Which God To Believe In

[Open_Minded]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

 

2 Thessalonians 1:9 (New International Version)

9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power;

 

What!? A place away from the God who is everywhere!?

 

(Chuckling) Exactly my point.

 

Thanks Mr. XC - I haven't seen you around before - welcome to the board.

[Guest Mr. XC]

Thanks Mr. XC - I haven't seen you around before - welcome to the board.

You are welcome. I have been contributing for only a few months. I mostly lurk until I have something substantial to say. I do this mostly because my free time is very limited, so it is very unlikely that you will see very many posts from me. I am still contemplating on if I should get a cool avatar. The default member title of "Questioner" (which I cannot change until 500 posts) is not exactly fitting for me. Perhaps "Thinker" or something else is more appropriate. I do have a certain view of God, but I do not push it as to keep with the goal of ex-christian.net. In other words, I try to stay on the topic of getting people off of this bad trip known as Christianity. My view is that there is no specific need to know God in a single lifetime to be saved or kept from any kind of judgment. But adhering to the nonsense of Christianity is counter productive to finding God. In addition, the metaphysics (the stuff to that explains the nature of God and the universe) is complex enough that I would rather avoid brining it up. It does serve as a good reference for me to point out why Christianity's metaphysics (which is very lacking) is very contradictory to itself and any kind of common sense.

[Open_Minded]

You are welcome. I have been contributing for only a few months. I mostly lurk until I have something substantial to say. I do this mostly because my free time is very limited, so it is very unlikely that you will see very many posts from me. I am still contemplating on if I should get a cool avatar. The default member title of "Questioner" (which I cannot change until 500 posts) is not exactly fitting for me. Perhaps "Thinker" or something else is more appropriate.

 

Yes... It felt good when I could change my member title - so I know what you mean.

 

I do have a certain view of God, but I do not push it as to keep with the goal of ex-christian.net. In other words, I try to stay on the topic of getting people off of this bad trip known as Christianity. My view is that there is no specific need to know God in a single lifetime to be saved or kept from any kind of judgment. But adhering to the nonsense of Christianity is counter productive to finding God. In addition, the metaphysics (the stuff to that explains the nature of God and the universe) is complex enough that I would rather avoid brining it up. It does serve as a good reference for me to point out why Christianity's metaphysics (which is very lacking) is very contradictory to itself and any kind of common sense.

 

Hmmm - could we distinguish between literalist Christianity and non-literalist Christianity, please?

 

I was raised by two parents who consider(ed) themselves ex-christian. My Mother still does, my father did for many years but now calls himself Christian. At any rate - I considered myself Diest for many years - returned to Christianity (something I never thought I would do). But, I am non-literalist. I adhere to standard scholarship around the Bible and am as irritated as every ex-Christian on this board with the literalism around the Bible.

[chefranden]

i am having a hard time here, i have searched the KJV,NKJV, and the NIV and nowhere in it is the word omnipresent, always present, or never apart.

 

i don't understand where you are getting omnipresent, from alpha and omega. and it would probably help me better, to understand why you want me to say he is never apart from us.

 

B. IMMENSITY AND UBIQUITY, OR OMNIPRESENCE

 

Space, like time, is one of the measures of the finite, and as by the attribute of eternity, we describe God's transcendence of all temporal limitations, so by the attribute of immensity we express His transcendent relation to space. There is this difference, however, to be noted between eternity and immensity, that the positive aspect of the latter is more easily realized by us, and is sometimes spoken of, under the name of omnipresenee, or ubiquity, as if it were a distinct attribute. Divine immensity means on the one hand that God is necessarily present everywhere in space as the immanent cause and sustainer of creatures, and on the other hand that He transcends the limitations of actual and possible space, and cannot be circumscribed or measured or divided by any spatial relations. To say that God is immense is only another way of saying that He is both immanent and transcendent in the sense already explained. As some one has metaphorically and paradoxically expressed it, "God's centre is everywhere, His circumference nowhere."

 

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing -- that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous -- follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation -- immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature -- conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.

 

There is no lack of Scriptural or ecclesiastical testimonies asserting God's immensity and ubiquity. It is enough to refer for example to:

 

* Heb. i, 3 iv, 12, 13

* Acts, xvii, 24, 27, 28;

* Eph., i, 23;

* Col., i, ;6, 17,

* Ps. cxxxviii, 7-12;

* Job, xii, 10, etc.

 

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

 

mathew gives the geneology from a jews perspective and lends credit to joseph being the descended of david, where-as the geneology presented by luke written for non-jews lends credit for mary being the descendent of david. as long as you have faith. does it matter who the actuall descendent of david was?

 

 

Sorry but Luke's Geneology is of Joseph not Mary. Go read it.

[Ouroboros]

 

Damn! I never could learn which geneology was which!

 

Imagine if the Bible had a third one. Would that have been the geneology for their dog, or maybe the gold fish? Oh, I know the it would have been the geneology for the donkey in the stable.

[Guest Mr. XC]

Hmmm - could we distinguish between literalist Christianity and non-literalist Christianity, please?

I am actually debating with a non-literalist Christian via e-mail. We exchange lengthy e-mails which address like 10 or more points every 3 months or so. So I am aware of the difference, although I consider one (the non-literalist) a much smarter form of Christianity than the other. Unfortunately, non-literalist Christians are hard to come by, at least where I grew up and on the Internet in general. Yes, the literalism annoys me too.

 

While the metaphysics of the non-literalist Christian is much more sane (thus less self contradictory), I still have issues with it. Plus, it is much more difficult to reconcile the non-literalist view point with the bible. Sometimes, I think that reconciling is stretching what the bible says a bit too far for it to still be considered a biblical viewpoint. The metaphysics around the creation of sin, the creation of evil, and the creation of the universe are still quite different than what I believe. But those are lengthy discussions. It is a lot easer to disprove the literalist viewpoint.

[Ouroboros]

Another side to the Geneology problem is that Jesus is supposedly the "only begotten son" of God. But Luke clearly states that Adam was son of God too.

 

And of course the explanation is that "son of God" is figure of speech there... so why isn't "Bob son of Joe" also only figure of speech in the same chapter and verse? A perfect example of jumping between literal and figurative interpretation to make it fit.

 

And this little mathematical problem I still can't solve. Matt 1. It says 14 generations from Abraham to David, and then 14 from David etc...

 

But there's only 13 in the chain Abraham to (including) Jesse. While the chain is 14 from David to (including) Josiah. It can only be solved by including David in the first and second chain, but not do it with Jeconiah. What's up with that? Didn't Matthew count to double check the numbers?

[freeday]

i am having a hard time here, i have searched the KJV,NKJV, and the NIV and nowhere in it is the word omnipresent, always present, or never apart.

 

i don't understand where you are getting omnipresent, from alpha and omega. and it would probably help me better, to understand why you want me to say he is never apart from us.

 

B. IMMENSITY AND UBIQUITY, OR OMNIPRESENCE

 

Space, like time, is one of the measures of the finite, and as by the attribute of eternity, we describe God's transcendence of all temporal limitations, so by the attribute of immensity we express His transcendent relation to space. There is this difference, however, to be noted between eternity and immensity, that the positive aspect of the latter is more easily realized by us, and is sometimes spoken of, under the name of omnipresenee, or ubiquity, as if it were a distinct attribute. Divine immensity means on the one hand that God is necessarily present everywhere in space as the immanent cause and sustainer of creatures, and on the other hand that He transcends the limitations of actual and possible space, and cannot be circumscribed or measured or divided by any spatial relations. To say that God is immense is only another way of saying that He is both immanent and transcendent in the sense already explained. As some one has metaphorically and paradoxically expressed it, "God's centre is everywhere, His circumference nowhere."

 

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing -- that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous -- follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation -- immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature -- conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.

 

There is no lack of Scriptural or ecclesiastical testimonies asserting God's immensity and ubiquity. It is enough to refer for example to:

 

* Heb. i, 3 iv, 12, 13

* Acts, xvii, 24, 27, 28;

* Eph., i, 23;

* Col., i, ;6, 17,

* Ps. cxxxviii, 7-12;

* Job, xii, 10, etc.

 

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

 

wow, excellent write up, thank you for taking the time to write it. i have sent an email asking one of my friends that i trust about it, i am awaiting his response.

 

 

mathew gives the geneology from a jews perspective and lends credit to joseph being the descended of david, where-as the geneology presented by luke written for non-jews lends credit for mary being the descendent of david. as long as you have faith. does it matter who the actuall descendent of david was?

 

 

Sorry but Luke's Geneology is of Joseph not Mary. Go read it.

 

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

[Asimov]

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

 

Could you possibly tell me exactly how a patriarchal society which generally viewed women as property and who never provided legal geneaologies through the female would strongly imply that the geneaology is from mary?

 

Especially since the geneaology specifically states Joseph is the descendant?

[Open_Minded]

Hmmm - could we distinguish between literalist Christianity and non-literalist Christianity, please?

I am actually debating with a non-literalist Christian via e-mail. We exchange lengthy e-mails which address like 10 or more points every 3 months or so. So I am aware of the difference, although I consider one (the non-literalist) a much smarter form of Christianity than the other. Unfortunately, non-literalist Christians are hard to come by, at least where I grew up and on the Internet in general. Yes, the literalism annoys me too.

 

While the metaphysics of the non-literalist Christian is much more sane (thus less self contradictory), I still have issues with it. Plus, it is much more difficult to reconcile the non-literalist view point with the bible. Sometimes, I think that reconciling is stretching what the bible says a bit too far for it to still be considered a biblical viewpoint. The metaphysics around the creation of sin, the creation of evil, and the creation of the universe are still quite different than what I believe. But those are lengthy discussions. It is a lot easer to disprove the literalist viewpoint.

 

I look forward to getting to know you better. It may help you to know that - although there is a "metaphysical" aspect to my beliefs - I don't generally follow that line of thought. I align myself more with the contemplative dimension of Christianity.

 

We'll get to know each other as time goes on, I'm sure. Meanwhile it's nice to have you on board.

[freeday]

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

 

Could you possibly tell me exactly how a patriarchal society which generally viewed women as property and who never provided legal geneaologies through the female would strongly imply that the geneaology is from mary?

 

Especially since the geneaology specifically states Joseph is the descendant?

 

luke was a gentile that wrote to gentiles. mathew was a jew hence what you wrote would apply to him, thus the results of his geneology. Luke on the other hand focuses more on mary, unlike mathew focusing on joseph. in mat 1:16, it destinctly staes that jacob begot joseph, in luke it does not say that heli begot joseph, is says that joseph was the son of heli. son may mean son-in-law. in the original language, the definite article (tou) in the genitive form (of the) appears before every name in the genealogy except one. and that is joseph. this singular exception strongly suggests that joseph was included only becasue of his marriage to mary.

 

lukes list shows that mary was the descendant from david through NATHAN. and mattew shows joseph as a descendant through SOLOMON.

 

but the most important part of the geneology is to show that Jesus was human.

 

i can go even deaper into this if you like.

[Dhampir]

i can go even deaper into this if you like.

And I'm going to direct you to this site.

[Open_Minded]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

YOOOO ----- HOOOOO, Freeday.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question......

[Checkmate]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

YOOOO ----- HOOOOO, Freeday.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question......

Don't hold your breath, dear. Remember, freeday has to ask someone else to tell him what to think, before he can tell you what he "knows". And this takes time.

[chefranden]

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

 

I find it interesting that you don't know the bible or Church history, or Theology very well, yet you can offer me translations. What gives?

 

There is no Hebrew in the New Testament to translate, so don't bother.

 

The Greek does not say that Luke's Geneology is Mary's either.

 

3:23και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι

 

As you can see the text says son of Joseph as was supposed, not Son of Mary. And you can see that Joseph is the son of Heli. Nothing in the text says that Mary was the daughter of Heli, which would be necessary to claim this Geneology for Mary. Assigning this geneology to Mary is one of those ad hoc bits of fairy dust the church needs to explain why the Gospels contradict themselves.

 

I didn't write the passage above, it came from the Catholic Encyclipedia.

[Ouroboros]

I'm certain, actually I had a vision, that the Matthew geneology was for their pet cat, and the Luke geneology was for their favorite parrot. But I know you won't believe it, you heretics...

[freeday]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

YOOOO ----- HOOOOO, Freeday.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question......

 

do you really want me to answer that, God loves you and wants you to love Him.

[Ouroboros]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

YOOOO ----- HOOOOO, Freeday.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question......

 

do you really want me to answer that, God loves you and wants you to love Him.

Ouch. You're going to get some bashing over that, but I'll play nice.

 

Hmm... The overall theme in the Bible is that God loves us?

 

The theme in the OT is more like, fear God, be frighting, he's huge, angry, powerful and will use his power to subdue and control you. So you better do what he say. Notice too, that the OT is really only for the Jews.

 

NT, well, there I can agree the theme is love, except for the Hell part which is an overkill.

[mmccaskill]

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

 

Could you possibly tell me exactly how a patriarchal society which generally viewed women as property and who never provided legal geneaologies through the female would strongly imply that the geneaology is from mary?

 

Especially since the geneaology specifically states Joseph is the descendant?

 

luke was a gentile that wrote to gentiles. mathew was a jew hence what you wrote would apply to him, thus the results of his geneology. Luke on the other hand focuses more on mary, unlike mathew focusing on joseph. in mat 1:16, it destinctly staes that jacob begot joseph, in luke it does not say that heli begot joseph, is says that joseph was the son of heli. son may mean son-in-law. in the original language

May mean? Because you say so?

[Ouroboros]

There's another problem with the genealogy:

 

M01. Abraham	L01. Abraham  
M02. Isaac 	L02. Isaac
M03. Jacob 	L03. Jacob 
M04. Judas 	L04. Judas 
M05. Phares 	L05. Phares 
M06. Esron 	L06. Esron 
M07. Aram 	L07. Aram 
M08. Aminadab 	L08. Aminadab 
M09. Naasson 	L09. Naasson 
M10. Salmon 	L10. Salmon 
M11. Booz 		L11. Booz 
M12. Obed 	L12. Obed 
M13. Jesse 	L13. Jesse 
M14. David	L14. David 

M15. Solomon
M16. Roboam 		
M17. Abia 		
M18. Asa 		
M19. Josaphat 		
M20. Joram 		
M21. Ozias 		
M22. Joatham 		
M23. Achaz 		
M24. Ezechias 		
M25. Manasses 		
M26. Amon 		
M27. Josias 		
M28. Jechonias		
M29. Jechonias 		
	L15. Nathan 
	L16. Mathatha 
	L17. Menna 
	L18. Melea 
	L19. Eliakim 
	L20. Jona 
	L21. Joseph 
	L22. Judas 
	L23. Simeon 
	L24. Levi 
	L25. Mathat 
	L26. Jorim 
	L27. Eliezer 
	L28. Jesus 
	L29. Her 
	L30. Helmadan 
	L31. Cosan 
	L32. Addi 
	L33. Melchi 
	L34. Neri 

M30. Salathiel 	L35. Salathiel 
M31. Zorobabel 	L36. Zorobabel  

M32. Abiud 		
M33. Eliacim 		
M34. Azor 		
M35. Sadoe 		
M36. Achim 		
M37. Eliud 		
M38. Eleazar 		
M39. Mathan 		
M40. Jacob 		
	L37. Reza 
	L38. Joanna 
	L39. Juda 
	L40. Joseph 
	L41. Semei 
	L42. Mathathias 
	L43. Mahath 
	L44. Nagge 
	L45. Hesli 
	L46. Nahum 
	L47. Amos 
	L48. Mathathias 
	L49. Joseph 
	L50. Janne 
	L51. Melchi 
	L52. Levi 
	L53. Mathat 
	L54. Heli 

M41. Joseph 	L55. Joseph 

 

Salathiel and Zorobabel have two different genealogies too. Is it explained the same way? One of them is through Salathiel's mothers bloodline?

[freeday]

i think there is some leway for indescrepancies, it was written by different authors with different perspectives of the situation. but the overall theme is correct in all.

 

So.... What's the "overall theme"? (I'm serious Freeday - it would be nice if you could outline the "overall theme" for us.)

 

YOOOO ----- HOOOOO, Freeday.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question......

 

do you really want me to answer that, God loves you and wants you to love Him.

Ouch. You're going to get some bashing over that, but I'll play nice.

 

Hmm... The overall theme in the Bible is that God loves us?

 

The theme in the OT is more like, fear God, be frighting, he's huge, angry, powerful and will use his power to subdue and control you. So you better do what he say. Notice too, that the OT is really only for the Jews.

 

NT, well, there I can agree the theme is love, except for the Hell part which is an overkill.

 

i will agree with you that the OT is more about follow me and i will bless you or don't follow me and bad things will happen. but there are lots of psalms about God's love.

 

and yes Jesus said many parables about how bad hell is, but he was really saying how good heaven is.

 

 

if you want me to go into the hebrew translations i will, but it is strongly implied that mary was the descedent according to luke. nothing written in stone, so no need to debate it, but worthy to note.

 

Could you possibly tell me exactly how a patriarchal society which generally viewed women as property and who never provided legal geneaologies through the female would strongly imply that the geneaology is from mary?

 

Especially since the geneaology specifically states Joseph is the descendant?

 

luke was a gentile that wrote to gentiles. mathew was a jew hence what you wrote would apply to him, thus the results of his geneology. Luke on the other hand focuses more on mary, unlike mathew focusing on joseph. in mat 1:16, it destinctly staes that jacob begot joseph, in luke it does not say that heli begot joseph, is says that joseph was the son of heli. son may mean son-in-law. in the original language

May mean? Because you say so?

 

because i read it in a book by an author that is much smarter than i am. and i really wasn't going to debate it because all it says is that it implies. so take it for what you want.

[Ouroboros]

i will agree with you that the OT is more about follow me and i will bless you or don't follow me and bad things will happen. but there are lots of psalms about God's love.

And of course you have the very sexual Song of Songs...

 

and yes Jesus said many parables about how bad hell is, but he was really saying how good heaven is.

Did he really? I think he made more references to Hell than Heaven. And he didn't say much about Heaven at all. As I recall it, but I can be wrong.

 

--edit--

 

Song 4:5

[freeday]

ok hans, my buddy said nowhere in the bible does it say hell is a place apart from God, it is a place without God's mercy.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Jesus said it was a place where there would be great "weeping and gnashing of teeth". It's where your "worm does not die". It's "everlasting fire". What's the confusion?

 

This world is a place without god's mercy, oh freeday. Who then shoulkd be afraid of hell?

[freeday]

Jesus said it was a place where there would be great "weeping and gnashing of teeth". It's where your "worm does not die". It's "everlasting fire". What's the confusion?

 

This world is a place without god's mercy, oh freeday. Who then shoulkd be afraid of hell?

 

this is your own opinion. i am more fearfull of the Lord than of hell.