The "Gospel of Judas" unveiled.

[Hatfield]

interesting take on things.

Gospel of Judas" gives new view of Jesus' betrayer By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday.

In an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching, the Judas gospel shows the reviled disciple as the only one in Jesus' inner circle who understood his desire to shed his earthly body.

"He's the good guy in this portrayal," said Bart Ehrman, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "He's the only apostle who understands Jesus."

The Judas gospel's introduction says it is "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." Later, it quotes Jesus as saying to Judas, "You will exceed all of them (the other disciples) for you will sacrifice the man who clothes me."

"The idea in this gospel is that Jesus, like all of us, is a trapped spirit, who is trapped in a material body," Ehrman said. "And salvation comes when we escape the materiality of our existence, and Judas is the one who makes it possible for him to escape by allowing for his body to be killed."

Rev. Donald Senior, president of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said the document revealed the diversity and vitality in early Christianity.

"The question becomes ... does this tradition, this alternative story, if you like, in the gospel of Judas have a claim that in some sense is equal to the rival claim of the gospel tradition?" Senior said.

It is not known who wrote the Judas gospel. The copy unveiled on Thursday is of a document mentioned critically in the year 180 in a treatise called "Against Heresies," written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in what was then Roman Gaul. It spoke out against those whose views about Jesus differed from those of the mainstream Christian Church.

In the Bible's New Testament, Judas is portrayed as the quintessential traitor, accepting 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus by identifying him to Roman soldiers. The biblical Gospel of St. Matthew says Judas quickly regretted his treachery, returned the silver and hanged himself.

The New Testament contains four Gospels -- of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- but many more so-called apocryphal gospels were written in the first centuries after Christ's death, attributed to such disciples as Thomas and Philip and to his female follower Mary Magdalene.

HIDDEN IN EGYPTIAN DESERT

Ehrman, Senior and other experts on Christianity spoke at a briefing at the National Geographic Society, which unveiled a translation of the Judas gospel and which helped authenticate, preserve and translate the document.

The leather-bound copy of the gospel was written in Coptic script on both sides of 13 sheets of papyrus, and spent most of the past 1,700 years hidden in a cavern in the Egyptian desert, said Terry Garcia of the National Geographic Society.

This document was probably copied from the original Greek manuscript around the year 300, Garcia said. Discovered in the 1970s near Minya, Egypt, the volume -- including the gospel and other documents -- was sold to an Egyptian antiquities dealer in 1978.

The dealer offered it for sale without success, and eventually locked it in a bank safe deposit box in Hicksville, New York, for 16 years, which hastened its decay. In images displayed at the briefing, the papyrus looked like brown, dry autumn leaves.

Garcia said it had crumbled into more than 1,000 pieces.

In 2001, the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art in Switzerland began an effort to transcribe and translate the volume from the Coptic. In the next years, scientific tests -- including radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and multispectral imaging -- showed the document was copied down around 300.

The Judas gospel is being published in book form by National Geographic and pages from the papyrus manuscript will be on display at the society's museum in Washington starting on Friday. The manuscript will ultimately be housed at the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

[royalfan5]

I've always thought Judas Iscariot got a bad rap.

[mdklatt]

That's interesting. Why is Judas seen as a bad guy? He's a key piece to the whole deal. If Good Friday is good, then so is Judas.

[Hatfield]

i remember reading that it was traditional for a soldier to kill himself if his commander was taken/killed/whatever. If that were the case it would inidicate loyalty and not shame for his suicide.

[Harry Beanbag]

i remember reading that it was traditional for a soldier to kill himself if his commander was taken/killed/whatever. If that were the case it would inidicate loyalty and not shame for his suicide.


Isn't suicide a giant no-no in the Christian religion?

[Hatfield]

Isn't suicide a giant no-no in the Christian religion?

today yes, but that part may have been written into it at a later date after the cross.

[GDC]

http://www.therock1067.com/modules/htmlarea/upload6/uncledave_339.jpg

[TexasLidig8r]

So.. do we believe in free will or predetermination?

God sent Jesus to earth in essence to die, to free souls. Without Judas' involvement, God's grand scheme would not have come to fruition. (for the purpose of this assume that anyone could have been the "Judas" character).

Therefore, did Judas have the free will to be able to NOT betray Christ? If Judas was merely a pawn in God's greater plan, God predetermined that Judas must act as he did. Remember as well, that Judas did not keep the 30 pieces of silver.

Thus, and if Judas is condemned to hell for his actions, is our merciful God in essence condemning a soul to eternal damnation for the far greater good to be accomplished by his Son.

And, was the soul of Judas one of the souls reclaimed by God after the death of Christ?

The question comes down to... was Judas a pawn, predetermined by God to have his part in the greater glory and as such, his soul was saved by Christ upon His death.. or.. did Judas have the free will to make his choices, chose freely and without initial remorse and then, in taking his own life, is condemned to an eternity of hell?

[Hatfield]

that view presupposes that god made adam fail as well.

[afs]

so how was the vatacain not able to get this first and keep a lid on it?

[yermom]

that view presupposes that god made adam fail as well.

i've never thought of that one...

i did have issues with Jesus fortelling that Judas would betray him.... to Judas no less

always seemed like he had no choice in the deal

[mdklatt]

i did have issues with Jesus fortelling that Judas would betray him.... to Judas no less


They totally ripped that idea off from Minority Report.

[Vaevictis]

Here is my take on free will versus predetermination:

Free will and predetermination, in the eyes of an omniscient God are not necessarily mutually exclusive. God can give you the freedom to make your own choices, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what choices you're going to make before he makes them.

In my personal opinion, the fall of Adam and the fall of Lucifer were easily forseen by God and were obviously amenable to his "plans." Keep in mind that at that point in time, God was quite happy to directly interfere with people's actions (if not their decisions). God could have very easily intervened with Eve was tempted, and he could have very easily intervened when Adam was tempted. He chose not to. The fall was obviously something that is acceptable to him. In fact, I suspect that it was something that he intended to happen all along; stick an imperfect being like a human in front of temptation for eternity, and *sooner* or later that human will give in. It was practically inevitable.

I believe that it had to do with humanity's growth -- stuck in the garden, humanity would eternally be as children. Out in the "real world" so to speak, we could grow.

The fall of Lucifer likewise falls into his plans by providing an alternative to humanity. God obviously wants us to *choose* him.

With respect to Judas, it's entirely possible that Jesus directed Judas to turn him in; in the scene where Jesus prophecied that Judas would betray him, it may be that what the other disciples interpreted as a prediction was in fact an order. Similarly, what was a prediction may have been interpreted as an order by Judas. If Jesus is the son of God, and Judas was a truly pious man, could he possibly refuse? Such a demand is relatively tame compared to, for example, the story of Abraham and Isaac -- and we all know that Abraham would have done it if God hadn't stopped him.

[Hamhock]

The doctrines of free will and election are so inscrutable, so incompressible to the human mind as to demand that we believe both without fully understanding how they fit together in the Kingdom of God.

John MacArthur

As to the suicide. Where in the scripture does suicide "condemn to an eternity in hell"?

[handcrafted]

Hamhock and Vaevictus have it essentially right (except for the "humanity growth" thing).

This so-called "gospel of Judas" is a fabrication. It contradicts the New Testament, therefore it's false. Judas betrayed Jesus because he thought he could force Jesus' hand against the Romans if he was arrested. Judas thought (like all the other disciples) that Jesus was going to set up an earthly political kingdom, restoring the land to the Jews, because that's what they'd been taught all their lives by the Rabbis. The NT is clear that Judas did it himself, and that he was guilty of grave sin because of it. God used Judas' evil for an ultimate good. However, that doesn't save Judas or the people who crucified Jesus.

[handcrafted]

The doctrines of free will and election are so inscrutable, so incompressible to the human mind as to demand that we believe both without fully understanding how they fit together in the Kingdom of God.

John MacArthur

As to the suicide. Where in the scripture does suicide "condemn to an eternity in hell"?

Suicide = murder, so it's a violation of the 10 Commandments. It's a sin, but unless you're Catholic, it's forgiveable. Christians who commit suicide don't become "unsaved" because of it, but I would suspect that their heavenly reward would probably be significantly lessened, i.e., they'll be the ones getting coffee for the rest of us. ;)

[mdklatt]

Christians who commit suicide don't become "unsaved" because of it, but I would suspect that their heavenly reward would probably be significantly lessened, i.e., they'll be the ones getting coffee for the rest of us.

If God lets somebody get to the point that they feel they have no alternative but to kill themselves he has failed them utterly. He's the one that should be sorry, not them.

[Hamhock]

If God lets somebody get to the point that they feel they have no alternative but to kill themselves he has failed them utterly. He's the one that should be sorry, not them.


Interesting theology. What is it based on, anyhow?


PSA: SBSB's thread has made me cognizant of ending my sentences with a preposition. A properly placed, anyhow is the answer. ;)

[mdklatt]

God used Judas' evil for an ultimate good. However, that doesn't save Judas or the people who crucified Jesus.

So God is condemning people for carrying out his will? Somebody had to kill Jesus sooner or later for God's whole plan to come together, right?

[mdklatt]

Interesting theology. What is it based on, anyhow?



It's based on the idea that losing all hope and the very will to live is the worst thing that can happen to a human being. It's one thing that a "compassionate" god allows it to happen, but he better damn well not punish people for it.

[Vaevictis]

This so-called "gospel of Judas" is a fabrication. It contradicts the New Testament, therefore it's false.

The only problem with such certainty is that the New Testament was written by men. Men are fallible. Even if you discount the idea that the Four Gospels were written by men with an agenda, you cannot discount the possibility that they might have simply been *wrong*.

I understand that your faith may require you to believe that, but logically, it does not follow unless you assume that God was writing the New Testament using John, etc as human pens. But as I understand it, that is not the case -- it is merely the ... testimony/witness of the four disciples in question.

I'm also pretty sure God doesn't make sure that every copy ever made is accurate. Who knows what distortions have crept in over the years? (Hell, we know some have for sure, such as the whole "Thou shalt not kill v. Thou shalt not murder.)

[Desert Sapper]

so how was the vatacain not able to get this first and keep a lid on it?

That's why it was hidden so well when the Catholic Church was powerful. By 1978, the church didn't have the ability to quash a media rush on the find. Back in 378, the church would have probably destroyed it and everybody involved with maintaining it. And probably burned a few houses down and killed some chickens and goats too.

[crawfish]

If God lets somebody get to the point that they feel they have no alternative but to kill themselves he has failed them utterly. He's the one that should be sorry, not them.

God "lets" people do as they will...he does not control them and does not manipulate them. They fail themselves or we fail them, God has always provided a better way for those who seek it. It must also be pointed out that God, as an eternal being, is more concerned with our spiritual health than our physical or mental health. If one commits suicide but inherits eternal life, I believe God considers that a success for the individual.

On the Judas thing...I've always wondered if perhaps he was trying to force Jesus' hand. He (and the other disciples, as well as most of the Jews expecting the Messiah) thought that the kingdom would be an earthly one; thus, when he betrayed Jesus he felt he was doing the right thing by him. In fact, Jesus pointed out to him he knew of the betrayal and didn't forbid it...perhaps he took that as tacit approval. Once it was obvious what was going to happen - Jesus was going to die and was not going to fight back - he had a fit of despair and killed himself. He becomes much less of a villain in this scenario, and it does not conflict with the biblical account (although there is no outright support for it).

[crawfish]

It's based on the idea that losing all hope and the very will to live is the worst thing that can happen to a human being. It's one thing that a "compassionate" god allows it to happen, but he better damn well not punish people for it.

I certainly couldn't be a believer if I had this view of God. Fortunately, I don't - I believe God grants us a level of freedom that prevents him from openly acting in situations where he's not asked to, and it might prevent him from acting even when asked. With a more complete perspective, his actions don't always make sense to us...but I believe they would if we knew more.

[mdklatt]

I certainly couldn't be a believer if I had this view of God. Fortunately, I don't - I believe God grants us a level of freedom that prevents him from openly acting in situations where he's not asked to, and it might prevent him from acting even when asked. With a more complete perspective, his actions don't always make sense to us...but I believe they would if we knew more.

With major depression--the main cause of suicide--you lose all capacity to help yourself. If God doesn't help those who can't help themselves, what's the point? It's like let watching a toddler drown and saying, "the little bastard shoulda stayed away from the water if he couldn't swim." If he is going to allow that to happen, it sure as hell shouldn't be a sin.

[GDC]

Educated people talking seriously about god, wow. No wonder only 10% of Okies have college degrees and meth is rampant.

[Boarder]

Educated people talking seriously about god, wow. No wonder only 10% of Okies have college degrees and meth is rampant.
Dude, Meth is rampant because coke is, like, soooo 80's.

[Desert Sapper]

If God lets somebody get to the point that they feel they have no alternative but to kill themselves he has failed them utterly. He's the one that should be sorry, not them.

This is why God asks that you turn to Him in your moments of despair. Judas did not choose to do so. Had he, he might have found the forgiveness that would have eased his soul. My guess is that Judas only realized what he had done when he saw Jesus bearing his cross. Like all the other apostles, he felt like all was lost. He wasn't the only one that lost his faith after the crucifixion.

[Hamhock]

It's based on the idea that losing all hope and the very will to live is the worst thing that can happen to a human being. It's one thing that a "compassionate" god allows it to happen, but he better damn well not punish people for it.

Romans ch. 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be!

15 For he said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

18 So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

19 You will say then to me, "Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?"

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"

21 Or hasn't the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction,

23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,

24 us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

[Redshirt]

The Judas Gospel is somewhat old news. It has been around for 25 years or so.

The main Gospels of the New Testament were probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as they have been dated to several hundred years after their death.

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

The current New Testament is a 'best of', more easily understood and 'enforced' version of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let's see who I have angered...

[Vaevictis]

Educated people talking seriously about god, wow. No wonder only 10% of Okies have college degrees and meth is rampant.

I'm guessing you're one of the 90%'ers. Most of the greatest minds in history have debated God; most of them *believed* in God (or gods).

[TUSooner]

I was hoping this was about something in The Onion.

[Octavian]

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

is it the Book of Enoch that covers the satanic war and Christ's childhood?

[Desert Sapper]

The Judas Gospel is somewhat old news. It has been around for 25 years or so.

The main Gospels of the New Testament were probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as they have been dated to several hundred years after their death.

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

The current New Testament is a 'best of', more easily understood and 'enforced' version of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let's see who I have angered...

I think you may be confusing the Gospel of Judas (which was discovered in 1978) with the Gnostic gospels (discovered around 1949 in the same area). It is a matter of historical record that the Catholic Church formed at the will of Emperor Constantine at the First Council of Nicea. It was at this Council that Erasmus was declared a heretic, and shortly after this event that Pope Innocent issued the edict declaring the 'accepted' form of the New Testament Gospel. Consequently, the letter that he sent to the various Bishops of the Church (who maintained their own discretion about what was included in their ministries) included the books that we can find in the modern New Testament in the exact order they are today. It was also at this council that Mary was agreed to have immaculately conceived Jesus, Jesus was agreed to be son of God, the Roman Bishop was declared the Pope, and Peter was determined to be the first Pope. Up to this point, everyone operated independently (and their teachings varied considerably). After this, the church quashed all that deviated from the 'official' teachings. Some apparently decided to keep their 'deviant' manuscripts from being destroyed.

[OklahomaTuba]

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

Unfortunatly, this is probably more true than the Christian Church's would like to admit. This would mean the Church's are in fact in apostasy, and I firmly believe that they are to some degree, especially the Catholic Church. This is why reason is so important.

However, its good news to see original supporting documents of the era come to light, even if they are Gnostic.

[Fugue]

The Judas Gospel is somewhat old news. It has been around for 25 years or so.

The main Gospels of the New Testament were probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as they have been dated to several hundred years after their death.

Now let's see who I have angered...

not angered at all but this isn't factual. The 4 Gospels and particularly the writings of Paul were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

[Redshirt]

not angered at all but this isn't factual. The 4 Gospels and particularly the writings of Paul were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

And when were the letters of Paul written and/or transcribed by 'eyewitnesses'?

[Fugue]

And when were the letters of Paul written and/or transcribed by 'eyewitnesses'?

after the eyewitnesses eyewitnessed it? :texan:

[Pricetag]

I think you may be confusing the Gospel of Judas (which was discovered in 1978) with the Gnostic gospels (discovered around 1949 in the same area). It is a matter of historical record that the Catholic Church formed at the will of Emperor Constantine at the First Council of Nicea. It was at this Council that Erasmus was declared a heretic, and shortly after this event that Pope Innocent issued the edict declaring the 'accepted' form of the New Testament Gospel. Consequently, the letter that he sent to the various Bishops of the Church (who maintained their own discretion about what was included in their ministries) included the books that we can find in the modern New Testament in the exact order they are today. It was also at this council that Mary was agreed to have immaculately conceived Jesus, Jesus was agreed to be son of God, the Roman Bishop was declared the Pope, and Peter was determined to be the first Pope. Up to this point, everyone operated independently (and their teachings varied considerably). After this, the church quashed all that deviated from the 'official' teachings. Some apparently decided to keep their 'deviant' manuscripts from being destroyed.
Cripes, I'll never find a church. I have a major, major problem with these folks getting together so long after all this and "agreeing" that all these things happened, and deciding what is and is not "official." These are human people we're talking about.

[Redshirt]

This discuss could end badly but:


There were also a number of Gospels that were left out of the Bible for various reasons, such as they were written at undistinguishable times or simply because they didn't match up with the Gospels that the compilers of the Bible wanted the gospels to say. Some of the "missing" gospels are quite interesting, here is a little information of some of the other Gospels.



The Sayings Gospel Q - A collection of wisdom from Jesus, never speaks of his death or resurrection though. Could this have been part of the reason it was left out?

The Secret Book of James - About a private revelation made to Peter and James by Jesus 550 days after his resurrection, it's in the form of a letter.

The Dialogue of the Savior - This one is fairly self explanatory.

The Gospel of Mary - Fairly similar to the Gospels in the Bible, except in this one after Jesus tells the disciples to go and preach his word, he leave... and nobody knew what Jesus meant, that is except for Mary Magdalene and Levi. When Mary tries to explain and comfort them... well, Peter and Andrew go bug**** and turn on her and wacky hijinks ensue!!!

The Infancy Gospel of James - This one ends at the birth of Jesus, this is the book that explains how Jesus could be sinless if he was born of woman. Sin is passed through the woman. This explains it, as it describes the miraculous conception of Mary. WOO HOO!

There are even more Gospels where only fragments were found. If you are interested in finding out more, or reading these gospels, I reccommend the book The Complete Gospels edited by Robert J. Miller.

[Desert Sapper]

The bottom line is to not get too wrapped around the axel about what 'is' and what 'isn't' supposed to be in the Gospel. Jesus was the Messiah, there are a great many outside references that verify his fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies for a Messiah. He represents the sacrificial lamb. Essentially, everyone is a sinner. If you admit it and ask for forgiveness, Jesus' sacrifice washes it away. As long as you can know and understand that he was blameless and died to expunge your sins (something you cannot truly do by your works alone), the rest is fairly irrelevant. Was Judas a betrayer or not? Was Jesus married or not? Was Jesus the literal Son of God or not? Accept that he died sinless for your sin and it doesn't really matter. The accepted Gospels provide inspiration for faith (particularly Paul's letters -- which were, in fact, written after Jesus' death and resurrection), but faith does not come from a book. It comes from the heart.

[yermom]

Cripes, I'll never find a church. I have a major, major problem with these folks getting together so long after all this and "agreeing" that all these things happened, and deciding what is and is not "official." These are human people we're talking about.

i'm still on the fence as far as God existing, but i've yet to see an organized religion that i trust, they all seem to have some agenda

[Octavian]

i'm still on the fence as far as God existing, but i've yet to see an organized religion that i trust, they all seem to have some agenda

ever been to Journey? I tried out the non-denominational approach....All they did was sing for an hour and pass around the collection plate...

[Hamhock]

As long as you can know and understand that he was blameless and died to expunge your sins (something you cannot truly do by your works alone), the rest is fairly irrelevant.

How can you know this if you only believe part of the Bible?


Was Judas a betrayer or not?

Scripture says he was.




Was Jesus married or not?

Bible doesn't mention marriage.


Was Jesus the literal Son of God or not?

Absolutely


but faith does not come from a book. It comes from the heart.

Faith is a gift of God.

[Hamhock]

i'm still on the fence as far as God existing, but i've yet to see an organized religion that i trust, they all seem to have some agenda


Try a reformed theology church. No play on your emotions or wallet. It will be relatively plain and boring compared to what you are used to. Will be mostly teaching. Give it a try just once.

[TexasLidig8r]

So, were the sins of Judas washed away by the sacrifice made by Christ and if so then, is Judas' soul in heaven?

[crawfish]

The Judas Gospel is somewhat old news. It has been around for 25 years or so.

The main Gospels of the New Testament were probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as they have been dated to several hundred years after their death.

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

The current New Testament is a 'best of', more easily understood and 'enforced' version of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let's see who I have angered...

Mark was the earliest gospel, written about 60-70AD. John was the latest, written about 90AD. Most of Paul's letters have been dated at around 70-90AD. Of course, these are simply the earliest PROVEN dates we can come up with based on archaeological findings.

There were many, many more "gospels" than six circulating in the first two centuries. We only have actual text from a few of these, and complete (or a majority) of text from even fewer. The funkiest by far was the Gospel of Peter (read his account of the ressurection). However, all of the Gnostic gospels are dated well into the second century.

No anger here, just want to get your facts straight. :)

[Hamhock]

Good question. I believe "getting to heaven" depends on a conversion initiated by God. As such, I have a hard time proclaiming whether a particular person is or isn't in heaven. It is certainly possible. After all, Peter denied he even knew Christ.

How's that for a lawyer answer?

you didn't answer my question about scripture/suicide/hell.

[OklahomaTuba]

I was going to post that Mark the Evangelist (a disciple of peter) was the author of the Gospel of Mark.

[crawfish]

Cripes, I'll never find a church. I have a major, major problem with these folks getting together so long after all this and "agreeing" that all these things happened, and deciding what is and is not "official." These are human people we're talking about.

There is a question as to how "inspiration" works with respect to the scriptures. Did the authors of the bible know they were writing scripture at the time of its writing, or did they simply write what they felt compelled to write and history prove it inspired?

God works through people, and people are imperfect. I believe that God finds a way to get his message across regardless. To me, a document that has stayed relevant after 2000 years should be judged on its content rather than the identity of its authors or compilers.

[crawfish]

With major depression--the main cause of suicide--you lose all capacity to help yourself. If God doesn't help those who can't help themselves, what's the point? It's like let watching a toddler drown and saying, "the little bastard shoulda stayed away from the water if he couldn't swim." If he is going to allow that to happen, it sure as hell shouldn't be a sin.

I don't believe that ALL suicide is a sin. God sees our hearts and judges us as individuals - what is sin for one isn't necessarily sin for another.

[opksooner]

Shouldn't this thread be on the Soonerfans' Religion Board?

Oh,...........wait................

............never mind

[picasso]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0785263705.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
:D

[Stoop Dawg]

Here is my take on free will versus predetermination:

Free will and predetermination, in the eyes of an omniscient God are not necessarily mutually exclusive. God can give you the freedom to make your own choices, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what choices you're going to make before he makes them.

In my personal opinion, the fall of Adam and the fall of Lucifer were easily forseen by God and were obviously amenable to his "plans." Keep in mind that at that point in time, God was quite happy to directly interfere with people's actions (if not their decisions). God could have very easily intervened with Eve was tempted, and he could have very easily intervened when Adam was tempted. He chose not to. The fall was obviously something that is acceptable to him. In fact, I suspect that it was something that he intended to happen all along; stick an imperfect being like a human in front of temptation for eternity, and *sooner* or later that human will give in. It was practically inevitable.

I believe that it had to do with humanity's growth -- stuck in the garden, humanity would eternally be as children. Out in the "real world" so to speak, we could grow.

The fall of Lucifer likewise falls into his plans by providing an alternative to humanity. God obviously wants us to *choose* him.

With respect to Judas, it's entirely possible that Jesus directed Judas to turn him in; in the scene where Jesus prophecied that Judas would betray him, it may be that what the other disciples interpreted as a prediction was in fact an order. Similarly, what was a prediction may have been interpreted as an order by Judas. If Jesus is the son of God, and Judas was a truly pious man, could he possibly refuse? Such a demand is relatively tame compared to, for example, the story of Abraham and Isaac -- and we all know that Abraham would have done it if God hadn't stopped him.

Given that God already knows what choice every soul is going to make, what's the hold up on this rapture thing?

Also, if God already knew then end result of this whole (create heaven & earth, create man, let man choose a side, have a big war, God wins) process, why have it?

If God created man because angels don't have free will, how did Satan (an angel) exercise free will and get tossed from heaven?

If you start thinking critically about religion, you'll get more questions than answers. And that's all I really have to say about that. ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

The only problem with such certainty is that the New Testament was written by men. Men are fallible. Even if you discount the idea that the Four Gospels were written by men with an agenda, you cannot discount the possibility that they might have simply been *wrong*.

Trust me, he does.

[Stoop Dawg]

not angered at all but this isn't factual. The 4 Gospels and particularly the writings of Paul were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

I believe that at least one of the Gospels (and as many as 3 of them) were written by people who knew the apostles, not the apostles themselves. They are accounts from eyewitnesses, but not written by the eyewitnesses themselves. I believe some were written up to a couple hundred years after Jesus' death.

I am told (by the History Channel) that if you look at the 4 gospels chronologically (in the order in which they are written) they become increasingly accusatory of the Jews and the role they played in the death of Jesus. The final gospel has the Jews yelling "Crucify Him!". Interestingly, this gospel was written as the newly formed religion of Christianity was splitting off from the Jews. The Jews turned up their noses at the new Christian religion, the members being very much a minority in those days. I think the implications are obvious.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We are God's 24/7 reality TV show, he was bored so he created a universe. He put them in paradise but that wasn't exciting enough. So then he had start killing and murdering and that is when the ratings went up.

[Redshirt]

The bottom line is to not get too wrapped around the axel about what 'is' and what 'isn't' supposed to be in the Gospel. Jesus was the Messiah, there are a great many outside references that verify his fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies for a Messiah. He represents the sacrificial lamb. Essentially, everyone is a sinner. If you admit it and ask for forgiveness, Jesus' sacrifice washes it away. As long as you can know and understand that he was blameless and died to expunge your sins (something you cannot truly do by your works alone), the rest is fairly irrelevant. Was Judas a betrayer or not? Was Jesus married or not? Was Jesus the literal Son of God or not? Accept that he died sinless for your sin and it doesn't really matter. The accepted Gospels provide inspiration for faith (particularly Paul's letters -- which were, in fact, written after Jesus' death and resurrection), but faith does not come from a book. It comes from the heart.

'spek...

[GDC]

I'm guessing you're one of the 90%'ers. Most of the greatest minds in history have debated God; most of them *believed* in God (or gods).

Guess again, slappy. I'm trained in science so I need some actual evidence to acknowledge something, although I will never completely discount anything.

[Fugue]

. I believe some were written up to a couple hundred years after Jesus' death.

all within 100 years which means also that any eyewitnesses at the time could write materials refuting the gospels message. Those don't exist and it certainly wasn't because Christianity was a powerful politcal force. Christians at that time were being killed because of it. Interesting stuff though. There are a couple good threads on this topic from not long ago that have some great info.

:twinkies: when did this smiliedeal show up?

[Redshirt]

canon
The whole tradition is believed to have existed at first only in oral form, with various writings slowly coming into existence over the next hundred years after the death of Jesus. There is a great amount of debate among Biblical scholars as to which came first. The Gospels are often cited as having being composed from around 50 AD. However, the first time they appear in the form as we know now does not occur until around the middle of the second century AD.

The Epistles of Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) are less contentious, with general agreement of their origin being in in the 50's and 60's AD. They are most likely the first textual material of the accepted Christian canon. This is important as St. Paul effectively is the origin for all Christian theology.

A relatively large number of Christian texts claiming informed origin soon became read about the Roman Empire, some of which are obvious and poor fakes, whereas others present interesting philosophical angles. It took the will of the Roman Emperor Constantine to bring together various Christian Bishops in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea, to decide upon an authorised Christian canon for an alerady greatly diversified religion. Despite the strong will of persons such as Arius, it was Athanasius whose viewpoint essentially became dominant in deciding what core of the New Testament was accepted. By 397 AD, with the addition of Revelations at the Council of Chalcedon, the authoritive version of the Bible that we have today was complete.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/

[Vaevictis]

Given that God already knows what choice every soul is going to make, what's the hold up on this rapture thing?

Also, if God already knew then end result of this whole (create heaven & earth, create man, let man choose a side, have a big war, God wins) process, why have it?

First, "the rapture" never occurs in any of the "old" religious texts. It's an invention of certain Christian religious denominations. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong, but it's not something that is universally agreed upon across Christendom.

Even so, my theory is that God wants us to grow spiritually, and we need experience to do that. The intervening time frame gives us the ability to gain that experience.

To put it simply, God wants company. It's one of the reasons he gave us free will. As fun as playing with action figures, dolls, etc, is, eventually you get bored of it and want to go play with another kid. So what does God do? He creates himself some "playmates" so to speak. I don't believe that God made us in his own image in terms of physical features, I believe he made us in his own image in terms of spiritual and mental features. We are like him. We're not infinate or infinately powerful, but we're as close as he could or was willing to make us.


If God created man because angels don't have free will, how did Satan (an angel) exercise free will and get tossed from heaven?

That's an easy one. Satan didn't exercise free will. God made him to rebel. This is one of the reasons I find it silly to hate and loathe Satan. He's just fullfilling his purpose, doing exactly as God intended him to. Why should you hate something that does what God made it to do? That is not to say you should work with him or anything -- by all means resist temptation, etc, but you don't have to hate him in order to do that.

[Vaevictis]

Guess again, slappy. I'm trained in science so I need some actual evidence to acknowledge something, although I will never completely discount anything.

Ah, see, there are plenty of people who are trained in science -- many of whom are top-tier scientists -- who subscribe to one of the various religions. Most of those people view science as what it really is: a tool. It is a good investigative methodology, but it does not and likely cannot answer every single question.

Perhaps I was ... snippy in response, and I'm sorry for that, but I took exception to your original comment which was rather insulting itself. Belief in religion doesn't inherently imply that one is backwards, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. Don't paint everyone with that brush just because *some* religious people are backwards ;)

[crawfish]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/

There is strong archaeological evidence that Mark was written around 60-70AD, derived from oral tradition. The belief that it was written in the second century is far less mainstream.

[GDC]

Ah, see, there are plenty of people who are trained in science -- many of whom are top-tier scientists -- who subscribe to one of the various religions. Most of those people view science as what it really is: a tool. It is a good investigative methodology, but it does not and likely cannot answer every single question.

Perhaps I was ... snippy in response, and I'm sorry for that, but I took exception to your original comment which was rather insulting itself. Belief in religion doesn't inherently imply that one is backwards, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. Don't paint everyone with that brush just because *some* religious people are backwards ;)

No offense taken and none meant. The confounding thing about religion is that anyone can consider themselves an expert on it.

[Redshirt]

There is strong archaeological evidence that Mark was written around 60-70AD, derived from oral tradition. The belief that it was written in the second century is far less mainstream.

I would agree. But I also feel that most mainstream religions edit New Testament material to fit their own agenda. One would need a lifetime to research all the available material and make a distinct unwavering decision for himself.

[TUSooner]

Where does "Just try not to be a frikkin @$$hole" fit into this religious deal? I think that's kinda important.

[Sooner_Bob]

The Judas Gospel is somewhat old news. It has been around for 25 years or so.

The main Gospels of the New Testament were probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as they have been dated to several hundred years after their death.

There are at least six (not including the Gospel of Judas) other known Gospels that were included at one time or another in the New Testament that have since been 'edited' by church doctrine over the centuries.

The current New Testament is a 'best of', more easily understood and 'enforced' version of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let's see who I have angered...


There was specific criteria that texts had to meet to be considered legit. Those that didn't weren't included.

Saying church doctrine edited the bible is not correct. If you look at the earliest historical writings and compare them to what you would find in a bible printed last week there is hardly any difference at all other than linguistic changes here and there. The basic message has not changed.

[crawfish]

I would agree. But I also feel that most mainstream religions edit New Testament material to fit their own agenda. One would need a lifetime to research all the available material and make a distinct unwavering decision for himself.

Hmmm...what I see is the Bible remaining pretty consistent over time DESPITE the fact that parts contradict some teachings of some mainstream religions (Catholicism for one).

I summed up your misgivings from my point of view in an earlier post:


God works through people, and people are imperfect. I believe that God finds a way to get his message across regardless. To me, a document that has stayed relevant after 2000 years should be judged on its content rather than the identity of its authors or compilers.

[Sooner_Bob]

Well crawfish there is the Book of Mormon . . . :P

[GDC]

Where does "Just try not to be a frikkin @$$hole" fit into this religious deal? I think that's kinda important.

spek

[handcrafted]

Well, y'all got spared my input this afternoon cuz I was busy.

The answers to most peoples questions were posted elsewhere in the thread, so I won't flog the horsey. I do, however, want to point out that a lot of people have been drinking the mainstream media kool-aid when it comes to the Bible and Christianity in general. If you really want to know the truth about the Bible or about what we believe, get it from a reliable source, i.e., not from The History Channel or the Today show or whatever. Just because someone is a self-labeled "scholar" doesn't mean they don't have an agenda, too.

Here's a good start: http://www.monergism.com/

That site will answer almost any question you can pose.

[Stoop Dawg]

That's an easy one. Satan didn't exercise free will. God made him to rebel.

While that certainly answers any questions about angels not having free will, I'm pretty certain that not many people who call themselves Christian would agree that God "made" Satan rebel. If that's the case, now you've got the whole "Judas" thing (that started this thread) to explain. God "made" Satan rebel then tossed him into eternal damnation for it? Whoa. Again, more questions than answers.

[GDC]

tee hee:twinkies:

[handcrafted]

The whole story of Satan's fall is not recorded in the Bible, so we don't (and by implication were not meant to) know exactly how it went down. We only get snippets of the relationship between God and angels. Stuff like Paradise Lost and the fiction that the Roman church puts out are fun to read, but they should not be taken as truth.

[Sooner_Bob]

Well, y'all got spared my input this afternoon cuz I was busy.

The answers to most peoples questions were posted elsewhere in the thread, so I won't flog the horsey. I do, however, want to point out that a lot of people have been drinking the mainstream media kool-aid when it comes to the Bible and Christianity in general. If you really want to know the truth about the Bible or about what we believe, get it from a reliable source, i.e., not from The History Channel or the Today show or whatever. Just because someone is a self-labeled "scholar" doesn't mean they don't have an agenda, too.

Here's a good start: http://www.monergism.com/

That site will answer almost any question you can pose.



I'll have to check this site out. It appears to be loaded with information.

[TUSooner]

monergism = 180-proof Calvinsim, straight up, no chaser ?

[Vaevictis]

While that certainly answers any questions about angels not having free will, I'm pretty certain that not many people who call themselves Christian would agree that God "made" Satan rebel.

Well, if you believe that angels don't/didn't have free will, then there is no other possible conclusion. You can't have something without free will exercising free will.


If that's the case, now you've got the whole "Judas" thing (that started this thread) to explain. God "made" Satan rebel then tossed him into eternal damnation for it? Whoa. Again, more questions than answers.

Why does that make more questions? It's well established that what's moral behavior for God is completely different than what constitutes moral behavior for humanity. Think about it. What would you call a man that killed every firstborn child in a nation? Or deliberately flooded the world in order to kill all humans but one family? But it's all honky-dory for God to do it. I mean, if it's okay to mass-murder and/or commit genocide, it's not too much of a stretch to toss eternal damnation just-because-I-wanted-to into the mix.

The really tough question for me is: Why is it morally acceptable for God to do it, but not humans? That's the one I can't wrap my head around.

[GottaHavePride]

i'm still on the fence as far as God existing, but i've yet to see an organized religion that i trust, they all seem to have some agenda

I've been reading a lot of Taoist and Buddhist writings recently. Taoism in particular seems to be more of a philosophical approach to the whole business.

[Stoop Dawg]

Well, if you believe that angels don't/didn't have free will, then there is no other possible conclusion. You can't have something without free will exercising free will.

Well, when you're right, you're right. I see your point.


Why does that make more questions? It's well established that what's moral behavior for God is completely different than what constitutes moral behavior for humanity. Think about it. What would you call a man that killed every firstborn child in a nation? Or deliberately flooded the world in order to kill all humans but one family? But it's all honky-dory for God to do it. I mean, if it's okay to mass-murder and/or commit genocide, it's not too much of a stretch to toss eternal damnation just-because-I-wanted-to into the mix.

The really tough question for me is: Why is it morally acceptable for God to do it, but not humans? That's the one I can't wrap my head around.

I think some of the resident Christians will want to debate God's mass-murdering, genocidal (?) tendencies, but again, you're right.

I sure hope God doesn't arbitrarily decide that *I* should experience eternal damnation!

[handcrafted]

monergism = 180-proof Calvinsim, straight up, no chaser ?

That's not all the site's about, it's got articles and stuff on every aspect of Christian belief, and they're written by people who don't necessarily agree with each other on the finer points. However, it is in fact run by a Calvinist and the articles on sin and salvation are aimed in that direction.

[handcrafted]

Well, if you believe that angels don't/didn't have free will, then there is no other possible conclusion. You can't have something without free will exercising free will.



Why does that make more questions? It's well established that what's moral behavior for God is completely different than what constitutes moral behavior for humanity. Think about it. What would you call a man that killed every firstborn child in a nation? Or deliberately flooded the world in order to kill all humans but one family? But it's all honky-dory for God to do it. I mean, if it's okay to mass-murder and/or commit genocide, it's not too much of a stretch to toss eternal damnation just-because-I-wanted-to into the mix.

The really tough question for me is: Why is it morally acceptable for God to do it, but not humans? That's the one I can't wrap my head around.

Because God is God, and we are not?

[handcrafted]

Well, when you're right, you're right. I see your point.



I think some of the resident Christians will want to debate God's mass-murdering, genocidal (?) tendencies, but again, you're right.

I sure hope God doesn't arbitrarily decide that *I* should experience eternal damnation!

Nothing arbitrary about it. We all deserve it. The fact that God offers us a way out is the grace part. That's the part we don't deserve.

And as for the "mass-murdering" and "genocide", it wasn't anything of the sort. It was divine judgment, something only God has the right to exercise. We don't have that right; we're the creature, not the Creator.

[mdklatt]

Nothing arbitrary about it. We all deserve it.

I'm damned to Hell because of what Adam and Eve did? Screw that nonsense. If God isn't going to judge me on my individual merits then he can bite it.

[Stoop Dawg]

Nothing arbitrary about it. We all deserve it. The fact that God offers us a way out is the grace part. That's the part we don't deserve.

Did Lucifer exercise free will or not? If so, the existance of man as described in the Bible is logically flawed. If not, then God's selection of Lucifer - from among all the other angels - to burn in Hell forever is unjustified (without free will, he was necessarily following God's will).

And while the "God makes the rules but doesn't have to follow them" argument doesn't defy logic, it does defy respect for such a God. The fact that I may indeed follow God's will (as did Lucifer, evidently) and still be damned for eternity has serious implications for my faith in such a God.

[Stoop Dawg]

I'm damned to Hell because of what Adam and Eve did?

I wouldn't sweat it.

[handcrafted]

I'm damned to Hell because of what Adam and Eve did? Screw that nonsense. If God isn't going to judge me on my individual merits then he can bite it.

Oh, so you have individual merit? Do tell.

Let me see if I can put this in perspective for you. God is Holy. He is ultimate Good. Nothing evil can exist in his presence.

Have you ever done anything wrong? Ever told a lie? Ever cheated on anything? Stolen something? Lusted after a woman not your wife?

Do you think you could stand in the presence of Almighty God in your current condition?

[Stoop Dawg]

Do you think you could stand in the presence of Almighty God in your current condition?

Since your God evidently holds me to a different standard than he holds himself, no.

[handcrafted]

Did Lucifer exercise free will or not? If so, the existance of man as described in the Bible is logically flawed. If not, then God's selection of Lucifer - from among all the other angels - to burn in Hell forever is unjustified (without free will, he was necessarily following God's will).

And while the "God makes the rules but doesn't have to follow them" argument doesn't defy logic, it does defy respect for such a God. The fact that I may indeed follow God's will (as did Lucifer, evidently) and still be damned for eternity has serious implications for my faith in such a God.

It only defies respect if you judge God based on your own ideas of what you want Him to be like. So, as you pass judgment on God, you set yourself up in His place, and make yourself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

Which is exactly what Adam and Eve did.

[handcrafted]

It only defies respect if you judge God based on your own ideas of what you want Him to be like. So, as you pass judgment on God, you set yourself up in His place, and make yourself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

Which is exactly what Adam and Eve did.

And, also, as far as God's will goes, there are two aspects to it: decretive and preceptive. The one has to do with God's ordained plan for the universe, the other has to do with His instructions on how the means to accomplish that plan are carried out. Yes, it's impossible to comprehend the correlation between divine decrees and human free agency (and responsibility), but the Bible teaches these things, and we must accept them as true, even though we don't fully understand them. We can't fully understand them, because we're finite humans, not an infinite God.

[handcrafted]

Since your God evidently holds me to a different standard than he holds himself, no.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. What different standard? God made the universe, He can do whatever He wants with it. We have no say in the matter. God makes the rules. He's the Owner of the store, man. He has every right to hold us to whatever standard He thinks is appropriate, and our duty is to worship Him. Period.

The chief end (or purpose) of humankind is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. (Westminster Shorter Catechism, No. 1)

God, not being human, being Creator rather than creature, not bound by time and space, or by human reason, is incomparable to anything. You cannot analogize human experience to divine. It is a category mistake, a fallacy.

[Stoop Dawg]

we must accept them as true, even though we don't fully understand them. We can't fully understand them, because we're finite humans, not an infinite God.

You know, I can respect that opinion.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

I don't believe that ALL suicide is a sin. God sees our hearts and judges us as individuals - what is sin for one isn't necessarily sin for another.


I disagree, sin is sin reguardless of the individual.

[mdklatt]

Oh, so you have individual merit? Do tell.


Did I tell that bitch Eve to eat the damn apple? No, I did not. If he's going to judge me based on some arbitary standard of being saved or unsaved instead of what I do while I'm on this planet, than I'm not going to bother worshipping him. And since he made me the way that I am, he can GADOCADWI.

[crawfish]

Did I tell that bitch Eve to eat the damn apple? No, I did not. If he's going to judge me based on some arbitary standard of being saved or unsaved instead of what I do while I'm on this planet, than I'm not going to bother worshipping him. And since he made me the way that I am, he can GADOCADWI.

I think that since he's the creator and judge, it's you who have to GADOCADWI. ;)

[Vaevictis]

Because God is God, and we are not?

Yeah, that's going to go about as far as my parents telling me, "Do as I say, not as I do."


Did Lucifer exercise free will or not? If so, the existance of man as described in the Bible is logically flawed. If not, then God's selection of Lucifer - from among all the other angels - to burn in Hell forever is unjustified (without free will, he was necessarily following God's will).

Actually, this part doesn't bother me at all. I expect God made Lucifer in such a way that Lucifer doesn't really *mind* being in Hell. If he's fullfilling his purpose, it's probably not torment in the same way you and I understand. I mean, imagine an animal that lives in the most desolate place in the world -- like say, the Emporer Penguin. It's a hard-knock life for sure, but the Emporer Penguin doesn't seem to mind particularly. That's the life it's made for.


I'm not sure how to respond to this. What different standard? God made the universe, He can do whatever He wants with it. We have no say in the matter. God makes the rules. He's the Owner of the store, man. He has every right to hold us to whatever standard He thinks is appropriate, and our duty is to worship Him. Period.

Mental experiment: Assume humanity gets to a point where we can actually create biological life from base elements. (And don't say that we can't, because it's the divine province of God -- just go with the hypothetical.)
We do so, and *we* create that life in our own image; these new beings are almost indistinguishable as humans.

Now here's the moral question: If it's okay for God to do as he pleases because of your above justification, then surely it's okay for us to do the same. So, can we do whatever we please whenever we please to our new creations? For example, is it moral to keep the children of our creations around as f*cktoys for pedophiles? I mean, at this point, we satisfy the whole "we created it so we can do what we want with it."

Stuff like that is the reason the whole "It's OK because God is the creator" doesn't fly with me. If you take a hypothetical situation where humanity is become a creator being, it doesn't mean *we* can do whatever we want with our creations.

Now, if you want to say "God can do these things because there is some deeper moral law that he's aware of that we, as imperfect beings, cannot understand. The moral law we are aware of is a slightly dumbed-down version packaged so that we can wrap our little finite heads around it."... well, I'd say you're getting close to a reasonable reason for why these things are ok for God to do because it would imply that *if* we were capable of understanding this deeper morality, we might be able to distinguish when these types of actions are morally acceptable.

[Sooner_Bob]

Wow . . . some of these posts just make me shake my head and wonder.

[Desert Sapper]

While that certainly answers any questions about angels not having free will, I'm pretty certain that not many people who call themselves Christian would agree that God "made" Satan rebel. If that's the case, now you've got the whole "Judas" thing (that started this thread) to explain. God "made" Satan rebel then tossed him into eternal damnation for it? Whoa. Again, more questions than answers.

Take a look at the book of Job. Paints Satan in a whole different light.

[SoonerWood]

This conversation has been going on for thousands of years and probably hasn't gotten any further than day one.

[handcrafted]

This conversation has been going on for thousands of years and probably hasn't gotten any further than day one.

Truth.

[handcrafted]

deeper moral law that he's aware of that we, as imperfect beings, cannot understand. The moral law we are aware of is a slightly dumbed-down version packaged so that we can wrap our little finite heads around it."... well, I'd say you're getting close to a reasonable reason for why these things are ok for God to do because it would imply that *if* we were capable of understanding this deeper morality, we might be able to distinguish when these types of actions are morally acceptable.

I think you're rather close to the point with this paragraph. I'll sort of boil it down. If we were God, we could understand fully what God does, but we're not, so we don't.

As far as the moral law being a "dumbed-down" version, it's not really an accurate way to say it, but it's kinda like that. The creation reflects God's character and we reflect His image, though the reflections are imperfect due to the Fall.

[Scott D]

Personally I think everyone should go to hell and just be happy about it.

Then again I'm going to find difinitive proof that Satan is just God's split personality showing sometimes :D

[handcrafted]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

--Romans 1:18-32 (ESV)

[Stoop Dawg]

Yeah, that's going to go about as far as my parents telling me, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Indeed. God gave us free will and asked us to choose between him and satan. Then God went off acting like an *******, not abiding by the laws that he gave us to live by. God gave me this brain and told me how to use it (the Bible). God told me to love my neighbor like myself, and to forgive sinners - then he went on a bloody, murdering rampage and it's supposedly okay because he plays by different rules.

If morality does not apply to God, how are we to choose between God and Satan? What measure should I use to make my decision? God can do what appears to me to be evil (according to the laws given to me) and I should accept it. But if Satan does those same things then I should assume that Satan is evil and turn away? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[handcrafted]

Indeed. God gave us free will and asked us to choose between him and satan. Then God went off acting like an *******, not abiding by the laws that he gave us to live by. God gave me this brain and told me how to use it (the Bible). God told me to love my neighbor like myself, and to forgive sinners - then he went on a bloody, murdering rampage and it's supposedly okay because he plays by different rules.

If morality does not apply to God, how are we to choose between God and Satan? What measure should I use to make my decision? God can do what appears to me to be evil (according to the laws given to me) and I should accept it. But if Satan does those same things then I should assume that Satan is evil and turn away? That doesn't make any sense at all.

You know something? You really are ignorant. That's not an insult. You just truly have no idea what you're saying.

If you're going to make broad unfounded assertions and trot them out as truth, you might at least have the good sense to go to the source and check to see if what you are saying is accurate. I'm constantly amazed at people who try to tell me what the Bible says when they haven't read it themselves.

And can I also assume that you and Vaevictus believe that there should not be a different set of rules for adults and children?

[Scott D]

*watches the whooshing of the point as it flies well over handcrafted's head* ;)

[Vaevictis]

And can I also assume that you and Vaevictus believe that there should not be a different set of rules for adults and children?

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? How often is it that an action taken by a child is immoral when the same action taken by an adult is not?

[handcrafted]

*watches the whooshing of the point as it flies well over handcrafted's head* ;)

You got it exactly backwards. It's StoopDawg who's missing my point.

[handcrafted]

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? How often is it that an action taken by a child is immoral when the same action taken by an adult is not?

Drinking age: 21

Driving age: 16

Going to R Rated movie age: 17

Voting age: 18

[Scott D]

You got it exactly backwards. It's StoopDawg who's missing my point.

but is he missing your point, or eloquently questioning something in it?

FWIW the last scripture you quoted condemns organized religion.

[handcrafted]

but is he missing your point, or eloquently questioning something in it?

He's not eloquently doing anything. But I've answered his question earlier in the thread.


FWIW the last scripture you quoted condemns organized religion.

No, it does nothing of the kind. That passage from Romans doesn't have anything to do with "organized religion", however you are defining that term. The passage has to do with the mental and spiritual state of the unbeliever.

[Sooner_Bob]

As much as I hate to admit it handcrafted, people are going to believe what they want so it makes them feel ok with how they act.

God gave me freewill so it's all about me, me, me.

[Octavian]

You know something? You really are ignorant. That's not an insult. You just truly have no idea what you're saying.

If you're going to make broad unfounded assertions and trot them out as truth, you might at least have the good sense to go to the source and check to see if what you are saying is accurate. I'm constantly amazed at people who try to tell me what the Bible says when they haven't read it themselves.

not everyone interprets the Good Book the way you do...I know thats a hard thing to swallow but this ain't your church and you're not in a pulpit


And can I also assume that you and Vaevictus believe that there should not be a different set of rules for adults and children?

those two can join me and mdk....we'll be the ones passing out the junk science flyers

[crawfish]

You know something? You really are ignorant. That's not an insult. You just truly have no idea what you're saying.

If you're going to make broad unfounded assertions and trot them out as truth, you might at least have the good sense to go to the source and check to see if what you are saying is accurate. I'm constantly amazed at people who try to tell me what the Bible says when they haven't read it themselves.

And can I also assume that you and Vaevictus believe that there should not be a different set of rules for adults and children?

Bad form, dude.

[Hatfield]

This looks like an interesting read, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/102-3233288-3904141?v=glance&n=283155

[crawfish]

Indeed. God gave us free will and asked us to choose between him and satan. Then God went off acting like an *******, not abiding by the laws that he gave us to live by. God gave me this brain and told me how to use it (the Bible). God told me to love my neighbor like myself, and to forgive sinners - then he went on a bloody, murdering rampage and it's supposedly okay because he plays by different rules.

If morality does not apply to God, how are we to choose between God and Satan? What measure should I use to make my decision? God can do what appears to me to be evil (according to the laws given to me) and I should accept it. But if Satan does those same things then I should assume that Satan is evil and turn away? That doesn't make any sense at all.

...which isn't to say I agree with you.

One thing I dislike about the focus on the Ten Commandments - and this is a problem from the Christian side, and one which many anti-Christians latch on to - is that they make God's law seem far too cut & dry. The Commandments, and in fact all the Mosaic law, are there for one purpose: to form a nation and teach them how to live together. They are not and never have been a magic formula for living a life good enough to get you to heaven.

Handcrafted's point is well said: God's motiviations and purposes are far beyond the individual's, or the community''s, or the nation's. He had a plan and a purpose that considered not only the current peoples but future peoples, and the afterlife as well. I can certainly go further into what I feel is that plan, and how it is relevant with the OT...but that'll take a while (I have this thing for complexity). What I can say is, God's actions are not inconsistent with the morality of mankind, even when they seem to be inconsistent with the morality of the individual or the community. It's a matter of an enhanced perspective.

Imagine that you know you have to commit an immoral act to save millions of people's lives, but you have information that nobody else has, and nobody else is even aware of the danger. If you commit the act, is it immoral? Even considering the millions will feel it to be?

God has necessarily limited his involvement and power over our existence in the name of providing us with free will. God has given you the complete right to reject him, the same to each and every person on the planet. And we live with the consequences.

[crawfish]

This looks like an interesting read, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/102-3233288-3904141?v=glance&n=283155

I've listened to his lectures from "The Teaching Company" on the New Testament and the history of the Bible. Interesting stuff and a worthy listen, but far from earth-shattering.

[Octavian]

Imagine that you know you have to commit an immoral act to save millions of people's lives, but you have information that nobody else has, and nobody else is even aware of the danger. If you commit the act, is it immoral? Even considering the millions will feel it to be?

God has necessarily limited his involvement and power over our existence in the name of providing us with free will. God has given you the complete right to reject him, the same to each and every person on the planet. And we live with the consequences.


http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/3525/da96mr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, His own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' *** off. He's a tight-***. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord!" -John Milton

[Vaevictis]

Drinking age: 21

Driving age: 16

Going to R Rated movie age: 17

Voting age: 18

Ah, but those have nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It is not inherently more immoral for a youngster to do any of those things than for an adult to do them.


Imagine that you know you have to commit an immoral act to save millions of people's lives, but you have information that nobody else has, and nobody else is even aware of the danger. If you commit the act, is it immoral? Even considering the millions will feel it to be?

The problem with this scenario is that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, as apparently he is supposed to be, then God does not HAVE to commit an immoral act in order to achieve the greater good. With a wave of the wand of omniscience and omnipotent, another totally moral alternative could be created. So, God is either not omniscient and omnipotent, *OR* he chooses to commit immoral acts that he does not HAVE to commit.

[GottaHavePride]

Ah, but those have nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It is not inherently more immoral for a youngster to do any of those things than for an adult to do them.

Also, those are arbitrary age restrictions thought up by men, not God, based on the assumption that people under those ages are incapable of performing those actions in a responsible manner. I fail to see their relevance to the question at all.


I find it extremely difficult to believe that a being powerful enough to create the entire universe would actually pay any attention to the universe after its creation. I think all the hell vs. heaven stuff is nonsense made up by men to frighten people into joining their church as a means to increase heir own power and wealth. But then, I'm a cynical bastard.

Now, I could go on spouting about how the matter/energy duality means that each and every thing in existence is a part of a vast unified whole that we can't comprehend while living, and that "God" (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/thingy) is no more and no less than that amalgamated whole. Heck, maybe the "creation of the universe" was just the universe itself attempting to become conscious by differentiating matter from nothingness...

But then you guys would all call me a hippie. And I'd call myself "a lot closer to Taoism than Christianity".

[crawfish]

The problem with this scenario is that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, as apparently he is supposed to be, then God does not HAVE to commit an immoral act in order to achieve the greater good. With a wave of the wand of omniscience and omnipotent, another totally moral alternative could be created. So, God is either not omniscient and omnipotent, *OR* he chooses to commit immoral acts that he does not HAVE to commit.

*OR*, by giving us free will he limits himself to having to work through mere human beings to effect needed change. Thus, no wave of the omnipotent wand - he must work with people who have faith to accomplish his purpose on earth.

[Vaevictis]

*OR*, by giving us free will he limits himself to having to work through mere human beings to effect needed change. Thus, no wave of the omnipotent wand - he must work with people who have faith to accomplish his purpose on earth.

Go back and read Exodus sometime. He seems quite happy to nix that free will thing when it serves his purpose.

[crawfish]

Go back and read Exodus sometime. He seems quite happy to nix that free will thing when it serves his purpose.

I've read Exodus about five times in the past few years for a personal project. I look at it on a pretty large scale - God's purpose in light of what was revealed to us in the rest of the bible - and I've got a fairly complex theory on the whole thing. I really need to write it down sometime. :)

[Hatfield]

I would recommend Ishmael, The Story of B, and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn to everyone.

Neat perspective on things (with Story of B taking a pointed look at religion)

[handcrafted]

As much as I hate to admit it handcrafted, people are going to believe what they want so it makes them feel ok with how they act.
God gave me freewill so it's all about me, me, me.

I believe St. Paul said the same thing. See above. :(

[handcrafted]

not everyone interprets the Good Book the way you do...I know thats a hard thing to swallow but this ain't your church and you're not in a pulpit

StoopDawg wasn't interpreting the Bible, he just hasn't even read it. If he had, and if he wanted to argue interpretation with me, that'd be fine. I have no problem with the fact that some parts can be read more than one way and have more than one meaning, though the author's original intent is always primary and should be the determining factor as to whether we are on track or not.

[handcrafted]

This looks like an interesting read, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/102-3233288-3904141?v=glance&n=283155

The guy is a charlatan. All he's doing is trotting out tired old "scholarship" that's been around for hundreds of years and been refuted time and time again. The Bible in its current form has existed for 2000 years or so, and in that time every single theory and objection has been researched and analyzed many times. There's nothing new under the sun.

In the end, you either believe it's God's word or you don't. But if you don't, at least realize that it's not because you have a good reason not to. It's simply because you don't want to.

[handcrafted]

Ah, but those have nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It is not inherently more immoral for a youngster to do any of those things than for an adult to do them.

Maybe not driving or voting, but the other 2 have an element of morality to them. In any case, that's not really what I was getting at. You are correct, acts that are inherently immoral are so no matter who is doing them. But you asked to be shown how the rules are different for children. Even though you can't draw an analogy between God's lawgiving and the moral relationship between adults and children, you can still get an idea of the relationship.

If you have kids, you tell them what they should do, and you expect that they will do it. But you know they won't always. So you punish them when they do disobey you. Does it make it wrong for you to punish them, even though you know ahead of time that they're going to do something wrong, inevitably?

Here's another example. I tell my son not to play with matches. If he does so, I punish him. I give this rule because I know how dangerous that activity is. My son does not, because he lacks the knowledge and experience to know. He may think the rule is silly. He may think I'm trying to stop him from having fun. He may think I'm arbitrary and mean. In fact, he may see me doing something that looks like I'm playing with matches (such as, trying to light the barbeque in the wind). He says, 'Hey, Dad made a rule for me but he's doing what he told me not to do! That's not fair!'

Is my son right, or am I? Who's got the moral high ground here?

[Sooner_Bob]

One thing I dislike about the focus on the Ten Commandments - and this is a problem from the Christian side, and one which many anti-Christians latch on to - is that they make God's law seem far too cut & dry. The Commandments, and in fact all the Mosaic law, are there for one purpose: to form a nation and teach them how to live together. They are not and never have been a magic formula for living a life good enough to get you to heaven.





Exactly. I do believe I posted something very close to that not so long ago.


Which is freakin' scary by the way . . . :D

[Vaevictis]

You are correct, acts that are inherently immoral are so no matter who is doing them.

That's kind of the point. Murder is immoral, one way or another. I don't see how you can classify, for example, the killing of every firstborn in Egypt -- irrespective of their original guilt -- as anything except murder... unless you believe that God just has the "right" to do it. That's not something I believe, btw. Being the Creator doesn't give you the right to abuse your creation.


Does it make it wrong for you to punish them, even though you know ahead of time that they're going to do something wrong, inevitably?

The trick is, however, you're talking about laws and rules. I'm talking about morals. There's a difference.

What may be legal for an adult to do may not be legal for child to do and vice versa; however, what is moral and immoral -- those remain the same irrespective.

We're talking about two different things here.

[JohnnyMack]

I've been out of town and haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I can tell you that Xenu is gonna be ****ed.

[Octavian]

...you either believe it's God's word or you don't. But if you don't, at least realize that it's not because you have a good reason not to. It's simply because you don't want to.

ever read something you disagree w/ so much that you have a million things to say but don't feel like typing it all?

I'm just gonna click on this from now on :twinkies:

mmm....good

[Sooner_Bob]

That's kind of the point. Murder is immoral, one way or another. I don't see how you can classify, for example, the killing of every firstborn in Egypt -- irrespective of their original guilt -- as anything except murder... unless you believe that God just has the "right" to do it. That's not something I believe, btw. Being the Creator doesn't give you the right to abuse your creation.


The killing of every firstborn in Egypt (including animals) was the result of the pharoah not obeying God when he was instructed to let Moses and friends leave. It was a consequence of disobedience. Just like going to hell is a consequence of not obeying the will of God by accepting him as your Lord and Savior and living your life for him.

Exodus 12:12


(http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/audio/play.php?aid=3&book=2&chapter=12)


12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.


Deuteronomy 4

23 Be careful not to forget the covenant of the LORD your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the LORD your God has forbidden. 24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.


That last part doesn't really leave much room for doubt IMO. If you go against God you won't like the consequences.

[Hatfield]

handcrafted why weren't all the gospels included if it is in fact God's word? You realize that the concious decision to leave some out while including others is a process of editing the bible by human beings to make sure the message presented is the message of the editor not necessarily the message of the authors.

the author of misquoting jesus also says that the story of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" never appeared in any of the original text, but was included at a later date. Interesting.

[GottaHavePride]

I've been out of town and haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I can tell you that Xenu is gonna be ****ed.
Oh yeah? Screw Xenu!

http://www.goats.com/store/images/shirt_xenu.png (http://www.goats.com/store/xenu.html#)

[Hatfield]

I've been out of town and haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I can tell you that Xenu is gonna be ****ed.

just don't look into a mirror and say his name 3 times fast and all will be cool.

[Hatfield]

...you either believe it's God's word or you don't. But if you don't, at least realize that it's not because you have a good reason not to. It's simply because you don't want to.

or stated differently: ....you either believe it's God's word or you don't. But if you do, at least realize that it's not because you have a good reason to. It's simply because you want to.

Such is the nature of faith. (nttanwwt)

[Sooner_Bob]

handcrafted why weren't all the gospels included if it is in fact God's word? You realize that the concious decision to leave some out while including others is a process of editing the bible by human beings to make sure the message presented is the message of the editor not necessarily the message of the authors.

the author of misquoting jesus also says that the story of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" never appeared in any of the original text, but was included at a later date. Interesting.


nobody decided anything . . . they recognized what was factual and what wasn't.

there's more evidence to support the validity of the bible than any other book . . .

[Scott D]

nobody decided anything . . . they recognized what was factual and what wasn't.

there's more evidence to support the validity of the bible than any other book . . .

actually Bob, there are various versions of the Bible that have been altered via translation mistakes, and actual intent to fit a singular purpose for those whom altered it.

[Sooner_Bob]

actually Bob, there are various versions of the Bible that have been altered via translation mistakes, and actual intent to fit a singular purpose for those whom altered it.


I know, but when you go back to the original text those minor translation "mistakes" are pretty much more linguistic changes and show the different textual families than anything else.

Just like people in North Carolina have native phrases and stuff so do the folks in Vancouver, but in the end they mostly tend to have the same message.

The Book of Mormon ain't the bible . . . :D

[Vaevictis]

The killing of every firstborn in Egypt (including animals) was the result of the pharoah not obeying God when he was instructed to let Moses and friends leave. It was a consequence of disobedience.

Understood. But here is where I find the act immoral:

#1. Obviously not every one of those first born were responsible for Pharaoh's disobedience. Many of them must have been innocent.
#2. In fact, Pharaoh was not responsible for his disobedience:

Exodus:

4:21: And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."
7:3: But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.
9:12: But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the Lord has spoken to Moses.
10:1: Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs among them."
10:20: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.
10:27: But the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart, and he would not let them go.
11:10: Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.
14:4: And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord." And they did so.
14:8: And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly.
14:17: And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots and his horsemen.

Okay, so what do we get out of these?
#1. Free will is optional. God is quite happy to toss it out the window when it suits his purpose.
#2. Pharaoh did not let the Israelites go because God caused him not to do so.
#3. The people of Egypt were ostensibly punished for something God made Pharaoh do. (you could argue that this was all a big show and that they were being punished for what they did before Moses came, the final plague being an eye for an eye, however -- and I would say that would be a fair argument)

[Scott D]

I know, but when you go back to the original text those minor translation "mistakes" are pretty much more linguistic changes and show the different textual families than anything else.

Just like people in North Carolina have native phrases and stuff so do the folks in Vancouver, but in the end they mostly tend to have the same message.

The Book of Mormon ain't the bible . . . :D

No, it isn't. However the Catholic Church and some of the early reform churchs took it upon themselves to alter passages to fit their vision of the 'path' to God. At one point in time there were probably 7 different variants of the same book. The KJ version is more or less a compilation of them.

[Sooner_Bob]

Understood. But here is where I find the act immoral:

#1. Obviously not every one of those first born were responsible for Pharaoh's disobedience. Many of them must have been innocent.
#2. In fact, Pharaoh was not responsible for his disobedience:

Exodus:

4:21: And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."
7:3: But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.
9:12: But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the Lord has spoken to Moses.
10:1: Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs among them."
10:20: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.
10:27: But the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart, and he would not let them go.
11:10: Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.
14:4: And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord." And they did so.
14:8: And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly.
14:17: And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots and his horsemen.

Okay, so what do we get out of these?
#1. Free will is optional. God is quite happy to toss it out the window when it suits his purpose.
#2. Pharaoh did not let the Israelites go because God caused him not to do so.
#3. The people of Egypt were ostensibly punished for something God made Pharaoh do. (you could argue that this was all a big show and that they were being punished for what they did before Moses came, the final plague being an eye for an eye, however -- and I would say that would be a fair argument)

The only answer my finite wisdom can provide you regarding God hardening pharoah's heart is that God knew he would not change his position and would never let them go anyway. So he further hardened his heart to use pharoah to show His power through Moses. The Egyptians had 400+ years to get to know God and never did.

[Sooner_Bob]

No, it isn't. However the Catholic Church and some of the early reform churchs took it upon themselves to alter passages to fit their vision of the 'path' to God. At one point in time there were probably 7 different variants of the same book. The KJ version is more or less a compilation of them.

Maybe some, but not all did that. The Catholic church never wanted the bible in the hands of "the common man" because they might actually learn that what the local priest taught wasn't exactly true, so I can see where you are coming from regarding the Catholic church . . . I just don't agree with some folks using the whole "man rewrote the bible to suit his own needs" argument anymore than the whole "well my God would never do X, Y and Z." To say that is completely selfish IMO. God is the same for all of us.

[Vaevictis]

The only answer my finite wisdom can provide you regarding God hardening pharoah's heart is the God knew he would not change his position and would never let them go anyway. So he further hardened his heart to use pharoah to show His power through Moses. The Egyptians had 400+ years to get to know God and never did.

*shrug* Personally, I view the whole thing as an exercise in vengeance.

The Egyptian Pharoah had ordered the killing of Jewish infants many years prior in an attempt to forestall a prophecy regarding one of the Jewish infants bringing about his downfall.

IMO, all of the plagues prior to the last one were mere theatre leading up to the real punishment -- the last plague -- and God wasn't going to let Pharoah get off easy by folding early and giving into God's demands before the final plague was released.

I fully believe that the Pharoah responsible for the killing of the Jewish children deserved punishment, but as I said -- there were plenty of wholly innocent people who got caught up in that final plague. Killing of innocents is immoral in my book, God or no.

[Desert Sapper]

Something to remember about the Old Testament is that many of the stories were passed by word of mouth for many generations before they were finally written down. Some of them came from cultures other than the Israelites. Ever try playing the game telephone? How about over the period of several hundred years?

The Old Testament has several different categories of story. Some are encouragements, some are warnings, some are historical accounts, some are praises, some are poetry, and some are just stories meant to convey a certain message. In other words, Jesus was not the only rabbi to convey the message through parable.

Spending your time getting upset about God's judgements is fruitless. The point of the Exodus story of Moses and Pharoah is very similar to the story of Jonah's journey to Ninevah and similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in that God gives you the opportunity to listen. If you don't listen, prepare for something pretty bad. I'm not sure what could be worse than the fate suffered by the Egyptians.

It's possible this falls under the warning category. The Jews could have spread this story to warn people not to mess with them. Granted, most of the story is probably true to some degree, but it was probably changed and embellished with time to make it more interesting. After all, is it more interesting to say 'Pharoah knew he needed slave labor and indentured servants to complete his pet projects in Egypt, so he said 'hell no you can't go.' or is it more interesting to have the descriptions of pharoah's reactions in the book of Exodus? And what conveys the message better?

God's miracles, wonderful or terrible, are a part of faith. People, as a whole, tend to embellish their stories (big-mouth bass stories, anybody?). What was amazing and miraculous without embellishment may not have received the desired reaction from the audience without the later embellishments.

I'm not saying the story isn't true, so don't get me wrong. I'm just saying something miraculous happened in Egypt to release the Israelites, and its possible it wasn't quite as blockbusterish as what ended up in the book of Exodus. In my experience, God's miracles are subtle, but no less inspiring than the miracles described in Exodus and throughout the Bible.

It's possible that God killed the first born in Egypt. It's possible that God hardened Pharoah's heart. If the first is true, I would suggest that the second probably isn't. If God killed the first born, it was as a last resort. The idea of God hardening a heart is a traditional Jewish concept that requires an understanding that all things, good and bad, are of God. In the Judaic interpretation, it is understandable, because things had to be that way. Which still supports the idea that killing the first born was a last resort. God had to harden Pharoah's heart, because it was the way it had to be. God had to kill the first born, because it was the only way it could be.

[MamaMia]

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew3/D3-JudasIscariot.html

[Stoop Dawg]

*watches the whooshing of the point as it flies well over handcrafted's head* ;)

I'm sure he didn't miss the point, he is simply unable to respond to it. He has debated himself into a logic box and can't get out. He's wormy, but he can't defy logic (maybe in his own head, but not in a non-empty one).

[Stoop Dawg]

Handcrafted's point is well said: God's motiviations and purposes are far beyond the individual's, or the community''s, or the nation's. He had a plan and a purpose that considered not only the current peoples but future peoples, and the afterlife as well. I can certainly go further into what I feel is that plan, and how it is relevant with the OT...but that'll take a while (I have this thing for complexity). What I can say is, God's actions are not inconsistent with the morality of mankind, even when they seem to be inconsistent with the morality of the individual or the community. It's a matter of an enhanced perspective.

Imagine that you know you have to commit an immoral act to save millions of people's lives, but you have information that nobody else has, and nobody else is even aware of the danger. If you commit the act, is it immoral? Even considering the millions will feel it to be?

God has necessarily limited his involvement and power over our existence in the name of providing us with free will. God has given you the complete right to reject him, the same to each and every person on the planet. And we live with the consequences.

I only wish more people could discuss religion like crawfish (myself included).

My point was that God set us up with free will and asked us to "choose" between Him and Satan. Doesn't it stand to reason that God must give us this "enhanced perspective" if we are to choose wisely? What I took from hc's post was that God can act any damn way He feels with no consequences. Well, there are consequences, the consequences being that the people of free will that He created are confused by those seemingly immoral actions and are turned away. Is that the fault of the people, or God? Are we to choose God regardless of His actions just because He is God? If that's the case, "free will" is pretty meaningless.

[Sooner_Bob]

I only wish more people could discuss religion like crawfish (myself included).





Well. Hmmm. :(

<Bob grabs his toys and goes home.>






:D

[Hatfield]

if just was just following orders and didn't "betray" jesus does that really alter the mythology? I mean same end result so what's the big deal?

[mdklatt]

God is the same for all of us.

Maybe so, but we can decide on an individual basis if he's worth worshipping or not.

[Stoop Dawg]

Maybe so, but we can decide on an individual basis if he's worth worshipping or not.

Some will say that you are in no position to judge God. I would respond that God created you for that very purpose.

[mdklatt]

Some will say that you are in no position to judge God. I would respond that God created you for that very purpose.

If God gave us free will then he is ultimately to blame when we exercise it. And he'd better not expect me to take the Bible's word for everything, because he knows what a skeptic I am. It's well within his power to communicate with me directly if he's unhappy with my actions; I'm waiting.

[handcrafted]

ever read something you disagree w/ so much that you have a million things to say but don't feel like typing it all?


Every time I read one of your posts. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Where's Karl Marx when you need him?

[handcrafted]

handcrafted why weren't all the gospels included if it is in fact God's word? You realize that the concious decision to leave some out while including others is a process of editing the bible by human beings to make sure the message presented is the message of the editor not necessarily the message of the authors.

No editing, simply leaving out that which was determined, after careful investigation, to be spurious. All of the so-called "alternative gospels" including the Nag Hammadi texts (what the DaVinci Code was based on) and the Judas thing and what have you were found to have been forged, in many cases admittedly so by the writers. The 4 Gospels in the Bible all were written more or less contemporaneously with each other in the first century. The rest, which are mostly Gnostic (heretical) writings, were written much later and not included for the simple reason that they are not the Word of God.

Scholars have researched and investigated these things for centuries. If any one of them was validated, we'd have heard about it by now.


the author of misquoting jesus also says that the story of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" never appeared in any of the original text, but was included at a later date. Interesting.

That much is true. The story of the "woman caught in adultery" (in which that line appears) in the Gospel of John is not included in the earliest manuscripts. Because it is most likely a later addition, most translations (except the King James) place the account in brackets with a footnote as to its questionable authenticity. Just pick up an NIV, NASB, or ESV and look it up, and you'll find that Bart Ehrman is just spouting off what everyone already knows about this.

[mdklatt]

Where's Karl Marx when you need him?

I think he's dead. Or am I thinking of Karl Malden?

[handcrafted]

or stated differently: ....you either believe it's God's word or you don't. But if you do, at least realize that it's not because you have a good reason to. It's simply because you want to.

Such is the nature of faith. (nttanwwt)

Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily want the Bible to be true. It tells me things about myself that I'd rather not deal with. I'd rather just party hearty, get rich anyway I could, indulge my every whim. I'd have gone on my happy go-lucky human centered materialistic way without it...or I might have become a serial killer, who knows...

Thing is, God opened my eyes, so that I see the truth. No turning back now. Gotta follow through with it wherever it leads. To paraphrase St. Paul, while I was ignorant of the fact that I was a sinner, I was alive, but the law was revealed to me and it killed me. The only way I get raised up to a new life is through Jesus.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Karl Malone?

[mdklatt]

Karl Malone?

I'm pretty sure he's still alive.

[handcrafted]

*shrug* Personally, I view the whole thing as an exercise in vengeance.

The Egyptian Pharoah had ordered the killing of Jewish infants many years prior in an attempt to forestall a prophecy regarding one of the Jewish infants bringing about his downfall.

IMO, all of the plagues prior to the last one were mere theatre leading up to the real punishment -- the last plague -- and God wasn't going to let Pharoah get off easy by folding early and giving into God's demands before the final plague was released.

I fully believe that the Pharoah responsible for the killing of the Jewish children deserved punishment, but as I said -- there were plenty of wholly innocent people who got caught up in that final plague. Killing of innocents is immoral in my book, God or no.

Nobody's innocent, dude. We're all sinners from the moment we're conceived (Psalm 51). Nobody seeks God, there are no righteous ones (Romans 3).

[handcrafted]

Understood. But here is where I find the act immoral:



Right there is your problem. The plagues were God's righteous judgment on a violent pagan nation.

And as for God hardening Pharaoh's heart, God was just giving Amenhotep (or Ramses, depending on your chronology) what he wanted. The Egyptian king believed he was god, he wanted no part of I AM.

Sounds like some people on this board.

[handcrafted]

Killing of innocents is immoral in my book, God or no.

We're not talking about your book, we're talking about God's Book.

And yes, killing of innocents (as far as you know someone is) is immoral for you and the rest of humanity.

[handcrafted]

I'm sure he didn't miss the point, he is simply unable to respond to it. He has debated himself into a logic box and can't get out. He's wormy, but he can't defy logic (maybe in his own head, but not in a non-empty one).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[mdklatt]

And yes, killing of innocents (as far as you know someone is) is immoral for you and the rest of humanity.

We know that sooner or later an innocent person will be executed (if it hasn't already happened). We know that innocent people inevitably die during war. Aren't both of these activities immoral, then?

[handcrafted]

Some will say that you are in no position to judge God. I would respond that God created you for that very purpose.

Okay wait, lemme get this straight...the Almighty Creator of the universe made humans, so that they could judge whether He was good enough to be the Creator or not?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Let me make a rather imperfect analogy. The logical inference of what you are saying is that the King of England should have welcomed the American Revolution, because the whole reason he had subjects was so that they could pass judgment on whether he was a good king or not.

[handcrafted]

We know that sooner or later an innocent person will be executed (if it hasn't already happened). We know that innocent people inevitably die during war. Aren't both of these activities immoral, then?

In theory, yes. Some use this as a basis to dismiss war and capital punishment as inherently immoral. However, they are really only immoral if misapplied. Just capital punishment requires a just legal system. Just war requires the right reasons and not targeting civilians.

[handcrafted]

Maybe so, but we can decide on an individual basis if he's worth worshipping or not.

God's worthiness is unquestionable. Your decision is whether to acknowledge that or not.

[mdklatt]

Let me make a rather imperfect analogy. The logical inference of what you are saying is that the King of England should have welcomed the American Revolution, because the whole reason he had subjects was so that they could pass judgment on whether he was a good king or not.

The King of England did not imbue his subjects with free will; in fact, he wanted them to have anything but. He certainly didn't expect them to decide whether or not to follow his rule. Hasn't God given us that choice? More importantly, if he doesn't agree with our choice he can certainly do something about it instead of being all passive agressive.

[mdklatt]

God's worthiness is unquestionable.

Well, so you say. You and millions of other imperfect human beings, quoting a book written by other imperfect human beings. How do I know you're not false prophets?

[handcrafted]

Well, so you say. You and millions of other imperfect human beings, quoting a book written by other imperfect human beings. How do I know you're not false prophets?

Well first, ya gotta get over the bolded part of your quotation. It was written down by humans, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Then, compare what we say against the Bible.

Those who seek God humbly and are honest with themselves will find the truth.

[handcrafted]

The King of England did not imbue his subjects with free will; in fact, he wanted them to have anything but. He certainly didn't expect them to decide whether or not to follow his rule. Hasn't God given us that choice? More importantly, if he doesn't agree with our choice he can certainly do something about it instead of being all passive agressive.

God gave Adam and Eve the choice, but once made, the rest of us were corrupted by their failure. It comes down to the bondage of the will, as Martin Luther wrote. We may be free moral agents, but we cannot by ourselves change our natures, which is to want the wrong things.

We do what we want, but we cannot want what we should want.

[mdklatt]

It was written down by humans, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


Isn't that something a false prophet would say, too? If there is such a thing as One True Religion, I think it's what all religions have in common.

[mdklatt]

We may be free moral agents, but we cannot by ourselves change our natures, which is to want the wrong things.

We do what we want, but we cannot want what we should want.

That sounds like ****-poor planning on the designer's part. Why were we built to fail?

[Sooner_Bob]

Maybe so, but we can decide on an individual basis if he's worth worshipping or not.


Yep.

[GottaHavePride]

God gave Adam and Eve the choice, but once made, the rest of us were corrupted by their failure. It comes down to the bondage of the will, as Martin Luther wrote. We may be free moral agents, but we cannot by ourselves change our natures, which is to want the wrong things.

We do what we want, but we cannot want what we should want.
That sounds very complicated and depressing.


THIRTY-FOUR

The great Tao flows everywhere, both to the left and to the right.
The ten thousand things depend upon it; it holds nothing back.
It fulfills its purpose silently and makes no claim.

It nourishes the ten thousand things,
And yet is not their lord.
It has no aim; it is very small.

The ten thousand things return to it,
Yet it is not their lord.
It is very great.

It does not show greatness,
And is therefore truly great.

[starclassic tama]

i never could understand why god would send all those people to hell. if you believe something in your heart to be true and you live your life true to all your morals, but they aren't religious, why would he send you to hell? what kind of egofreak is he?

[Sooner_Bob]

Dang klatt . . . I think you and handcrafted are part bulldog or something.

You two don't give up.


:D

[Sooner_Bob]

i never could understand why god would send all those people to hell. if you believe something in your heart to be true and you live your life true to all your morals, but they aren't religious, why would he send you to hell? what kind of egofreak is he?


Oh boy . . . :twinkies:

[Stoop Dawg]

Let me make a rather imperfect analogy. The logical inference of what you are saying is that the King of England should have welcomed the American Revolution, because the whole reason he had subjects was so that they could pass judgment on whether he was a good king or not.


The King of England did not imbue his subjects with free will; in fact, he wanted them to have anything but. He certainly didn't expect them to decide whether or not to follow his rule.

Yes. "Imperfect analogy" is quite an understatement.

[FaninAma]

It's based on the idea that losing all hope and the very will to live is the worst thing that can happen to a human being. It's one thing that a "compassionate" god allows it to happen, but he better damn well not punish people for it.

It makes me a little uneasy to assert what God should and shouldn't do but I essentially agree with you. I think that God understands the pain and anguish people suffer and I think he is much more forgiving than he is presented in many religions.

[Vaevictis]

Nobody's innocent, dude. We're all sinners from the moment we're conceived (Psalm 51). Nobody seeks God, there are no righteous ones (Romans 3).

There were plenty of people in Egypt who were innocent of Pharoah's crime. You can't say you're punishing people for one thing, when in reality, you're punishing them for something else. That's called "lying."


Right there is your problem. The plagues were God's righteous judgment on a violent pagan nation.

And as for God hardening Pharaoh's heart, God was just giving Amenhotep (or Ramses, depending on your chronology) what he wanted. The Egyptian king believed he was god, he wanted no part of I AM.

One of God's covenants with mankind is supposedly free will. And you can't spin it by saying, "Well, Pharoah got what he wanted"; how do you know what Pharoah wanted, if God hardened his heart? If Pharoah was going to keep the Israelites in Egypt, then why did God need to harden his heart to ensure that it went down that way?

According to Exodus, God broke his own law that man should have free will. By abridging Pharoah's free will, God made a liar of himself.


We're not talking about your book, we're talking about God's Book.

And yes, killing of innocents (as far as you know someone is) is immoral for you and the rest of humanity.

Well, I am talking about my book. You sir, are definately talking about your book. I'm pretty sure everyone else here is talking about their own book too. Everyone is going to have a different take on the word. We are all imperfect beings, and as such, our understandings are by definition imperfect.

And killing of innocents is immoral for God, too. He doesn't get a free pass just because he's God. If he does, then God is a hypocrite.


God's worthiness is unquestionable. Your decision is whether to acknowledge that or not.

God's worthiness *is* questionable. If it wasn't, then there would be no question, would there? That's the whole bloody point of this free will thing. In giving us the ability to doubt, he gave us the ability to question his worthiness. He intended for us to question his worthiness, else he would not have made it possible for us to do so.


Well first, ya gotta get over the bolded part of your quotation. It was written down by humans, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Really. How do you know that? Has God manifested to you as a fire that does not burn and told you so? Even if you think he has, how do you know that you're just not bat-sh*t insane?

Silly man. If I'm getting from you what I think I'm getting from you, then what you have isn't faith. It's hubris. Faith is defined, in part, by having doubt. Even Jesus doubted. Doubt is an integral part of faith. In the absense of doubt, what you have is hubris.

Ultimately what it boils down to for me is:
1. God is a bloodthirsty, violent, immoral liar and hypocrite.
or
2. The Bible isn't entirely accurate, and should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Given that the Bible has been written down by man, and copied by a multitude of men, each of whom is of unknown moral and technical quality, and that I choose to believe that God is *not* a bloodthirsty, violent, immoral liar and hypocrite, I'm betting on the latter over the former.

(Hah, bet you didn't see *that* coming, what with my various indictments of God. I choose to believe that the fault lies with men who penned the book, not with God who made the men.)

(In fact, if you accept the Lucifer-as-adversary thing, and you think about it for a second, you *might* just come to the conclusion that one of his top priorities would be to corrupt the holy books. Dude's had thousands of years to get on that; unless you believe that God is actively preventing him from taking such action -- which might be the case, but doesn't seem to be God's style -- you really can't come to any conclusion other than the one that suggests that Lucifer-as-adversary has caused at least some corruption. So, pop quiz, boss: Which parts are corrupted, and which parts aren't?)

[FaninAma]

How many current sects of Christianity really even emphasize the Old Testament? IMO, it reveals nothing about the true nature of God. In fact, the Old Testament reads like a collection of ancient folklore stories.

[Stoop Dawg]

<Insert excellent post by Vaevictis here>




Spot. On.

[handcrafted]

If you all are accusing God of such manifest evil, does that mean you believe in Him? If you don't, why do you bother?

If you do believe in God, and you hate him so, I hope you are prepared to argue your case when you die. Good luck with that.

[JohnnyMack]

Nobody had any luck finding Karl Marx then? OK. Well, thanks for trying anyway.

[SoonerWood]

You all DO realize that the aliens that wrote all our religious texts are laughing at us don't you?

[handcrafted]

There were plenty of people in Egypt who were innocent of Pharoah's crime. You can't say you're punishing people for one thing, when in reality, you're punishing them for something else. That's called "lying."

Read my lips: THERE ARE NO INNOCENT PEOPLE.


One of God's covenants with mankind is supposedly free will.

Wrong, sir. Wrong. This statement shows that you really don't know what you are talking about.


And you can't spin it by saying, "Well, Pharoah got what he wanted"; how do you know what Pharoah wanted, if God hardened his heart?

He wanted what all people want: nothing to do with God. Only God can change that in a person.


According to Exodus, God broke his own law that man should have free will. By abridging Pharoah's free will, God made a liar of himself.

God never, ever, made such a law. And by the way, the term "free will" can be defined a number of ways, so you need to be specific about how you are defining it. If you mean "libertarian free will", that is, the ability to do anything, humans don't have that. We can't breathe under water or fly without mechanical assistance. We can't turn ourselves into animals. I can't be a center for the Hornets.

We are "free moral agents". That means we have the freedom to act in accordance with our natures, and the responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We do not have the freedom to change what we are. As for God's reason for Creation and the Fall, we don't need to understand that to know the state we are in now.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of bald-faced assertions with absolutely no basis in reality.

[handcrafted]

Okay. For me, this discussion has run its course. Thank you all for a lively debate. I hope it's been instructive to someone.

[JohnnyMack]

You all DO realize that the aliens that wrote all our religious texts are laughing at us don't you?

Pffttt.....I've had my foil hat on since I saw this thread posted. I'm golden.

[Stoop Dawg]

Ultimately what it boils down to for me is:
1. God is a bloodthirsty, violent, immoral liar and hypocrite.
or
2. The Bible isn't entirely accurate, and should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Given that the Bible has been written down by man, and copied by a multitude of men, each of whom is of unknown moral and technical quality, and that I choose to believe that God is *not* a bloodthirsty, violent, immoral liar and hypocrite, I'm betting on the latter over the former.


If you all are accusing God of such manifest evil, does that mean you believe in Him? If you don't, why do you bother?

If you do believe in God, and you hate him so, I hope you are prepared to argue your case when you die. Good luck with that.



The rest of your post is just a bunch of bald-faced assertions with absolutely no basis in reality.

The way I see it, you have two main problems in these types of debates.

1. You are unwilling (or unable) to read other people's posts and understand them.

2. You reply to facts and logical opinions that differ from your own with "you're ignorant" or "that's obviously wrong" or "that's junk science". As if simply dismissing someone's opinion makes you right.

[Vaevictis]

Read my lips: THERE ARE NO INNOCENT PEOPLE.

That doesn't change the fact that many of the Egyptians were ostensibly being punished for a crime they had nothing to do with, specifically holding the Israelites in bondage.

Like I said, if God says he's punishing you for one thing, but is punishing you for another, that makes God a liar.


Wrong, sir. Wrong. This statement shows that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Either we have free will or not. If we have free will, then that implies that God has decreed that he will not interfere in our decision making process, among other things.

You just can't have it both ways. Do we have free will or not?


He wanted what all people want: nothing to do with God. Only God can change that in a person.

Irrelevant. According to the message that God had Moses deliver, the plagues were related to the fact that Pharoah continued to hold the Israelites in bondage, *not* the fact that the Egyptians didn't worship God.

Either it had to do with the Egyptians holding the Israelites in bondage, or God lied when he said it had to do with the Egyptians holding the Israelites in bondage. If there's an alternative, what is it?


The rest of your post is just a bunch of bald-faced assertions with absolutely no basis in reality.

That's rich. The guy who's advocating Bible as uncompromised literal truth is calling me out for "bald-faced assertions." If the Bible is literal truth, then you're at least assuming that of the thousands of men who had the ability for thousands of years to corrupt material in the Bible, not a single one did so.

[handcrafted]

The way I see it, you have two main problems in these types of debates.

1. You are unwilling (or unable) to read other people's posts and understand them.[QUOTE]

Not at all. I understand them very well. And it's not that it's wrong to ask tough questions. I just sense that certain people are asking the questions without wanting to hear the answers (or only wanting to hear an answer that makes them feel good). If that's the case then what's the point of asking?

[QUOTE]2. You reply to facts and logical opinions that differ from your own with "you're ignorant" or "that's obviously wrong" or "that's junk science". As if simply dismissing someone's opinion makes you right.

You are engaging in a hasty generalization here. If I tell somebody they're ignorant (which does not mean "stupid", it means "uninformed"), or that they're wrong, I'm simply saying that the facts they have asserted are not true. In other words, the underlying assumptions of their arguments are not correct. Many non-Christians think they know what the Bible and Christianity teach, but in reality they do not. They are regurgitating what another non-Christian told them about what it teaches. My aim in these discussions is to correct error. If you have the truth presented, and you choose not to believe it, I can't help that. But I want to be sure you have had the truth presented, and not some caricature of it.

[handcrafted]

Here is a link which I hope will be helpful. It's too long to post here, but I hope some of you, Vaevictus and StoopDawg included, will read it.

Is God selfish? (http://christianstudy.homestead.com/files/classes/defending_the_faith/lesson11.htm)

[Vaevictis]

How many current sects of Christianity really even emphasize the Old Testament? IMO, it reveals nothing about the true nature of God. In fact, the Old Testament reads like a collection of ancient folklore stories.

That's the thing -- IMO, the Old Testament reveals the true nature of men as imperfect beings.

I think there's a good chunk of literal truth in it, but I also think that there's a good chunk of stuff that has been:
1. Deliberately added by men, not God.
2. Accidentally corrupted due to the passing of the ages. (A lot of knowledge is likely to have been lost in the thousands of years between here and there)
3. Accidentally corrupted by men, due to simple translational and copy errors.
4. Accidentally corrupted by men simply because of misunderstanding.

And because of that, you should also be asking yourself exactly how much of the New Testament has suffered the above? Two thousand years is a very long time, and for much of it, the Bible was in the more or less sole hands of a very corruptable Church.

I'm not saying none of it is true, but I am saying that it is unlikely that *all* of it is true, and that we have to be *very* careful about what we decide is wheat and what we decide is chaff.

[caphorns]

Mark was the earliest gospel, written about 60-70AD. John was the latest, written about 90AD. Most of Paul's letters have been dated at around 70-90AD. Of course, these are simply the earliest PROVEN dates we can come up with based on archaeological findings.

There were many, many more "gospels" than six circulating in the first two centuries. We only have actual text from a few of these, and complete (or a majority) of text from even fewer. The funkiest by far was the Gospel of Peter (read his account of the ressurection). However, all of the Gnostic gospels are dated well into the second century.

No anger here, just want to get your facts straight. :)

While I respect the intense discussion going on that truly is a thread jack IMO, I think this what I was most interested in about this latest revelation. I think it should lend support to the 4 gospels vs. gnostic versions. The gnostic gospel's were most likely a pagan response to the gospels and not an essential recording of God's word - because of the timing. There are arguments you can take here, but this is really the only aspect of significance to this particular event - which is actually consistant with the views of Christian scholars.

I'd like to see more people take up the cross. Not sure that a football message board or a philisophical argument can do that. I'd say it's good that some of you are still searching. I'd suggest a thorough study of the archeology and the phrophesies to delve deeper into the subject of Jesus Christ and the validity of the 4 gospels. Not a simple visit to a church. Also understand a little better what those collection plates are for. I think churchly greed exists because man is greedy. But church-driven generosity is bigger than any government created by man. Think about that aspect for a second and tell me that this is not another sign of God and Jesus Christ's worthiness of your attention. That so much can be accomplished in literally the hands of greed is more proof of a higher power than man. Maybe it's also another sign of your local church's worthiness that they are helping rebuild communities in third world countries where the industrial powers (reflective of man's greed) lack any genuine interest.

As for the Old Testament, take it for what you will, but understand that your views here are the views of man and not God. We were designed in God's image, but we are not God. Would it surprise any of you to understand that God may have greater reasoning powers - not available to man? Kind of like finding out your own earthly father or mother was right about alot of things in the world that didn't make sense to you before. We are handicapped in dealing with the logic of the creator. Not surpising if you reflect upon it.

Hubris - is there anything more presumptious than imagining that you can outthink the creator. Alternatively, is it likely hubris to believe that your views of Christ's life are more valid -- 2006 years after the date he was born - than those of the 4 gospels? I'm wondering this as I read some of these threads.

[Stoop Dawg]

Also understand a little better what those collection plates are for. I think churchly greed exists because man is greedy. But church-driven generosity is bigger than any government created by man. Think about that aspect for a second and tell me that this is not another sign of God and Jesus Christ's worthiness of your attention. That so much can be accomplished in literally the hands of greed is more proof of a higher power than man. Maybe it's also another sign of your local church's worthiness that they are helping rebuild communities in third world countries where the industrial powers (reflective of man's greed) lack any genuine interest.


While it's fun to call out greedy church leaders and watch their congregation try to defend them, I pretty much agree with what you posted. My parents travel all over the world helping to build churches and communities. I would very much like to see govt welfare go away, to be replaced by private aide from churches and other civic groups. There is no question in my mind that churches (in general, and of every denomination) serve a useful, if not critical, function in our society.


Hubris - is there anything more presumptious than imagining that you can outthink the creator. Alternatively, is it likely hubris to believe that your views of Christ's life are more valid -- 2006 years after the date he was born - than those of the 4 gospels? I'm wondering this as I read some of these threads.

As for me, I'm not trying to outthink the creator. I'm simply trying to understand why I'm here and what I'm to do about it. The explanations I've received thus far from Christianity are lacking. It gives a broad answer (worship God, choose God over Satan, etc.) but if you go much deeper than that (why did God create us in the first place) it still ultimately comes down to "We don't know, just do it".

And (for me) it's certainly not the case that I think I have a better handle on Christ's life than the people who wrote the gospels. I'm just trying to reconcile the apparant inconsistencies contained in those gospels.

[TexasLidig8r]

Interesting discussions indeed.

Now... the part which provides thought for debate... we know one of the Ten Commandments is. .Thou Shall Not Kill.

Yet, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

We go to war and we knowingly, intentionally and with premeditation, kill fellow human beings. Now, I do not recall in the Bible any proviso or exception which states that God's commandments do not apply if the current socio-economic government in control sanctions it. Instead, we take one of the absolute, sole rights afforded to the Almighty... the ability to take another's life, and we subvert it to our own needs.

The Middle Easterners we kill in the name of democracy, those who are legimitately fighting for their land, versus their cause, they die for what which they believe in, that which their government told them was right and just.

For those that do commit that type of killing, are their souls any more or less deserving of the ultimate reward because our government says it is ok to kill?

[JohnnyMack]

is there anything more presumptious than imagining that you can outthink the creator.

Well Johnny did beat the Devil in that fiddlin' contest.



I'm just sayin'.

[Desert Sapper]

Interesting discussions indeed.

Now... the part which provides thought for debate... we know one of the Ten Commandments is. .Thou Shall Not Kill.

Yet, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

We go to war and we knowingly, intentionally and with premeditation, kill fellow human beings. Now, I do not recall in the Bible any proviso or exception which states that God's commandments do not apply if the current socio-economic government in control sanctions it. Instead, we take one of the absolute, sole rights afforded to the Almighty... the ability to take another's life, and we subvert it to our own needs.

The Middle Easterners we kill in the name of democracy, those who are legimitately fighting for their land, versus their cause, they die for what which they believe in, that which their government told them was right and just.

For those that do commit that type of killing, are their souls any more or less deserving of the ultimate reward because our government says it is ok to kill?

This is a legitimate argument, but it negates the fact that war will happen regardless of whether or not you pursue it. Is it okay to kill? No, but God allowed the Israelites to do it with relative frequency in establishing their kingdom. That was aggressive war waged against a hostile enemy that was 'legitimately fighting for their land'.

Having seen war, much more than I ever wanted to see, I can tell you that there are certain things that legitimize killing in war. We wage war with rules. Our enemies do not. I can say without regret that killing to keep from being killed is justified before God. I can say that, because I felt His divine forgiveness. I needed forgiveness, because I committed a mortal sin, but I was forgiven, because I genuinely did not want to kill, and killed no more than I needed to. Generally, people are averse to killing, but at times they have to.

I personally believe that we went into Iraq at the right time for the right reasons, and I stand by that belief today. My integrity has not wavered, although I have watched many people waver in their integrity for their own personal interests.

We did not go to war to kill Muslims. We did not initiate a holy war. Saying that people in Iraq are defending their homeland is the drivel spewed by the media. Most of the insurgents are foreign. The vast majority are fighting for pay. Very few are fighting for anything they believe in or even to 'drive out the infidel', although some of the funding is coming from those people that do. The people that we are fighting hold families hostage to use their homes to wage war from. The people we are fighting decapitate Iraqi citizens and leave their bodies in the street. The people we are fighting detonate large explosives in crowded marketplaces and at places of worship. We are not fighting 'holy warriors' and we are not fighting 'freedom fighters'. We are fighting criminals. We are fighting murderers.

I think we should realize that although the fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life, it is our troops on the ground that spend every day trying to prevent as much human life from being lost as we can. We even medevac the enemy combatants to our surgical hospitals for treatment.

The bottom line reason we had to go into Iraq was that there was no international authority with the necessary competence or power to keep Saddam Hussein from proliferating weapons of terrible destructive power. Weapons, I am sorry to say, we sold him in the 1970's and 1980's to fight the Iranians. Weapons he never accounted for. Everything pointed to his still maintaining these weapons and intending to use them against us. I could show you pictures that I took in Iraq, pictures that never made the news. I could show you documents that I sent up the chain of command that our translators translated. These things would lead you to believe that our assumptions were correct. I have a pretty good idea what happened to those weapons. If we can ever make Iraq a stable country, we might be able to find those weapons.

No matter what, I think that regardless of what our country says legitimate warfare is, God knows your heart. Each individual has to make choices on the battlefield that define him. Killing in war merits forgiveness from God. Murder in war does not. I've seen the difference. Thank God I never murdered anyone. God forgives me for the rest.

edit: I believe that God can forgive even murder if you come before him and ask forgiveness with a contrite heart. All sins are forgiveable.

[crawfish]

Interesting discussions indeed.

Now... the part which provides thought for debate... we know one of the Ten Commandments is. .Thou Shall Not Kill.

Yet, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

We go to war and we knowingly, intentionally and with premeditation, kill fellow human beings. Now, I do not recall in the Bible any proviso or exception which states that God's commandments do not apply if the current socio-economic government in control sanctions it. Instead, we take one of the absolute, sole rights afforded to the Almighty... the ability to take another's life, and we subvert it to our own needs.

The Middle Easterners we kill in the name of democracy, those who are legimitately fighting for their land, versus their cause, they die for what which they believe in, that which their government told them was right and just.

For those that do commit that type of killing, are their souls any more or less deserving of the ultimate reward because our government says it is ok to kill?

This explains it better than I could:
(6) The Prohibition of Murder (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). The wording of this commandment simply prohibits "killing"; the meaning of the word, however, implies the prohibition of murder. The word used in the commandment is not related primarily to killing in warfare or to capital punishment; both those matters are dealt with in other portions of the Mosaic Law. The word could be used to designate both murder and manslaughter. Since manslaughter involves accidental killing, it cannot be sensibly prohibited; it, too, is dealt with in another kind of legislation (Deut. 19:1-13). Thus, the sixth commandment prohibits murder, the taking of another person's life for personal and selfish gain. Stated positively, this preserves for each member of the covenant community the right to live. In the modern world, a similar statute, prohibiting murder, exists in almost all legal codes; it has become a part of state law, rather than purely religious or moral law. Jesus, however, pointed to the deeper meaning implicit in the commandment; it is not only the act but also the sentiment underlying the act that is evil (Matt. 5:21-22).

[Hamhock]

1 Cor. Ch. 1

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing."

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn't know God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.

22 For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom,

23 but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks,

24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble;

27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;

[Desert Sapper]

This explains it better than I could:

Except that it is the 5th commandment that prohibits murder.

;)

[JohnnyMack]

Having seen war, much more than I ever wanted to see, I can tell you that there are certain things that legitimize killing in war. We wage war with rules. Our enemies do not. I can say without regret that killing to keep from being killed is justified before God. I can say that, because I felt His divine forgiveness. I needed forgiveness, because I committed a mortal sin, but I was forgiven, because I genuinely did not want to kill, and killed no more than I needed to. Generally, people are averse to killing, but at times they have to.

And lo though I walk through the valley of the shadow......
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Screen/3346/Barry_Pepper/Barry_Pepper/10.jpg

[crawfish]

Except that it is the 5th commandment that prohibits murder.

;)

Yeah, there are two numbering systems - the one of Catholic tradition and the one that we protestants use. The latter combines the first two Catholic commandments as the first, and splits the 10th Catholic commandment into the 9th and 10th.

I think.

I obviously copied from a Catholic source.

[SoonerWood]

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/small/HolyGrail136.jpg

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.....

[Hatfield]

what's a dicfer?

[Stoop Dawg]

1 Cor. Ch. 1

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing."

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn't know God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.

22 For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom,

23 but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks,

24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble;

27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;


The cowboy's name was "jingo"
And he knew that there was trouble
So in a blaze of glory
He rode out of the west
No one was ever certain
What it was that he was sayin'
But they loved it when he told them
They were better than the rest

Throw down a rope from heaven
And lead the flock to water
The man in the middle would have you think
That you have no other choice
But to wander in the wilderness
Of all the upturned faces
If you stop and listen long enough
You will hear your own small voice

[Hamhock]

The cowboy's name was "jingo"
And he knew that there was trouble
So in a blaze of glory
He rode out of the west
No one was ever certain
What it was that he was sayin'
But they loved it when he told them
They were better than the rest

Throw down a rope from heaven
And lead the flock to water
The man in the middle would have you think
That you have no other choice
But to wander in the wilderness
Of all the upturned faces
If you stop and listen long enough
You will hear your own small voice

I missed it. Your sarcasm exceeds my ability to process it.

[TexasLidig8r]

Yeah, there are two numbering systems - the one of Catholic tradition and the one that we protestants use. . . . I obviously copied from a Catholic source.

Bloody heathen! :rolleyes:


;)

[caphorns]

Yet, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.


Maybe if you focused on what god does in the name of man rather than what man does in the name of God, you'd have an answer. Religion and faith are really a simple subject, yet the number of red herring arguments are infinite. As a lawyer, you should know that this is a red herring in this discussion. Man and greed created war - no matter what "cause" they claim. And I do agree with Desert that some wars - are just worth fighting. There is the obvious biblical refences that describe what is understood to be justifiable vs. unjustifiable homocide. You may kill if it is to protect yourself from being killed.

As for your questioning Stoop, sometimes you have to stop asking questions and start delivering answers. Narrow it down to what seems to be at work here - a higher being - what seems to deliver results - helping people - and see how Christ is the messenger for what stands before you. Simple. Name it what you will, be or not be part of a church (I suggest that the only way to touch with God is through other people and by congregating - in small or large groups). If you ever do, let me know and I'll move a marble into our believer bowl at church. It's a big deal to me, but as a HUGE questioner myself, I've found that faith does not come from taking on logic questions without context to actual action. It is only in action that I found faith. I still don't go overboard in my exuberance, but faith is an important part of my flawed existence now. It certainly wasn't always that way. Far from it.

[Stoop Dawg]

I missed it. Your sarcasm exceeds my ability to process it.

2 points, neither of which were probably very well made.

A) The Bible (and religion in general) is full of "no one was ever certain what it was that he was saying, but they loved it when he told them that they were better than the rest". The meek shall inherit the Earth, it's better to be a servant than a master, it's difficult for a rich man to get to heaven, etc, etc, etc. These are all exactly the types of things *I* would tell people if I wanted them to obey me and not question my authority. "Yeah, you're poor, and hungry, and you have to serve my every need - BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING!!" It's pure genius!

B) Quoting a source that the other person doesn't consider authoritative doesn't serve to change the other person's opinion. For example, I assume you don't consider Don Henley authoritative, and that my quoting him didn't change your opinion. Similarly, quoting the Bible when the Bible is what is being questioned isn't all that definitive. Not that it has no place whatsoever in the debate. On the contrary, it's central to the debate. However, it is not definitive (and not that you said it was, I'm just sayin').

You didn't get all that from my original quote? ;)

[Hamhock]

2 points, neither of which were probably very well made.

A) The Bible (and religion in general) is full of "no one was ever certain what it was that he was saying, but they loved it when he told them that they were better than the rest". The meek shall inherit the Earth, it's better to be a servant than a master, it's difficult for a rich man to get to heaven, etc, etc, etc. These are all exactly the types of things *I* would tell people if I wanted them to obey me and not question my authority. "Yeah, you're poor, and hungry, and you have to serve my every need - BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING!!" It's pure genius!

B) Quoting a source that the other person doesn't consider authoritative doesn't serve to change the other person's opinion. For example, I assume you don't consider Don Henley authoritative, and that my quoting him didn't change your opinion. Similarly, quoting the Bible when the Bible is what is being questioned isn't all that definitive. Not that it has no place whatsoever in the debate. On the contrary, it's central to the debate. However, it is not definitive (and not that you said it was, I'm just sayin').

You didn't get all that from my original quote? ;)

Now I get it.

I disagree with A). If I was going after converts, I would take the 70 virgins route, not "Take up your cross and follow me". From a human perspective 70 virgins > persecution any day. And honestly, your recount of "they were better than the rest" and "you have to serve my every need" is only proof that you haven't read the Bible.

If I haven't stated before, I do believe the bible is definitive. I don't expect you to. My point in quoting was not to persuade you. That's God's job. I'm told to declare the truth.

I completely understand the skepticism with which you approach things of God. I fully appreciate how it seems foolish to you. I will note, however, that you are doing yourself a disservice by not approaching these matters with at least a neutral curiosity.

[Scott D]

WHERE IS GOD?

When you ask the question, "Where is God?" all sorts of opinions and answers start coming from, in most cases, the most ignorant of religious leaders.

They begin pointing to the sky, pointing to the church, pointing to the bible, in some cases pointing to themselves and not you.

Sure, because you are born a sinner. You must spend your entire life looking for a God that has judgement in one hand and love in another. And if you don't serve him correctly, you can look forward to going to hell for eternity. Wake up, this is the ultimate form of CSDS.

When you can be conditioned to believe that there are some people who are closer to God than other people and that the church is the most sacred place for God, ultimately you've been tricked into giving up your soul to be down with a specific click of hypocrites. Let us do away with all the lies and confusing terminologies and get right down to business.

Number one, the creator of the universe is alive and conscious and manifests itself in all that has life.

Number two, all manuscripts, books, scrolls, and letters are all dead, including the Bible. These things do not have life nor can they be given life.

Number three, God does not live in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita or Tora. God lives within the hearts and minds of every living creature.

Number four, God is life. God is Love.

If you wish to respect God, respect life, all life. If you wish to love God, love life. Protect and uplift life through your service to humanity. No religion is greater than the creator of the universe that lives within you. No religion is perfect. And most religions are hand in hand with governments and money lenders. Not even to say that this is wrong but they say this is wrong then they take part in what they even say is wrong.

It's very funny to look at a religion like Christianity and see the religious leaders of the Christian faith, so involved in politics while Jesus, their savior, was killed by politicians. Christians fail to realize that Jesus was a revolutionary that hung out with criminals and diseased people, trying to educate them on a better way of life. He spoke out against government and was killed, simple.

Remember, the truth is always short and to the point. Truth can come out of anyone's mouth, at anytime and always sounds the same. It's the lies that always come thick and with alot of explanation.

Jesus, the revolutionary, gave only two laws in his lifetime. Love your brother as you love yourself and love the creator as you love yourself. Yet these are the hardest laws for people to observe.

The Bible is dead. God is alive. When you wish to find God, put down the Bible and go in a quiet room, by yourself and meditate on self. No written document is closer to you than the creator that lives within you. When you find the God that lives within you, you'll begin to see God within all living creatures.

The barbaric religious leaders would rather you believe in everyone and everything else before actually believing in yourself. So you burn candles, (don't forget, get a receipt), pray out loud and confess your sins to a self appointed God representati ve. This is all backwards! Remember, prayer is a silent thing because the creator of the universe is silent. God listens to your thoughts and emotions not your physical actions.

Boring outdated church sermons are forcing people farther and farther away from God.

The Bible is a good novel and, in some cases, a good newspaper. That's it though. Adding power to the Bible mentally, and spiritually, however, is not how you find God. God isn't even God's name.

The creator of the universe manifests itself in all cultures, names, symbols, prophets, masters and messiahs. The idea of any one religion being the greatest religion and the only true way to God is nothing more than a false and wasteful concept put forth by people that know nothing of God.

The system must be modified. We must be in touch with the universe and our own growth because we are a product of the universe. Only the barbarians wish to keep people asleep for the sake of money and power and world dominion, thus the religious system

Sounds pretty dead on to me.

[SoonerWood]

Sounds pretty dead on to me.

Nailed it

[Stoop Dawg]

As for your questioning Stoop, sometimes you have to stop asking questions and start delivering answers. Narrow it down to what seems to be at work here - a higher being - what seems to deliver results - helping people - and see how Christ is the messenger for what stands before you. Simple. Name it what you will, be or not be part of a church (I suggest that the only way to touch with God is through other people and by congregating - in small or large groups). If you ever do, let me know and I'll move a marble into our believer bowl at church. It's a big deal to me, but as a HUGE questioner myself, I've found that faith does not come from taking on logic questions without context to actual action. It is only in action that I found faith. I still don't go overboard in my exuberance, but faith is an important part of my flawed existence now. It certainly wasn't always that way. Far from it.


Not to sound too harsh, but "been there, done that". I went to church 3 times a week for the first 21 years (or so) of my life. And it wasn't the sitting on the back pew type of going to church, I was deeply involved. It was good times, and I had good friends, and there were plenty of emotional moments, but there was never anything I would definitively call "spiritual". The last 13 years of my life have not been noticably different than the first 21. I don't feel "lost" or less fulfilled than I did before. In fact, I feel better about my own views on religion because they are my views, not something that was preached at me from a pulpit. It's not that I'm against religion, or against other people believing it. If you view Christianity from the perspective of a Christian, it makes complete sense (even if it does leave questions unanswered). But if you look at Christianity from the perspective of a skeptic, it doesn't make sense. How is this so? I believe it all comes down to faith. Either you buy it, or you don't. There's no real way to "logic" yourself into it - or out of it.

Personally, I believe that there probably *is* a God. I tend to believe that there is only one God, but I'm not certain of that. I tend to believe that most of the major religions of the world worship that same God in their own way. I believe that the Bible is a very good collection of works that lays out the Christian way of worshipping God. I think the Koran is also a very good collection of works that lays out another way of worshipping that God. I tend to believe that both are flawed, but both are good. I think there probably was something very special about this Jesus guy. Son of God? Popular prophet? I'm not sure it really matters. I think he was very good and worshipping God and was good at telling other people how to do it too. I'm fairly certain that none of this explains why I'm here, or if I'm *supposed* to seek this God or not, or what happens if I do or don't. I think Revelations was probably a bad acid trip, but it was interesting and had a good finish for the Christians so they left it in.

I'm not sure if any of that constitutes a marble or not. Probably not.

[crawfish]

He spoke out against government and was killed, simple.

Gotta disagree with this one. He spoke out against greed, hatred and hypocrisy, and the people it hit hardest was the politicians and wealthy.

Jesus was markedly apolitical. "Render unto Caesar...", meaning "I've got something to talk about more important than politics".

[caphorns]

2 points, neither of which were probably very well made.

A) The Bible (and religion in general) is full of "no one was ever certain what it was that he was saying, but they loved it when he told them that they were better than the rest". The meek shall inherit the Earth, it's better to be a servant than a master, it's difficult for a rich man to get to heaven, etc, etc, etc. These are all exactly the types of things *I* would tell people if I wanted them to obey me and not question my authority. "Yeah, you're poor, and hungry, and you have to serve my every need - BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING!!" It's pure genius!



Everyone knows that the message of God can be used to do bad. Again, this is not a very good analysis of the context of those statements or the context in which the 4 accepted Gospels came about.

Jesus tought people to serve the meek. How does that help the rich man? Seriously, you seem onto some points but the context of your statements doesn't consider the history. How in the world could you think of Don Henley as more authoritative on the subject of Christ than the texts written no less than 100 years from the day he died? Think about what you are saying here. You are dismissing the Bible for reasons that have nothing to do with the lessons of Christ.

[Stoop Dawg]

I completely understand the skepticism with which you approach things of God. I fully appreciate how it seems foolish to you. I will note, however, that you are doing yourself a disservice by not approaching these matters with at least a neutral curiosity.

I can see how one would get that impression from reading my posts, but I don't think Christianity is foolish nor do I discount it completely. See my prior post.

[Stoop Dawg]

Jesus tought people to serve the meek. How does that help the rich man? Seriously, you seem onto some points but the context of your statements doesn't consider the history. How in the world could you think of Don Henley as more authoritative on the subject of Christ than the texts written no less than 100 years from the day he died? Think about what you are saying here. You are dismissing the Bible for reasons that have nothing to do with the lessons of Christ.

I'll agree that interpretation of the Bible is all about context. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on either the proper context nor the proper interpretation. Taken literally, it would be difficult not to acknowledge that the Bible preaches against riches and for being a servant instead of a master. If you want to "spin" it, or "take it in context", or whatever, that's your decision.

And I did NOT claim that Don Henley is more authoritative than the Bible. In fact, I implied the opposite but I still think it clarified my point.

[caphorns]

Sounds pretty dead on to me.

How so? Have you been to a modern service and given it more than a second of your time? Our church services are not boring, outdated, etc. Frankly, I agree that it is somewhat irrelevant, because to each their own.

But the text is absolutely wrong in not appreciating the "we" in God. It makes an assertion that God lives within the person. Not quite right. God lives within "us". I don't agree that you get closer to God by simply meditating. You might get closer to your own feelings. You might have personal time with God. But the closer you are to living with the "us" of God, the closer you get. Jesus is an example for man and Jesus went out to involve groups of people. He had an active small group (the desciples) and held many large group activities. He gave of himself to people - he served others - a very important part of the church (any Christian church). His existence and role with God is validated through the pre-existence of the prophesies and the recording of the 4 gospels. So, to live like Jesus, is what you are called to do - if you want to find God's existence. That requires you to involve the "us" in God.

[Hamhock]

Not to sound too harsh, but "been there, done that". I went to church 3 times a week for the first 21 years (or so) of my life.

What kind of church? I tend to agree that organized religion (as we know it) is the worst thing that happened to Christianity.


But if you look at Christianity from the perspective of a skeptic, it doesn't make sense. How is this so? I believe it all comes down to faith. Either you buy it, or you don't. There's no real way to "logic" yourself into it - or out of it.

I agree completely. Which is why the power of God is needed to understand.



I think there probably was something very special about this Jesus guy. Son of God? Popular prophet? I'm not sure it really matters. I think he was very good and worshipping God and was good at telling other people how to do it too.

I take issue with this. I think C.S. Lewis said it best:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

[Stoop Dawg]

Gotta disagree with this one. He spoke out against greed, hatred and hypocrisy, and the people it hit hardest was the politicians and wealthy.

And, notably, the established religion of the time.

[caphorns]

I'll agree that interpretation of the Bible is all about context. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on either the proper context nor the proper interpretation. Taken literally, it would be difficult not to acknowledge that the Bible preaches against riches and for being a servant instead of a master. If you want to "spin" it, or "take it in context", or whatever, that's your decision.

You very much want to validate your skepticism. That's fine. Christ spoke out against greed and hording your riches. Not capitalism. That's not an interpretation. Just follow the actions of Christ rather than reading one sentence or phrase in your own modern context. Trust me it helps to study the prophesies and the 4 gospels in context of a skeptic. Once you come to the almost inevitable conclusion that Christ is the messenger - then you may stop trying to find disproof of the obvious message and import of these words.

[Scott D]

Gotta disagree with this one. He spoke out against greed, hatred and hypocrisy, and the people it hit hardest was the politicians and wealthy.

Jesus was markedly apolitical. "Render unto Caesar...", meaning "I've got something to talk about more important than politics".

I doubt it was coincidence that greed, hatred and hypocracy was so intertwined with the politicians and the wealthy (read, established religion of the time)

[Stoop Dawg]

What kind of church? I tend to agree that organized religion (as we know it) is the worst thing that happened to Christianity.

A/G


I take issue with this. I think C.S. Lewis said it best:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

Well, there are certainly those who thought he was a lunatic at the time. I suppose there are those that still do. The fact that he was written about in at least 3 of the major world religions makes me think there might be something more there. I don't know for certain what that "more" is, but it's just as hard for me to write him off to lunacy as it is to write him off as Son of God. Caphorns says I need to stop asking questions and start delivering answers. I disagree. I'm actually quite okay with saying "I don't know the answer" and continuing to look. IMO, that's better than just making up an answer to appease my curiosity.

[caphorns]

What kind of church? I tend to agree that organized religion (as we know it) is the worst thing that happened to Christianity.


Yet Christianity would not exist without organized religion. What good deeds would have been done in this world is a very big questionmark. You can be skeptical and say that the world sux and everything in it sux (people like that tend to contribute the least). But in fact organized religion has fed people around the world, comforted the sick and needy and brought about miraculous recovery. I say let God and the corporate body take some of your burden. Organized religion is a virtue.

On the flip side, it is the abuse of this privilege by man that has always been a problem. If it weren't Christ or Christiantity, greedy man would use something else. Just take a look at Roman mythology to understand this aspect. Manipulation - frankly - is often best without involving religion at all or claiming there is no religion. Enron is a nice example of godless manipulation - pure greed. Another would be the Soviet Union.

[Scott D]

How so? Have you been to a modern service and given it more than a second of your time? Our church services are not boring, outdated, etc. Frankly, I agree that it is somewhat irrelevant, because to each their own.

I'd wager the services I've attended in recent years were more colorful and non boring than ones you have been to. Then again, my uncle is a minister, one of my father's friends is an ordained catholic priest. I find both men to be mentally engaging, and unlike many here, a bit more openminded in listening to views other than those which they have been trained.


But the text is absolutely wrong in not appreciating the "we" in God. It makes an assertion that God lives within the person. Not quite right. God lives within "us". I don't agree that you get closer to God by simply meditating. You might get closer to your own feelings. You might have personal time with God. But the closer you are to living with the "us" of God, the closer you get. Jesus is an example for man and Jesus went out to involve groups of people. He had an active small group (the desciples) and held many large group activities. He gave of himself to people - he served others - a very important part of the church (any Christian church). His existence and role with God is validated through the pre-existence of the prophesies and the recording of the 4 gospels. So, to live like Jesus, is what you are called to do - if you want to find God's existence. That requires you to involve the "us" in God.

The point is that change, belief, trust, and redemption is within us. You won't find it in a book, you won't find it beating yourself up on Sunday believing that another person will lead you down the right path for salvation. The path is there, and you will reach it on your own if you truly believe. You don't need a minister, a church, or religion to get there. All you need is belief that there is a God, and that he will accept you as a flawed being because his love is all encompasing and that your moments of weakness and transgression are part of your never ending search for his meaning and your purpose.

[SoonerWood]

You very much want to validate your skepticism. That's fine. Christ spoke out against greed and hording your riches. Not capitalism. That's not an interpretation. Just follow the actions of Christ rather than reading one sentence or phrase in your own modern context. Trust me it helps to study the prophesies and the 4 gospels in context of a skeptic. Once you come to the almost inevitable conclusion that Christ is the messenger - then you may stop trying to find disproof of the obvious message and import of these words.

Interesting that you use the word 'almost'.

[Hamhock]

Caphorns says I need to stop asking questions and start delivering answers. I disagree. I'm actually quite okay with saying "I don't know the answer" and continuing to look. IMO, that's better than just making up an answer to appease my curiosity.

I agree with you. Trust me, God is big enough to handle your questioning. There is nothing wrong with that. The Bible says that "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." It also says that faith/salvation is the gift of God.

Have you tried setting aside your skepticism and reading the Bible. Why not give it an honest try? Read through the new testament, with an open mind. If you do that and nothing changes, be done with it.

[crawfish]

And, notably, the established religion of the time.

Note I didn't say "areligious".

Because that's not a word. ;)

He wasn't a social reformer or civil rights leader - he taught individual responsibility and God's love. He was more concerned with personal motivation than the makeup of the government.

The Christian God is about community. You won't find community by meditating alone in your back room, or overlooking a scenic vista. You find him in relationships with other people, in doing good works, in sharing one's talents. That's why Christians provided a hundred times more relief to the Sri Lankans a few years ago than the Buhddists who dominate that part of the world.

[SCOUT]

Scott,
While I don't agree with all of the content in the text you posted, I don't have a real problem with its message. I find it a little odd the way it is presented though. Whenever religion comes up as a subject there seems to be an inevitable turn toward mocking it. I don't understand this mentality. Why can't people make their point without childish minimization of the varying viewpoint. Here are a couple of phrases from the text you posted that reflect what I am talking about.


the most ignorant of religious leaders
Wake up, this is the ultimate form of CSDS.
you've been tricked into giving up your soul to be down with a specific click of hypocrites.
Let us do away with all the lies
The barbaric religious leaders
Boring outdated church sermons
Only the barbarians wish to keep people asleep for the sake of money and power and world dominion, thus the religious system

If these phrases were omitted or even reworded, I would be much more open to considering the author's point of view.

[Hamhock]

Yet Christianity would not exist without organized religion. What good deeds would have been done in this world is a very big questionmark. You can be skeptical and say that the world sux and everything in it sux (people like that tend to contribute the least). But in fact organized religion has fed people around the world, comforted the sick and needy and brought about miraculous recovery. I say let God and the corporate body take some of your burden. Organized religion is a virtue.

On the flip side, it is the abuse of this privilege by man that has always been a problem. If it weren't Christ or Christiantity, greedy man would use something else. Just take a look at Roman mythology to understand this aspect. Manipulation - frankly - is often best without involving religion at all or claiming there is no religion. Enron is a nice example of godless manipulation - pure greed. Another would be the Soviet Union.


I don't disagree. My point was, basically your earlier point, that the problems occur when you look at what man has done in the name of organized religion.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I like Jesus.

[Hamhock]

I'd wager the services I've attended in recent years were more colorful and non boring than ones you have been to. Then again, my uncle is a minister, one of my father's friends is an ordained catholic priest. I find both men to be mentally engaging, and unlike many here, a bit more openminded in listening to views other than those which they have been trained.


I tend to think that the modern church growth movement (colorful/non-boring) is an affront to the true gospel. Most of the time, these churches focus too much on how can God help me, rather than how can i glorify God.




The point is that change, belief, trust, and redemption is within us. You won't find it in a book, you won't find it beating yourself up on Sunday believing that another person will lead you down the right path for salvation. The path is there, and you will reach it on your own if you truly believe. You don't need a minister, a church, or religion to get there. All you need is belief that there is a God, and that he will accept you as a flawed being because his love is all encompasing and that your moments of weakness and transgression are part of your never ending search for his meaning and your purpose.

I understand you view it only as my opinion, but my opinion (based on scripture) is that you are wrong. There is nothing inherently good "within us". Satan himself believes that there is a God. Your feel good Gospel is not supported by the Bible.

[crawfish]

The point is that change, belief, trust, and redemption is within us. You won't find it in a book, you won't find it beating yourself up on Sunday believing that another person will lead you down the right path for salvation. The path is there, and you will reach it on your own if you truly believe. You don't need a minister, a church, or religion to get there. All you need is belief that there is a God, and that he will accept you as a flawed being because his love is all encompasing and that your moments of weakness and transgression are part of your never ending search for his meaning and your purpose.

Yeah, but there's absolutely no basis for God in that statement. It's the statement of someone with too much uncertainty to truly disbelieve.

[SoonerWood]

My thoughts are that God and spirituality is something that should be within grasp of everyone - not just those people that have the bible nearby or people to go to church with.

[Hamhock]

My thoughts are that God and spirituality is something that should be within grasp of everyone - not just those people that have the bible nearby or people to go to church with.


What are your "thoughts" based on, anyhow?

[crawfish]

I tend to think that the modern church growth movement (colorful/non-boring) is an affront to the true gospel. Most of the time, these churches focus too much on how can God help me, rather than how can i glorify God.

I agree with you in spirit, but I tend to separate the message from the method of delivery.

Times change, and so must our methods.

[Scott D]

I understand you view it only as my opinion, but my opinion (based on scripture) is that you are wrong. There is nothing inherently good "within us". Satan himself believes that there is a God. Your feel good Gospel is not supported by the Bible.

Which goes back to one of the original points in this thread. How much twisting of the Bible was there in various incarnations to suit the needs and desire of power of very corrupted and corruptable churches. Too much faith is being placed in the translations and honesty of man in my opinion, especially by those whom claim that man's soul is inherently doomed due to events that may or may not have happened in the earliest bipedal moments in the creation of human life. If man is inherently greedy and not worthy of salvation then how can we trust the words or the interpretation of their meaning?

I accept that some people may need an external force to kickstart them into their search, but in the end it is that person and that person alone who can find their own personal salvation.

Scout..I didn't agree with his phraseology a great deal, but I wanted to keep the desire to edit the text to a minimum changing only one instance of profanity. Other than that I felt it was best to keep the message of the quote intact.

[Scott D]

Yeah, but there's absolutely no basis for God in that statement. It's the statement of someone with too much uncertainty to truly disbelieve.

or the statement of someone who is comfortable with their 'relationship' with God and doesn't feel the need for all of the window dressing that comes with religion.

[SoonerWood]

What are your "thoughts" based on, anyhow?

Why should it matter to you?

[SCOUT]

Scout..I didn't agree with his phraseology a great deal, but I wanted to keep the desire to edit the text to a minimum changing only one instance of profanity. Other than that I felt it was best to keep the message of the quote intact.

I didn't mean to imply that you used those phrases. I was pointing them out because it seems that the author has an axe to grind. I am also not saying it is just that author. It seems to be pretty common.

[Hamhock]

I agree with you in spirit, but I tend to separate the message from the method of delivery.

Times change, and so must our methods.

I agree, but the new methods too often leave out the small details, like our fallenness, God's hatred of sin, our need for a Savior, a place called hell, etc. The goal of many churches nowadays is to pack 'em in. If the building is full, we must be preaching the right message. Too much focus on pragmatism in Church, not enough on God's holiness. It is sort of Chicken Soup for the Christian soul.

[Hamhock]

How much twisting of the Bible was there in various incarnations to suit the needs and desire of power of very corrupted and corruptable churches.

A whole lot. See the Catholic church. I'm not talking about church tradition. I'm talking about ancient writings, penned before the "church" had a chance to corrupt them.


I accept that some people may need an external force to kickstart them into their search, but in the end it is that person and that person alone who can find their own personal salvation.

This is simply wishfull thinking.

[mdklatt]

He spoke out against greed, hatred and hypocrisy, and the people it hit hardest was the politicians and wealthy.


And yet even the most hard-core Christians don't have a problem with the wealthy politicians who pander to them. WWJD? He wouldn't vote Republican. Or Democrat.

[Stoop Dawg]

Have you tried setting aside your skepticism and reading the Bible. Why not give it an honest try? Read through the new testament, with an open mind. If you do that and nothing changes, be done with it.

I've already conceeded that Christianity makes sense once you choose to believe it. I've also stated that I "tried" Christianity for a rather substantial period of time and found it lacking. I don't know what else to say about it.

[Hamhock]

Why should it matter to you?


I just assumed that someone with thoughts on the Creator and how he chooses to treat people had a basis for said thoughts.

I guess I was wrong.

[JohnnyMack]

oh c'mon now
boy think what would Jesus do
he'd shake his head like an angry mother
spoke the boy and say ‘I did what I could do'

I agree with Dave on this one. I think Jesus would shake his head at the state of the Christian Church today.