Christians - does this seem right to you?

[IAm_Lucifer]

Personally though, Who are we to limit God and demand answers?

 

Your right, lets not question. Who are WE to demand answers from a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, perfect, perfect super-being? Lets not "limit" God.

 

"Limit" was the right word to use. The more you question the smaller and smaller God gets.

 

The rest of your post left me feeling like this...

[Vixentrox]

Who are you YoYo to question Allah? Or Ra?

[Amanda]

Perhaps God does know all things, including the end before the beginning. Could it be that God existed in the beginning in the singularity and lacked companionship which gave rise to all things. All came out of "God" and then would have to be part of "God".

 

Could it be rational to suggest that there needs to be opposing forces to "experience" life? Your hand feels only that which opposes the touch of your hand, your eye sees only that which opposes the light, you hear only what opposes the silence, etc. How can you know happiness if you do not know sorrow? How can you appreciate life without the knowledge of death? How can you enjoy peace without the knowing turmoil? It is the "yin and yang".

 

Our Father which art in heaven, which is in God's kingdom, and Jesus says the kingdom of God is within you... so where is God? In you!!! Perhaps God is experiencing life through all things, including us?

 

If you follow the principles of Jesus, NOT the religious right... you will find the way to live inside the kingdom of God within yourself... no matter what exists in the outside world. It is inside yourself where you really live... and can find peace in any situation. One can be in a serene garden and not have peace, or one can live in the middle of a war and still find peace.

[Mythra]

Yo-yo and Ph Dave-

 

I think you are missing the point. My intent is not to question why God allows evil and suffering in the world.. My point is that if there is an ominiscient being who is accurately reflected by the Bible, He ENHANCED AND WORSENED evil and suffering and man's inhumanity to man by proceeding with his plan of Christianity.

 

All religions enhance evil and suffering in the world by creating an "us and them"

mentality. People are capable of limitless evil when they think God is on their side.

 

Yo-yo: you said "All that God ever asked is that we love Him with all our heart and soul, and be righteous."

 

You left out MIND.

 

My mind will not allow me to love a god who ordered the annihilation of entire cities full of CHILDREN and BABIES, so that Israel could possess the land.

 

My mind will not allow me to love a god who ordered that a man and all of his family be stoned to death INCLUDING HIS CHILDREN, because that man picked up sticks on the Sabbath to make a fire.

 

My mind will not allow me to love a god who has sent all of the Jews from the Nazi Holocaust to eternal screaming and weeping in hell.

 

My mind will not allow me to love a god who puts curses on you and your children if you don't give god his 10%.

 

I have come to the conclusion that if there is a god, and the bible is an accurate reflection of him, he is a monster. I used to bow down and worship him, but I won't again.

 

It makes much more sense to me that this god is a man-made fabrication of a primitive, superstitious people who made up religions like we make up sit-coms today.

[Mythra]

Thank you, madame for your comments. I'm glad I'm not the only one that ended up scratching my head at some of yo-yo's statements.

 

I have to think that when yo-yo said "Jesus rose again with different time/place variances",

 

He was referring to the complete contradiction in the gospels with regards to where Jesus first revealed himself to the disciples. One gospel says it was on a mountaintop in Galilee. Another says it was in a room in Jerusalem.

 

Only about a 100 mile "time/place variance"......

 

Or Mark's gospel doesn't mention any meetings at all. Don't you think that would be a kind of important thing to bring up, at least in passing?

 

To me, if you can't trust some parts of the bible, how can you trust any of it?

[Ouroboros]

It's too bad that humans were not equipped to investigate the matter fully, seeing as how eternity is riding on the answer. 

 

Actually, I think you are complicating the matter, PD.  I was always taught that the salvation message is simple.  As soon as some discrepencies are found, it suddenly become more and more complicated.

 

I was thinking the same thing the other day, but lost the thought because of something else. Thanks, now I know what I forgot

 

The Bible, Jesus, says we have to be like a child to understand heaven, which means that the criteria to accept Jesus, is that you have IQ 50 or lower.

 

Anything above IQ 50, you will wonder about some questions, and then all of a sudden, the dogmas follow an infinite regression of explanations to cover the questions raised from the previous answers.

 

Which gives us the Recursive Function of Christian Dogma:

Qn+1 = An(Qn)

[Philosopher Dave]

Few Christians look at the whole picture Mythra. Most are content to only see how God’s “plan” will affect them personally.

 

I have often pondered the same question you posed. If an omnipotent being “knows” what will happen if he creates humanity, then that being is ultimately responsible for the outcome. What is the ultimate outcome? A small minority of humans will become slaves to his ego; worshipping him for eternity. The remainder will suffer for an eternity in a hell he created. If that is the case, then why create us in the first place? It is either bad theology, or a load of bullshit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The ultimate outcome will be a rather diverse collection of transformed human beings. They will worship God because he has resurrected them and transformed them into into beings without lack. Worship will then come naturally, as naturally as kissing your parents should be.

 

Give me a break, though, about all the ego jive. Egoist are not interested in transforming other beings into better beings, for that is a threat to their ego. If God is what the bible says He is, he has nothing to fear, thus no ego.

[Cerise]

If God is what the Bible says he is, then I can honestly say I have no interest in worshiping him.

[Philosopher Dave]

I think its a fair question to Christians.  Not all have their head in the sand.  It was in fact this very issue that was my stumbling block and caused me to ask more and more questions, the answers of which ultimately led to where I am today.  It was, I'm sure, questions like this that helped many on this board to shed the scales from their own eyes. 

 

I don't see how an intellectually honest Christian can overcome this problem unless it is ok with him/her that such a stark injustice flow out of the nature of god.  If god created hell and if god created me and god knew before he created both that I, you, and them would be condemned to spend an eternity there then he is not a god of love as christians claim.  Or, at the very least, this is one twisted view of love. 

 

And for the record, Romans 3 does not justify this twisted plan nor does the assumption that god created hell for fallen angels.  According to your (fundementalist) theology, he knew.  If he knew and was all powerful, he is guilty.

 

Hmmm... I'm guilty of disbelief, god is guilty of creating and then sending legions to hell for mere disbelief in a silly, unprovable story.  Who is the bigger criminal???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It only seems injust for God to punish people if we weazel in the idea that some are innocent. Well, innocent in what respect? and to whom? The problem here is that human beings get into their grubbly little hands religious transmissions. Each individual who responds positively to it tries to make sense out of it, because it is not completely clear. (of course, it is not only the bible that can be unclear, but any literature in general can be unclear, relative to one's upbringing, culture, education, dispostion, sheer mental capability, etc.) Some people, even with good intentions, get into positions of power, and begin to spread to others their particular take on meaning. Unfortunately, not everyone can, even with identical bibles, reach the same conclusions. (again, we would have to show that the bible is the ONLY book that is subject to misunderstanding) My point, some people will understand as the writers hoped, create denominations that are weightier on both love and holiness, and others will misconstrue what is said, or some portions thereof, and still create institutions based on misconstruals...with less, or little, love and holiness.

[Mythra]

No one is trying to "weazel" in the idea that some are innocent. We totally reject the man-made concept that any are guilty. Have a clue. People are people.

 

What a horrid religion that believes that all mankind is stained, all are contemptible, all are guilty. When I was a thumper, I couldn't believe how many fellow christians would walk around with their heads down, saying "well, yes, if not for Jesus, we are all so worthless" Nothing but the blood..

 

Got news for ya - being born again by being washed in the blood pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by almost 4,000 years.

 

Madame - you said "it's too bad that humans were not equipped to investigate the matter fully, seeing as how eternity is riding on the answer"

 

What an awesome quote.

 

And the primary reason we are not so equipped is because the convoluted mess we call the bible has produced 1,000 different religions, each one tweaking scriptures and selectively quoting as they see fit. If God truly wanted to create something for average humans to follow, he should have made it simple. You should not need a PhD to understand his word. (And I'm not aware of too many people with a PhD who believe the bible anyway)

 

I think I can write a better bible than God:

 

Rule 1: I AM

 

Rule 2: Be Nice

[I Broke Free]

The ultimate outcome will be a rather diverse collection of transformed human beings.  They will worship God because he has resurrected them and transformed them into into beings without lack.  Worship will then come naturally, as naturally as kissing your parents should be. 

 

Give me a break, though, about all the ego jive.  Egoist are not interested in transforming other beings into better beings, for that is a threat to their ego.  If God is what the bible says He is, he has nothing to fear, thus no ego.

 

Having narrowly escaped eternal damnation by virtue of ignoring his cognitive skills, Dave was happy to kiss the feet of his god for all eternity.

 

Of course your god is an egocentric asshole. My human father never asked me to believe as he did. He never expected me to jump through hoops for his approval. I kissed my father goodnight everyday I was with him until the day he died because he was worthy of affection. He never expected me to be a clone of him, worshiping his every move and thought. A real father revels in their child’s independence. Your god has no plan for our “adulthood. In his eyes, we are to remain in a perpetual state of childhood, always in need of guidance and support. Grow up Dave.

[Guest marktaylor]

You got a really interesting point there!

 

If angels are these perfect beings, why the heck did God need to create the imperfect humang beings that he will punish because they are imperfect?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm there! He's a pervert!

[Ouroboros]

I'm there! He's a pervert!

 

That's why we, Humangutangs, are so screwed up,

 

He first created the perfect being, angels,

then from his perverted mind, he created the humans.

 

[Abiyoyo]

Thank you, madame for your comments.  I'm glad I'm not the only one that ended up scratching my head at some of yo-yo's statements.

 

I have to think that when yo-yo said "Jesus rose again with different time/place variances",

 

He was referring to the complete contradiction in the gospels with regards to where Jesus first revealed himself to the disciples.  One gospel says it was on a mountaintop in Galilee.  Another says it was in a room in Jerusalem.

 

Only about a 100 mile "time/place variance"......

 

Or Mark's gospel doesn't mention any meetings at all.  Don't you think that would be a kind of important thing to bring up, at least in passing?

 

To me, if you can't trust some parts of the bible, how can you trust any of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If God is all knowing and all present, Is it possible that He could be in more than one place at one time? Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. God Himself, Biblically, revealed Himself to some proclaiming that Jesus was His Son.

 

If Jesus was His Son, and contained the same essence of God and was indeed from His kingdom(here only to accomplish a work from His father), He could also be in more than one place at one time. Biblically, Jesus said that He will always be with us.(In reference to us individually)

[Mythra]

You are seriously tweaked, yo-yo

 

Even if Jesus could be at several places at once, the Disciples could not.

 

It is impossible to show himself as the Risen Christ for the first time TO THE DISCIPLES on a mountaintop in Galilee

 

And also to show himself as the Risen Christ for the first time TO THE DISCIPLES in a room in Jerusalem.

 

But, if there's a way to dodge it, I'm sure Christians will figure it out.

[Philosopher Dave]

No one is trying to "weazel" in the idea that some are innocent.  We totally reject the man-made concept that any are guilty.  Have a clue.  People are people.

 

What a horrid religion that believes that all mankind is stained, all are contemptible, all are guilty.  When I was a thumper, I couldn't believe how many fellow christians would walk around with their heads down, saying "well, yes, if not for Jesus, we are all so worthless"  Nothing but the blood..

 

Got news for ya - being born again by being washed in the blood pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by almost 4,000 years.

 

Madame - you said "it's too bad that humans were not equipped to investigate the matter fully, seeing as how eternity is riding on the answer"

 

What an awesome quote. 

 

And the primary reason we are not so equipped is because the convoluted mess we call the bible has produced 1,000 different religions, each one tweaking scriptures and selectively quoting as they see fit.  If God truly wanted to create something for average humans to follow, he should have made it simple.  You should not need a PhD to understand his word.   (And I'm not aware of too many people with a PhD who believe the bible anyway)

 

I think I can write a better bible than God:

 

Rule 1:            I AM

 

Rule 2:          Be Nice

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, I understand what you are saying about 'weazeling'. What I'm attempting to say is that most people are innocent from sin only if God indeed does not exist, which obviously no one knows for sure either way. Sin itself I don't see as some all consuming corruption. I've always understood that sin means to "miss the mark". In other words, to be a sinner is to be imperfect, but not by necessity a helpless reprobate. It seems some theologians/churches teach that sin is the supreme corruption..that's too bad and I don't think that is accurate. I never saw myself as a worthless human being just because I, at the same time, saw myself as a sinner.

 

About our limited cognitive equipment. Well, existentially, that is where we are at, whether by design or evolution. From my point of view, it seems that for us to not have limitations of this sort, we would have to either be 1. Gods ourselves or 2. Have some kind of capacity to absorb unknowns sent by God...we would have to be hooked into God in some kind of Matrix like interface. but, then development of our autonomous identities might be limited...who knows.

 

Yes, I'm already familiar with the proto myths of salvation, and I don't think that the similarities show anything conclusive...the facts have to be interpreted, and not all the facts are in as far as I can tell.

 

You don't need a PHD to understand the word. But referencing people with PHDs does help. I have a list loaded with professional Christian philosophers, not theologians, who basically, because of their field, remain highly unnoticed by a majority of Christians. It is rather the popular evangelist, half of which have not formal degree from any noteworthy university, who get all the hype and attention.

 

As far as God's place in the 'mess'. He is sovereign and has his own plan. Some of us don't like it, some don't understand it. Some like it but don't understand it, and some like it and claim to understand 'all the mysteries'. Personally, I have little problems with the limitations of the Bible, or the God presented therein, but again, I'm an existentialist, which makes up a very tiny minority of Christians.

 

Additionally, some people, like myself, don't currently go to church because I tried to reason with the leaders, and they rebuffed me with diatribe, and not with the academics I respected. I refuse(d) to feel guilty for their homespun interpretations in order to rake out of me dollars for their agendas. However, this does not mean I reject Christianity. Rather, I see a swarm of people awash in a vat of brainless spirituality, who because of their leaders, are confused.

[Philosopher Dave]

Sorry Dave but not even studied scholars can agree on the Bible, there is a PHD in bible for every belief out there possible and then some, just like among those who don't have a PhD.  Don't like this doctrine, look at this expert bible scholar, he'll clear it up for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that I implied that agreement was necessary. As I've already stated, disagreement happens in ALL phases of human induction, not just theology. We are human beings with cognitive limits. No one has all the answers, and I believe no one could have all the answers. But you're not quite correct in asserting that just because scholars disagree, that therefore there is no answer or that maybe some specific person has a right answer, at least in some narrow field. As for myself, I compare as many answers as I can to get a more academic feel for the subject. I find very little that is conclusive, but that again doesn't mean that, for instance, the bible is completely irrelevant. Also, just because, let's say, a majority of American christians believe in a rapture, this fact does not lead to the conclusion that they are interpreting it correctly. It also doesn't always mean that to interpret it incorrectly is an eternal death sentence.

[Philosopher Dave]

More interesting than your post, were the adjectives you used in describing humanity.  Weasel and grubby.  I suspect you are using adjectives that you have learned to apply to yourself.  Since Christianity tells you that you are lower than an earthworm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I include myself in that idiomatic expression that I was making. Interesting just HOW you interpreted it. You read something into it that wasn't there, which proves a point I was making on another thread. Madam M, it is my own personal understanding, apart from what anyone has personally tried to get me to think , that being a sinner (myself) is not the same as being a worthless, heap of human flesh. To sin means to "miss the mark", not to be utterly contemptable. I accept that. I also accept that I have something of the image of God in myself, which I need to reflect upon daily. If the church you escaped from taught some kind of utter condemnation, I sympathize with you, for I wouldn't put up with that either. But I do separate out what the bible seems to be telling ME from what others attempt to tell me about it. Some churches are abusive in the sense that the head pastor tries to power play his flock by pressing upon them his own take of the bible...and of course the fall out is sometimes not simply leaving a church, as I did, but leaving Christianity as a whole.

[Guest college_kid215]

Here's my take. And I don't consider this scripture as some Catholics would. Augustine of Hippo said "you should never judge a philosophy by its abuses." I don't do that with Christianity or with any other faith systems either. For example, many Christians think Islam is horrid because of the abuse of some of its members. I judge the religion/or philosophy by its doctrines.

 

Nick

[Ouroboros]

But you're not quite correct in asserting that just because scholars disagree, that therefore there is no answer or that maybe some specific person has a right answer, at least in some narrow field.

 

Yes, you're right.

 

I support you there, and I think it could be proven mathematically too.

[Guest college_kid215]

This post was actually intended for the original question and not to get in the way of the current discussion you were having. Sorry

 

 

Here's my take.  And I don't consider this scripture as some Catholics would.  Augustine of Hippo said "you should never judge a philosophy by its abuses."  I don't do that with Christianity or with any other faith systems either.  For example, many Christians think Islam is horrid because of the abuse of some of its members.  I judge the religion/or philosophy by its doctrines.

 

Nick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mythra]

CK: O.K. lets talk about doctrine for a second. You have identified yourself as a fundamental christian. That means that you take the Bible to be the inerrant, uncompromising word of God.

In order for the Bible to have come to us straight from God, there can be no outright contradictions, otherwise falsehood within the word of God would have to be evident. (If there is an outright contradiction between two statements, one or both statements have to be false)

 

Have you taken the little quiz on this website entitled "Take the Gospel Story Quiz"?

 

It's on the left column of the homepage.

 

This quiz tests your knowledge of the most fundamental of doctrines

 

If you took it, how did you do?