100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: God cannot be limited and yet unlimited at the same time.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
There are admittedly disagreements among Christians on some doctrine and beliefs, but there is an undeniable core to what Christians believe. This seems to be the ‘rule of thumb’ for most Christians. “our disagreements are over minor points” – But then they categorized Catholics as this sub-set not worthy of full Christendom. When posters make comments about the things Christians believe – Christians get mad and say “NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT”. And when other posters explain why they are not Christians and would not Christians, they are told that they’ve never read the book and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they HAVE talked to a lot of other Christians who happen to have said this is what they believe. But what happened to “our disagreements are over minor points” ?? SO – what are those core values that make all Christians band together against anyone who isn’t Christian? And if it makes no difference what Christian sect one belongs to – then why is it necessary to have different sects and do you really believe that some sects are a better vehicle to an eternal life? Truly. What is the "Undeniable Core" of Christianity? Is it that Jesus was "The Christ"? What I've discovered is while most Christian will agree with that, they will still often disagree on precisely what "The Christ" even means! Clearly they all really have no choice but to agree that Jesus was the "only begotten son" of God. Because that's a claim that's pretty obvious in the Book of John. And John 3:16 is one of the Christian's most used and proselytized verses. But it pretty much ends right there. Precisely what Jesus represents and precisely how his crucifixion ties into the whole religion is often a topic of hot debate, even among Christians. So what is truly the Core of Christianity? That Jesus is the "Only Way" to the Father? But everyone seem to disagree on precisely what it means to be in harmony with Jesus. I can claim to be in harmony with Jesus. In fact, I have already made it clear that I agree with the moral teachings that have been attributed to him. Therefore in that "sense" I'm a "Christian" even though I don't recognize that Jesus was "The Christ". Why should a recognition that Jesus was "The Christ" be important, if what's truly important it so simply be in harmony with the moral values that Jesus taught? And where does Jesus ever say that a person must believe and obey all of the directives in the Torah? Where does Jesus say that some guy named Paul will come along later and fill us in on all the details that Jesus failed to teach? Personally I don't think Christianity even has a "Core". All it has are a bunch of followers who often like to point fingers at other people and accuse them of not being in harmony with God for not agreeing with THEIR interpretations of things.  That, my friends, is the CORE of Christianity if you ask me. AND - I always thought that Christians HAD to believe that Jesus WAS GOD made flesh. But there are those who think Jesus was no more than human. Again, I find that confusing because praying to Jesus or the idea that Jesus is the only way to God would make a whole lot of Christians idolitars. So what is the CORE BELIEF of Christians where Jesus is concerened I defer to the speicialists - Cowboy? Spider? Peter Pan? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are admittedly disagreements among Christians on some doctrine and beliefs, but there is an undeniable core to what Christians believe. This seems to be the ‘rule of thumb’ for most Christians. “our disagreements are over minor points” – But then they categorized Catholics as this sub-set not worthy of full Christendom. I don't answer for any other Christians, just myself. Catholics are Christians, I don't doubt that. So are Mormons. Anyone who tries to follow Jesus is a Christian. That doesn't mean they do a very good job of it or that they are saved. When posters make comments about the things Christians believe – Christians get mad and say “NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT”. And? And when other posters explain why they are not Christians and would not Christians, they are told that they’ve never read the book and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they HAVE talked to a lot of other Christians who happen to have said this is what they believe. But what happened to “our disagreements are over minor points” ?? Just because someone says that they are a Christian doesn't mean that they have ever read the Bible, prayed, tried to follow Jesus, etc. It's not like saying you are a Christian suddenly grants you a vast knowledge of the Bible or a spiritual purity. SO – what are those core values that make all Christians band together against anyone who isn’t Christian? Nothing. What are the values that would make gays band together against anyone who isn't gay? And if it makes no difference what Christian sect one belongs to – then why is it necessary to have different sects and do you really believe that some sects are a better vehicle to an eternal life? One more time and I hope you'll listen this time. Christianity is a relationship with God. Christians have different beliefs, because no two relationships are the same. A Christian who isn't ready to understand a doctrine, won't. Their mind and heart will lead them astray, but if they continue in their path of following Jesus, they will correct their course eventually. Jesus uses our conscience to goad us in the right direction and away from sin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To say that God can only be present or felt in one belief system or another, or that His word is found strictly in one book as opposed to other books, is to limit Him. If you limit Him, then He is no longer unlimited, and I venture to guess most here would agree that He is. So given that being the case, He would have to be able to felt and seen anywhere in the world, in any belief system, and available to anyone who seeks. One religion, one book, cannot contain God, cause He is everywhere around. If they could God would not be who He is said to be. He cannot be unlimited if He is limited in whom He is available to and how. That's an interesting point! I can see where you're coming from...  But this raises certain questions that you would perhaps not mind answering 1. If God is in all belief systems that's cool. What if you're a satanist? Is God there? 2. Does the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn count? If God is found here then that's quite a trick!  3. If all religions lead to God then why do they contradict each other? Yes God can be found and heard anyplace in the world or the universe for that matter. If you open your mind and give him a chance. I once watched an evolution marathon on you tube. I began to think what I knew was wrong. I thought If there is a God surley he can show me he exists right? So I asked him to reveal himself. I think he did. For me that solved the argument. how do you know god can be heard anywhere in the universe? how many different parts of the universe have you been too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you say the difference between 'Murder' and 'Kill' is? Some say there is no difference, they mean the same thing - what do you think? They have dictionaries... It appears that the difference is that murder is unlawful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is the CORE BELIEF of Christians where Jesus is concerened http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/religion/christianity/beliefs.html]Basic Beliefs of Christianity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 12/29/10 09:09 PM
|
|
The "Child" as you put it is actually a "son". There is absolutely no indication that a child is being discussed. Sons lived with their families their whole life, with the eldest son inheriting his father's possessions. All family members were expected to work, as the Israelites were nomadic and their lives depended upon hard work. It was not uncommon for Israelites to be killed by rival tribes or wild animals, so every man had to know how to fight and be ready to fight at a moments notice to protect himself and his family. Ok, so they were nomadic – that means when they came across a city like Sodom, that the people therein had no way of knowing or understanding the cultural norms of those early Hebrews. Nor did they know of their God or his rules, but because the ‘customs’ of Sodomites were dissimilar, God decided that the entire city should be destroyed. Of course that makes sense because those are the same characteristics of a God who sent the great flood. No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? But the following only adds confusion: 1) The Great Flood was necessary because everyone, but for a small family, were focused on doing evil acts all of the time. Everyone but that small family had to die, so that humanity would have some redeeming value. Humanity was one or two generations from becoming irredeemable. God actually thinks humanity is irredeemable – why? Did he loose control over his creation, perhaps like the old woman in the shoe – He had so many children he didn’t know what to do?? God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people. But THEN after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation. Here Jesus says that no human can ever possibly adhere to every one of God’s commandments for a lifetime. So he would fulfill that role and then abolish the need for other humans to do so through his self-sacrifice. Jesus created the world, flooded the world, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, led the Israelites out of Egypt, commanded that Jericho be destroyed, died for our sins. Jesus is God. I will repeat it for the millionth time: Jonah refused to serve God, because he felt that God was too forgiving. The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament...Oh, I know...You can't be bothered to read it. OK – but doesn’t that mean we were pretty much irredeemable at that point???? So at one time God just got rid of almost everyone, and this time he found a better alternative. In this case Jesus will serve as the sacrifice, instead of destroying cities, casting plagues, or sending a great flood. Sounds like some kind of weird learning curve in which humans pay the price. God always planned to to give himself as a sacrifice for his creation, because he loved us. But it was possible for the culture (before the flood) to become so corrupt that Jesus couldn't have taught us to follow him. At that point, there would be no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which would have rendered humanity irredeemable. Spider wrote: >>> No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? <<<< I was attempting to show the consistency of God's characterisitics in the old testament. >>> The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament... <<< How many poeple do you suppose were destroyed by God vs. how many did you see God showing compassion to? Do you suppose teaching a child to hate or fear those whose belief's are different than your own is a good thing? Especially when there are so many stories of God destorying those who did not conform to God's law? Where in the Bible is there a story in which God tells his followers to be responsible for their own actions instead of destroying those who would tempt them with other Gods and other customs? >> God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.<<< Well so much for FREE WILL - if I can't control their free will so that I can fulfill prophacy then I'll just flood them out. You know what I equate that with in modern day terms? - Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to serve in the military with the condition that they can't serve as themselves. Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and then taking it away from them . Giving Gays and Lesbians the right and responsility of being foster parents, often for difficult to place, high risk children, but then denying that same loving and nurturing couple the right to adopt kids who have been in their care for years. That kind of mentality is overwhelmingly Christian - it's hard to deny what the Bible is teaching - isn't it? Here is your free will and here are all the conditions under which you can utilize it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Child" as you put it is actually a "son". There is absolutely no indication that a child is being discussed. Sons lived with their families their whole life, with the eldest son inheriting his father's possessions. All family members were expected to work, as the Israelites were nomadic and their lives depended upon hard work. It was not uncommon for Israelites to be killed by rival tribes or wild animals, so every man had to know how to fight and be ready to fight at a moments notice to protect himself and his family. Ok, so they were nomadic – that means when they came across a city like Sodom, that the people therein had no way of knowing or understanding the cultural norms of those early Hebrews. Nor did they know of their God or his rules, but because the ‘customs’ of Sodomites were dissimilar, God decided that the entire city should be destroyed. Of course that makes sense because those are the same characteristics of a God who sent the great flood. No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? But the following only adds confusion: 1) The Great Flood was necessary because everyone, but for a small family, were focused on doing evil acts all of the time. Everyone but that small family had to die, so that humanity would have some redeeming value. Humanity was one or two generations from becoming irredeemable. God actually thinks humanity is irredeemable – why? Did he loose control over his creation, perhaps like the old woman in the shoe – He had so many children he didn’t know what to do?? God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people. But THEN after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation. Here Jesus says that no human can ever possibly adhere to every one of God’s commandments for a lifetime. So he would fulfill that role and then abolish the need for other humans to do so through his self-sacrifice. Jesus created the world, flooded the world, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, led the Israelites out of Egypt, commanded that Jericho be destroyed, died for our sins. Jesus is God. I will repeat it for the millionth time: Jonah refused to serve God, because he felt that God was too forgiving. The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament...Oh, I know...You can't be bothered to read it. OK – but doesn’t that mean we were pretty much irredeemable at that point???? So at one time God just got rid of almost everyone, and this time he found a better alternative. In this case Jesus will serve as the sacrifice, instead of destroying cities, casting plagues, or sending a great flood. Sounds like some kind of weird learning curve in which humans pay the price. God always planned to to give himself as a sacrifice for his creation, because he loved us. But it was possible for the culture (before the flood) to become so corrupt that Jesus couldn't have taught us to follow him. At that point, there would be no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which would have rendered humanity irredeemable. Spider wrote: >>> No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? <<<< I was attempting to show the consistency of God's characterisitics in the old testament. >>> The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament... <<< How many poeple do you suppose were destroyed by God vs. how many did you see God showing compassion to? Do you suppose teaching a child to hate or fear those whose belief's are different than your own is a good thing? Especially when there are so many stories of God destorying those who did not conform to God's law? Where in the Bible is there a story in which God tells his followers to be responsible for their own actions instead of destroying those who would tempt them with other Gods and other customs? >> God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.<<< Well so much for FREE WILL - if I can't control their free will so that I can fulfill prophacy then I'll just flood them out. You know what I equate that with in modern day terms? - Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to serve in the military with the condition that they can't serve as themselves. Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and then taking it away from them . Giving Gays and Lesbians the right and responsility of being foster parents, often for difficult to place, high risk children, but then denying that same loving and nurturing couple the right to adopt kids who have been in their care for years. That kind of mentality is overwhelmingly Christian - it's hard to deny what the Bible is teaching - isn't it? Here is your free will and here are all the conditions under which you can utilize it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Child" as you put it is actually a "son". There is absolutely no indication that a child is being discussed. Sons lived with their families their whole life, with the eldest son inheriting his father's possessions. All family members were expected to work, as the Israelites were nomadic and their lives depended upon hard work. It was not uncommon for Israelites to be killed by rival tribes or wild animals, so every man had to know how to fight and be ready to fight at a moments notice to protect himself and his family. Ok, so they were nomadic – that means when they came across a city like Sodom, that the people therein had no way of knowing or understanding the cultural norms of those early Hebrews. Nor did they know of their God or his rules, but because the ‘customs’ of Sodomites were dissimilar, God decided that the entire city should be destroyed. Of course that makes sense because those are the same characteristics of a God who sent the great flood. No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? But the following only adds confusion: 1) The Great Flood was necessary because everyone, but for a small family, were focused on doing evil acts all of the time. Everyone but that small family had to die, so that humanity would have some redeeming value. Humanity was one or two generations from becoming irredeemable. God actually thinks humanity is irredeemable – why? Did he loose control over his creation, perhaps like the old woman in the shoe – He had so many children he didn’t know what to do?? God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people. But THEN after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation. Here Jesus says that no human can ever possibly adhere to every one of God’s commandments for a lifetime. So he would fulfill that role and then abolish the need for other humans to do so through his self-sacrifice. Jesus created the world, flooded the world, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, led the Israelites out of Egypt, commanded that Jericho be destroyed, died for our sins. Jesus is God. I will repeat it for the millionth time: Jonah refused to serve God, because he felt that God was too forgiving. The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament...Oh, I know...You can't be bothered to read it. OK – but doesn’t that mean we were pretty much irredeemable at that point???? So at one time God just got rid of almost everyone, and this time he found a better alternative. In this case Jesus will serve as the sacrifice, instead of destroying cities, casting plagues, or sending a great flood. Sounds like some kind of weird learning curve in which humans pay the price. God always planned to to give himself as a sacrifice for his creation, because he loved us. But it was possible for the culture (before the flood) to become so corrupt that Jesus couldn't have taught us to follow him. At that point, there would be no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which would have rendered humanity irredeemable. Spider wrote: >>> No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? <<<< I was attempting to show the consistency of God's characterisitics in the old testament. >>> The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament... <<< How many poeple do you suppose were destroyed by God vs. how many did you see God showing compassion to? Do you suppose teaching a child to hate or fear those whose belief's are different than your own is a good thing? Especially when there are so many stories of God destorying those who did not conform to God's law? Where in the Bible is there a story in which God tells his followers to be responsible for their own actions instead of destroying those who would tempt them with other Gods and other customs? >> God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.<<< Well so much for FREE WILL - if I can't control their free will so that I can fulfill prophacy then I'll just flood them out. You know what I equate that with in modern day terms? - Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to serve in the military with the condition that they can't serve as themselves. Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and then taking it away from them . Giving Gays and Lesbians the right and responsility of being foster parents, often for difficult to place, high risk children, but then denying that same loving and nurturing couple the right to adopt kids who have been in their care for years. That kind of mentality is overwhelmingly Christian - it's hard to deny what the Bible is teaching - isn't it? Here is your free will and here are all the conditions under which you can utilize it. She's illustrating a point. Oh you have free will......except don't do this, this, this, and don't even THINK about doing this. Not really free will when it's a restricted free will is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 12/29/10 09:50 PM
|
|
Spider wrote: >>> No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? <<<< I was attempting to show the consistency of God's characterisitics in the old testament. By taking vastly different situations and comparing them? So God takes different actions in different situations, how is that surprising? >>> The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament... <<< How many poeple do you suppose were destroyed by God vs. how many did you see God showing compassion to? Do you suppose teaching a child to hate or fear those whose belief's are different than your own is a good thing? Especially when there are so many stories of God destorying those who did not conform to God's law? God saved everyone who will ever be saved by doing what had to be done. If not for the Flood, the world would have never been ready for Jesus and humanity would have never accepted his lessons of repentance and self-sacrifice. Where in the Bible is there a story in which God tells his followers to be responsible for their own actions instead of destroying those who would tempt them with other Gods and other customs? The Israelites who weren't happy with the situation were free to leave. God established his own kingdom in the world and ran it the way he saw it. God wanted to remove societal corruption in order to prepare the way for Jesus. >> God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.<<< Well so much for FREE WILL - if I can't control their free will so that I can fulfill prophacy then I'll just flood them out. The flood saved humanity as a race. You know what I equate that with in modern day terms? - Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to serve in the military with the condition that they can't serve as themselves. Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and then taking it away from them . Giving Gays and Lesbians the right and responsility of being foster parents, often for difficult to place, high risk children, but then denying that same loving and nurturing couple the right to adopt kids who have been in their care for years. That kind of mentality is overwhelmingly Christian - it's hard to deny what the Bible is teaching - isn't it? Here is your free will and here are all the conditions under which you can utilize it. Maybe you aren't quite grasping this... Christians are imperfect. By and large, they try to be good and loving and do the right thing. Sometimes what they do won't make you happy. Sometimes it will. Without exception, Western society has gotten more free and more fair from one generation to the next. I know that some people have legitimate concerns about gays adopting because Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids. Yes, more study needs to be done on this subject, but there are legitimate societal concerns and concerns on the child's long term mental health. According to different studies, gays are 2x to 6x more likely to commit suicide than straights. With lesbian mothers being 58% likely to produce lesbian daughters and 33% likely to produce gay sons, their children would have a much higher suicide rate than average. Personally, I think that gays shouldn't have the right to married, but wait. Before you start seeing red, continue to read. I think that the Government has no right to say who can or should get married, it's not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I think that the Government should only do civil unions, which should be between two or more consenting adults. Religions should offer marriage as a religious ceremony, with no legal standing. Some religions would allow gays to marry, some wouldn't. Some religions would allow polygamy, some wouldn't. It's not my place to say who should enter a civil union and it's not my place to dictate another person's religion. I talk about this to anyone who will listen when gay rights come up. So far, the response has been positive. I know I have changed some Christian's stance on the subject. I do side with caution on the adoption issue. If the studies show roughly equal or better outcomes from gay parents, then I would support adoption. But the safety and long term happiness of the children is tantamount. I know that there are individual examples of great gay parents, but we should wait for better information before we legislate something that could be detrimental to children. I would support lowering funding for AIDS research and put some of the money towards studies into gay parents vs straight parents. The amount of good that could be done by giving good permanent homes to parent less children would be incalculable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's illustrating a point. Oh you have free will......except don't do this, this, this, and don't even THINK about doing this. Not really free will when it's a restricted free will is it? Of course it's still free will. You guys really are so far off on this! Just because you have free will, that doesn't mean there aren't consequence! Every action has a reaction. We have police, courts and prisons for those who break our laws. If we have the right to enforce our laws, why shouldn't God have the right to enforce His? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Spider) There are admittedly disagreements among Christians on some doctrine and beliefs, but there is an undeniable core to what Christians believe. (Redy) This seems to be the ‘rule of thumb’ for most Christians. “our disagreements are over minor points” – But then they categorized Catholics as this sub-set not worthy of full Christendom. (Spider) I don't answer for any other Christians, just myself. Catholics are Christians, I don't doubt that. So are Mormons. Anyone who tries to follow Jesus is a Christian. That doesn't mean they do a very good job of it or that they are saved. The mere fact that Christians differ in their beliefs and that all Christians are so accepting of this, makes it untenable that they would not tolerate all religious beliefs AND all IN FACT that they would not question their own beliefs. At the very least, I would consider true Christian altruism to be acceptance of all beliefs for fear of teaching someone the ‘wrong’ beliefs. In other words – take responsibility for thine own beliefs and let others be responsible for what they believe. (Redy) When posters make comments about the things Christians believe – Christians get mad and say “NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT”. (Spider) And? We rather expect to have some understanding of what the definition of Christian means. So when someone says “I’m a Christian” we have an idea of what that means. We do this so we can relate to and respect people. But in the case Christians, it seems, there is no winning, because there is not definition. It truly is the most uniquely individualist religion ever. It’s the biggest social club in the world, they have one thing in common a word that defies definition. (Redy)And when other posters explain why they are not Christians and would not Christians, they are told that they’ve never read the book and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they HAVE talked to a lot of other Christians who happen to have said this is what they believe. But what happened to “our disagreements are over minor points” ?? (Spider) Just because someone says that they are a Christian doesn't mean that they have ever read the Bible, prayed, tried to follow Jesus, etc. It's not like saying you are a Christian suddenly grants you a vast knowledge of the Bible or a spiritual purity. That’s right - and since every individuals relationship with God is personal and if , as you say, some feel guided by their conscience to righteous actions then there is no need for the Bible at all. Do you deny that God will judge a person’s heard and not their knowledge of the Bible? (Redy) SO – what are those core values that make all Christians band together against anyone who isn’t Christian? (Spider) Nothing. What are the values that would make gays band together against anyone who isn't gay? There is no doubt that the LGBT have become stronger through the values established in the sub-cultures they have created. We value a sense of family and belonging, others with whom we can relate on all levels, most importantly – emotionally. We value the same sense of pride that some others in our individualist culture would often deny us. I would consider all of those things to be the core values that make us a sub-culture. Together we fight against those who would deny us those core values in the mainstream of society. We don’t want to be different, we want to be equal . What do Christians want when they fight against such equality? What do Christians want when they go to Africa and teach others that ‘their’ morals are all wrong? (Redy) And if it makes no difference what Christian sect one belongs to – then why is it necessary to have different sects and do you really believe that some sects are a better vehicle to an eternal life? (Spider) One more time and I hope you'll listen this time. Christianity is a relationship with God. Christians have different beliefs, because no two relationships are the same. A Christian who isn't ready to understand a doctrine, won't. Their mind and heart will lead them astray, but if they continue in their path of following Jesus, they will correct their course eventually. Jesus uses our conscience to goad us in the right direction and away from sin. That flies in the face of all we know about psychology – you can even forget psychology, it doesn’t fly with all we know through anthropology. Our conscience is guided by cultural elements. OBVIOUSLY they override whatever conscience you think God controls. It makes no sense at all that God would use a human mechanism meant as a survival tool (conscience) in the physical realm as a guide to actions meant to get a human into eternal existence. Certainly God would know that we would use that tool to ‘SURVIVE’ within the culture we must live in. If all humans, indeed, had the same notions of what is morally right or wrong or just & unjust, then we would have no problems relating to every other country or every other person in our own smaller communities. Abra, for example, is every bit as guided by his conscience as anyone else and he feels morally righteous and a just judge of the world around him. Yet, because his morals stem from beliefs that are different than yours, BECAUSE his relationship with God is uniquely his own, some Christians think he has condemned himself. Does their conscience not alert them to the fact that they are judging the personal relationship Abra has with God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you say the difference between 'Murder' and 'Kill' is? Some say there is no difference, they mean the same thing - what do you think? They have dictionaries... It appears that the difference is that murder is unlawful. How do Christians distinguish between the two? Can you give examples in the bible that explain when it is murder and when it is killing? AND whether you are killed or murdered, does it make a difference to the person harmed when it comes to the final judgment? In other words, if life is ended prematurly by being killed or murdered, hasn't the individual been denied the opportunity of making amends or strengthening their faith and commitment? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is the CORE BELIEF of Christians where Jesus is concerened http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/religion/christianity/beliefs.html]Basic Beliefs of Christianity Thanks Spider - yea this is what I was taught, in fact after the first few sentances I was reciting The Apostle's Creed, and then there it was at the end of the article. Amazing I still remember it after all these years. Anyway, below are the list of 'baisc' beliefs but to be honest, I don't think this applies as much as it once did. I suppose it varies from state to state and even between cities. In your experience with other Christians have you noticed more modifications being applied to the list below? God Christians believe that there is only one God. Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Trinity consists of three persons. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are considered to be an essence of the God. Bible Bible is the final revelations of God. The bible consists of The Old Testament (books written prior to Jesus) and The New Testament (books relate and life of Jesus). Death and Resurrection of Jesus Jesus was crucified on the cross. Christians believe that Jesus died for the sins of people. He was resurrected the following Sunday. Return of Jesus Bible also proclaims that the Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. Matthew (24:30) says , “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” Salvation and Punishment Christians believe in the life after death. Those who believe in Jesus will be forgiven and saved, whereas, the unbelievers would face eternal punishment. The beliefs of Christianity can also be seen in the words of the Apostles' Creed, a document which was written to distinguish Christianity from other religions and show basic Christian doctrine in a concise manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Child" as you put it is actually a "son". There is absolutely no indication that a child is being discussed. Sons lived with their families their whole life, with the eldest son inheriting his father's possessions. All family members were expected to work, as the Israelites were nomadic and their lives depended upon hard work. It was not uncommon for Israelites to be killed by rival tribes or wild animals, so every man had to know how to fight and be ready to fight at a moments notice to protect himself and his family. Ok, so they were nomadic – that means when they came across a city like Sodom, that the people therein had no way of knowing or understanding the cultural norms of those early Hebrews. Nor did they know of their God or his rules, but because the ‘customs’ of Sodomites were dissimilar, God decided that the entire city should be destroyed. Of course that makes sense because those are the same characteristics of a God who sent the great flood. No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? But the following only adds confusion: 1) The Great Flood was necessary because everyone, but for a small family, were focused on doing evil acts all of the time. Everyone but that small family had to die, so that humanity would have some redeeming value. Humanity was one or two generations from becoming irredeemable. God actually thinks humanity is irredeemable – why? Did he loose control over his creation, perhaps like the old woman in the shoe – He had so many children he didn’t know what to do?? God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people. But THEN after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation. Here Jesus says that no human can ever possibly adhere to every one of God’s commandments for a lifetime. So he would fulfill that role and then abolish the need for other humans to do so through his self-sacrifice. Jesus created the world, flooded the world, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, led the Israelites out of Egypt, commanded that Jericho be destroyed, died for our sins. Jesus is God. I will repeat it for the millionth time: Jonah refused to serve God, because he felt that God was too forgiving. The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament...Oh, I know...You can't be bothered to read it. OK – but doesn’t that mean we were pretty much irredeemable at that point???? So at one time God just got rid of almost everyone, and this time he found a better alternative. In this case Jesus will serve as the sacrifice, instead of destroying cities, casting plagues, or sending a great flood. Sounds like some kind of weird learning curve in which humans pay the price. God always planned to to give himself as a sacrifice for his creation, because he loved us. But it was possible for the culture (before the flood) to become so corrupt that Jesus couldn't have taught us to follow him. At that point, there would be no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which would have rendered humanity irredeemable. Spider wrote: >>> No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable? <<<< I was attempting to show the consistency of God's characterisitics in the old testament. >>> The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament... <<< How many poeple do you suppose were destroyed by God vs. how many did you see God showing compassion to? Do you suppose teaching a child to hate or fear those whose belief's are different than your own is a good thing? Especially when there are so many stories of God destorying those who did not conform to God's law? Where in the Bible is there a story in which God tells his followers to be responsible for their own actions instead of destroying those who would tempt them with other Gods and other customs? >> God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.<<< Well so much for FREE WILL - if I can't control their free will so that I can fulfill prophacy then I'll just flood them out. You know what I equate that with in modern day terms? - Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to serve in the military with the condition that they can't serve as themselves. Giving Gays and Lesbians the right to marry and then taking it away from them . Giving Gays and Lesbians the right and responsility of being foster parents, often for difficult to place, high risk children, but then denying that same loving and nurturing couple the right to adopt kids who have been in their care for years. That kind of mentality is overwhelmingly Christian - it's hard to deny what the Bible is teaching - isn't it? Here is your free will and here are all the conditions under which you can utilize it. SORRY, I really try not to do that, but the greatest obstacle to equality that directily affects me, and many people I love, tends to be from the Christian community. I spend a lot of time trying to understand why it should be so. Naturally it's on my mind and it makes for good expamples. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this whole argument is based on what humans think what god is and wants...IF there is a god like what we describe he is, he can be anything he wants... he can be limited in his unlimitedness, if that what he wants. we cannot fathom what restrictions he puts on himself, because he can do anything. in a billion years, it would become a billion times more boring, so any restrictions that he would put on himself would be because of his everlasting nature. personally, if there is a god like that, i don't really think he cares about any one individual, just for the fact that there is no reason to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this whole argument is based on what humans think what god is and wants...IF there is a god like what we describe he is, he can be anything he wants... he can be limited in his unlimitedness, if that what he wants. we cannot fathom what restrictions he puts on himself, because he can do anything. in a billion years, it would become a billion times more boring, so any restrictions that he would put on himself would be because of his everlasting nature. personally, if there is a god like that, i don't really think he cares about any one individual, just for the fact that there is no reason to. Well the strange thing about a God is that humans define what God must be. For example, God must be righteous. After all, if God is not righteous, then it's no longer a "God" but instead it becomes a demon. Therefore, by the very concept that humans place on God, God must be righteous, otherwise it wouldn't be a "God". Therefore God is LIMITED to being righteous. God cannot do an unrighteous thing and remain righteous. So if God is righteous, then God is LIMITED by righteousness. And if God isn't limited by righteousness, than it FAILS to live up to what humans consider to be the main quality that a "God" is supposed to have.  Where's the line between a God and a Demon?   When does a God become a demon? Who decides what constitutes a moral or immoral act for a God? If God has no authority above him, then can the concept of "Morality" or righteousness even make any sense in the context of an all-powerful supreme being? Who is the JUDGE of God's morality? Humans?  These kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that religions like Christianity don't even address. Their attitude is extremely simple. "Well of course God is moral and righteous, because that's what they told us in Sunday School!" I mean, really. People don't think very deeply about these things at all truthfully. They just want to believe that a supposedly all-wise, all-loving truly righteous God exists because that's what the Sunday School Teachers have taught us for millennia and it makes for a nice fairytale because we can imagine living happily ever-after in Heaven with a perfect loving and truly righteous God who will never turn against us or be mean to us once we make it into his heaven. That's the fairytale with the perfect ending: "And they lived happily ever-after for all of eternity" The big bad boogieman was cast into a fiery furnace never to be heard from again along with all the dorks who sold their souls to become his loyal orcs. It's just a glorified version of the story of Santa Claus versus the Grinch who stole Christmas. An adult rated fairytale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do Christians distinguish between the two? If someone stabs you in the face, it's murder. If you kill someone who is trying to stab you in the face, it's self-defense. I have to say that some of your questions are very confusing, the answers are self-evident. Can you give examples in the bible that explain when it is murder and when it is killing? It's self-evident. AND whether you are killed or murdered, does it make a difference to the person harmed when it comes to the final judgment? In other words, if life is ended prematurly by being killed or murdered, hasn't the individual been denied the opportunity of making amends or strengthening their faith and commitment? I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 12/30/10 07:47 AM
|
|
The mere fact that Christians differ in their beliefs and that all Christians are so accepting of this, makes it untenable that they would not tolerate all religious beliefs AND all IN FACT that they would not question their own beliefs. At the very least, I would consider true Christian altruism to be acceptance of all beliefs for fear of teaching someone the ‘wrong’ beliefs. In other words – take responsibility for thine own beliefs and let others be responsible for what they believe. You seem to have a strange definition of tolerance. Tolerance a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. What religious beliefs do Christians not tolerate? And why would Christians believe in Christianity and teach the beliefs of other religions. Can you tell me of any other organized religion that does that? We rather expect to have some understanding of what the definition of Christian means. So when someone says “I’m a Christian” we have an idea of what that means. We do this so we can relate to and respect people. But in the case Christians, it seems, there is no winning, because there is not definition. It truly is the most uniquely individualist religion ever. It’s the biggest social club in the world, they have one thing in common a word that defies definition. Christian means "Christ-like". People who self-identify as Christian are saying that they are attempting to follow Jesus. There are core beliefs (see my previous post) that most Christians agree upon. What more do you want? That’s right - and since every individuals relationship with God is personal and if , as you say, some feel guided by their conscience to righteous actions then there is no need for the Bible at all. Do you deny that God will judge a person’s heard and not their knowledge of the Bible? You might succeed at business without an education, but it would be much easier to do if you did. What do Christians want when they fight against such equality? They are trying to do what is right. You don't agree with them, I don't agree with them. The difference is that I can admit that their hearts are in the right place, but their mind isn't. What do Christians want when they go to Africa and teach others that ‘their’ morals are all wrong? I have no idea what you are talking about here, but I would assume that they want those people to live more moral lives. Most of Africa is a hell-hole of war, rape, murder and torture. Why do you want it to not change? And if it makes no difference what Christian sect one belongs to – then why is it necessary to have different sects and do you really believe that some sects are a better vehicle to an eternal life? The denominations exist, because people congregate with people with a similar view of God and the Bible. Your relationship with Jesus is not dependent upon which denomination you belong to, it's based on how closely you follow Him. That flies in the face of all we know about psychology – you can even forget psychology, it doesn’t fly with all we know through anthropology. Our conscience is guided by cultural elements. Read Mere Christianity. CS Lewis does a good job of showing that the conscience is based on natural law, not culture. OBVIOUSLY they override whatever conscience you think God controls. It makes no sense at all that God would use a human mechanism meant as a survival tool (conscience) in the physical realm as a guide to actions meant to get a human into eternal existence. Certainly God would know that we would use that tool to ‘SURVIVE’ within the culture we must live in. We only have one conscience and that was granted by God. If all humans, indeed, had the same notions of what is morally right or wrong or just & unjust, then we would have no problems relating to every other country or every other person in our own smaller communities. Unless people made exceptions for when they wanted to sin. If the conscience came from the culture and the culture were guided by the conscience, then there would be no progress towards a more free society. It's this constant nagging and goading that comes from someone being treated unfairly, that has driven society forward. We would still have slaves, if we had waited for the culture to change. It was abolitionists who rejected all arguments in favor of slavery and all conventional wisdom on blacks that brought about the end of slavery. If the modern theories on the conscience were true, you would see a stagnation of culture. The conscience can be seared, if it is ignored. It can become calloused to the point that it no longer is felt. This is how someone can become a serial killer or career criminal, if they ignore their conscience long enough, they won't feel the goads anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this whole argument is based on what humans think what god is and wants...IF there is a god like what we describe he is, he can be anything he wants... he can be limited in his unlimitedness, if that what he wants. we cannot fathom what restrictions he puts on himself, because he can do anything. in a billion years, it would become a billion times more boring, so any restrictions that he would put on himself would be because of his everlasting nature. personally, if there is a god like that, i don't really think he cares about any one individual, just for the fact that there is no reason to. Well the strange thing about a God is that humans define what God must be. For example, God must be righteous. After all, if God is not righteous, then it's no longer a "God" but instead it becomes a demon. Therefore, by the very concept that humans place on God, God must be righteous, otherwise it wouldn't be a "God". Therefore God is LIMITED to being righteous. God cannot do an unrighteous thing and remain righteous. So if God is righteous, then God is LIMITED by righteousness. And if God isn't limited by righteousness, than it FAILS to live up to what humans consider to be the main quality that a "God" is supposed to have. Where's the line between a God and a Demon? When does a God become a demon? Who decides what constitutes a moral or immoral act for a God? If God has no authority above him, then can the concept of "Morality" or righteousness even make any sense in the context of an all-powerful supreme being? Who is the JUDGE of God's morality? Humans? These kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that religions like Christianity don't even address. Their attitude is extremely simple. "Well of course God is moral and righteous, because that's what they told us in Sunday School!" I mean, really. People don't think very deeply about these things at all truthfully. They just want to believe that a supposedly all-wise, all-loving truly righteous God exists because that's what the Sunday School Teachers have taught us for millennia and it makes for a nice fairytale because we can imagine living happily ever-after in Heaven with a perfect loving and truly righteous God who will never turn against us or be mean to us once we make it into his heaven. That's the fairytale with the perfect ending: "And they lived happily ever-after for all of eternity" The big bad boogieman was cast into a fiery furnace never to be heard from again along with all the dorks who sold their souls to become his loyal orcs. It's just a glorified version of the story of Santa Claus versus the Grinch who stole Christmas. An adult rated fairytale. For example, God must be righteous. After all, if God is not righteous, then it's no longer a "God" but instead it becomes a demon. Therefore, by the very concept that humans place on God, God must be righteous, otherwise it wouldn't be a "God". Therefore God is LIMITED to being righteous. God cannot do an unrighteous thing and remain righteous God isn't "limited". Something being "limited" means that something CAN NOT do something. God can do anything and everything. He CHOOSES not to do evil things. That's not limiting oneself, the possibility is still there, again he CHOOSES not to do evil. Why would God do something evil? That would be an oxymoron right there. God kicked Satan out of Heaven for doing evil, so would it make much sense for God to do evil himself? No, again would be an oxymoron and wouldn't make much of any sense at all. So no God isn't limited, the possibility of the evil action is still there, he merely chooses not to do them. Where's the line between a God and a Demon? When does a God become a demon? That's the exact same thing as saying "Where's the line between a dog and a giraffe? When does a dog become a giraffe? God and demons are specific beings. They aren't considered a God or a demon just because of their actions. They are a specific being. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this whole argument is based on what humans think what god is and wants...IF there is a god like what we describe he is, he can be anything he wants... he can be limited in his unlimitedness, if that what he wants. we cannot fathom what restrictions he puts on himself, because he can do anything. in a billion years, it would become a billion times more boring, so any restrictions that he would put on himself would be because of his everlasting nature. personally, if there is a god like that, i don't really think he cares about any one individual, just for the fact that there is no reason to. Well the strange thing about a God is that humans define what God must be. For example, God must be righteous. After all, if God is not righteous, then it's no longer a "God" but instead it becomes a demon. Therefore, by the very concept that humans place on God, God must be righteous, otherwise it wouldn't be a "God". Therefore God is LIMITED to being righteous. God cannot do an unrighteous thing and remain righteous. So if God is righteous, then God is LIMITED by righteousness. And if God isn't limited by righteousness, than it FAILS to live up to what humans consider to be the main quality that a "God" is supposed to have. Where's the line between a God and a Demon? When does a God become a demon? Who decides what constitutes a moral or immoral act for a God? If God has no authority above him, then can the concept of "Morality" or righteousness even make any sense in the context of an all-powerful supreme being? Who is the JUDGE of God's morality? Humans? These kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that religions like Christianity don't even address. Their attitude is extremely simple. "Well of course God is moral and righteous, because that's what they told us in Sunday School!" I mean, really. People don't think very deeply about these things at all truthfully. They just want to believe that a supposedly all-wise, all-loving truly righteous God exists because that's what the Sunday School Teachers have taught us for millennia and it makes for a nice fairytale because we can imagine living happily ever-after in Heaven with a perfect loving and truly righteous God who will never turn against us or be mean to us once we make it into his heaven. That's the fairytale with the perfect ending: "And they lived happily ever-after for all of eternity" The big bad boogieman was cast into a fiery furnace never to be heard from again along with all the dorks who sold their souls to become his loyal orcs. It's just a glorified version of the story of Santa Claus versus the Grinch who stole Christmas. An adult rated fairytale. If God has no authority above him, then can the concept of "Morality" or righteousness even make any sense in the context of an all-powerful supreme being? Who is the JUDGE of God's morality? Humans? spock Yes it does make sense. No one is the judge of our father's morality. God is the top of the line, he has no one to answer to. |
|
|
|
|
