ourselves because we are broken and corrupt.

Why is our soul broken? And what exactly does that mean? There are many atheists and people of other faiths that are happy and live productive lives, doesn't seem like their souls are broken.

Can you point to any other records written in the same time period, of the events you are questioning? Please list your references that catalogs time, people or events that contradict or even run a parallel course to the events you are questioning.

Dinosaurs.

Even Here in our society "good" is equally subjective. What is "good" now, was not "good 50 years ago. So logically speaking without a true standard their can not be "good" people. Just people who can be deemed better than others. So again without the standards the bible offers your question is invalid. If you insist on using the standard of "good" provided by the bible, then you must accept Christ's teaching on "good people." In that there are no "good people." Only God is Good.

I can't accept that there are no good people, whether it be by the Bible's standards or otherwise.

Again, This is not about God yet. this is about your failings in the logic you pretend to serve. I am simply trying to hold you accountable to what you claim to be doing here. If you are the bringer of logic then should your efforts not reflect this very logic?

How many more times do I need to say it? The Bible is NOT a record of history. If god is out there, prove it in a way that doesn't quote Bible verses. There must be physical proof somewhere.

Why do you not address my answer to your bonus question? Or do you need more time to "think" out a proper response?

You said the following:

Actually it only shows half a brain... I bet you wish you thought about that a little more before posting a 1/2 cocked thought.. oh but wait your efforts are consistent with "our" assessment of your "faith."

I didn't respond because it's a dumb comment. First, it's a two dimensional picture. Second, it also only shows half a head, so does that mean atheists have half a head too?

 

[drich0150]

Dinosaurs.

So it is your testimony that the dinosaurs left a historical record for us during the time of Abraham? Or are you simply pointing to one possible interpretation of a fossil record? Either you do not understand the question i asked or.. your best answer falls far short.

I can't accept that there are no good people, whether it be by the Bible's standards or otherwise.

I did not say you could not label a person good. Oscar Scheindler was labeled a good man. I am simply pointing out that "good" with out a standard to compare it to is a subjective term. Even the wicked can deem one of their own "good." This does not mean that they truly are.

If you are asking or trying to hold God accountable to the term Good then we must subject God to the standard or term He has put forth. Otherwise know you are asking, why does God allow bad things to people I see as good? If you can admit that the universe does not center itself on you, then you might see a problem in this line of "logic."

How many more times do I need to say it? The Bible is NOT a record of history. If god is out there, prove it in a way that doesn't quote Bible verses. There must be physical proof somewhere.

How many time do I need to say it? then your questions are not valid.

First, it's a two dimensional picture.

Yeah, all pictures are indeed two dimensional even if the give the appearance of 3.

Second, it also only shows half a head, so does that mean atheists have half a head too?

If you do not want to be pressed by "dumb content" then perhaps you should not in turn press others with yours.

 

[razeontherock]

So why don't Christians have an illuminated brain as their symbol instead of a torture device?

The Cross is not a torture device to us. CF doesn't have enough blank pages to discuss what the symbol portrays ...

 

[razeontherock]

A play, regardless of how high you hold it is still a play and is regarded as entertainment more than anything else. This is a system of belief we are talking about here. People live their lives according to the words on those pages. There's a big difference.

We know your icon can be seen as representing a brain (and mind) that has gone dark, but surely you can still recognize an example, illustrating a point? This one is pretty direct.

The four gospels tell the story of Jesus' life in different ways.

Exactly! Same life. Seen from different perspectives, and expressed by different people.

If two people can take a "truth" such as the teachings of the Bible and arrive at different conclusions, then it's not the eternal and absolute truth you speak of.

This does not follow. The Author is infinite. How could you possibly think any passage has merely one meaning?

Throughout the Bible god is unleashing his wrath on humble believers

Nope. Not once. What could ever possess you to think such a thing, let alone take the time to write it out?

I'd say satan is in league with god if god can't destroy him.

Big little word there, "if." Lots of assumption going on, and you're advertising it by voicing conclusions based on nothing else?

Original sin declares humanity as inherently bad. The only way to cleanse the evil is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior, so no I would say it teaches the opposite.

This was written in response to " Christianity absolutely opposes the idea that humanity is somehow inherently evil." Please change your avatar to a guy sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming lalala, I can't hear you.

I can't accept that there are no good people, whether it be by the Bible's standards or otherwise.

All that means is you have yet to fathom the Bible's standard on this subject.

If god is out there, prove it in a way that doesn't quote Bible verses. There must be physical proof somewhere.

Smartest thing I've seen you say yet Yup, every atom is proof. Now all you need to do is work on your definition of G-d

 

[PaladinValer]

A play, regardless of how high you hold it is still a play and is regarded as entertainment more than anything else. This is a system of belief we are talking about here. People live their lives according to the words on those pages. There's a big difference.

The point was that we don't have the originals to Romeo and Juliet either. The fact that it was a play and the Bible isn't is irrelevant.

But they don't. The four gospels tell the story of Jesus' life in different ways.

Okay, this really has nothing to do with interpretation at all. This has to do with the fact that they aren't exactly the same.

Four people are commentating on a sporting event. Often, their comments are the same, although sometimes they mention the same thing at different times (and therefore, in different order). Some comment on things that happened that others did not.

This is what the Gospels are. Four stories about the ministry of Jesus from the eyes of four different authors.

Traditionally, the Gospel according to St. Matthew was written in mind for a Jewish audience. The Gospel according to St. Luke was written in mind for a Gentile audience. The Gospel according to St. John was written in the mindset of "Who is Jesus?" The Gospel according to St. Mark was written without any audience or mindset in mind, making it the most "universal".

In reality, the Gospels' accounts can be reconciled very nicely.

Interpretation is not about agreement in text. It has to do with the meaning of the text.

But all of the ancient texts in their entirety are not available.

Not true. Scholars are absolutely certain that the Genesis you read is the same Genesis Jesus had.

So it's inconsistent.

It is, but as I said, since the Bible isn't intended to be a history textbook, the issue is moot.

If two people can take a "truth" such as the teachings of the Bible and arrive at different conclusions, then it's not the eternal and absolute truth you speak of.

Not necessarily; only if they are contradictory. All contradictions are different, but not all differences are contradictory.

One person looks at the sky and says "it is blue"
Another person looks at the sky and says "filled with atoms"

Two different conclusions, but they are not contrary to each other. Each person is fundamentally right; the sky is blue due to how light refracts and it is most certainly filled with atoms.

One person looks at the Deluge portion of Scripture and says "this is a typology of Holy Baptism"while another person sees something else: "This is about how God is truly impartial about the 'cleanliness of species' since all species were saved". Both are correct.

Giving up and saying god did it is not a satisfying answer.

That is not giving up. That is part of Christian theology. If God truly is what we believe Him to be, there it is only logical that such an infinite mind cannot be explained by anything which is finite. That is a key part of basic logic and reasoning.

Throughout the Bible god is unleashing his wrath on humble believers for giving in to satan, meanwhile satan pretty much does whatever he wants and god allows it. I'd say satan is in league with god if god can't destroy him.

Job failed. Did God sent His "wrath" on him? No; He debated with him and Job repented, and God rewarded him with double what he lost. And the devil lost again.

Give examples please.

Original sin declares humanity as inherently bad. The only way to cleanse the evil is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior, so no I would say it teaches the opposite. Christianity's views on homosexuality and sexuality in general are anti-human.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. Original sin declares humanity corrupted, not "bad." Again, Christianity rejects dualism; it is a theology that was among the first the Church rejected as heretical.

Humanity is not entirely whole because of it. That is the only bad and evil thing about it. The result is a humanity that is not what God originally wanted, but one that is still capable of great good and one that is not entirely annihilated. If humanity was completely evil, then it would cease to exist according to Christian theology.

There is no contradiction here. Even the devil is inherently a good being. The reason is because all creations are inherently good. The devil chose to do evil willingly, which makes him evil.

A Jew who chooses to do benevolent things is good. So is a Hindu, a Wiccan, or an Atheist. God is happy, but because of original sin, no one can save him or herself. That includes Christians.

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is what washes away original sin, but isn't the all-cure. Salvation is a daily pilgrimage; there is no "cheap salvation." By Holy Baptism, we may be "saved," but we must now live out our Baptismal Covenant. By that, we are "being saved" and we live in "hope to be saved" by faithfully following God until our own individual last day.

I'm not going to get into homosexuality. I do wonder what you mean by "views on sexuality" however.

Why is our soul broken? And what exactly does that mean? There are many atheists and people of other faiths that are happy and live productive lives, doesn't seem like their souls are broken.

Our soul is broken because humanity's corrupt nature. Original sin, despite some peoples' interpretation of it, isn't some biological trait or gene that is passed down through the generations. It has to do with the spiritual part of our entire being, not the physical. To have a broken soul means that one cannot do good perfectly; there is and aspect each time we do good things that makes it imperfect. Sometimes it may be a hidden greed. Other times it is because we are doing something only to please others and inside, we let out a sigh. Even we do good things for the sake of doing them, it isn't enough; nothing human-alone done is good enough because of our broken souls.

Our souls are broken due to original sin. Originally, we were able to do good perfectly. This was because our relationship with the Good (God) was in the right; we enjoyed the blessed Presence of His Being. However, when we chose not to, then our relationship broke. God had to expel us because we could not longer bear His full Presence without being in pain. It was actually out of mercy, not punishment, that God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden.

The soul is the life; all living things have a soul. For us however, we have a spirit; the ability to have a relationship. That part of the soul is what is broken. We can still have a relationship, but it is impaired. Holy Baptism heals this wound.

A person can live a good productive life without Holy Baptism. However, because original sin is still in play, there is nothing that person could do to save himself by himself (or herself).

 

[GrayAngel]

And if this is the case now, imagine what happened when the Bible was first drafted, after all, people wrote it.

The Bible was written largely by people who knew Jesus personally. The disciples had Him as a teacher, James was Jesus half-brother (Jesus didn't have Joseph's genes), and Paul saw a vision of Jesus on the road. The disciples, including Paul, also performed miracles, which were signs from God that they had authority to speak His words.

The Bible is God's word expressed through the pen of a man.

So there's one known mistranslation. How many other do you think are in there and is that something you should base your beliefs on? You're personifying animals by saying there's an animal for every negative human trait. According to what?

Just because it takes a little effort to understand what it's saying doesn't mean we should throw the book out the window.

I have a few reasons for saying that there are animals for every negative human trait. First is from the Bible, the second is from my understanding of the world.

In the Bible, the snake/serpent tempted Adam and Eve. Even today, we compare people to a snakes if we consider them lairs. We, of course, understand this snake to be Satan, who's also described as a lion, Lord of Flies (Beelzebub), and a dragon (which is technically not a real animal). There are also many animals that were considered unclean, such as pigs.

On the flipside, we also have some animals which symbolize positive traits, such as the dove or eagle.

As for my experiences, I have seen animals display traits that are considered evil when seen in people. For example, there's one breed of snake that I learned about on Animal Planet of which males have the ability to give off a feminine scent, confusing the other males and resulting in utter confusion. Basically, they're lying to the other males, hoping to have an advantage in finding the real females. But because they'll all doing it, it's not really any help to them.

An example of senseless cruelty in the animal kingdom is with the snakehead, which is a variety of air-breathing fish which were recently introduced to America and has been wreaking haveck on its ecosystem ever sense. These snakeheads are extremely aggressive, and they will any other fish on sight. Animals usually kill for food, or to protect their territory or young, but snakeheads get no benefit from their killing. They will often rip their victims in half, then watch as they flop around helplessly and die slowly.

Yet another example is with the trusted human companion, the dog. I know someone whose cat had birthed a little of kittens, and they kept these kittens in a box. Well, one day the dog somehow got to them and killed some of the kittens. What was the point of that? Sounds a lot like murder to me.

So you're saying that god designed the devil to tempt humanity so they can ask god for forgiveness for giving in to desires that he created in the first place?

I know where you're going with this, but your objection is just another opportunity for me to prove my position as Biblically accurate. Paul had addressed it himself in Romans.

Romans 9:15-21 - For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

God creates each person with a purpose. Even Satan was created for a purpose, but because God is just, He cannot allow evil to go unpunished. And yes, I know that they were designed to do evil, but the fact remains that they are still evil. What a man does for evil, God plans for good. God Himself is not evil.

So they saved one family out of a whole city. What a hero! They mercilessly slaughter every living thing in that city because god chose favorites and that's acceptable?

One thing you either don't understand or refuse to ackowledge is that none of us deserve God. We all deserve God's wrath, and if God were a god of justice alone, that would be what we would all receive. But God chose to have mercy on some of us, such as the woman's family in Jericho.

Besides that, what you're missing is the context of their situation. They lived in a very different time period, nothing like the one we live in. Each nation was spreading its city walls, and they enjoyed attacking and conquering other nations to expand their influence. Many times, Israel had been enslaved to their surrounding nations. And in fact, they had just escaped from their enslavement to the Egyptians. The city of Jericho was a major threat to the Israelites.

 

[postmortemjoe]

We know your icon can be seen as representing a brain (and mind) that has gone dark, but surely you can still recognize an example, illustrating a point? This one is pretty direct.

What? I'm not sure which example you're referring to. If it is the reference to Romeo and Juliet, I fail to see how you've proven anything.

Exactly! Same life. Seen from different perspectives, and expressed by different people.

The geneology is different. If I'm not mistaken, the four gospels all have conflicting stories of Jesus' birthplace.

This does not follow. The Author is infinite. How could you possibly think any passage has merely one meaning?

Because there is only one truth.

Nope. Not once. What could ever possess you to think such a thing, let alone take the time to write it out?

Have you read the old testament?

Big little word there, "if." Lots of assumption going on, and you're advertising it by voicing conclusions based on nothing else?

Seeing as there's nothing to base any of this on, yes. Assumptions are the only thing one can do.

This was written in response to " Christianity absolutely opposes the idea that humanity is somehow inherently evil." Please change your avatar to a guy sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming lalala, I can't hear you.

Does Christianity not promote the idea or original sin? By that logic, Adam and Eve were the only humans not born of sin. Everyone else down the line inherited sin because they ate forbidden fruit.

All that means is you have yet to fathom the Bible's standard on this subject.

The Bible's standards for a just and loving god is one that picks favorites, encourages war, is homophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic, and barbaric. Not my cup of tea, thanks.

Smartest thing I've seen you say yet Yup, every atom is proof. Now all you need to do is work on your definition of G-d

Atoms are proof of god? How so? They weren't mentioned in the Bible, or are you inserting religion where it doesn't belong?

 

[razeontherock]

You have shut the eye of reason. Care to try again?

 

[drich0150]

I was referring to their absence in the Bible. I think some giant lizards would deserve some kind of mention.

I guess you never read the book of Job or heard of the Great leviathans or Behemoths that roamed the lands... (And were described in detail in the bible)

God's standard of good is not one I would hold myself to. He was a ruthless ogre in the old testament. Even applied to god's standards, good Christians suffer all the time.

Then why hold God to your subjective standards of good? Or better yet why demand that we account God's actions to your unspecified standard of good?

I have pointed to a standard. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant to this part of the conversation. I have established that God does indeed adhere to a standard, where as you do not. In absents of this standard I point out that your judgment is subject your peers and what they deem acceptable.

Requesting proof is invalid?

Apparently you simply can not fathom the fatal fallacy in your "logic." If you wish to discuss this further I ask that you address the points i have made line by line as I have taken the time to address yours.

So how do you know that it's half a brain then?

Because a cross section of the human Head is represented in that picture. Half a head/Half of a brain.

It was a rhetorical question. An example to highlight the udder idiocy of your statement

It was a rhetorical question. An example to highlight the udder idiocy of your statement

 

[drich0150]

You have shut the eye of reason. Care to try again?

 

[postmortemjoe]

The Bible was written largely by people who knew Jesus personally. The disciples had Him as a teacher, James was Jesus half-brother (Jesus didn't have Joseph's genes), and Paul saw a vision of Jesus on the road. The disciples, including Paul, also performed miracles, which were signs from God that they had authority to speak His words.

The Bible is God's word expressed through the pen of a man.

Except it wasn't written while he was alive but about 60 years after he died.

Just because it takes a little effort to understand what it's saying doesn't mean we should throw the book out the window.

Because it "takes a little effort to understand" means it could be open to interpretation, therefore not something I would base my life on, especially if I wasn't the one translating/interpreting it.

I have a few reasons for saying that there are animals for every negative human trait. First is from the Bible, the second is from my understanding of the world.

In the Bible, the snake/serpent tempted Adam and Eve. Even today, we compare people to a snakes if we consider them lairs. We, of course, understand this snake to be Satan, who's also described as a lion, Lord of Flies (Beelzebub), and a dragon (which is technically not a real animal). There are also many animals that were considered unclean, such as pigs.

On the flipside, we also have some animals which symbolize positive traits, such as the dove or eagle.

That is not a universal thing. Most of your labels for animals comes from religious scripture anyway.

As for my experiences, I have seen animals display traits that are considered evil when seen in people. For example, there's one breed of snake that I learned about on Animal Planet of which males have the ability to give off a feminine scent, confusing the other males and resulting in utter confusion. Basically, they're lying to the other males, hoping to have an advantage in finding the real females. But because they'll all doing it, it's not really any help to them.

This doesn't make snakes evil. If they continue to do it, it must be helping them somehow otherwise over time, they would lose that ability.

I know where you're going with this, but your objection is just another opportunity for me to prove my position as Biblically accurate. Paul had addressed it himself in Romans.

Romans 9:15-21 - For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

God creates each person with a purpose. Even Satan was created for a purpose, but because God is just, He cannot allow evil to go unpunished. And yes, I know that they were designed to do evil, but the fact remains that they are still evil. What a man does for evil, God plans for good. God Himself is not evil.

He can't allow evil to go unpunished, but he created it in the first place?

One thing you either don't understand or refuse to ackowledge is that none of us deserve God. We all deserve God's wrath, and if God were a god of justice alone, that would be what we would all receive. But God chose to have mercy on some of us, such as the woman's family in Jericho.

Besides that, what you're missing is the context of their situation. They lived in a very different time period, nothing like the one we live in. Each nation was spreading its city walls, and they enjoyed attacking and conquering other nations to expand their influence. Many times, Israel had been enslaved to their surrounding nations. And in fact, they had just escaped from their enslavement to the Egyptians. The city of Jericho was a major threat to the Israelites.

Come on now, have a little more confidence in humanity than that! Our destiny is totally what we make it, god or not. It's time to get off your knees and do something.

And god picked a favorite and told them to destroy families of people. I find it interesting that everyone always thinks they're god's favorite, it never occurs to them that they could be the Canaanites.

 

[razeontherock]

Except it wasn't written while he was alive but about 60 years after he died.

The entire NT was written in 93 AD? Good luck trying to substantiate that. It might be, that the very last book to be written, wasn't complete until roughly that year. Which still means that in terms of time frame from event to written record, that the Bible beats every other major work of antiquity by CENTURIES

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I was referring to their absence in the Bible. I think some giant lizards would deserve some kind of mention.

Not when they went extinct 65 million years before anything in the Bible was written.

On the other hand, it's not too hard to say that the Bible does mention dinosaurs. I mean it does mention doves, ravens and other birds, which are all properly dinosaurs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[postmortemjoe]

I guess you never read the book of Job or heard of the Great leviathans or Behemoths that roamed the lands... (And were described in detail in the bible)

Dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist.

Then why hold God to your subjective standards of good? Or better yet why demand that we account God's actions to your unspecified standard of good?

I have pointed to a standard. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant to this part of the conversation. I have established that God does indeed adhere to a standard, where as you do not. In absents of this standard I point out that your judgment is subject your peers and what they deem acceptable.

You pretty much said that people we'd consider good aren't, but a medieval homophobic tyrant is. Again, those standards go completely against human nature.

You didn't address the second part considering god's standards why do good Christians suffer, are they not considered good by god?

Apparently you simply can not fathom the fatal fallacy in your "logic." If you wish to discuss this further I ask that you address the points i have made line by line as I have taken the time to address yours.

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of addressing your arguments. I'm sorry if I can't get to every single word, but you're not the only one debating me in this thread.

Because a cross section of the human Head is represented in that picture. Half a head/Half of a brain.

Right, so until you can come up with a way to depict a totally three-dimensional brain in a tiny icon like that, you're argument is an argument of semantics.

It was a rhetorical question. An example to highlight the udder idiocy of your statement

Wow, that's clever. I've gotta write that one down...

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The quick and dirty version is that the crucifix is the symbol of Christianity because it symbolized the suffering Jesus went through, while nailed to the cross, to save us from our sins. Am I right?

That's half the story at least. The use of the cross within Christianity was an act of religio-political subversion and inversion.

The cross was far more than simply an instrument of execution for the Romans, it was an instrument of terrorism. Rome executed insurgents and those deemed treasonous and dangerous to the empire, which is why its use on the outskirts of the Empire were important in establishing Roman authority and reminding the peoples on the edges of the Roman Empire that they, all that they own, their entire lives properly belonged to Rome. Crucifixion was intentionally done as a public spectacle so that others could see the crucified victim slowly dying, often over the course of days, and know their place within all-powerful Rome's dominion.

Within Christianity that same cross is subverted and inverted, being transformed from a symbol of Roman oppression and tyranny to a symbol of victory and of the total overthrow of violent power. All violent power, because of the impotence of violence to end Christ.

St. Paul describes it this way (I like how the NIV phrases it): "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." (Colossians 2:15)

What was an instrument of Rome's dominion over the weak and the helpless is transformed and subverted by Christ into the instrument of liberation of the weak and helpless and of Rome's ultimate powerlessness in spite of all her violent flair and pomp.

The cross is in this way inverted from a symbol of the Roman Empire's oppression to a symbol of the Kingdom of God's liberation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrayAngel]

Because it "takes a little effort to understand" means it could be open to interpretation, therefore not something I would base my life on, especially if I wasn't the one translating/interpreting it.

Uh, no. It is true that people can misinterpret the Bible, but those of us with any real understanding of it will realize when it's taken out of context or twisted to mean something it doesn't. Satan knows the Bible too, and he quoted scripture to Jesus, but Jesus was wise enough to see through Satan's disception and countered with more scripture.

The problem is not that the Bible is too difficult, but that people are too lazy to read it themselves.

This doesn't make snakes evil. If they continue to do it, it must be helping them somehow otherwise over time, they would lose that ability.

How would they lose it? The problem with evolution is that it only works if what's beneficial to one is beneficial for the whole. If one male snake was born without that ability, he would be at a disadvantage. But that doesn't mean their species as a whole wouldn't benefit if they didn't have to lie to each other.

He can't allow evil to go unpunished, but he created it in the first place?

That is correct. He created evil beings, He uses them, and then he disposes of them. For God to let Satan enter Heaven would be like if I hung a piece of used toilet paper on the wall next to my family photo.

Come on now, have a little more confidence in humanity than that! Our destiny is totally what we make it, god or not. It's time to get off your knees and do something.

Confidence in humanity? If you think people are essentially good, you're either in denial or you need to get out more. All societies are corrupt because all people are corrupt.

Even infants, who are considered innocent by humanist thinkers, are natural sinners. You don't have to teach them to lie, or to hit each other when they're mad. I have never seen a parent sit down with their child and say, "Son, I'm going to teach you about something called lieing. Here's how you do it..." But anything good you want them to learn, you have to hammer into their heads over and over until they finally get it.

And god picked a favorite and told them to destroy families of people. I find it interesting that everyone always thinks they're god's favorite, it never occurs to them that they could be the Canaanites.

God didn't release the Canaanites from the Egyptians by striking them with plagues until they finally agreed to let them go. God didn't destroy a city wall after the Canaanites circled the city walls of Jericho with instruments so that they could enter. God didn't stop the sun from moving so the Canaanites could finish their battle before their enemies could escape in the darkness.

Other nations claimed to be God's favorite, but their gods never did anything for them except accept sacrifices and say, "We may bless you, or we may curse you depending on our mood. All a matter of chance, really."