How many of you people...

[Supreme Allah]

How many of you people actually step outside of the situation and look what is going on instead of being stereotypical "fascist conservatives" or "bleeding heart liberals?"

It seems that people with level heads are a lost cause in this political forum. All I see is blind bashing and name calling.

[JoeChalupa]

I try to do it all the time.

That is why I watch all the news networks and listen to conservative radio and read conservative rags so I can hear both sides.

[jochhejaam]

How many of you people actually step outside of the situation and look what is going on instead of being stereotypical "fascist conservatives" or "bleeding heart liberals?"

It seems that people with level heads are a lost cause in this political forum. All I see is blind bashing and name calling.

Get off your soapbox! Here's a couple of your recent posts!

QUOTE]Quote: Originally Posted by Supreme Allah
Thats profiling, you infidel!!!!
May Allah strike you down for your defiance!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]




Originally Posted by Supreme Allah: For one, this is not mouse
Second..SARCASM MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT!?

And you're calling for others to be level headed? Whatever!!!

[Nbadan]

Get off your soapbox! Here's a couple of your recent posts!


Quote: Originally Posted by Supreme Allah
Thats profiling, you infidel!!!!
May Allah strike you down for your defiance!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you're calling for others to be level headed? Whatever!!!

:lol

I guess we all can agree on somethings!



It seems that people with level heads are a lost cause in this political forum. All I see is blind bashing and name calling.

You forgot the threats. Anyway, all this is different from the Spurs forum, how? Geez, loosen up.

[jochhejaam]

:lol

I guess we all can agree on somethings!

Common ground, it was just a matter of time. :lol

[Dre_7]

Get off your soapbox! Here's a couple of your recent posts!


Quote: Originally Posted by Supreme Allah
Thats profiling, you infidel!!!!
May Allah strike you down for your defiance!!!!!!!!!!!!!





And you're calling for others to be level headed? Whatever!!!

:lmao :lmao

I hope your do realize that Supreme Allah is joking in about 99% of his posts. Funny think is, he is right about you people being too "partisan." How can anyone be completely liberal or completely conservative? It is just not possible!

[jochhejaam]

:lmao :lmao

I hope your do realize that Supreme Allah is joking in about 99% of his posts. Funny think is, he is right about you people being too "partisan." How can anyone be completely liberal or completely conservative? It is just not possible!


This Political Forum would have little action if our values and beliefs weren't piqued or challenged.

Perhaps Kori can create a "forum jump" titled "Apathy and Indifference". for those that prefer topics that don't inflame the passions of the partisan crowd. :lol


Why discuss things that everyone agrees on? :sleep

[mookie2001]

people just like the word conservative

[scott]

This Political Forum would have little action if our values and beliefs weren't piqued or challenged.

Perhaps Kori can create a "forum jump" titled "Apathy and Indifference". for those that prefer topics that don't inflame the passions of the partisan crowd. :lol


Why discuss things that everyone agrees on? :sleep

Or maybe just one where people could carry out rational conversation... too boring for you?

[jochhejaam]

Or maybe just one where people could carry out rational conversation... too boring for you?

Rational, meaning like this post from you?


Quote: Originally posted by scott who gives a fuck? This is a message board - not a Presidential campaign.

^^^
The irony of it all. :lol

Rational is relative Scott. Many people have differing views that cannot be bridged by reason.

Partisan and reasonably civil suit me fine but I can deal with extreme views, how about you? Like your above quote (not sure where the rational part is) they're all just opinions.

[exstatic]

How can anyone be completely liberal or completely conservative? It is just not possible!

Exhibit 1: Yawny-Bore/TRO

[Ocotillo]

I try to do it all the time.

That is why I watch all the news networks and listen to conservative radio and read conservative rags so I can hear both sides.

You're only getting one side if you listen to the cons and the news networks. The news networks are pro-administration because of the companies they are owned by. You want the other side try DailyKos, the Nation or the Daily Howler. It's a start to getting both sides.

[The Ressurrected One]

Exhibit 1: Yawny-Bore/TRO
Really? Ever heard my position on the "Drug War?"

[scott]

Rational, meaning like this post from you?



^^^
The irony of it all. :lol

Rational is relative Scott. Many people have differing views that cannot be bridged by reason.

Partisan and reasonably civil suit me fine but I can deal with extreme views, how about you? Like your above quote (not sure where the rational part is) they're all just opinions.

I challenge you to provide a serious statement (meaning, obvious jokes aside) I have made that I haven't tried to be objective and rational. Care to provide the context of the quote you found for me? Is anything I said there not true?

Since the last time I tried to engage you in a discussion, you cowered away with "it's late, I'll have to get to this later" and then never did - I won't be holding my breath.


Many people have differing views that cannot be bridged by reason.

The abandonment of reason is the number 1 threat facing this country - not terrorism or social security or CIA leaks or budget deficits or social security. The flight from logic will be what crumbles our society, and it isn't bound to Republicans or Democrats.

[jochhejaam]

I challenge you to provide a serious statement (meaning, obvious jokes aside) I have made that I haven't tried to be objective and rational. Care to provide the context of the quote you found for me? Is anything I said there not true?

It's no surprise that in your posts that are totally lacking in rational thinking you would brush it aside as an "obvious joke"





Since the last time I tried to engage you in a discussion, you cowered away with "it's late, I'll have to get to this later" and then never did - I won't be holding my breath.

Cowered? :lol It was 12:45 a.m. here and I get up at 6 a.m. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by "not getting back to you" , I had no idea you were waiting with "baited breath" for a reply.




The abandonment of reason is the number 1 threat facing this country - not terrorism or social security or CIA leaks or budget deficits or social security. The flight from logic will be what crumbles our society, and it isn't bound to Republicans or Democrats.

The abandonment of morals is the #1 threat facing our nation. Without moral absolutes and moral guidelines as a personal foundation or springboard for our thoughts there is no logical thinking.


The reverence of God is the beginning of Wisdom. Prov. 1;7

[scott]

It's no surprise that in your posts that are totally lacking in rational thinking you would brush it aside as an "obvious joke"

You are a relative newcomer to this forum, jochhe, so maybe you aren't familiar with it's history. A lot of the people who used to post here to engage in rational discussion no longer do, and some of the rest of them have turned to the dark-side of partisan politics. As a result, this forum has been inundated with fruitless squabbling rather than meaningful conversation.

As a result of that, I spend much less time trying to engage anyone in meaningful conversation, fully aware of the futility of such an endevor. I have neither the time or patience to add in the occassional joke. If you don't have the history in this forum to recognize that, it really isn't my problem.


Cowered? It was 12:45 a.m. here and I get up at 6 a.m. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by "not getting back to you" , I had no idea you were waiting with "baited breath" for a reply.

It's understandable that it is late. That's a perfectly good excuse to bow out of a thread until later. However, you raised a number of points, which you felt were valid - and may very well be - and I countered them. Rather than addressing my rebuttal, as you said you would, you scampered off to threads where no one would point out the logical and empirical flaws in your arguments. Don't worry, I don't wait with "baited breath" for anything. I have been around this forum long enough to know that people like you who aren't willing to engage in debate are a dime a dozen. I continue to come here because there some very knowledgable and reasonable posters who provide great insights, even if they don't share my opinion. Travis and FromWayDowntown most notably.


The abandonment of morals is the #1 threat facing our nation. Without moral absolutes and moral guidelines as a personal foundation or springboard for our thoughts there is no logical thinking.

Morals should stem from logic, not the other way around. Any morals not founded in logic are rather pointless. It is the sheepish following of ideals not based on rational thinking that have threatened all societies. Inherent in logical thinking is ethical behavior. I believe it is wrong to murder in cold blood not because of some theistic set of morals, but because it is simply there is no rational justification to do so. If people would use their facilities of logic, they wouldn't need a book to tell them what is right or wrong.

It was my rebuttal of your contention of the important of theistic based morals that you failed to address last time- and yet here you are again, touting them. If you want to engage in a rational, fair discussion on the subject - I'd love to, let's start a thread. There won't be any namecalling, just a friendly debate. I'm skeptical as to your desire to do so, however, based on your short history in this forum.

If, on the other hand, you just want to put text in bold to make it seem like you are saying something important and use a bunch of emoticons, be my guest.

[jochhejaam]

Quote: Originally posted by scott
Morals should stem from logic, not the other way around. Any morals not founded in logic are rather pointless. It is the sheepish following of ideals not based on rational thinking that have threatened all societies. Inherent in logical thinking is ethical behavior. I believe it is wrong to murder in cold blood not because of some theistic set of morals, but because it is simply there is no rational justification to do so. If people would use their facilities of logic, they wouldn't need a book to tell them what is right or wrong.

It was my rebuttal of your contention of the important of theistic based morals that you failed to address last time- and yet here you are again, touting them. If you want to engage in a rational, fair discussion on the subject - I'd love to, let's start a thread. There won't be any namecalling, just a friendly debate. I'm skeptical as to your desire to do so, however, based on your short history in this forum.

If, on the other hand, you just want to put text in bold to make it seem like you are saying something important and use a bunch of emoticons, be my guest.

You haven't cornered the market on rationalism scott. And just because someone views their arguements as rational doesn't make it so. When a diverse majortiy of others see your thinking as rational then it may possibly be. It's not a sign of weakness to admit that at times we shed the rationale to engage in some fun.

And tout them I shall (theistic based morals). But...it's 7:00 p.m. here and I have an 8:00 dental then off to work. :)
Bold text and emoticons are meant to aid, emphasize and convey what are normally easily conveyed in face to face conversation. Try it sometime, it greatly adds to what the poster is trying to explain. (I hate monotone text :lol )

[MannyIsGod]

You haven't cornered the market on rationalism scott. And just because someone views their arguements as rational doesn't make it so. When a diverse majortiy of others see your thinking as rational then it may possibly be. It's not a sign of weakness to admit that at times we shed the rationale to engage in some fun.

And tout them I shall (theistic based morals). But...it's 7:00 p.m. here and I have an 8:00 dental then off to work. :)
Bold text and emoticons are meant to aid, emphasize and convey what are normally easily conveyed in face to face conversation. Try it sometime, it greatly adds to what the poster is trying to explain. (I hate monotone text :lol )
You just don't get it.

While at one time this forum had some great threads with intelligent conversation, it is nowhere near that anymore. And why? Due to posters like you.

[David Bowie]

Well, I've been acused of being of being a bleeding liberal due to my unconventional choice of clothing, temporary belief that I was an alien and a penchant for men when it just wasn't fashionable. I've also been accused of being a facist due to my vast collection of Hitler memorribilia, my greeding of the public with a "heil Hitler motion" and mine moving to Germany. So I guess I can say I've seen the world from both sides of the spectrum.

[Nbadan]

While at one time this forum had some great threads with intelligent conversation, it is nowhere near that anymore. And why? Due to posters like you.

While this forum once did have more substantive posts, it certainly doesn't suffer from a lack of a number of different opinions anymore. Look at it this way - This forum had little future if 5 people dominated the context of most major threads. Now they don't, and some people have chosen to take it out on everyone else. I suppose it's perfectly natural for some people to want to dominate a conversation, but much better for the longevity of the forum IMO if we have a diversity of opinions.

[jochhejaam]

You just don't get it.

While at one time this forum had some great threads with intelligent conversation, it is nowhere near that anymore. And why? Due to posters like you.


Allow me to paraphrase what you just said;

"While at one time this forum had some great threads with people that agreed with my opinions it is nowhere near that anymore. And why? Due to posters whose arguements I can't counter with intelligent arguements of my own".

Hang in there MIG, it's not that big of a deal. Besides, NBA basketball isn't that far away so I'll be spending less time here and more time there. A little something for you to look forward too. :lol (to) :)

[MannyIsGod]

Allow me to paraphrase what you just said;

"While at one time this forum had some great threads with people that agreed with my opinions it is nowhere near that anymore. And why? Due to posters whose arguements I can't counter with intelligent arguements of my own".

Hang in there MIG, it's not that big of a deal. Besides, NBA basketball isn't that far away so I'll be spending less time here and more time there. A little something for you to look forward too. :lol
Actually, for the most part I am at odds with the majority of the people in here. You can keep diverting attention from your apparent lack of the intelligent viewpoints you claim I fail to present.

[scott]

You haven't cornered the market on rationalism scott. And just because someone views their arguements as rational doesn't make it so. When a diverse majortiy of others see your thinking as rational then it may possibly be. It's not a sign of weakness to admit that at times we shed the rationale to engage in some fun.

And tout them I shall (theistic based morals). But...it's 7:00 p.m. here and I have an 8:00 dental then off to work. :)
Bold text and emoticons are meant to aid, emphasize and convey what are normally easily conveyed in face to face conversation. Try it sometime, it greatly adds to what the poster is trying to explain. (I hate monotone text :lol )

A lot of words here, and you've had time for other responses... but yet haven't addressed the topic of our disagreement on the importance of theistic based morals.

Way to show me.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by scott:
Morals should stem from logic, not the other way around. Any morals not founded in logic are rather pointless.

If you rule out creationism as our reason for existing perhaps you could make a case for morals stemming from logic but for those of us that are creationists that would be untrue. (I don't know if you're atheist or agnotic or...) Being a firm believer in the creation of man by a supreme being as recorded in the book of Genesis, I adhere to the set of morals He has laid out in the scripture. His moral precepts are laid out quite clearly on what is acceptable and what is not. The only logic I need in regards to His moral absolutes is to attempt to apply them to life situations on a daily basis.

Being a creation of God's what thoughts could I possibly come up with that would improve on what is already pristine in content? I believe it would be an affront to God (dumb) for me to attempt to apply logic to the truths he has already given to mankind. That's not to say that we don't explore the meaning of His Word in an attempt to better understand and more fully follow their intent. In essence God is the Potter, I am the clay, He made me and I wish to follow His rules. There's nothing in them that would make me want to do otherwise.

On the other hand the alternative is to believe that there is no God and that we have to implement logic and find our own morals (or not) and that man exists solely by chance. That's where evolution, a theory which has been around only about 150 years, comes in. This theory based on the mutation of small organisms into higher, healthier, and smarter life form has been proven false. Science tells us that higher life forms cannot evolve from the mutation of cells , that the mutation of cells can only weaken life forms. Mutations that occur naturally, which is rare in and of itself, have shown to be harmful to whatever it is that is mutating, or at best, neutral.

The theory of evolution would have us believe that the butterfly and rhinocerus are sisters of the same evolutionary process. Sound rediculous, it is! Scientist have used an illustration regarding the complexities of the human body and it's functions;
The chances of the human body being created by chance in light of it's complexities is the same as a tornado sweeping through a scrap yard and assembling a 747 jetliner. The odds are not astronomical, they are totally out of the realm of possibility.

There may be irreconcilable divisions between creationists and evolutions regarding the logicalness of rationalizing our own set of morals...?



Originally posted by scott: Inherent in logical thinking is ethical behavior. I believe it is wrong to murder in cold blood not because of some theistic set of morals, but because it is simply there is no rational justification to do so. If people would use their facilities of logic, they wouldn't need a book to tell them what is right or wrong

The Book and it's precepts were here long before you and you were fully aware of it's code of conduct so where's the logic behind you ascertaining that you don't need the Book? It's already an absolute and so it's of no consequence that you follow it but say you didn't need to be told to do so. In essence you were told and you do follow. That's makes you a disciple at least by proxy. His Word is the "Power of Attorney" and you "sign" it by agreeing that's it's logical to do so (moral).

Also, who determines what is ethical and who is right? That's were chaos comes in to play. If you ask enough people, most who would claim to be logical, and tallied up a list of things that this mass of logical people said are okay to do and then adhered to the list of things that are "okay to do" I'm betting just about anything and everything would be okay! That's why God's ultimate standard of morals should be adhered to. It's been there since the beginning of time, and it's absolutely thorough in content. At the very least there should be a consensus that His morals are unequivocally righteous and follow them if you please.

[mookie2001]

adam and eve must have been superhuman genuises
thats all i have to say

[scott]

First of all, thanks for the response.


If you rule out creationism as our reason for existing

It's a topic for another debate, but say I don't rule out creationism, but I don't accept is as being infallibly true either. Perhaps I acknowledge that maybe we were "created" by some higher being (which, I assume is what you imply by creationism - if I have made a faulty assumption, please let me know). Who I am to say? I do know, however, that I - as well as all people - are empowered with the facilities of logic. And logic doesn't point to a creationist beginning. It's inherently irrational to discard a logical explanation for one with no logical support other than an unreasonable Cartesian "I think therefor I am" argument.


Being a firm believer in the creation of man by a supreme being as recorded in the book of Genesis, I adhere to the set of morals He has laid out in the scripture. His moral precepts are laid out quite clearly on what is acceptable and what is not.

How clear are they really? Christians of different sects seem to have differing interpretations of the text, which implies that there is some process of logic going on. If only one interpretation is correct, which you seem to imply, then the other are inherently incorrect.

In this sense, your argument that the loss of morals is a threat to society is actually just my argument in wolf's clothing. It isn't the loss of morals that threatens, it is the misinterpretation or illogical disregard of the morals that you have deemed to be "correct" as the threat. Everyone has morals, they just don't always logically apply them.


On the other hand the alternative is to believe that there is no God and that we have to implement logic and find our own morals (or not) and that man exists solely by chance.

That is a fairly non-sequitous jump you made there. There are several alternatives, Intelligent Design's and its predecessors come to mind. You seem to envision much more of a binary realm of faith... it's either your way or the highway so to speak. Obviously, that isn't the case as many people can reconcile their faith with the ideals that you feel are an affront to your God.


That's where evolution, a theory which has been around only about 150 years, comes in. This theory based on the mutation of small organisms into higher, healthier, and smarter life form has been proven false. Science tells us that higher life forms cannot evolve from the mutation of cells , that the mutation of cells can only weaken life forms. Mutations that occur naturally, which is rare in and of itself, have shown to be harmful to whatever it is that is mutating, or at best, neutral.

This would be news to scientists.


The theory of evolution would have us believe that the butterfly and rhinocerus are sisters of the same evolutionary process. Sound rediculous, it is!

Sounds like a cute soundbite from a Kansas school board trial, and it may go over well at a Flood Theory group - but anyone who really paid attention in high school biology knows you are twisting things around to suit your own purposes. Your statement would be the equivilent of me saying that the Theory of Christianity would have us believe that a person who occassionally curses is the same as a child-molesting murderer. Neither statement is true.


The chances of the human body being created by chance in light of it's complexities is the same as a tornado sweeping through a scrap yard and assembling a 747 jetliner. The odds are not astronomical, they are totally out of the realm of possibility.

Statistics 101 tell us there are no such odds that are "out of the realm of possibility." Without getting into a debate of what the odds actually could be, so long as they are 1 out of infinity, it is possible. And the universe is a very large place.


The Book and it's precepts were here long before you and you were fully aware of it's code of conduct so where's the logic behind you ascertaining that you don't need the Book?

The "morals" outlined in the bible and the logic behind them existed long before it was penned. Murder was a crime in pre-biblical societies, so where did they get their morals from?

If I you tell me the sky is blue, then I see the sky is blue... I don't believe the sky is blue because you told me. Awareness is not tantamount to causation, and if you want to argue that it is, there is thousands of years of history suggesting that the Bible's morals are just plagarism of the codes of previous civilizations.


Also, who determines what is ethical and who is right?

Who says anyone has to? It's possible to come to different logical conclusions given the same information - in the equation of "x^2=4", there are two possible solutions for x - both are correct. I don't try to place absolutes, I just try to treat all people with respect. Who is to say that your Bible is "right"? Does it make more sense to do what an acient book says... or to think about the way people should be treated and do that? To me, it makes more sense to treat people with respect, because that is what makes logical sense.


If you ask enough people, most who would claim to be logical, and tallied up a list of things that this mass of logical people said are okay to do and then adhered to the list of things that are "okay to do" I'm betting just about anything and everything would be okay!

Just because you think you are logical, doesn't mean you are.


That's why God's ultimate standard of morals should be adhered to. It's been there since the beginning of time, and it's absolutely thorough in content. At the very least there should be a consensus that His morals are unequivocally righteous and follow them if you please.

Sounds like you are the one who has decided "what is right."

[jochhejaam]

Originally Posted by scott: How clear are they really? Christians of different sects seem to have differing interpretations of the text, which implies that there is some process of logic going on. If only one interpretation is correct, which you seem to imply, then the other are inherently incorrect.

Or rather it implies that people are redefining scripture to suit their own inability to conform to it's morality in it's entirety. It's a dangerous and compromised pathway they have constructed.



In this sense, your argument that the loss of morals is a threat to society is actually just my argument in wolf's clothing. It isn't the loss of morals that threatens, it is the misinterpretation or illogical disregard of the morals that you have deemed to be "correct" as the threat. Everyone has morals, they just don't always logically apply them.

Again you take the Inspired Word of God and present it as if it was tailored upon morals that you thought up. It's not Your arguement, it's His moral law and you have adapted to it. The message that immorality threatens societies has been around since the beginning of time. It's absolutely a lack of morals when people make a concious decision to do wrong. I will go this far, everyone has a sense of right and wrong but there are those that have made doing wrong a way of life.



We are not born with morals, and again we differ because that statement is contradictory to the teaching in the Bible. Children learn to mimic what they see and obey what they are taught until that day when they have to conciously decide for themselves which lifestyle they wish to live. We are taught that we are born into sin and we therefore need to make a cognizant choice to leave the life of sin (immorality). Righteousness is attained by accepting Christ and His teachings into our lives and we then become righteous only because we have asked and accepted into our being the life of a righteous man. In essence the righteous of Christ abides within us. We still have decisions to make on a daily basis that concern morality. It' a matter of will not logic that lead us one way or the other.

[jochhejaam]

Quote: Posted by jochhejaam
That's why God's ultimate standard of morals should be adhered to. It's been there since the beginning of time, and it's absolutely thorough in content. At the very least there should be a consensus that His morals are unequivocally righteous and follow them if you please.





Originally posted by scott: Sounds like you are the one who has decided "what is right."

I'm not sure how you came up with that response. God decreed at the beginning of creation what was right. I have decided to try to follow the perfect guidelines He has commanded us to follow.

Is there any of the morality found in the Bible you find reprehensible?

[scott]

I'm not sure how you came up with that response.

That pretty much says it all then, doesn't it?

[cecil collins]

Creationism is a joke. I guess it is a widely held belief, but that seems far more implausible to me than genetic mutations. Are these the same scientists who wanted to keep Schiavo alive because she was going to recover? You can find a scientist to dispute just about anything. It's not like all scientists think that evolution is a crock, actually I would think that the majority think creationism is a crock. The bible was not written by god, but by people. Who is to say that these people were not insane? Find me proof that humans are not born with morals. How could you know? Sure, much of human behavior is dependent upon what you are taught, and how you are raised, but that doesn't mean the bible is the moral foundation.

Ridiculous? Explain these: "Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung across your faces." Malachi 2:3

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137:9

I consider myself to be very moral, yet do not need a god to guide me. I think part of god is just a comfort, "knowing" where you are gonna end up. Maybe it's good, because without the threat of some mystical place called hell, people would be total assholes their whole lives(instead of just in their youth.) I don't need it, but for those who need to feel righteous and holy, excuse me for not waiting for santa by the chimney.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if anything this thread has given me yet more information on who to take seriously in this forum

[smeagol]

A lot of the people who used to post here to engage in rational discussion no longer do,
Are you refering to MFD? :rollin


I continue to come here because there some very knowledgable and reasonable posters who provide great insights, even if they don't share my opinion. Travis and FromWayDowntown most notably.
Man, I thought there was a special bond between you and me :depressed

[smeagol]

Well, if anything this thread has given me yet more information on who to take seriously in this forum
Why do you say this?

[SWC Bonfire]

Morals are the rules a society has figured out that govern appropriate behavior so that the society can survive. They can have basis in tradition and/or experience. Some probably go back prior to recorded history.

Creationism is hard to swallow, and has little scientific evidence to back it up. Due to the complexity of nature, however, some sort of "intelligent design" makes more sense than random happenings. There are examples of this all around you, if you wish to see it that way. If you don't, you will focus on other things to prove your point.

[smeagol]

Creationism is a joke.
I fail to see where the humor lies. Is it funny that there might be a God that created us?

Is it humorous that he gave us guidelines to follow in order to live our life to the fullest?

Is it funny that this God loves us and wants for us eternal life?

In any case, if Creationism is a joke, it’s one that billions of people adhere too.



I guess it is a widely held belief, but that seems far more implausible to me than genetic mutations.
Why? If you think about, it’s as equallyfarfetched to believe a personal God created us as to think that we were all once a uni-cel thing/animal swimming in the water, and that life was given to us by and electric wave.



You can find a scientist to dispute just about anything. It's not like all scientists think that evolution is a crock, actually I would think that the majority think creationism is a crock.
Both are difficult to prove. Creationism is ultimately a belief. Evolution is a theory which has not been proven.



The bible was not written by god, but by people.
Christians believe God had something to do with the way it was written.



Who is to say that these people were not insane?
You can certainly believe they were. By what it’s written there, I highly doubt they were insane.


I consider myself to be very moral, yet do not need a god to guide me. I think part of god is just a comfort, "knowing" where you are gonna end up. Maybe it's good, because without the threat of some mystical place called hell, people would be total assholes their whole lives(instead of just in their youth.) I don't need it, but for those who need to feel righteous and holy, excuse me for not waiting for santa by the chimney.
Being moral does not equal believing in God.

Not so long ago, I did not believe in God. Now I do. Who know if God will show himself to you in the future. I surely hope he does.

[Spurminator]

It doesn't matter how the world began.

Whether you believe God created the universe or that the universe created itself over time, there is little doubt that the earth and its inhabitants are evolving. So much wasted effort is put into proclamations about how the world began... We're all on the same earth with the same scientific evidence that we can use to advance ourselves and our ability to predict the future.

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Too much time is spent trying to prove one or the other false in order to satisfy the misguided belief that they must be.

[Nbadan]

Creationism is hard to swallow, and has little scientific evidence to back it up. Due to the complexity of nature, however, some sort of "intelligent design" makes more sense than random happenings. There are examples of this all around you, if you wish to see it that way. If you don't, you will focus on other things to prove your point.

If God makes sense as the intelligent designer then why not UFOs and aliens? Aren't they also hypothetical? The point is is that many religious doctrine runs counter to what we now know even about our own planet. For instance, science has thought us that the Earth is much older than 5,000 years, and I don't think God created Dinosaurs. I don't think HS kids have the lab experience to intelligently distinguish the difference between proven fact and hypothesis, and a class that undermines much what we have learned through science, and the scientific process, can only set our kids farther back in this discipline than they already are.

[SWC Bonfire]

If God makes sense as the intelligent designer then why not UFOs and aliens?

I think you need to speak with Tom Cruise.

A theory is just that; a hypothesis can be proven or unproven. Can you prove the theory that there isn't a God? Nope. That's why it's called FAITH, not fact. Not all things can be proven or disproven. The universe would be pretty boring if that was the case.

You know, a lot of noteworthy scientists have managed to keep their personal faith and science separate. Some people seem to think that all science must be discovered and practiced by atheists.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by jochhejaam: God decreed at the beginning of creation what was right. I have decided to try to follow the perfect guidelines He has commanded us to follow.


That pretty much says it all then, doesn't it?

Yes it does.

[jochhejaam]

If God makes sense as the intelligent designer then why not UFOs and aliens? Aren't they also hypothetical? The point is is that many religious doctrine runs counter to what we now know even about our own planet. For instance, science has thought us that the Earth is much older than 5,000 years, and I don't think God created Dinosaurs. I don't think HS kids have the lab experience to intelligently distinguish the difference between proven fact and hypothesis, and a class that undermines much what we have learned through science, and the scientific process, can only set our kids farther back in this discipline than they already are.


I believe you to be open minded and if your seriously interested in learning about the scientific support for intelligent design I will post a thread. It's interesting reading from a book written by Dr. Walt Brown.

About the author, taken from the website; Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

[jochhejaam]

[B] I don't need it, but for those who need to feel righteous and holy, excuse me for not waiting for santa by the chimney.

I don't come to this forum to proselytyze but since you brought it up I will respond. I'm a Christian but I don't have righteous feelings nor do I feel holy. The comfort or peace that we can feel is in knowing that God has a plan for mankind after this life and that plan included sending His Son to atone for our sins. The righteousness in me is Christ dwelling within me, not me.

Salvation 101:
"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" (Bible)

"The wages of sin is death, but, the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". (Bible)

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son and whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life". (Bible)

And finally "All who call upon the name of the Jesus will be saved" (Bible)

So sinning, which all do, without accepting what God wishes for us, which is to receive eternal life with Him, leads to eternal death or Hell. But that is not what He wants for us, it's a path He does not want us to take.

(the Bible talks of a place where there is eternal fire and suffering, this is popularly taken lilterally and may be accurate but in my own mind, and I may be making a presumption that is incorrect, I believe that this suffering constitutes an eternal separation from God and an eternity with nothing righteous or moral, full of every kind of evil and abomination for those that have rejected their Creators love for them. This rejection amounts to the Creation telling the Creator to bug off, that He sent His Son to die for them in vain. Rejecting and dismissing His overtures that express how deeply He loves what He has created? It's understandable to me why that segment of His creation has incurred His wrath).

We're talking about eternal life vs eternal damnation here. What do we/you stand to lose by believing and following His guidelines for salvation and living a life where we espouse Jesus Christ as Lord and spend our life helping our fellow creation even if it turned out to be untrue (which I firmly believe is not)? Nothing! What do we/you stand to lose by disregarding the plan for man's salvation if it's true? Everything! It is also my firm belief that anyone who humbly and earnestly approaches God in a heartfelt way and confesses to the sin which we all are guilty of, and asks God to remit the sin from our life will experience the joy and peace that comes from having this removed from our lives. You will be a believer! You will have "become a new creation in Christ, old things (sin and the sin nature) will have passed away and behold, all things have become new!

These things being said it is a free choice. No one can make this choice for another and no one can force someone to partake of His plan. That's God's plan, creating us and allowing us to choose our own path.

This freedom of choice is very well summed up in the scripture "Behold I stand at the door (of our hearts) and knock, if anyone will open this door I will come in unto to them and I will sup with them and they with me". (spiritual communion). He's not forcing his way in...your choice.

[Guru of Nothing]

Christianity = Low Risk/High Reward, in the minds of most; hence its popularity.

It's especially popular amongst the rank and file because they can lower their moral standards with the understanding that ALL their indiscretions will be foriven carte blanche, so long as they praise Jesus.

Meanwhile elitists praise Jesus too, because he keeps all the rank and file in line - docile and oblivious.

The circle of life, some might say.

[Dre_7]

It's especially popular amongst the rank and file because they can lower their moral standards with the understanding that ALL their indiscretions will be foriven carte blanche, so long as they praise Jesus.

I dont know what Bible you read, but that is NOT what the Bible says "moral standards."

[scott]

Read between the lines.

[smeagol]

Christianity = Low Risk/High Reward, in the minds of most; hence its popularity.
Unfortunately this is a oversimplification of Christianity which is far from the truth.


It's especially popular amongst the rank and file because they can lower their moral standards with the understanding that ALL their indiscretions will be forgiven carte blanche, so long as they praise Jesus.
Again, your statement is far from the truth. Your misunderstanding probably arises from the fact that some offshoots of the Faith have put too much emphasis of the fact that if you say “I believe in Christ who is my savior” I’m automatically saved, no matter what you do or how you behave. Again, this is an oversimplification of the Faith.

[smeagol]

Read between the lines.
I tried but I did not read anything different from what GON actually wrote.

Care to expand what's said "between the lines"?

[cecil collins]

It's funny that people today still adhere to something that was used to control people thousands of years ago. Why are there not miracles now? No burning bushes, plagues, or cities of sin inexplicably destroyed. Obviously, morals and god are two different things, and that was in fact my point. I feel that most people think of atheists and agnostics as blood drinking nihilists. I am fairly normal, and smile at old people when we pass, and that is what I was trying to say. To be fair I may have the wrong idea about creationists. I always thought that it was just a bunch of hillbillies that didn't know their ass from a hole in the wall. I thought that even most Christians took it to be fictional, like Noah's ark. By the way, who here believes the whole Noah ark story? Please explain how it is even possible.

[Guru of Nothing]

Your misunderstanding probably arises from the fact that some offshoots of the Faith have put too much emphasis of the fact that if you say “I believe in Christ who is my savior” I’m automatically saved, no matter what you do or how you behave.

By "offshoots," do you mean Protestants?

[smeagol]

By "offshoots," do you mean Protestants?
Proly offshoots is not the right word.

I'm refering to some Protestant denominations, not all.

[MannyIsGod]

I find it amazing how intelligent people can look past the way churches all over the place twist the teachings of Jesus.

Are people that eager to believe that they try to mold everything around what they wnat to believe?

[Spurminator]

Everything gets twisted, really. Religion and otherwise. We are but humans.

[SWC Bonfire]

I find it amazing how intelligent people can look past the way churches all over the place twist the teachings of Jesus.

Are people that eager to believe that they try to mold everything around what they wnat to believe?

Everyone warps reality to mesh with what they want to see. It's called being human.

I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with organized religion, but you are guilty yourself (as is everyone else) of molding everything you see to support your own conclusions.

EDIT: Spurminator was faster and more concise

[MannyIsGod]

Everyone warps reality to mesh with what they want to see. It's called being human.

I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with organized religion, but you are guilty yourself (as is everyone else) of molding everything you see to support your own conclusions.

EDIT: Spurminator was faster and more concise
How so?

[SWC Bonfire]

How so?

Just about every post of yours in the political forum, the same for me and for everyone else. There is always a portion that we either don't recognize, or consciously choose to exclude because it doesn't help our argument.

[cecil collins]

Agreed. Also people tend to reject information that goes against everything that they have had drilled into their heads. Which is why religion is taught to dumb little kids, so it will be hard to reject.

[Spurminator]

People also tend to be very abrasive and resort to insults when faced with something they don't want to believe.

[MannyIsGod]

Just about every post of yours in the political forum, the same for me and for everyone else. There is always a portion that we either don't recognize, or consciously choose to exclude because it doesn't help our argument.
I completely disagree. Not everyone here is sitting there molding the facts to fit their viewpoint. While its almost always impossible to know every angle of a situation and therefore there is always missing information allowing for that with an open mind and allowing for your belief structure to change based on new information superceeds it.

Just because I believe in something doesn't mean that my beliefs aren't open to change based upon new information.

[SWC Bonfire]

I completely disagree. Not everyone here is sitting there molding the facts to fit their viewpoint. While its almost always impossible to know every angle of a situation and therefore there is always missing information allowing for that with an open mind and allowing for your belief structure to change based on new information superceeds it.

Just because I believe in something doesn't mean that my beliefs aren't open to change based upon new information.

Well, we all would like to believe that about ourselves, but when it comes down to it, we all stick to our guns on some issues no matter what.

[smeagol]

I find it amazing how intelligent people can look past the way churches all over the place twist the teachings of Jesus.
I'm a Roman Catholic, therefore I can't speak for other Churches.

Honest question: Do you have an example where the the Catholic Church twisted the teachings of Jesus?

[MannyIsGod]

Depends on what you're looking for Smeagol. Do you want the ones in a historical context? Or do you want the ones that are being taught today?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, we all would like to believe that about ourselves, but when it comes down to it, we all stick to our guns on some issues no matter what.
Yeah. I disagree.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I'm a Roman Catholic, therefore I can't speak for other Churches.

Honest question: Do you have an example where the the Catholic Church twisted the teachings of Jesus?

Inquisition.

Crusades.

Conquistas of the Americas and Africa.

The whole Middle Ages period where the church was the richest institution in Europe.

The behaviour during the 1776-1980 (it could be said that it remains today) period, when in fear of reason, science, democracy, capitalism, comunism, secular socities, atheism, etc. Because of that fear the church supported dictators, kings, assasins, etc...

[MannyIsGod]

Would be nice if they didn't get to pick and choose which gospels to teach as well.

[Jekka]

I'm a Roman Catholic, therefore I can't speak for other Churches.

Honest question: Do you have an example where the the Catholic Church twisted the teachings of Jesus?

How about the deliberate exclusion of various scriptures including the book of Mary Magdalene and the Apocrypha?

[SWC Bonfire]

I think that smeagol was speaking about whether Catholic beliefs were contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I doubt that any Catholics today believe that they should go around killing heretics.

[MannyIsGod]

Fine, then lets start with an easy one. The refusal to allow women as priests and the refusal to allow priests to marry.

I suppose you can believe that Jesus never married and that Mary was just a good friend, but then I suppose you can also believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

What about the church's position on AIDS, stating that the Catholics shouldn't use condoms? Aren't they aware that millions of people die because of HIV?

Does the Church actually expect that couples don't have relations until marriage? They are forcing Catholics to do so, since they say that the use of condoms is non-catholic, as having sex outside the marriage, or for another purpose that isn't procreation.

This is terrible stance, it's like saying, "oh, AIDS was sent by God to punish you, because you like pleasure and lust too much". Well, in that case, who could be interested in worshipping such God? The centuries have passed, but many parts of the Church are still living in the Dark Ages.

[cecil collins]

Even portions of lent are economically fabricated. The reason you aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday is so that more people would turn to the plentiful fish supply in England.

[DrRich]

What about the church's position on AIDS, stating that the Catholics shouldn't use condoms? Aren't they aware that millions of people die because of HIV?

Does the Church actually expect that couples don't have relations until marriage? They are forcing Catholics to do so, since they say that the use of condoms is non-catholic, as having sex outside the marriage, or for another purpose that isn't procreation.

This is terrible stance, it's like saying, "oh, AIDS was sent by God to punish you, because you like pleasure and lust too much". Well, in that case, who could be interested in worshipping such God? The centuries have passed, but many parts of the Church are still living in the Dark Ages.

You taking the teachings out of context a little. The Catholic Church believes in sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of pro-creation. I don't think the Church really has a position on AIDS except that prayers go out to those who are ill. The Church itself funds many programs on sex education and the policy of abstience.

[SWC Bonfire]

Even portions of lent are economically fabricated. The reason you aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday is so that more people would turn to the plentiful fish supply in England.

Did this take place prior to the creation of the Church of England? If so, why did the Vatican take the economy of Britain into consideration?

Never mind that you are supposed to sacrifice things during Lent, I'm sure it was purely economic.

[DrRich]

Even portions of lent are economically fabricated. The reason you aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday is so that more people would turn to the plentiful fish supply in England.

Your statement there is only a half truth, but it a common myth propagated about the catholic church. Although there is some truth to the econoical angle in England, it is not the only reason. Fish, in the day, was considered "common food". Meat, like beef and Lamb, were considered for special occasions. During Lent, it was considered a sacrifice to eat fish, like giving up the finer things.

Now present day, It has lost some of its meaning because fish is now considered a more formal meal unless your dining at Long John Silvers. May be Catholics should recommit themselves during lent with fasting on Fridays instead of spending tons of money at Pappadeaux. :lol

[Jekka]

You taking the teachings out of context a little. The Catholic Church believes in sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of pro-creation. I don't think the Church really has a position on AIDS except that prayers go out to those who are ill. The Church itself funds many programs on sex education and the policy of abstience.


ROME, Jan. 22 -- After several days of unusual public debate among senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II on Saturday reaffirmed church teaching that urges abstinence and marital fidelity to stop the spread of AIDS and forbids condoms.

"The Holy See . . . considers that it is necessary above all to combat this disease in a responsible way by increasing prevention, notably through education about respect of the sacred value of life and formation of the correct practice of sexuality, which presupposes chastity and fidelity."

In the Vatican's teaching, phrases such as "sacred value of life" and "correct practice of sexuality" generally preclude contraception.

His words followed a week in which a high official of Spain's Bishops Conference said there was "a place" for condoms in AIDS prevention, but then was overruled by the full Bishops Conference, and other leaders weighed in to suggest publicly that a policy change might be appropriate.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29404-2005Jan22.html)


But their sex education IS abstinence - and as for AIDS, they kind of take a "sucks to be you" kind of stance. They're willing to send their prayers and some aid, but they really aren't doing much in the way of preventing the spread of the problem - especially considering that Africa is gaining more members to the Catholic church every day, but is still a place where there are men who think they can rid themselves of AIDS by having sex with virgins. Where is the hope in Catholicism for those people who need education to be more proactive?

[DrRich]

But their sex education IS abstinence - and as for AIDS, they kind of take a "sucks to be you" kind of stance. They're willing to send their prayers and some aid, but they really aren't doing much in the way of preventing the spread of the problem - especially considering that Africa is gaining more members to the Catholic church every day, but is still a place where there are men who think they can rid themselves of AIDS by having sex with virgins. Where is the hope in Catholicism for those people who need education to be more proactive?

I'm sorry but wherre in Catholic Doctrine does it say "Sucks to be you" :lol

Not that a agree with the Church on everything, ie women priest. But why is it the church's fault if someone does not follow their teachings or doctrine. Maybe it's not the Religion or more specifically The Catholic Church's Fault, but the person's. Many times people often blame the church for it's shortcomings because the church's teachings do not fit into their lifestyle. Maybe it is the person that needs to change their life style to fit the Church.

But I do agree that the Catholic Church could be more proactive in their education, but that is very difficult when their is such a shortage of people to do so, ie priests and nuns. It is easy to do in a country like the US, but very difficult to do in Africa and South America. I am not sure what the solution is to that. What are other Churches, Protestant and Muslim, doing regarding this typw of issue? Why does it seem as if people seem it os the resposiblity of the Catholic Church to head up this mission?

[smeagol]

How about the deliberate exclusion of various scriptures including the book of Mary Magdalene and the Apocrypha?
Jekka:

I’m no expert in the early Christian writings so my answer to your question might be incomplete.

From what I’ve read, there are a number of books that were left out of the New Testament. Some of them are much more famous than the Book of Mary Magdalene, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and James. Some of these Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, are widely used by Gnostic religions.

Historically, the Fathers of the Church only relied on the four Gospels that made it to the New Testament because they believed those were the ones written by people who heard the Word directly from people who had direct contact with Jesus. That is the case of the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark. People believe the Gospel of John was written by the beloved Apostle, but scholars have their doubts.

At the Nicene Council in the 4th Century, the Bishops got together to decide which books were, going forward, going to be included in the New Testament. They discarded all except the four we know. The reason was because they believed most of them were forgeries. The only true, divinely inspired Gospels are the four Gospels we know (that’s what the Nicene Counsel decreed). From what I’ve heard, most of the New Testament Apocrypha has been proved to be forgeries even by modern scholars. Most scholars agree that those books were written in the second half of the 2nd Century and in the 3rd Century. The Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are said to be written between 60 and 70AD, while the Gospel of John is believed to be written between 80 and 90 AD.

If by Apocrypha you are referring to the books included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew Bible, then the Catholic Bible includes most of it. It’s the Protestant Bibles which not include the Apocrypha (except the King James version)

[Jekka]

I'm sorry but wherre in Catholic Doctrine does it say "Sucks to be you" :lol

Not that a agree with the Church on everything, ie women priest. But why is it the church's fault if someone does not follow their teachings or doctrine. Maybe it's not the Religion or more specifically The Catholic Church's Fault, but the person's. Many times people often blame the church for it's shortcomings because the church's teachings do not fit into their lifestyle. Maybe it is the person that needs to change their life style to fit the Church.

I think it says "sucks to be you" somewhere in Revelations. Or maybe that was God talking to Job. :lol

I agree for the most part with what you say on the church's shortcomings versus the convenience that many people want it to be, but in the case of AIDS in particular, if the church isn't going to condone condom use, then they should at least be willing to discuss the realities of AIDS and how it spreads so that innocents don't contract or pass it on unknowingly.

[Spurminator]

I don't really think it's the job of the church to condone or discuss condom use/AIDS. The position of the church is Don't Have Sex. I think the problem is that Christians take that position too far a lot of times and treat premarital sex as some sort of unforgiveable and abominable sin greater than all others. And that comes back to the flaws of the followers.

[Jekka]

Jekka:

I’m no expert in the early Christian writings so my answer to your question might be incomplete.

From what I’ve read, there are a number of books that were left out of the New Testament. Some of them are much more famous than the Book of Mary Magdalene, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and James. Some of these Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, are widely used by Gnostic religions.

Historically, the Fathers of the Church only relied on the four Gospels that made it to the New Testament because they believed those were the ones written by people who heard the Word directly from people who had direct contact with Jesus. That is the case of the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark. People believe the Gospel of John was written by the beloved Apostle, but scholars have their doubts.

At the Nicene Council in the 4th Century, the Bishops got together to decide which books were, going forward, going to be included in the New Testament. They discarded all except the four we know. The reason was because they believed most of them were forgeries. The only true, divinely inspired Gospels are the four Gospels we know (that’s what the Nicene Counsel decreed). From what I’ve heard, most of the New Testament Apocrypha has been proved to be forgeries even by modern scholars. Most scholars agree that those books were written in the second half of the 2nd Century and in the 3rd Century. The Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are said to be written between 60 and 70AD, while the Gospel of John is believed to be written between 80 and 90 AD.

If by Apocrypha you are referring to the books included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew Bible, then the Catholic Bible includes most of it. It’s the Protestant Bibles which not include the Apocrypha (except the King James version)

I'm aware of the history of the modern Bible. Apocrypha is Greek for hidden or secret book and can be applied to either the new or old testament scripture - there are books on both sides that have been omitted, including the specific ones you mentioned in the new testament. It is true that the Catholic bible does include more of these texts than most Protestant bibles - but more than mere inclusion in publication, it is also an issue as to which of the books are actually studied and taught amongst laymen. The book of Mary Magdalene in particular is rarely disputed as authentic (albeit incomplete), and has been known about for ages, but was not included - it is, after all, difficult to maintain the silence of women in church that Paul calls for in Corinthians (which is almost always taken out of context) when there is evidence that Jesus actually considered a woman his equal. It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.

[smeagol]

The refusal to allow women as priests
I will pass on this one. I don’t feel I know enough Catholic Doctrine to answer it. Maybe more knowledgeable posters, such as travis, can take a shot at it.


and the refusal to allow priests to marry.
This is something that is rooted in the tradition of the Catholic Church since its inception. Many Catholic priests of the early centuries did not marry. But many others did (including Popes). I believe it was decreed an obligation of Catholic Priests to stay celibate in the 10th Century.

The reasons are probably not limited to the two I will give you:

1) Saint Paul was an advocate of celibacy and he himself advices in his Epistles that it is the right thing for the people who “hear the call”. He himself never married.

2) Priests are supposed to be 100% dedicated to God. A priest has to be ready to give everything that’s worldly to serve God. If Priests get married and have a family, it makes it more difficult for them, given that now they have many other interests and concerns, to serve God to the fullest extent they can.


I suppose you can believe that Jesus never married and that Mary was just a good friend, but then I suppose you can also believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes.
Of course I believe Jesus never got married. What makes you believe he did?

[MannyIsGod]

It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.
And therein, lies my problem with organized religion.

[smeagol]

I'm aware of the history of the modern Bible.
If you are aware of the history of the Bible, than you must know that scholars generally believe that the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was written in the mid to late second century. That’s more than 150 years after Christ died. So when you say it’s authentic . . .


The book of Mary Magdalene in particular is rarely disputed as authentic (albeit incomplete),
. . . I’m not sure what you are referring too.


. . .and has been known about for ages, but was not included
It was not included because the Church does not believe it authentic.


It is true that the Catholic bible does include more of these texts than most Protestant bibles - but more than mere inclusion in publication, it is also an issue as to which of the books are actually studied and taught amongst laymen.
The Catholic Bible includes all the Old Testament Apocrypha but two books. It does not include any of the New Testament Apocrypha because it believes most of them are simply forgeries.


It's about maintaining the status quo and safeguarding power.
You are speculating. There is no way to know if this is true or not.

[Guru of Nothing]

You are speculating. There is no way to know if this is true or not.

Well, as long as she faith in it in what she believes, it does not matter if she is speculating.

[smeagol]

Well, as long as she faith in it in what she believes, it does not matter if she is speculating.
I did not say this is a problem. I only said she is speculating, which means she could be right, but she could also be wrong.

[scott]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...

[smeagol]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...
Best thread of all times. But without MFD and others, it will never live up to the standards set by the original. :depressed

[Guru of Nothing]

I only said she is speculating, which means she could be right, but she could also be wrong.

You realize this applies to you, and your beliefs, as well.

You don't call it FAITH for nothing.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm keepin' the Faith.

[Guru of Nothing]

I smell "the God Thread Part 3" brewing...

Nah, The God Thread is too much of a moving target. I lose interest somwhere between "offshoot" references and "idol worship" barbs.

I've learned that you cannot debate/discuss religion with Christians, because everytime a salient point is presented, it suddenly becomes "Well, that's what other Christians believe - not me."

Again, moving target - from those who seem to understand "absolute" morality.

For the record, I have only one God before me - Irony.

[smeagol]

I've learned that you cannot debate/discuss religion with Christians, because everytime a salient point is presented, it suddenly becomes "Well, that's what other Christians believe - not me."
That's because different Christian denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.

[MannyIsGod]

That's because different Christian denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.
And when that is brought up to prove the "looseness" of the bible itself, it always turns into "they have it wrong, not us".

[Guru of Nothing]

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. But most denominations agree on the basics.

AU CONTRAIRE!!

Acceptance into a Christian heaven based upon faith vs. deeds is a huge bone of contention betwixt Catholics and Protestants.

Just recently, here in my locale (as reported by Exstatic), a government- subsidized Protestant-based adoption agency denied Catholic applications because of their religious beliefs.

So, no, Catholics and Protestants do not agree on the "basics."

[smeagol]

And when that is brought up to prove the "looseness" of the bible itself, it always turns into "they have it wrong, not us".
That's true, they are wrong! :lol

[smeagol]

AU CONTRAIRE!!

Acceptance into a Christian heaven based upon faith vs. deeds is a huge bone of contention betwixt Catholics and Protestants.

Just recently, here in my locale (as reported by Exstatic), a government- subsidized Protestant-based adoption agency denied Catholic applications based upon their religious beliefs.

So, no, Catholics and Protestants do not agree on the "basics."
True, that's a biggie between Catholics and Protestants.

[Guru of Nothing]

That's true, they are wrong! :lol

Care to identify THEY?

Didn't think so.

[smeagol]

Care to identify THEY?

Didn't think so.
Anybody that does not think like me? :spin

[Guru of Nothing]

Anybody that does not think like me? :spin

Just like MFD.

[Guru of Nothing]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
Guru of Nothing, jochhejaam


Care to jump in and present a unified Christian voice?

Didn't think so.

[Spurminator]

Well, shit, if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.


Edit: I guess that's not a glowing endorsement either. But you see my point. Unified fronts are rare. Particularly when they involve millions of people and thousands of years.

[Guru of Nothing]

Well, shit, if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.

Enter the good cop. :lol

Seriously, so long as people insist upon imposing their values and beliefs upon others, it's reasonable to expect cut-and-dry explanations.

[Guru of Nothing]

Well, shit, if it has to be so cut and dry all the time why discuss anything?

Christians are no different than Republicans, Democrats, basketball fans or Trekkies.


Edit: I guess that's not a glowing endorsement either. But you see my point. Unified fronts are rare. Particularly when they involve millions of people and thousands of years.


Also consider, I am not discussing who gets the corner office; I am talking about eternal salvation.

That is significant.

[smeagol]

Just like MFD.
Hope that the spinning smile gave away the fact I was joking.

I'm nothing like MFD. For starters I don't know the Bible by heart :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

I was joking.

Maybe this is God Thread #3.

[jochhejaam]

Care to jump in and present a unified Christian voice?



Didn't think so.

Hello there Guru. Sure, I'll jump in. :lol

I don't speak for all Christians so I cannot present a unified voice.

However there are "cornerstone' verses and teachings found in Scripture that many denominations and religious bodies would say are areas of agreement.

One is the emphasis on love. Jesus Christ was asked "what are the 2 greatest commandments" and He replied;
1. "Love the Lord you God with all of your soul, mind and heart.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself".

God is the essence of love so it is critically important to be united in presenting this essential quality with one voice. The importance and truth of this is demonstrated in the Book of 1 John 4th Chapter;

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

10. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

11. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

12. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

God's Word is the perfect Message. Unfortunely He has imperfect messengers interpreting and teaching it so there will be areas of disagreement. Perfect Message - Imperfect Messengers

There are many more but long threads have a tendency to lose readers so I might post more important similarities later on in this thread.

[jochhejaam]

Separate post. :)

Taken from 1 Corinthinas 13

Love is the over-riding theme in the Bible and therefore it cannot be over emphasized. So I'm sticking with the unity among denominatons/religious bodies regarding love.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Guru of Nothing]

Hello there Guru. Sure, I'll jump in. :lol

I don't speak for all Christians so I cannot present a unified voice.

However there are "cornerstone' verses and teachings found in Scripture that many denominatoins and religious bodies would say are areas of agreement.

So, Faith or Deeds? How best to get to Heaven?

[Marcus Bryant]

Faith motivates the deeds. At least that's the concept.

[jochhejaam]

So, Faith or Deeds? How best to get to Heaven?


Here is another verse, google it for the exact chapter/verse.

"Let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling".

[scott]

With or without?

Just getting clarification...

[jochhejaam]

Faith motivates the deeds. At least that's the concept.


Romans says "we are justified by faith" and the Book of James stresses the importance of works and I think what I like to see is what MB said here that faith brings about the realization of salvation and with this true conversion action/works should follow.

[scott]

Romans says "we are justified by faith" and the Book of James stresses the importance of works and I think what I like to see is what MB said here that faith brings about the realization of salvation and with this true conversion action/works should follow.

What makes the acts of the man with faith better than the acts of the man without it, if the acts are completely the same?

[Guru of Nothing]

faith brings about the realization of salvation and with this true conversion action/works should follow.

Well, faith may bring about the realization of salvation, but does it promise it?

[jochhejaam]

What makes the acts of the man with faith better than the acts of the man without it, if the acts are completely the same?

I'm assuming you mean comparable acts?

The act isn't better of worse. The differences that were mentioned in this thread were that some preach/teach salvation by works and others salvation by faith. The teaching doesn't need to be exclusionary,... both, either, God isn't going to stick it to someone over semantics. He examines the heart of His people and if it's in the right place you get this :tu :)

[scott]

No, not comparable acts... identical acts.

But... it sounds like your answer is "works."

[jochhejaam]

Well, faith may bring about the realization of salvation, but does it promise it?

Yes.


From the Book of John
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life".

[jochhejaam]

No, not comparable acts... identical acts.

But... it sounds like your answer is "works."


No, I didn't imply that scott, read it again.


Originally posted by jochhejaam: The act isn't better of worse. The differences that were mentioned in this thread were that some preach/teach salvation by works and others salvation by faith. The teaching doesn't need to be exclusionary,... "both, either", God isn't going to stick it to someone over semantics. He examines the heart of His people and if it's in the right place you get this

[scott]

Say the "heart" of my deeds, which are the same as the deeds of the man with faith - are driven by just thinking that is the way you should treat others... is that "heart" good enough?

[jochhejaam]

This is just begging for an "Oh... well if John said so - that's all you needed to say!" comment.

The quotations were wrapped around the words of Jesus, not the words of John.

[jochhejaam]

Say the "heart" of my deeds, which are the same as the deeds of the man with faith - are driven by just thinking that is the way you should treat others... is that "heart" good enough?

Good enough for what scott? For God to allow you to enter heaven? It's certainly not my call.

My understanding is that we will be judged based upon the knowledge we have received. If you are aware of God's plan of salvation and deliberately tempt God by trying to enter heaven by another means my guess would be that you probably would not make it. You can't rebel against God and please him at the same time.

One of the things that Jesus Christ said to Satan when he was tempted by him was; "It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God". He is a God of mercy and a God of Wrath and His Wrath is just as righteous as His mercy.

The more one communes with God and studies the Scriptures the clearer his understanding of what is written becomes.

[scott]

What's to decipher? I wrote it in english... :)

It's not too different from my previous question, which I think you did a good job of trying to answer... but not answering.

I'll make it simpler...

GuyWithFaith does some acts, which are considered good, and God admits him into heaven.

GuyWithoutFaith does the same acts, and basically lives the same life... just doesn't have that faith. Does God admit him into heaven too - or is he hung out to dry? GuyWithoutFaith isn't malicious in his lack of faith. He just doesn't have it.

If the answer is yes... then it would appear your answer is "works."

If the answer is no... then it would appear your answer is "faith."

[jochhejaam]

What's to decipher? I wrote it in english... :)

It's not too different from my previous question, which I think you did a good job of trying to answer... but not answering.

I'll make it simpler...

GuyWithFaith does some acts, which are considered good, and God admits him into heaven.

GuyWithoutFaith does the same acts, and basically lives the same life... just doesn't have that faith. Does God admit him into heaven too - or is he hung out to dry? GuyWithoutFaith isn't malicious in his lack of faith. He just doesn't have it.

If the answer is yes... then it would appear your answer is "works."

If the answer is no... then it would appear your answer is "faith."


Scott, I edited my previous post and I believe it's right above yours.

[scott]

So... the answer is faith?

[Swishy McJackass]

It would appear so.

I'm fucked... despite all my good works.

[E20]

12. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
Contradiction.......

[jochhejaam]

Quote from Corinthians: No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.



Contradiction.......

1. Visual of God. Actually seeing Him with our own eyes.

2. God is Love,; If we accept Him and His plan for salvation that is evidenced by a new found love, that is, we have taken on a new nature.

Actually seeing vs. experiencing/having His nature.

No contradiction there.



"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched. They must be felt with the heart." -Helen Keller-



"Have you ever seen God? I have never seen the wind, yet I have seen the effects of the wind." -Billy Graham-

[smeagol]

jochhejaam does a much better job than myself defending my beliefs.

[SWC Bonfire]

People like Scott and Manny just want to stir the ant mound and get us fighting against each other.

And Swishy McJackass is just a fucking bunghole.

[Guru of Nothing]

jochhejaam does a much better job than myself defending my beliefs.

But, your beliefs are fundamentally different from his.

[jochhejaam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
jochhejaam does a much better job than myself defending my beliefs.




But, your beliefs are fundamentally different from his.

IMO We agree on the essentials

-God is our creator and heavenly Father.

-All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

-Jesus Christ is His Son sent to take the sins of the world upon Himself and becomes our Saviour if we allow Him to be. His victory over sin becomes our victory over sin when we ask Him to come into our lives. That is God's desire for his creation.


Quote from John the Baptist immediately after he first saw the Christ - (John 1:29) ... he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"!



I'll let the theologians argue the nuances of Christianity.

[Spurminator]

The point of combining Faith and Deeds, from a Christian perspective, is that if you perform only good deeds, you are providing a temporary fix... not eternal. By spreading your Faith, you are opening the door to eternal salvation for people who may not have come to know God. The deeds are a way of supporting your Faith.

I can imagine that sounds like an oversimplification, but you have to look at it from an eternal perspective.

[MannyIsGod]

People like Scott and Manny just want to stir the ant mound and get us fighting against each other.

And Swishy McJackass is just a fucking bunghole.
:lol

I'm sorry that people like Scott and Manny challenge you with thinking about your faith. In truth, this is why I never discuss religion with people who I know aren't openminded. (I'm not calling you closeminded, I'm just making a point)

I'm not trying to stir anything. I have my own beliefs you think are incorrect, as I think yours are incorrect. I was presenting them here.

[Swishy McJackass]

People like Scott and Manny just want to stir the ant mound and get us fighting against each other.

And Swishy McJackass is just a fucking bunghole.

I don't get the impression that anyone is trying to pit you against each other. Questioning one's deeply-held beliefs is a good thing, in my opinion. People SHOULD ask more questions.

And I fully admit to, and embrace, my bungholeness. :spin

[MannyIsGod]

Good enough for what scott? For God to allow you to enter heaven? It's certainly not my call.

My understanding is that we will be judged based upon the knowledge we have received. If you are aware of God's plan of salvation and deliberately tempt God by trying to enter heaven by another means my guess would be that you probably would not make it. You can't rebel against God and please him at the same time.

One of the things that Jesus Christ said to Satan when he was tempted by him was; "It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God". He is a God of mercy and a God of Wrath and His Wrath is just as righteous as His mercy.

The more one communes with God and studies the Scriptures the clearer his understanding of what is written becomes.
Any God that refuses to allow me eternal salvation because I did not honor him properly is a god full of pride and a god for which I have no use.

I am not trying to disuade anyone from believing what they do, but that is a supreme litmus test for me.

[SWC Bonfire]

Questioning one's deeply-held beliefs is a good thing, in my opinion.

I question whether the sausage balls were either A. actual sausage, or B. actual ground-up balls masquarading as sausage.


And I fully admit to, and embrace, my bungholeness.

:lol

Touche, my friend, touche.

http://www.farrance.net/jeremy/images/toilet-paper_lg.jpg

[SWC Bonfire]

I am not trying to disuade anyone from believing what they do, but that is a supreme litmus test for me.

OK. But some people here aren't looking for a litmus test.

Everyone on here has had things happen to them in life or noticed and questioned things that have brought them to believe what they believe. No one's logical reasonings are going to dissuade or convince anyone of anything without some personal experience to corroborate that logic.

[MannyIsGod]

OK. But some people here aren't looking for a litmus test.

Everyone on here has had things happen to them in life or noticed and questioned things that have brought them to believe what they believe. No one's logical reasonings are going to dissuade or convince anyone of anything without some personal experience to corroborate that logic.
And I don't remember anyone saying you had to be? A discussion doesn't always have to convince other people. It is a discussion.

You seem really defensive and threatend, and if you believe so strongly I can't imagine why.

[jochhejaam]

Any God that refuses to allow me eternal salvation because I did not honor him properly is a god full of pride and a god for which I have no use.

I am not trying to disuade anyone from believing what they do, but that is a supreme litmus test for me.



It's not His act of refusal, God has an open-door policy.

The refusal and rejection are actions we willfully make towards God and His plan for salvation. Let's make this crystal clear, there will be no one in Hell that truly wanted to be in heaven.

What is there in God's plan that would cause anyone to choose eternal damnation and separation from God over eternal life?
Eternal like in forever!


Eternity;
You have a sphere the size of the earth made of solid gold and once every one thousand years an eagle flys by. By the time the motion of the flapping of this wing wears away this sphere of gold, eternity will just have begun.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not His act of refusal, God has an open-door policy.

The refusal and rejection are actions we willfully make towards God and His plan for salvation. Let's make this crystal clear, there will be no one in Hell that truly wanted to be in heaven.

What is there in God's plan that would cause anyone to choose eternal damnation and separation from God over eternal life?
Eternal like in forever!


Eternity;
You have a sphere the size of the earth made of solid gold and once every one thousand years an eagle flys by. By the time the motion of the flapping of this wing wears away this sphere of gold, eternity will just have begun.
I have a problem with conditional salvation. You can say that the choice is entirely in our hands, but I can turn around and say that God choose to put is in that situation and is therefore just as responsible for the situation and it's outcome as anyone else is.

[MannyIsGod]

You see, it just goes against everything I know about love. "Do this or you don't get this" is not an expression of love, but rather a bargaining technique. It's negotiations. And well, unconditional love doens't require anyform of negotiating.

Now, thats not too say that unconditional love merrits an unconditional reward (salvation - eternal paradise - etc etc) but the act of putting people in a situation to have to decide on that is not an act of unconditional love.

[Spurminator]

What kind of reward is Heaven if everyone gets to go? And who would choose piety if it was not directly rewarded?

Love takes two.

[MannyIsGod]

What kind of reward is Heaven if everyone gets to go? And who would choose piety if it was not directly rewarded?

Love takes two.
Love doesn't take two. Unconditional love is without condition.

A reward like heaven should stand on its own, not on the exlusiveness of its members.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm keeping the faith.

[E20]

Quote from Corinthians: No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
That is a contradiction. Bible says God made man from the image of himself. Jesus = God, Jesus = Alive and Walking in olden times, thus that = people seeing God. If you go and look at Ian Mckellen with blonde hair chances are that is God....

[Spurminator]

A reward like heaven should stand on its own, not on the exlusiveness of its members.

But then it's not a reward.

Anyway, I'm not sure that God ever claims to love us "unconditionally". Perhaps some of the more well-versed Bible studiers could show a scripture that describes His love as unconditional, but I'm not immediately aware of one. I think that's something that man has placed upon God themselves.

God loves us no matter who we are here... That's why you can always "find Faith" at any point in your life, no matter what you've done. I think that is considered, to some, unconditional love. To me, it's clearly conditional, but I think it has to be.

[jochhejaam]

You see, it just goes against everything I know about love. "Do this or you don't get this" is not an expression of love, but rather a bargaining technique. It's negotiations. And well, unconditional love doens't require anyform of negotiating.

Now, thats not too say that unconditional love merrits an unconditional reward (salvation - eternal paradise - etc etc) but the act of putting people in a situation to have to decide on that is not an act of unconditional love.


In marriage there is an acceptable code of conduct (we'll call it "do this or you don't get this")that keeps the marriage strong and together. One spouse can make life so miserable for the other (physical violence, multiple affairs, etc.) that the only sensible course of action, regardless of how much the offended spouse loves the other (unconditionally), is separation. The guilty party is the one that caused the chasm by their own selfish, wreckless actions and got what was to be expected. Unconditional love by one cannot make up for the lack of love by the other.

The same is true with God. He created us and saw us dying in our sins and loved us so much that He sent us His only begotten Son to take away the sins of the world. This was accomplished by Christ's death on the cross and this was done for all. To reject that ultimate act of love (giving up his life so that others might receive eternal life), causes that same separation. His love for us has not ebbed, we have created the separation by rejecting that love.

Unconditional love does not require two, but the benefits and rewards that come with unconditional love (being together) requires two.

[MannyIsGod]

In marriage there is an acceptable code of conduct (we'll call it "do this or you don't get this")that keeps the marriage strong and together. One spouse can makes life so miserable for the other (physical violence, multiple affairs, etc.) that the only sensible course of action, regardless of how much the offended spouse loves the other (unconditionally), is separation. The guilty party is the one that caused the chasm by their own selfish, wreckless actions and got what was to be expected. Unconditional love by one cannot make up for the lack of love by the other.

The same is true with God. He created us and saw us dying in our sins and loved us son much that He sent us His only begotten Son to take away the sins of the world. This was accomplished by Christ's death on the cross and this was done for all. To reject that ultimate act of love (giving up his life so that others might receive eternal life), causes that same separation. His love for us has not ebbed, we have created the separation by rejecting that love.

Unconditional love does not require two, but the benefits and rewards that come with unconditional love (being together) requires two.
I believe the marriage analogy will not fly because the relationship with God has always been described a parent/child relationship which is much different. The love you have for a child is much harder to break than the love you have for a spouse. And whlie I'll concede that your scenario does fit even if we go under the parent/child situation, I will also propose that there is a much greater burden on the relationship on the parent because they have a large pool of knowledge and experience.

But all of that aside, what always "ruins" Christianity for me is the uselessness of the each of the Church's and the way they change the message you are giving and add.

For instance, even without a reward, why would God punish anyone by sending them to Hell even if he loves them? And if God's love is not unconditional, then why would I want it?

Also, why is it nessecary for me to continuously do the acts such as kneel at mass, confess to a priest, take comunion etc etc if the relationship I have with God is a personal one?

It simply does not add up for me. I lead a good life, and I do good deads, and I believe I am a good man. If that is not enough for a certain God, then I believe God must follow his own advice when it comes to pride.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, I like the way you present your points on this topic, Jochhejaam.

[JoeChalupa]

I just try to keep my faith and let others do as they may but what I don't like is those who don't understand faith and then try to explain why they don't.
Faith comes from within and sometimes it just cannot be explained.

It's like that moment in "Contact" where Jody Foster's character doesn't believe in God because she needs "proof".
Then when she is asked if she loved her father she says "yes" and then is asked "prove it".
Happy are those who have not seen yet believe.
I believe in Mass and the Holy Sacraments and for those who don't understand it or think that I'm crazy for believing in organized religion....well, let's just say that I don't get how some don't have religion in their lives but whatever works for you is the key.

Kumba ya....Kumba ya..

[jochhejaam]

Thanks MIG

[ElMuerto]

Love also kills.

[smeagol]

But, your beliefs are fundamentally different from his.
No, they are fundamentally the same, with some differenes.

And he is doing a fine job defending my Faith.

[Guru of Nothing]

No, they are fundamentally the same, with some differenes.And he is doing a fine job defending my Faith.


Well, one difference relates to the entry requirements for Heaven. Some people consider that quite significant.

[jochhejaam]

Well, one difference relates to the entry requirements for Heaven. Some people consider that quite significant.

Catholics and Christians share a large number of fundamental Biblical beliefs.

-The Bible is without error.

-Individuals are initially hopelessly lost in sin and separated from God.

-The Holy Trinity- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

-The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus Christ.

-Justification is brought about through God's grace.

- Justification is not earned by the individual.

-The Crucifixtion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Care to explain why this isn't enough to get the true believers of both denominations into Heaven?

[smeagol]

Well, one difference relates to the entry requirements for Heaven. Some people consider that quite significant.
Please expand.

[Guru of Nothing]

Please expand.

I really don't want to do this because anytime I discuss religion with a Christian I always get the ol' "not all Christians believe that" counter.

Let me use a far-reaching example and ask you this: Is there a place, at all, in your heaven for child molesters? People who commit genocide? Cold-blooded murderers? Is there possibly room in your heaven for Adolph Hitler, Jeff Dahmer, and Scott Peterson?

[Spam]

Are there not like 30,000 denominations of Christianity?

[The Ressurrected One]

Are there not like 30,000 denominations of Christianity?
But, just one Christ.

[jochhejaam]

Let me use a far-reaching example and ask you this: Is there a place, at all, in your heaven for child molesters? People who commit genocide? Cold-blooded murderers? Is there possibly room in your heaven for Adolph Hitler, Jeff Dahmer, and Scott Peterson?

Guru, yer gettin' to be quite a "tree shaker" What's your take on the question you've posed?


Here's mine;

The Bible teaches that there is only 1 sin that is unforgivable and that is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Webster's defines it this way; "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable" The definition I've heard that makes most sense is, attributing the works of God to Satan, which would fall under the definition rendered in the dictionary.
The circumstance in Scripture that come to mind is when the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of performing miracles by the power of Satan. (I'll put a more indepth explanation of this at the bottom of this post for those who are interested)

So, in theory there can be a place in heaven for anyone who follows the plan for salvation who has not knowingly blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (which is part of the nature of God and Christ).

It's not totally inconceivable that they repented before their death but I would think, based upon their macabre nature, that it is highly inlikely. There are verses in the Book of Romans (posted under this paragraph) that perhaps refer to those you gave examples of who have become the embodiment of evil;

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21-22-23 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images ...

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29-30 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31-32 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The aforementioned (the depraved reprobate) describes the bottom of the barrel in humanity. People who's mindset makes them capable of all of the evil mentioned above. For those who wonder whether or not they fall into this category my answer to you would be that "you do not"! If you care enough to ask the question than your heart has obviously not been hardened. Those that fall into the category of the depraved mind couldn't care less about those verses and couldn't care less about God.

I had a cousin that died from AIDS a few years back. He did not have a hard heart towards God and actually had a very gentle nature and although he was never able to fully extract himself from the homosexual lifestyle I believe that he had a heart that was searching for a way out of his sin and into the arms of God. My guess, and I'm not his judge, is that he is in heaven.

All of us have sins that we deal with on a daily basis. Some are more serious than others and the ensuing consequenses more severe but the key is to recognize that they are sins and desire to rid our lives of these sins.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe Christ's message is pretty clear. Entrance to his heaven is dependent on nothing more than love. It does not require you to kneel at mass, it does not require you to take communion, and it does not even require you to believe that he was the son of god. It requires you to love, and lead your life with an open heart and be willing to extend that love to any person you come across. All of his teachings point to this.

However, the reason you have so many sects of Christianity is because no one is willing to sit there and teach you what Jesus' real message was. At some point, all of these demoninations were offshots of another one.

Why? Because they disagreed with an interpretation or some rule and the way it was being enforced. And all of you seem to agree that these rules are really arbitrary and not really important to the central idea of Christ.

So my question then becomes this. Why have unessecary rules? And if those rules are nessecary, are the differences in the demoninations you are so easily casting aside really more important than that?

[jochhejaam]

But, just one Christ.


Good response. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Also, you have certain demoninations who believe in predetermination (such as Lutherans and Baptists) which is completely counter to the idea of free will. How is that explained?

[JoeChalupa]

I believe.

[jochhejaam]

I believe Christ's message is pretty clear. Entrance to his heaven is dependent on nothing more than love. It does not require you to kneel at mass, it does not require you to take communion, and it does not even require you to believe that he was the son of god. It requires you to love, and lead your life with an open heart and be willing to extend that love to any person you come across. All of his teachings point to this.

However, the reason you have so many sects of Christianity is because no one is willing to sit there and teach you what Jesus' real message was. At some point, all of these demoninations were offshots of another one.

Why? Because they disagreed with an interpretation or some rule and the way it was being enforced. And all of you seem to agree that these rules are really arbitrary and not really important to the central idea of Christ.

So my question then becomes this. Why have unessecary rules? And if those rules are nessecary, are the differences in the demoninations you are so easily casting aside really more important than that?

(no response to this must mean I accidently hit the submit tab)

[Guru of Nothing]

Guru, yer gettin' to be quite a "tree shaker" What's your take on the question you've posed?

I'm just asking questions. Don't shoot the messenger.



It's not totally inconceivable that they repented before their death but I would think, based upon their macabre nature, that it is highly inlikely.

So, SMEAGOL, does your God give child molesters the benefit of the doubt?

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I have a question:

Why some people need to believe in Gods or religions nowadays?

I'm an atheist, and I have always made that question to religious people, because simply, I just can't understand it. I know it's a matter of faith, to believe or not, but I'm curious why people need to believe.

[JoeChalupa]

I have a question:

Why some people need to believe in Gods or religions nowadays?

I'm an atheist, and I have always made that question to religious people, because simply, I just can't understand it. I know it's a matter of faith, to believe or not, but I'm curious why people need to believe.

Nobody needs to believe in God or religions. It is a personal choice.

[jochhejaam]

I believe Christ's message is pretty clear. Entrance to his heaven is dependent on nothing more than love. It does not require you to kneel at mass, it does not require you to take communion, and it does not even require you to believe that he was the son of god. It requires you to love, and lead your life with an open heart and be willing to extend that love to any person you come across. All of his teachings point to this.

However, the reason you have so many sects of Christianity is because no one is willing to sit there and teach you what Jesus' real message was. At some point, all of these demoninations were offshots of another one.

Why? Because they disagreed with an interpretation or some rule and the way it was being enforced. And all of you seem to agree that these rules are really arbitrary and not really important to the central idea of Christ.

So my question then becomes this. Why have unessecary rules? And if those rules are nessecary, are the differences in the demoninations you are so easily casting aside really more important than that?


IMO In your post you have some good takes on what God is all about other than what I highlighted. I will explain why I feel it's important to believe otherwise and I will also cite scripture that supports part of your view of Christianity.

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then that opposes Christ's very teaching where He proclaims Himself the Son of God and also opposes the Scripture where God proclaims Jesus as His Son. If Jesus is lying about this then His entire message is a lie. I don't bellieve we can believe half of what He says, discard the other half as untrue or without merit and still view Him as credible. If He has lied about the most important part of His ministry, that He is the Son of God, then His entire ministry has lost all credibility because His words are teaching are supposed to be based on truth.

The Crux of the Gospels is that that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The entire New Testament is founded upon Christ being the Son of God who became our sacrificial Lamb in taking away the sins of the world. In the first Book of John it says "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with God and the Word was God...and the word was made flesh (the birth of Christ) and dwelt among us. Take away the deity of Christ and the Gospels, indeed the entire Bible, are baseless.

Man had made rules, and still have rules today that are not necessary and Christ condemned this in Scripture. The Pharisees (the most influential and vocal of the societies at the time of the New Testament) were taken to task by Jesus for this very thing. Again in the Book of John;


42"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

43"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

44"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it."

45One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also."

46Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens (laws) they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Those verses describe what God and Jesus Christ are not about!
The love the Pharisees exhibited was a love for self but Christ exhibits a love for others.

[jochhejaam]

Also, you have certain demoninations who believe in predetermination (such as Lutherans and Baptists) which is completely counter to the idea of free will. How is that explained?

I'm not sure what Lutherans believe. The Baptists believe "once saved, always saved", which I have serious reservations about, but I've never heard that the Baptists believe in predetermination.

Some say that if God knows everything including the future then we do not have a free will and are therefore predetermined.

I say God knows everything, including the future and has also given us a free will. In knowing everything he knows what choices we are going to make with that free will. That doesn't constitute predetermination, that's just God being omniscient.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Guru of Nothing]I'm just asking questions. Don't shoot the messenger.


A little defensive are we? (just answer yes)
And I'm just checkin' to see if you have any answers yerself.

Heck, I don't even own a gun! :lol besides, you're a questioner not a messenger.

[Guru of Nothing]

[QUOTE]


A little defensive are we? (just answer yes)
And I'm just checkin' to see if you have any answers yerself.

Heck, I don't even own a gun! :lol

That's funny. Why would I be defensive.

And no, I don't have any answers - NONE!!

But, I do like kicking the tires on those that do have answers.

[jochhejaam]

That's funny. Why would I be defensive.

And no, I don't have any answers - NONE!!

But, I do like kicking the tires on those that do have answers.

No answers...thus the username?

Carry on then.


(my tires were constructed to take a good kicking). :lol

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure what Lutherans believe. The Baptists believe "once saved, always saved", which I have serious reservations about, but I've never heard that the Baptists believe in predetermination.

Some say that if God knows everything including the future then we do not have a free will and are therefore predetermined.

I say God knows everything, including the future and has also given us a free will. In knowing everything he knows what choices we are going to make with that free will. That doesn't constitute predetermination, that's just God being omniscient.
Contradiction. Free Will implies means that it is impossible to know what the decision is because it hasn't been made. If someone knows what the decision is, there is no actual decision.

[jochhejaam]

Contradiction. Free Will implies means that it is impossible to know what the decision is because it hasn't been made. If someone knows what the decision is, there is no actual decision.

No one is telling me what to type which means I'm exercising my free will.
God is all knowing which means He knew ahead of time what I was going to type.

God in omniscient He created all things or gave us the capacity to create things.
Omniscient; 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

Jeremiah 1:5, God - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
According to your rationale since he knew me before I was born then I'm actually not here typing...
God does not fall under mans rules, understanding or logic.

no contradiction, you're understanding of God just need to be enriched. (and so does mine)

[JoePublic]

What If
by: Nichole Nordeman

What if you’re right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you’re right?
What if it’s true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it’s true?

What if he takes his place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace
But then the story ends
What then?

But what if you’re wrong?
What if there’s more?
What if there’s hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He’s more than enough?
What if it’s love?

What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That’s all you find?

What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?

You’ve been running as fast as you can
You’ve been looking for a place you can land for so long
But what if you’re wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

If god knows what I'm going to do, and I'm never going to accept him, then how can I be saved?

[jochhejaam]

If god knows what I'm going to do, and I'm never going to accept him, then how can I be saved?

You have the free will to choose, He knows what that is. Do you really feel constrained by that?

[MannyIsGod]

You have the free will to choose, He knows what that is. Do you really feel constrained by that?
The question still remains unanswered.

In a situation where God knows that the person is never going to choose salvation, how will those people be saved?

[jochhejaam]

If god knows what I'm going to do, and I'm never going to accept him, then how can I be saved?

Him knowing what you are going to do is immaterial to your question.

If you don't choose to be saved then you won't be.

Analogy:
If I take a test to be certified for something and I'm never going to pass the test then how can I become certified? I can't be

[MannyIsGod]

So then in a situation where God knows that someone is never going to choose salvation, they can never be saved, correct?

[jochhejaam]

So then in a situation where God knows that someone is never going to choose salvation, they can never be saved, correct?


God's omniscience has nothing to do with the choice therefore cannot be considered in answering the question.

It doesn't matter who knows, that will not have an impact on the choice.
What matters is what choice we choose to make.

[MannyIsGod]

God's omniscience has nothing to do with the choice therefore cannot be considered in answering the question.

It doesn't matter who knows, that will not have an impact on the choice.
What matters is what choice we choose to make.
You're ignoring the part of the question where I'm trying to make the point that God knows who is going to be saved and who isn't. Is that correct?

[jochhejaam]

You're ignoring the part of the question where I'm trying to make the point that God knows who is going to be saved and who isn't. Is that correct?




Same answer MIG. God is Omnisceint, we have freedom of choice, God knows what free choice we will make.
The answer is clear, you just need to look a little deeper.

[MannyIsGod]

It is a yes or no answer. Either God knows who is going to be saved, or he doesn't.

[Guru of Nothing]

No answers...thus the username?

Carry on then.

As if you have answers!

Don't confuse your beliefs with answers.

Where is SMEAGOL?

[MannyIsGod]

Are you refusing to address the last question?

[jochhejaam]

Are you refusing to address the last question?

dinner and guests

later :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

Are you refusing to address the last question?

It's tough to pin them down, isn't it?

You'd think it would be different with absolute truth on their side.

[jochhejaam]

As if you have answers!
Don't confuse your beliefs with answers.

Where is SMEAGOL?

You are being defensive! :lol

[smeagol]

Where is SMEAGOL?
I was out of pocket at a friend's house in NJ, but I'm back.

[Guru of Nothing]

You are being defensive! :lol

You go Rookie.

[Guru of Nothing]

Seriously, I have an inquiring mind, and thus, nothing to feel defensive about.

[MannyIsGod]

Fair enough, I can wait.

[smeagol]

So, SMEAGOL, does your God give child molesters the benefit of the doubt?
As I said before, jochhejaam is doing a hell of a job (much better than I wold ever dream of doing) explaining my beliefs.

But I will take a shot at answering your question.

God does not "give the benefit of the doubt" to child molestors, cold blooded assasins or mass murderers. He simply asks them if they truly repent of what they have done. And him being God, knows if they are truly sorry.

Do you have kids? If your kid comes to you and tells you of some bad thing he's done and asks you to forgive him, wouldn't you? (provided you belkieve the kid is truly sorry of what he has done). Obviously it would depend what your kid did. But I've heard fathers (and especially mothers) who've said they would forgive their child even if he/she has committed murder.

Why do I bring this analogy of fathers a sons/daughters? Because we are God's creation, we are his kids and he is our father. And he is prepared to forgive us, no matter what, provided we truly repent. Even child molestors.

[Guru of Nothing]

God does not "give the benefit of the doubt" to child molestors, cold blooded assasins or mass murderers. He simply asks them if they truly repent of what they have done. And him being God, knows if they are truly sorry.


Sounds EXACTLY like your God is giving child molesters the benefit of the doubt.

[cecil collins]

Him knowing what you are going to do is immaterial to your question.

If you don't choose to be saved then you won't be.

Analogy:
If I take a test to be certified for something and I'm never going to pass the test then how can I become certified? I can't be


How can you dance around his question like that and not feel like a jackass? Why not just say "I don't know," because clearly you don't. If god knows what you are going to do, then how do you have freedom of choice? Are you saying the choices you make are somewhat predetermined? If so, explain rape, or murder. Also, do you think that everything happens for a reason? I hate when people say that. Noone ever says it when something fucked up happens.

[smeagol]

Sounds EXACTLY like your God is giving child molesters the benefit of the doubt.
There is only one God. The thing is people chose to worship him in different ways.

What do you mean by "benefit of the doubt"? If you mean God will give everybody a second chance to repent all thier sins before him, then yes, he will give child molestors, and everybody for that matter, the benefit of the doubt.

The way I think it works is that the more sinful your life is, the more difficult it will be to repent. We are all sinners, and that's a fact. And we will be sinners until the day we die. The thing is how we acknowledge our sins (before God) and do we really try not to commit them anymore.

In other words, if a child molestor has been doing this for all his like (and evaded human justice), it will probably be very difficult for him to repent. It will not be a question of the child molestor, once in front of God, saying "Yeah God, I repent, now let me into Heaven. I have some unfinish business I need to take care of". Not sure that particular child molestor is very sorry and will ever enter Heaven. But I'm not the one to judge.

[Guru of Nothing]

There is only one God. The thing is people chose to worship him in different ways.

So, is there room in your heaven for Muslims, Hindus, Jews and anyone else who worships a god?


The way I think it works is ....

If only there was a handy reference manual to explain all this and set the record straight.

[jochhejaam]

Are you refusing to address the last question?

I have answered to the best of my ability on 4 separate occasions. That is the sum of my knowledge on the subject. There are 2 schools of thought on the subject and I am with those that believe we have a free will (which would make me anti-Calvinist regarding predestination).

Somebody once said, The difference between predestination and free will is: "Predestination is the hand you were dealt; free will is what you do with that hand."

If your interested in getting thoughts from some of the pillars of Christianity such as Martin Luther, Saint Thomas Aquinas and some deep thinkers such as Albert Einstein I will provide you with a link. (they fall on both sides of the arguement) Hopefully they can clear up for you what I was not able to.

http://homepages.ius.edu/ADRIAN/core/predestination.html



Romans 8:28-30 - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate (ordain), them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry, but you are doing your best to spin and avoid a question which is rather crucial to your religion. I wouldn't mind a simple I don't know, but instead you have have tried your best to avoid saying yes or no.

That is a shame because this discussion had been very civil and productive.

[MannyIsGod]

There is only one God. The thing is people chose to worship him in different ways.

If this means that other religions are just as valid as yours, what makes the rules of your religion valid?

[jochhejaam]

So, is there room in your heaven for Muslims, Hindus, Jews and anyone else who worships a god?

Not a god, The God.

The second of the Ten Commandments addresses this - "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."




There is one God and one Heaven. Anyone who follows His plan for salvation wil partake of the Heaven that is prepared for us.

1 Tim 2:4-5 ...God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,




Below are versus alluding to Heaven and the way to heaven.

John 14:1-6
1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

6 Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[jochhejaam]

I'm sorry, but you are doing your best to spin and avoid a question which is rather crucial to your religion. I wouldn't mind a simple I don't know, but instead you have have tried your best to avoid saying yes or no.

That is a shame because this discussion had been very civil and productive.


I don't spin and if I were avoiding I wouldn't be posting.

I don't think you're going to decide for me what is and what is not crucial to my religion. Your question and its answer is in no way essential to my relationship with Christ nor does it have any bearing on where I spend eternity! I have met thousands of Christians in my lifetime and not one of them has expressed concern about freewill vs predestination. It's not an issue.

Facts that are crucial
-God is our Creator
-God loves us
-All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God
-The wages our sin is death
-Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son and he came and took the sins of the world upon himself dying for the sins that we had commited.
-By asking Him who has died on the Cross and whom God has raised from the dead into our lives we have been cleansed of our sins and are recipients of the victory that Christ has over sin.

[jochhejaam]

It's 11:35 here and I'm going to repair to my lair.
nite all. :)

[MannyIsGod]

I don't spin and if I were avoiding I wouldn't be posting.

I don't think you're going to decide for me what is and what is not crucial to my religion. Your question and its answer is in no way essential to my relationship with Christ nor does it have any bearing on where I spend eternity! I have met thousands of Christians in my lifetime and not one of them has expressed concern about freewill vs predestination. It's not an issue.

Facts that are crucial
-God is our Creator
-God loves us
-All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God
-The wages our sin is death
-Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son and he came and took the sins of the world upon himself dying for the sins that we had commited.
-By asking Him who has died on the Cross and whom God has raised from the dead into our lives we have been cleansed of our sins and are recipients of the victory that Christ has over sin.
I'm not trying to get you to question your faith. I'm trying to get an understanding of what I feel are contradictions within Christian faith and why you do not feel the same way.

I think it is ok to have your faith in your beliefs regardless if you have all the answers. That is why they call it faith. But you have yet to refuse to either say Yes, or No, to what is a very direct question. You can elaborate upon answering if you'd like, but in the end it still comes down to either Yes, No, or saying you don't know.

I've had many of these dicussions with a former pastor of mine, and he never failed to directly answer me. That is not to say we did not see things in different lights, but if he had the answers - and sometimes he woudl admit to not having them, for priest or not he was but a man - he would always be very straight with me. He has set the bar for me as far as religous dialouge goes, and no amount of devils advocat would ever challenge his faith.

[jochhejaam]

I think it is ok to have your faith in your beliefs regardless if you have all the answers. That is why they call it faith. But you have yet to refuse to either say Yes, or No, to what is a very direct question. You can elaborate upon answering if you'd like, but in the end it still comes down to either Yes, No, or saying you don't know.



In your way of thinking it has to come down to "yes, no or don't know". However I'm not bound by the limitations, guidelines or structure by which you wish to receive as an answer.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For the present we see things as if in a mirror, and are puzzled; but then we shall see them face to face. For the present the knowledge I gain is imperfect; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.



Feel free to go over the responses I have given to you on your own regarding your question and come up with your own conclusion about what my answer would be. Our minds are finite, God's is not. Perhaps you would like to do more independent research on the subject in order to come up with a more concrete answer than I am able to give you at this time.


Jeremiah 29:13
And you will be searching for me and I will be there, when you have gone after me with all your heart.

[jochhejaam]

I wouldn't mind a simple I don't know, but instead you have have tried your best to avoid saying yes or no.

That is a shame


It's come to the point where what you want is no longer thoughtful insight into your original question but an unequivical "yes, no, or I don't know from an individual" By doing so you have reduced meaningful discussion into a game. That's the real shame.

game over.

[MannyIsGod]

Uh, I could have done independent research and I have, but then what would be the point of this discussion?

Game Over? Ok?

:lol

Damn, I didn't think that question was really that difficult to answer. Simply going off of your claim of omnicense God obviously knows who is going to be saved and who is not. But then again, I guess you don't see it that way.

I unfortunetly am bound by language and the meanings of the words in a said language. Infinte mind? Sure! I think? Infinite meanings for words? No?

[smeagol]

So, is there room in your heaven for Muslims, Hindus, Jews and anyone else who worships a god?
I’m not qualified to answer this question in depth given my ignorance on Catholic Theology on the subject.

I personally believe that everybody will have a chance to be saved. But that’s just me.


If only there was a handy reference manual to explain all this and set the record straight.
If only . . .

[JoeChalupa]

I think I'm thinking outside the box and I think it is a good thing.
No need to have to think like a "democrat" or a "republican" but thinking for myself and the hell with other think of my political opinions.
I'm liberal, conservative but most of all I'm an American!!

Semper fi!!

[jochhejaam]

It is a yes or no answer. Either God knows who is going to be saved, or he doesn't.

Another take on the subject. (after conferring with my constituents :lol )
The verse below from Romans mentions predestinate which back in the time it was written (translated from the Greek) it meant ordained (establish by decree).

So this can be intrepreted that God had, before we were created, decreed that all of His creation was part of His plan to be united with Him in heaven. That is the destiny prescribed for us. The problem is that many have decided, of their own free will, that they do not wish to partake of his plan (why would anyone choose not to and choose Hell instead) and therefore will not be united with Him for all eternity.

IMHO God knows who will stray from His plan :depressed and He know who will adhere to His plan :angel


Romans 8:28-30 - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate (ordain), them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

[cecil collins]

If he knows what will happen, then it can not be free will, as free will is not something that can exist concurrent with predestiny. If what you are going to do is already known, then how do you really have an independent choice. The only answer that could make sense to me, based on what you have said, is that he has a plan, but people have their choice on whether to follow the plan. This would also mean that he has no idea who will follow the plan.

[smeagol]

I have a question:

Why some people need to believe in Gods or religions nowadays?

I'm an atheist, and I have always made that question to religious people, because simply, I just can't understand it. I know it's a matter of faith, to believe or not, but I'm curious why people need to believe.
In my case, MMLH, I’m not sure I would describe it as a “need”. I use to be an atheist such as you, not so long ago. I used to question the same things you question and I felt the Church was wrong, and I mean dead wrong, on many subjects. Some are more worldly (abortion, use of condoms, celibacy) and some others which are more metaphysical (if there is a Heaven, why can’t we all get there, i.e. why is there eternal damnation, if there is a God who created us and the World around us, and loves us very much, why is the World such a f*cked up place, etc).

A couple of years ago, I started question my beliefs which were based on the non-existence of God. After some soul searching, which included conversations with friends and reading tons of literature about religion and different philosophies, I concluded that this World and especially we human beings, was created by some intelligent being.

It did not make sense to me that this World with all its beauty and perfection was the result a big coincidence. Furthermore, and most important of all, I did not find plausible the idea that us human beings came to be what we are, also as the result of coincidence after coincidence. I can’t reconcile a human being, with our multiple personalities, the array of emotions we can feel and the perfection of our human body, with a unicellular ameba swimming in a prehistoric ocean millions of years ago.

In conclusion, my soul searching led me to the following place: this World and we humans are part of an intelligent plan. There is a reason why we are put on this Earth (not a series on coincidences). We are part of a play . . . or a story. And if there is a plan, there is someone behind the plan. If there is a play or a story, there is a play writer or a storyteller.

As soon I was convinced of God’s existence, I felt an urge to thank him for all the good things that were happening to me at the time. This urge has been with me ever since.

After I was convinced of the existence of God, I started looking for additional answers to my philosophical questions in the Christian Faith. I had been baptized and took my First Communion, but at the age of 16 I stopped going to Church altogether. I was a full blown atheist by the age of 20. Now I was rediscovering the Faith and finding all the answers to my questions there. Every time I have a new doubt, I turned to the Christian teachings and I found the answer.

That’s in a nutshell why I started believing in God and why I believe Christianity is the answer to many of my philosophical doubts (preguntas existenciales)

[MannyIsGod]

Smeagol, ever wonder what created the creator?

[MannyIsGod]

I for one, have no idea what/who if anything created the Universe. I sometimes feel spiritual, sometimes not, but I never really think that Christianity makes much sense. My beliefs are ever evolving, but my beliefs do not involve a system of rules or control that are at the root of every organized religion I've come into contact with.

Thats not to say I don't think organized religion does good thing or has positive effects, but I seem them as systems of control.

[smeagol]

I for one, have no idea what/who if anything created the Universe.
I can’t affirm who created the Universe with 100% of certainty, but I have come to believe it was not created by coincidence. I believe there is someone behind Creation.


I sometimes feel spiritual, sometimes not, but I never really think that Christianity makes much sense.
Fair enough. I understand what you feel (or at least I think I do) because I once too thought Christianity made no sense.


My beliefs are ever evolving, but my beliefs do not involve a system of rules or control that are at the root of every organized religion I've come into contact with.
My beliefs are pretty much set because I believe I found the answer to many of the life-changing questions such as who are we, where do we come from, why were we put on this Earth and where is our ultimate destination.


Thats not to say I don't think organized religion does good thing or has positive effects, but I seem them as systems of control.
Actually, Christianity has freed me from the limitations I felt when I was a pure materialist. If you feel you are at perfect ease and in communion with that organized religion, you do not feel controlled by it.

[Swishy McJackass]

Actually, Christianity has freed me from the limitations I felt when I was a pure materialist. If you feel you are at perfect ease and in communion with that organized religion, you do not feel controlled by it.

In what way did you feel that you were limited as a materialist?

[JoeChalupa]

For those who don't believe.....who do you all pray to when shit hits the fan and you need for a loved one who is gravely ill or injured?

Or do you simply just not pray?

Just wondering.

[Swishy McJackass]

If you don't believe, who is there to pray to?

I personally don't pray.

[JoeChalupa]

So does that mean you do nothing, other than go see a doctor maybe, when you are ill? What do you do when someone you love is an accident or is seriously ill?

Do you just say, "That's the way it goes", and move on? How do you deal with it?
Do you just talk to the little man inside you?

[smeagol]

In what way did you feel that you were limited as a materialist?
I probably did not feel it entirely back then, but I do realize now that by having a materialistic view, i.e. believing that this World is nothing but a set of random events (which I call coincidences) that have made it possible for humans to develop from some minuscule from of sea life, for trees to grow 20 or 30 feet high and be filed with fruits, for birds to fly and animals to roam free, for mountains to rise over valleys and rivers meander through jungles, for all of this to happen with no captain behind the wheel, I was essentially trapped in a World that has no room for magic, no room for miracles.

Back in the days, my life was limited by the things of this World. My limits were imposed by the “natural”, by what is worldly. Now I feel that I’m limited by the “supernatural”, by things of another Eternal World. As a materialist, you are only allowed to believe that what you do has an effect on this World and is limited in time (in most cases), as a Christian you believe that what you do is not limited by things of this World and certainly their not limited by time (what we do hear has Eternal consequences).

[cecil collins]

I personally don't pray either. It may seem weird to you, because praying is what you know, but praying seems crazy to me. How do you explain it when someone is ill and you pray for them, then they die? I think it makes no difference, but praying gets the credit when someone pulls through. Then again, if the ill person has the comfort of feeling as if some supernatural being is helping them, they are bound to be in higher spirits.

[smeagol]

I personally don't pray either. It may seem weird to you, because praying is what you know, but praying seems crazy to me.

It's not wierd. Irs consistant with your beliefs.


How do you explain it when someone is ill and you pray for them, then they die?

How do you explain when a cancer patient recieves quimio-therapy and still dies? It happens. Peayers are not the answer to everything. If it were so automatic (you pray, you save somebody's life), bielive me, there would be much more Christians walking around the streets.


I think it makes no difference, but praying gets the credit when someone pulls through.
The same as conventional medicine does.

[jochhejaam]

If he knows what will happen, then it can not be free will, as free will is not something that can exist concurrent with predestiny. If what you are going to do is already known, then how do you really have an independent choice. The only answer that could make sense to me, based on what you have said, is that he has a plan, but people have their choice on whether to follow the plan. This would also mean that he has no idea who will follow the plan.

There are things that don't make sense to us, things that are beyond the realm of human understanding, that are crystal clear to God. Our thinking is finite God's is not. If we know nothing about Him or about some of the things He says it's only natural that we are confused by what we hear.
It's like taking a course for the first time, one you know nothing about. You're not going to sit there and tell the professor he's stupid and that he isn't making any sense before he begins teaching or even before he's finished. If you're going to be able to grasp the entirety of what it is he's trying to convey you're going to have to pay close attention when the teaching or instructions are being given.


It's no different with God, if there are things about Him that seem hard or even impossible to fathom they will become clearer as you read what He has given to man in His Word. The more you read and meditate upon His Words the more likely it is that the mysteries of today are to become the revelations of tomorrow.


Ecclesiastes 7
24 Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound— who can discover it?

25 So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly.

[jochhejaam]

I personally don't pray either. It may seem weird to you, because praying is what you know, but praying seems crazy to me. How do you explain it when someone is ill and you pray for them, then they die? I think it makes no difference, but praying gets the credit when someone pulls through. Then again, if the ill person has the comfort of feeling as if some supernatural being is helping them, they are bound to be in higher spirits.



Hebrews 9:27
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

^^^We don't know when this "time to die" is, so we pray until the time that death becomes reality.






Who's to say that prayer hasn't saved someone from death? Many people are praying constantly for situations and for people. Lots of parents pray regularly that God will watch over their family members. Who can prove one way or the other that God has not answered these prayers and stayed the hand of death because of these prayers?

When it comes to prayer many people think that because they didn't see an immediate result or get an immediate answer that the prayer must not have been answered. I feel that God answers all of the prayers of His faithful and that sometimes the answer to our prayers is "yes", sometimes the answer is "no" and at other times the answer may be "not yet".




James 5:16 - The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man (woman) availeth much.

[smeagol]

Inquisition.
I need to get smarter on what happened during the Inquisition


Crusades.
Not sure what’s wrong with the Crusades. The Holy Land had been invaded and the Christians of the time decided to fight for it.


Conquistas of the Americas and Africa.
What you have to bear in mind is that all these things where done by men who are far from being perfect. These men did horrible things, sometimes in the name of the Church. That does not mean that the Church condoned what was being done, or that the Doctrine of the Church is wrong because of what fallible people do.


The whole Middle Ages period where the church was the richest institution in Europe.
It is a big misconception to talk about the Church in the Middle Ages as if it was something evil. The Church was actually the one institution that kept alive many of the ancient traditions through the Middle Ages. They were the bridge between the ancient world and the Renaissance.


The behaviour during the 1776-1980 (it could be said that it remains today) period, when in fear of reason, science, democracy, capitalism, comunism, secular socities, atheism, etc. Because of that fear the church supported dictators, kings, assasins, etc...
Again, the Church is made up of men who make mistakes. That does not mean that the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which is what’s important, is wrong.

But I don’t really agree with this last blanket statement. Maybe if you give me some examples where the Church, in fear of science, reason, democracy, capitalism, etc has sided with dictators and assassins.

[Jekka]

For those who don't believe.....who do you all pray to when shit hits the fan and you need for a loved one who is gravely ill or injured?

Or do you simply just not pray?

Just wondering.

My evolution of beliefs by no means have settled, but I do know for sure that after being completely saturated in Christian ideology for most of my life that I do not naturally embrace those philosophies. Sometimes I'd like to believe in a god - mostly so I have someone to blame things on - but as for prayers ... I pray out of habit sometimes when shit happens, but I also feel like no one's listening. Sometimes you just need to talk, and "hey, god" is a good excuse.

[JoeChalupa]

My evolution of beliefs by no means have settled, but I do know for sure that after being completely saturated in Christian ideology for most of my life that I do not naturally embrace those philosophies. Sometimes I'd like to believe in a god - mostly so I have someone to blame things on - but as for prayers ... I pray out of habit sometimes when shit happens, but I also feel like no one's listening. Sometimes you just need to talk, and "hey, god" is a good excuse.

I guess since I've known and believed in God all of my life it is hard for me to comprehend not praying or believing in a greater power.

So you'd like to believe in a God so you'll have someone to blame?
How about also someone to thank? No?
Many only pray when they are in need but not when things are going well.
We thank God everyday for our many blessings.

Also one must not tempt God through prayer for only God knows what his will is. I know it is a country song but, "some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers", and I believe that.

I also believe that Doctors and their great works could not be performed were it not for the gift given them from above.

[Jekka]

I guess since I've known and believed in God all of my life it is hard for me to comprehend not praying or believing in a greater power.

So you'd like to believe in a God so you'll have someone to blame?
How about also someone to thank? No?
Many only pray when they are in need but not when things are going well.
We thank God everyday for our many blessings.

Also one must not tempt God through prayer for only God knows what his will is. I know it is a country song but, "some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers", and I believe that.

I also believe that Doctors and their great works could not be performed were it not for the gift given them from above.

I don't have to pray to be a thankful person - I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that a person cannot feel true thankfulness and graciousness without being able to attribute it to a one and only God. As for the blame, I was being somewhat facetious, but it would be nice to have a reason for why bad things happen to good people over and over and over again - without the ubiquitous Christian explanation that those things happened so that someone else could learn from it or benefit spiritually from it.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't have to pray to be a thankful person - I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that a person cannot feel true thankfulness and graciousness without being able to attribute it to a one and only God. As for the blame, I was being somewhat facetious, but it would be nice to have a reason for why bad things happen to good people over and over and over again - without the ubiquitous Christian explanation that those things happened so that someone else could learn from it or benefit spiritually from it.

True. I know many times I'm happy and thankful and don't think about God as the reason why.
And I for one am a sinner so please don't think that I'm preaching.
I'm guilty of thinking that way too sometimes when things go bad but since I believe in God it doesn't bother me.
And don't think I haven't questioned somethings from time time.

[smeagol]

I have a problem with conditional salvation. You can say that the choice is entirely in our hands,
True, the choice is in nobody's hands but ours.


but I can turn around and say that God choose to put is in that situation and is therefore just as responsible for the situation and it's outcome as anyone else is.
Not true.

We chose to part from God's side (theory of the Fall). Precisely because God gave us free will, and the right to exercise that free will, is the reason why the World is as screwed up as it is (because we misused our free will, and we keep misusing it all the time).

[MannyIsGod]

God knew we were going to make that choice - omnicense - and he knew certain people were not going to be saved and he still choose to make them.

[Guru of Nothing]

we misused our free will, and we keep misusing it all the time).

Finally, we agree!!

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[smeagol]

Finally, we agree!!
That's a start . . .

[smeagol]

God knew we were going to make that choice - omnicense - and he knew certain people were not going to be saved and he still choose to make them.
I guess the flip side would be for God to create people without free will (robots) that would obey him no matter what.

[MannyIsGod]

Smeagol, I had some thoughts on the way to the office this morning. Anyone is free to chime in on this.

God being omnicient knows all of course. Yet he created Eden, Satan, Adam and Eve and created them all in a manner as to how he knew how they would react and how they would make certain decisions. He then put them in an environment - Eden - knowing beforehand exactly what would transpire.

How different is this from me creating a computer program, and putting it into a situation where I know what the input variables are, and then saying that it has free will because it went through the decision process even though I controlled the input and thereby controlled the outcome of the decision?

[Spurminator]

How different is this from me creating a computer program, and putting it into a situation where I know what the input variables are, and then saying that it has free will because it went through the decision process even though I controlled the input and thereby controlled the outcome of the decision?

Computer programs are usually predictable, while humans are not. We're programmed to have certain desires/instincts, but we are also programmed with the ability to choose to override them for a moral purpose.

You can create a program that will randomly choose from variables that you have input, but you still may not be able to predict the outcome. And even if you were "omnicient" enough to predict the outcome, the program still chose the variable on its own. You just knew beforehand what it would choose.

[MannyIsGod]

Computer programs are usually predictable, while humans are not. We're programmed to have certain desires/instincts, but we are also programmed with the ability to choose to override them for a moral purpose.

I would argue that the only reason human's are not as predictable as programs is due to a lack of understanding of the human code.




You can create a program that will randomly choose from variables that you have input, but you still may not be able to predict the outcome. And even if you were "omnicient" enough to predict the outcome, the program still chose the variable on its own. You just knew beforehand what it would choose.
Well if that is what free will actually is, then free will is highly overrated.

[SWC Bonfire]

I would argue that the only reason human's are not as predictable as programs is due to a lack of understanding of the human code.


You have got to be kidding me...:lol

Maybe we can come up and have the code pretty well defined with Man 3.0, but after Woman 22.12.37.0026, they'll finally give up.

[DrRich]

See, I'm not so sure God really knows the particular outcome. He tests us each and everyday. It is up to us to pass or fail that test! If we pass, we please God; if we fail, we dissappoint Him.

I just don't think it is as simple as saying God knows the outcome, therefore there is any point to whether we obey him or not.

[Spurminator]

Well if that is what free will actually is, then free will is highly overrated.

Why?

Even if you take God out of the picture, do you believe Time is linear? What if someone else knew the future... not God, but someone with an innate psychic ability? Doesn't that make you predestined? Does that mean you have no freewill?

What does someone knowing the future have to do with your control over it?

[smeagol]

Smeagol, I had some thoughts on the way to the office this morning. Anyone is free to chime in on this.

God being omnicient knows all of course. Yet he created Eden, Satan, Adam and Eve and created them all in a manner as to how he knew how they would react and how they would make certain decisions. He then put them in an environment - Eden - knowing beforehand exactly what would transpire.

How different is this from me creating a computer program, and putting it into a situation where I know what the input variables are, and then saying that it has free will because it went through the decision process even though I controlled the input and thereby controlled the outcome of the decision?
Manny, you have a good point. I had that same doubt myself after re-reading this thread. I don’t know the answer and will proly have to defer to the more knowledgeable posters.

I don’t think your computer program analogy works though, because of what Spurm said. I will try to do my research about this point.

You are definitely an intelligent poster.

[MannyIsGod]

You have got to be kidding me...:lol

Maybe we can come up and have the code pretty well defined with Man 3.0, but after Woman 22.12.37.0026, they'll finally give up.
I'm dead serious. What else would you call DNA? That's a hell of an OS right there.

Unless you believe decisions are random thought that just happen to spring up, then you have to believe there is a system at work. All systems are understandable and decodeable.

[JoeChalupa]

The Matrix?

[SWC Bonfire]

Unless you believe decisions are random thought that just happen to spring up, then you have to believe there is a system at work. All systems are understandable and decodeable.

I can tell you have never worked or drove cattle in your life. :lol

[Jekka]

God being omnicient knows all of course. Yet he created Eden, Satan, Adam and Eve and created them all in a manner as to how he knew how they would react and how they would make certain decisions. He then put them in an environment - Eden - knowing beforehand exactly what would transpire.

How different is this from me creating a computer program, and putting it into a situation where I know what the input variables are, and then saying that it has free will because it went through the decision process even though I controlled the input and thereby controlled the outcome of the decision?

I sent this hypothetical to my mother who is a Methodist minister just to see what her answer would be (even though I pretty much knew what it was before it came). It was:



First of all, I believe that God creates us with a free will, including Adam and Eve. Yes, God knows everything, but God chooses to let us be responsible for our lives. There are times when I have struggled between good and bad choices, sometimes making good ones and sometimes making poor ones. One thing that happens no matter what choices we make is consequences.

The core of my faith is that God works through the good or the bad, (even though we may have to live with consequences) and is present through Christ to restore my life and my relationship with God. I know that God is present always in my life, forgives and loves me inspite of me.

As far as what God knows as to the choices I am going to make - only God knows that.

As far as the computer goes, you know that technological things are not my strength .l.. but I do have difficulty comparing God to a computer. All I have to do is look around at creation and the way life moves and I am certain only a God could have done this - as well as given human being the talents to do computer programs.

That is the short answer!

I'm pretty tired of getting the "just because" and "only God knows" responses to that question. I've never been able to accept a "just because" response, so why should I start with something as important as the debate over free will?

[MannyIsGod]

Why?

Even if you take God out of the picture, do you believe Time is linear? What if someone else knew the future... not God, but someone with an innate psychic ability? Doesn't that make you predestined? Does that mean you have no freewill?

What does someone knowing the future have to do with your control over it?
Ahh, linear time. Another question mark.

Time sends me through a whole different loop because I'm not sure it is linear, but I find it very hard to comprehend it any other fashion. The concept of 4 dimensions is very difficult for me.

Actually, this is where I am about to go off the rocker. I am not sure free will actually exsists. I think that because we are self aware, and we don't understand our own decision making process very well, we have come to the conclusion that we have free will.

Well, it is obviously a bit more complicated than that, but you get the point.

I don't understand quantum physics well enough to know where randomness comes into play, but if there is no randomness and every action incites an opposite - and therefore predictable - reaction, then it is possible to predict exactly what will happen.

Why would this change for anything in the universe?

And if we are simply acting out reaction and reactions to reactions then we are never "making" decisions at all and there is no free will. We are simply aware of what is happening to us.

[SWC Bonfire]

I'm pretty tired of getting the "just because" and "only God knows" responses to that question. I've never been able to accept a "just because" response, so why should I start with something as important as the debate over free will?

Well, no one managed to explain to people what gravity was, but people believed in it. "Just because" got the job done for thousands of years.

Just because you believe/don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Perhaps when we actually figure out what things like "close forces" & "black matter" are we can make a more educated assumption on the nature of the universe, but for now we have to take some things on faith.

[MannyIsGod]

See, I'm not so sure God really knows the particular outcome. He tests us each and everyday. It is up to us to pass or fail that test! If we pass, we please God; if we fail, we dissappoint Him.

I just don't think it is as simple as saying God knows the outcome, therefore there is any point to whether we obey him or not.
Then, god is not omnicent.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, no one managed to explain to people what gravity was, but people believed in it. "Just because" got the job done for thousands of years.

Just because you believe/don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Perhaps when we actually figure out what things like "close forces" & "black matter" are we can make a more educated assumption on the nature of the universe, but for now we have to take some things on faith.
You're right on everything that you said, but by the same token just because you feel something is incredible and uncomprehendable doesn't mean that it was created by a supernatural force.

[Jekka]

Well, no one managed to explain to people what gravity was, but people believed in it. "Just because" got the job done for thousands of years.

Just because you believe/don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Perhaps when we actually figure out what things like "close forces" & "black matter" are we can make a more educated assumption on the nature of the universe, but for now we have to take some things on faith.

"Just because" is not an answer - it is an excuse.

[SWC Bonfire]

"Just because" is not an answer - it is an excuse.

Sometimes it is an observation. Many of the "morals" in the Bible I believe came about because treating others well was most beneficial to civilization.

Religion/spirituality can have positive effects. Everyone here is dwelling on the negative.