Mistaken teachings in modern 'christianity' ?

[ohmi]

:)

Do those who follow Jesus have to depart from all sin as scripture says, or do they have endless license to sin as the churches say ?

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are his.
And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [ 2 Timothy 2:19 ]

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged:
and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
[ Proverbs 16:6 ]

What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?
[Romans 6:1-2]

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; [ 1John 5:18 ]

-Did Jesus have the last word on this, that at his return he will leave behind all who are still sinners ? :-

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
[ Matthew 7:23 ]

[TheRealityOfMan]

Jesus said you commit adultery if you look lustfully at a woman. If I see a pretty blonde in Oxford Street and get a hard on does that mean I'm going to hell?

[rickP]

So, does that mean that anyone who is a christian doesn't sin? at all? ever? If they do, then they are not "born of God", right?

What was the point of this again?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

IMO, Paul's idea of salvation from faith is in contradiction with all Jesus' advocations to act in certain ways, according to what one reads in the Gospel. Ever since Paul was included error was inevitable. If just the Gospels were included Christians would be today like moderate Jews today and Islam might probably not have appeared.

If Jesus is taken into consideration, you are saved by merit based on acts from the heart (sincere acts in sync with love), faith is just for moving mountains (getting things done on Earth). Whenever Jesus talks about heaven and the life to come, he always speaks of meritorious acts of love, never faith. Curious, isn't it?

[Newfie]

IMO, Paul's idea of salvation from faith is in contradiction with all Jesus' advocations to act in certain ways, according to what one reads in the Gospel. Ever since Paul was included error was inevitable. If just the Gospels were included Christians would be today like moderate Jews today and Islam might probably not have appeared.

If Jesus is taken into consideration, you are saved by merit based on acts from the heart (sincere acts in sync with love), faith is just for moving mountains (getting things done on Earth). Whenever Jesus talks about heaven and the life to come, he always speaks of meritorious acts of love, never faith. Curious, isn't it?

Curious, yes, but since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels a case can be made that the Gospels, and by implication Jesus’ words, are the corruption to the original Christian message, and not the other way around. Fundamentalists certainly behave as if Paul’s words trump Jesus’ after all. Maybe they are correct to believe that their beliefs are the original, correct form of Christianity. ;)

[Lógos Sokratikós]

IMO, Paul's idea of salvation from faith is in contradiction with all Jesus' advocations to act in certain ways, according to what one reads in the Gospel. Ever since Paul was included error was inevitable. If just the Gospels were included Christians would be today like moderate Jews today and Islam might probably not have appeared.

If Jesus is taken into consideration, you are saved by merit based on acts from the heart (sincere acts in sync with love), faith is just for moving mountains (getting things done on Earth). Whenever Jesus talks about heaven and the life to come, he always speaks of meritorious acts of love, never faith. Curious, isn't it?

Curious, yes, but since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels a case can be made that the Gospels, and by implication Jesus’ words, are the corruption to the original Christian message, and not the other way around. Fundamentalists certainly behave as if Paul’s words trump Jesus’ after all. Maybe they are correct to believe that their beliefs are the original, correct form of Christianity. ;)

Not necessarily. The Christ story antecedes Paul as it is implicit in his writings. The Gospel writers put down the oral transmission.

Also, as Christ didn't write anything nor did his followers immediately compiled the teachings and the sttory systematically, there is no "true" story or "original, correct form of Christianity". Paul contradicts the already existing leader of the Apostles according to Acts and Paul's letters themsleves. Peter surrendered to Paul as we can read, or so what's written says.

In any case, Jesus is more an "acts of sincere love and piety" kind of guy. His vision of heaven is full of beautiful people, and Paul's is full of pundits.

[TheRealityOfMan]

If it wasn't for St. Paul we wouldn't even be hearing about the teachings of the Christ. A lot of the Jesus teachings are pretty far out but Paul is more matter-of-fact with his suggestions about what to do (like don't have long hair if you're a bloke). To me, the gospels are a very broad canvas and it is Paul who articulates a kind of message (salvation for all through faith).

Paul talks tough in a lot of his letters but there is a whole lotta love in them too. He always starts his epistles by invoking all kinds of grace wishes on his readers and things like that. He does talk about damnation a lot but then again so does Jesus. Paul appeals to me more because he is more of a real character whereas Jesus is just a cypher. Paul can express his emotions like anger, frustration, fear, confusion. When Jesus does this in the gospels, Christians have to see this as some deep, theological representation. Paul though is just a human like the rest of us struggling to come to terms with new realities. Also it's kind of interesting wondering what his 'thorn in the side' might have been.

[Newfie]

Curious, yes, but since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels a case can be made that the Gospels, and by implication Jesus’ words, are the corruption to the original Christian message, and not the other way around. Fundamentalists certainly behave as if Paul’s words trump Jesus’ after all. Maybe they are correct to believe that their beliefs are the original, correct form of Christianity. ;)

Not necessarily. The Christ story antecedes Paul as it is implicit in his writings. The Gospel writers put down the oral transmission.


The Christ story, or the Christ legend? I am referring to the idea that Paul’s views of Christ could have been closer to the factual character than the Gospels’, which could be polluted by elements of legend, albeit to a lesser extent, just like the non-canonical Gospels, eg. Thomas.

Also, as Christ didn't write anything nor did his followers immediately compiled the teachings and the sttory systematically, there is no "true" story or "original, correct form of Christianity". Paul contradicts the already existing leader of the Apostles according to Acts and Paul's letters themsleves. Peter surrendered to Paul as we can read, or so what's written says.

I was referring to the Fundamentalist assertion that their core beliefs where the original form of Christianity, and that they survived as an underground movement until the Reformation period. I know, completely unsubstantiated, like most of their beliefs.

In any case, Jesus is more an "acts of sincere love and piety" kind of guy. His vision of heaven is full of beautiful people, and Paul's is full of pundits.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I come from a Catholic background, and I still consider the Jesus vision of salvation to make more logical sense than the Paul vision. All of that talk about good deeds flowing out as a result of being saved just seems arse first to me.

Some of the Christians posting here seem to believe that morality has nothing to do with getting into heaven, but that it is some kind of weird lottery run by God based on His random whim. Basically, He picks people and magically changes them into believers, or something equally unfair to the millions of good Christians who are just wasting their time counting on the afterlife.

The old “fifty sins is just as bad as fifty thousand sins” line of logic, which works if you are a disgraced televangelist trying to restart your ministry, but is little comfort to the saintly, little old woman who sends him most of her old age security cheque each month.

Like you said, I'd rather be in Jesus' heaven than Paul's. Better class of people IMHO.

[ohmi]

So, does that mean that anyone who is a christian doesn't sin? at all? ever? If they do, then they are not "born of God", right?

What was the point of this again?

:)

The point is that most people who call themselves 'christian' are still sinners and the churches delude them that Jesus will take them at his return, but he has said that he will not take anyone who is still a sinner by then [or dies as a sinner before then]

Thus sin is taken lightly by most folks, but very seriously amongst the saints of God, the actual ones who follow Christ in sinlessness :-

1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

[ohmi]

IMO, Paul's idea of salvation from faith is in contradiction with all Jesus' advocations to act in certain ways, according to what one reads in the Gospel. Ever since Paul was included error was inevitable. If just the Gospels were included Christians would be today like moderate Jews today and Islam might probably not have appeared.

If Jesus is taken into consideration, you are saved by merit based on acts from the heart (sincere acts in sync with love), faith is just for moving mountains (getting things done on Earth). Whenever Jesus talks about heaven and the life to come, he always speaks of meritorious acts of love, never faith. Curious, isn't it?
:)

Faith in Love is what gives saints the confidence to Love all men and God all the time, where all other men follow the more usual unloving ways of this world...

Saying one has faith means NOTHING without the lovingness true faith generates ... without works one's belief that one has faith in Love, in God, is empty, is simply deluding oneself :-

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Works of lovingness to all and to God are what SHOWS one has real faith in Love to DO it, not just say it :-

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

[ohmi]

Curious, yes, but since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels a case can be made that the Gospels, and by implication Jesus’ words, are the corruption to the original Christian message, and not the other way around. Fundamentalists certainly behave as if Paul’s words trump Jesus’ after all. Maybe they are correct to believe that their beliefs are the original, correct form of Christianity. ;)

Not necessarily. The Christ story antecedes Paul as it is implicit in his writings. The Gospel writers put down the oral transmission.

Also, as Christ didn't write anything nor did his followers immediately compiled the teachings and the sttory systematically, there is no "true" story or "original, correct form of Christianity". Paul contradicts the already existing leader of the Apostles according to Acts and Paul's letters themsleves. Peter surrendered to Paul as we can read, or so what's written says.

In any case, Jesus is more an "acts of sincere love and piety" kind of guy. His vision of heaven is full of beautiful people, and Paul's is full of pundits.

:)

The commonplace modern religious misunderstanding is not to realise that Paul was sent to teach the gentiles whereas Peter and the other apostles were sent to reach the House of Israel AMONGST the gentiles [where the House fo Israel was scattered long before Jesus came] :-

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Jesus himself is sent by God only to the House of Israel :-

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

but he recognises that inevitably the gentiles will pick up on the presence of himself and his disciples , and the power of their Love is amazing , attracting many more than just the House of Israel to see such things as their ability to heal and to reveal the truth about the redemption of Israel first to be priests and kings in the kingdom during the later redemption of the gentiles [Rev 7:9-10] :-

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

One should thus note that FEW find the narrow way ,but MANY are saved [e.g. Rev 7:9-10] , thus the broad way through destruction in death and the end of this world is ALSO a way to Jesus , but after resurrection in the new earth kngdom come... all people are thus not redeemed at Jesus' return because he is simply setting up the kingdom at that time, getting the priesthood ready toserve the billions redeemed later ...

modern religion thus has the clear message of scripture very wrong already, just as Jesus prophesied must happen at this time ...

[ohmi]

Not necessarily. The Christ story antecedes Paul as it is implicit in his writings. The Gospel writers put down the oral transmission.


The Christ story, or the Christ legend? I am referring to the idea that Paul’s views of Christ could have been closer to the factual character than the Gospels’, which could be polluted by elements of legend, albeit to a lesser extent, just like the non-canonical Gospels, eg. Thomas.



I was referring to the Fundamentalist assertion that their core beliefs where the original form of Christianity, and that they survived as an underground movement until the Reformation period. I know, completely unsubstantiated, like most of their beliefs.

In any case, Jesus is more an "acts of sincere love and piety" kind of guy. His vision of heaven is full of beautiful people, and Paul's is full of pundits.Yeah, I know what you mean. I come from a Catholic background, and I still consider the Jesus vision of salvation to make more logical sense than the Paul vision. All of that talk about good deeds flowing out as a result of being saved just seems arse first to me.

Some of the Christians posting here seem to believe that morality has nothing to do with getting into heaven, but that it is some kind of weird lottery run by God based on His random whim. Basically, He picks people and magically changes them into believers, or something equally unfair to the millions of good Christians who are just wasting their time counting on the afterlife.

The old “fifty sins is just as bad as fifty thousand sins” line of logic, which works if you are a disgraced televangelist trying to restart your ministry, but is little comfort to the saintly, little old woman who sends him most of her old age security cheque each month.

Like you said, I'd rather be in Jesus' heaven than Paul's. Better class of people IMHO.

:)

The new covenant of grace upon the House of Judah [Jews] and the House of Israel [lost , paganised, scattered amongst the gentiles long before the Jews were, worshiping idols] is first given by the prophet Jeremiah in the OT [!] and is repeated by Paul [Heb 8:8-12] in the NT :-

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

- This IS the REAL new covenant of grace , the ONLY new covenant ... there is no other one and the one taught in modern churches is NOT found in scripture , whereas this one is written in OT and NT ... so read carefully if you want the truth about GRACE [and works]

Note that the new covenant is not only with the Jews [House of Judah, Southern kingdom of Israel] ,but also with the lost and paganised larger House of Israel [NON-Jewish Northern kingdom of Israel]

But the covenant is ONLY with those whose 'fathers' broke to old covenant , NOT with the gentiles... read it and check this major point

Thus Paul, apostle to the gentiles, teaches that not only the Jews, but also the House of Israel, are heirs to this UNCONDITIONAL acceptance by grace , because God has promised that Israel will be His priests in His kingdom when it comes upon the earth [and Jesus rules on earth] :-

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

This then is why Jesus is for now sent ONLY to the House of Israel :-

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

[TheRealityOfMan]

Ohmi - what do you think St.Paul's 'thorn in the side' might have been?

[Doug Shaver]

Mistaken teachings in modern 'christianity'
I think all Christian teachings are mistaken, be they modern or traditional.

[ohmi]

Jesus said you commit adultery if you look lustfully at a woman. If I see a pretty blonde in Oxford Street and get a hard on does that mean I'm going to hell?

Hi TROM, :)

To answer your question ,first you must understand what 'hell' is and what it is conflated with in scripture and religion :-

This article (http://www.apocatastasis.org/hell.html) goes some way to explaining the vast popular misunderstandings inside [and thus also outside] religion, generated through desperately poor translation and the fictional work of Dante which so many took seriously :-
http://www.apocatastasis.org/hell.html

- 'Hell' [sheol, hades] is simply the unseen state of the dead , when the spirit has returned to God [Ecclesiastes 12:7] , the soul [life of the body] is unseen

The dead know nothing in death [Ecclesiastes 9:5] and there is no point in punishing a dead man, any more than flogging a dead horse... the dead cannot feel any punishment and have no consciousness until resurrected by the spirit returned to a new body [for almost all people, who died still sinners, this is in the new earth, at the second resurrection, after the Millenium]

Second, to answer your question then, the wages of sin is death, all those who are still sinners by death [including almost all who say they are 'christians' then] take part in the second resurrection [for the unjust] , that is all, that is their 'hell' , to be 'unseen' for over a thousand years ... and the purpose behind it is to free them from sin, to start again in the new earth kingdom come with a new opportunity to live a loving life next time :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Thus most people do not need grace , which is why the new covenant is only with those whose fathers broke the old covenant [Heb 8:8-12]

So after their trip through 'hell', all sinners are resurrected , but they are tried by their works in the new earth , whether they are loving or not by judgment day :-

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[ohmi]

Ohmi - what do you think St.Paul's 'thorn in the side' might have been?
:)

The 'thorn' is the trial of Israel by God :-

Ezek 28:24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.
26 And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.

1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 3:11 I [John the baptist] indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he [Jesus] that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

[Zenaphobe]

:)

Do those who follow Jesus have to depart from all sin as scripture says, or do they have endless license to sin as the churches say ?

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are his.
And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [ 2 Timothy 2:19 ]

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged:
and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
[ Proverbs 16:6 ]

What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?
[Romans 6:1-2]

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; [ 1John 5:18 ]

-Did Jesus have the last word on this, that at his return he will leave behind all who are still sinners ? :-

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
[ Matthew 7:23 ]

In my own Christian experience, I started out reading the Bible alone out of fear of being led astray by human teachers. In that time I was troubled by the differences between Paul's emphasis on "faith" and Jesus' preaching of "actions."

This caused conflicted feelings in me until I began reading theologians and came across "lordship salvation" theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

To make a long story short, I was confused to find conflict over something so important as how salvation was to be understood. That and various other doctrines that Christians can't agree on. :huh:

[Newfie]

Note that the new covenant is not only with the Jews [House of Judah, Southern kingdom of Israel] ,but also with the lost and paganised larger House of Israel [NON-Jewish Northern kingdom of Israel]

But the covenant is ONLY with those whose 'fathers' broke to old covenant , NOT with the gentiles... read it and check this major point

Thus Paul, apostle to the gentiles, teaches that not only the Jews, but also the House of Israel, are heirs to this UNCONDITIONAL acceptance by grace , because God has promised that Israel will be His priests in His kingdom when it comes upon the earth [and Jesus rules on earth] :-


Thank you for the explanation ohmi, but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to understand if you are arguing that Christianity is only for the Jews, Gentiles or a combination of the two? Could you give me a summary of your position, please? :)

[ohmi]

In my own Christian experience, I started out reading the Bible alone out of fear of being led astray by human teachers.


Hi, :)

Good intuition to read for yourself [and pray with yearning for His truth, and meditate on the law of Love] ... but you might note that it is God who eventually teaches all people the truth, not religion, not scripture, but God Himself by His own spirit :-

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[Jesus]

Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;...

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

In that time I was troubled by the differences between Paul's emphasis on "faith" and Jesus' preaching of "actions."

As the saints explain, faith that does not produce actions of Love ain't faith [in Love] ... it really isn't that hard to understand that if you believe in Love then you will DO Love ...

and conversely if you do not DO Love, if you remain a sinner, then you do nOT have faith in Love, no matter what you claim , no matter if youcall yourself a 'christian' , no matter if you say Jesus is Lord ...

...for a lord is someone whom one obeys, and Jesus commanded Love... so without acts of Love [and no unlovingness toanyone, no sin] one is not following Jesus at all, and he is not ones lord at all ... this he said, but modern 'christians almost all ignore him [!] :-

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
...
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

- So very many seem to think that faith in a religious creed will buy them salvation without having to stop sinning , Jesus has said that they will be left gnashing their teeth [without reason , since Jesus said that he will take the few first by the narrow way and the many by the broad way ,but later -Rev 7:9-10]


This caused conflicted feelings in me until I began reading theologians and came across "lordship salvation" theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

To make a long story short, I was confused to find conflict over something so important as how salvation was to be understood. That and various other doctrines that Christians can't agree on.

The central problem in modern christian dogma is to not realise that the many who go by the broad way are saved later , yet Jesus states this -Rev 7:9-10

One cannot interpret scripture at all if one assumes as modern christianity almost completely does, that salvation has to be all at once at Jesus' return [whereas Matt 7 states that FEW will find the narrow way of sainthood in this life, but jesus says that |MANY are saved afterward , through the ministry of the FEW in the kingdom of God come in the new earth]

[figuer]

what do you think St.Paul's 'thorn in the side' might have been?He was homosexual....the 'thorn' thing gives it away...although it was in the back, not the side.

[ohmi]

Thank you for the explanation ohmi, but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to understand if you are arguing that Christianity is only for the Jews, Gentiles or a combination of the two? Could you give me a summary of your position, please? :)

... OK , here we go :)

The new covenant says who it is with :-

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

So grace is only offered to both the Jews [House of Judah] and the lost House of Israel [paganised, never Jewish, scattered even at the time that Jesus came]

When Jesus returns, he says who he will take, those FEW under this new covenant with all Israel [not just the Jews] sealed against iniquity through the holy spirit nconditionally taken as priests and kings for his kingdom come , that is the 144,000 of Rev 7:3-8 ,named by tribe, by son of Jacob.

But then these FEW kings and priests must have someone to rule and minister to and the only ones eventually available are the sinners of this world resurrected at the second resurrection [of the unjust] , so not only the FEW are redeemed who took the narrow way in this life [Matt 7:14] , but alosthe MANY who went by the broad way through death in this life ... Jesus states that the MANY are saved too, but AFTERWARD ! :-

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands...

So those whose fathers broke the old covenant are FIRST because of God's promise that Israel's descendants would be His priesthood in the kingdom of God :-

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

BUT after this , whe all who died sinners are resurrected, after the millenium, Jesus states that countless gentiles are redeemed too ...

Thus it is simply wrong , the religious dogma that states that all who will be saved must be saved at the return of Jesus, Jesus himself says otherwise ... the kingdom of God grows progressively, like a tree , as Jesus said, not all-at-once as religion claims :-

Luke 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree;

God is thus saviour of all men ,but not all at once :-

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

[makerowner]

dude, why do you post this stuff on an atheist forum? Arguments from scripture are worthless here, so you've got nothing.

[figuer]

Makes him feel good....he thinks he is doing his god's will, etc.

[ohmi]

dude, why do you post this stuff on an atheist forum? Arguments from scripture are worthless here, so you've got nothing.

:)

I like most atheists , many of my friends are atheists , it is a vastly more honest belief than hypocritical religion ,and I have spent much of my life rejecting the false god of religion and thinking that I was an atheist myself ...

The views of prophets and saints are perfectly valid points of view to consider by atheists , one does not cease to be valid as a philosopher simply because one has come to understand God at last ... the division of men is arbitrary to say the least ,since atheists can realise God and religionists can lose faith in iconsistent religion and declare themselves atheists ... why not just treat people as people ?

I have always found it very significantly strange that atheists spend so long convincing themselves about what they do not believe [yet content themselves with disproving inconsistent religious babble about 'god']

None can deny that Love is right, and none who remember can deny the wholeness that they came from to become self [at first consciousness] , so my God of Love [interestingly consistent with scripture] is a valid discussion point anywhere... if one takes the broadest definition of a god as that which one reveres most, then even some of those who call themselves atheist can see that they revere Love and it is only a reluctance at the word that they refuse to see it as their 'god' ... polarising and a priori censoring never do make for open minds, open discussion of all points of view...

To my mind also there is much more to life than words , attempting to convey some of that in mere words [by 'poetic' license for instance] is an interesting challenge

[makerowner]

The views of prophets and saints are perfectly valid points of view to consider by atheists , one does not cease to be valid as a philosopher simply because one has come to understand God at last ... the division of men is arbitrary to say the least ,since atheists can realise God and religionists can lose faith in iconsistent religion and declare themselves atheists ... why not just treat people as people ?

That's exactly what I try to do: I treat the authors of "scripture" as people, rather than mouthpieces of God. There are plenty of theistic works that I like, from Ecclesiastes to the Bhagavad Gita, but I don't consider any of them authoritative or even especially likely to be right; I generally read them to provoke questioning rather than to look for answers.

None can deny that Love is right, and none who remember can deny the wholeness that they came from to become self [at first consciousness] , so my God of Love [interestingly consistent with scripture] is a valid discussion point anywhere... if one takes the broadest definition of a god as that which one reveres most, then even some of those who call themselves atheist can see that they revere Love and it is only a reluctance at the word that they refuse to see it as their 'god' ... polarising and a priori censoring never do make for open minds, open discussion of all points of view...

Why call it god? Why not just call it love? When you use the term 'god', you're bringing along ~3 000 years of theistic baggage, and your constant quoting from Judeo-Christian scripture certainly makes it seem like you endorse those positions. Saying "God is love" is basically just back-door weaseling: "you're not against love are you? Well God is love, so if you're against God, you're against love".

[Kharakov]

The 'thorn' is the trial of Israel by God :-

The thorn's the bible which turns some from the truth. However, some are junkies to the feelings the 'word of God' causes within them. Everyone's got a fix buddy.

[ohmi]

The 'thorn' is the trial of Israel by God :-

The thorn's the bible which turns some from the truth. However, some are junkies to the feelings the 'word of God' causes within them. Everyone's got a fix buddy.

The trouble with a 'fix' is that it fixes nothing , one finds out eventually that one is continually coming back for a 'fix' and yet nothing is finally fixed by it at all...

The scriptures are not even necessary , let alone being a 'fix', they are just a convenient reference to words of those who came close to God and lived much of their lives by the rule of Love ...

Without doing Love one never discovers that it is the best working way of life, the only lasting solution to mankind's problems, but we are a long way off yet from all men being Loving to one another and the potential of Love , the law of God, being realised in full ...

[figuer]

The scriptures are not even necessary , let alone being a 'fix', they are just a convenient reference to words of those who came close to God and lived much of their lives by the rule of Love ...I wonder what book is this "Christian" reading that he claims its protagonists lived by the "rule of love", certainly not the blood soaked, hate mongering Bible.

[ohmi]

The scriptures are not even necessary , let alone being a 'fix', they are just a convenient reference to words of those who came close to God and lived much of their lives by the rule of Love ...I wonder what book is this "Christian" reading that he claims its protagonists lived by the "rule of love", certainly not the blood soaked, hate mongering Bible.

Hate and blood and mass death are sadly necessary before mankind gives up its pride and greed, and turns to Love and sharing and equality ...

[Doug Shaver]

The scriptures . . . are just a convenient reference to words of those who came close to God
Why should anyone believe that? Because you say so?

[ohmi]

The scriptures . . . are just a convenient reference to words of those who came close to God
Why should anyone believe that? Because you say so?

far from because I say so, simply read Jesus' sayings and then the prophets and saints , the unity of message about Love and the wisdom speak for themselves... but read the scripture itself , not what religionists say that it says ... and beware of translation errors ...

[Newfie]

Thank you for the explanation ohmi, but I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to understand if you are arguing that Christianity is only for the Jews, Gentiles or a combination of the two? Could you give me a summary of your position, please? :)

... OK , here we go :)

So grace is only offered to both the Jews [House of Judah] and the lost House of Israel [paganised, never Jewish, scattered even at the time that Jesus came]


Interesting, but I have a question omni. When you say the lost House of Israel do you mean the Israelites? Even if you don't, in which sense do you mean that they were "lost" and "paganised, never Jewish, scattered even at the time that Jesus came?"

[Newfie]

I have always found it very significantly strange that atheists spend so long convincing themselves about what they do not believe [yet content themselves with disproving inconsistent religious babble about 'god']


Actually, in my experience, most atheists are more interested in religion and God than the average religious person precisely because the “religious babble about 'god'” is so “inconsistent.”

Their curiosity led them to dig deeply into the foundations of religion, which brought them to the conclusion that all gods originate from the same source, namely the human imagination. Many atheists really aren’t continuously trying to convince themselves about what they do not believe, but are actively working on proving their theory that God(s) do not exist by subjecting all known arguments and “evidences” held by believers to the test of logic and reason.

They are not “still seeking” as is often speculated, but find intellectual stimulation and validation of their position in this process. Anyone who blindly holds onto any belief without continuously testing its validity is acting outside the realm of reason IMHO. :wave:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

dude, why do you post this stuff on an atheist forum? Arguments from scripture are worthless here, so you've got nothing.

I'm enjoying how knowledgeable he is and how clearly he explains stuff. It's uncommon.

[Doug Shaver]

the unity of message about Love and the wisdom speak for themselves... but read the scripture itself
I've done that. I found no unity of any kind. The only message speaking for itself seems to be your dogma.

[makerowner]

dude, why do you post this stuff on an atheist forum? Arguments from scripture are worthless here, so you've got nothing.

I'm enjoying how knowledgeable he is and how clearly he explains stuff. It's uncommon.

Sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken. Are you serious?

[ohmi]

... OK , here we go :)

So grace is only offered to both the Jews [House of Judah] and the lost House of Israel [paganised, never Jewish, scattered even at the time that Jesus came]


Interesting, but I have a question omni. When you say the lost House of Israel do you mean the Israelites? Even if you don't, in which sense do you mean that they were "lost" and "paganised, never Jewish, scattered even at the time that Jesus came?"

The Israelites couldn't get it together to be one nation, they divided into two separate kingdoms , two separate lines of kings, two HOUSES ...

The Northern kingdom was called the HOUSE of Israel and they worshipped pagan gods , rejected Judaism , never became Jews, and are still spurned and ignored by Jews today [so much that Jews wil most not even discuss the House of Israel]

The Southern kingdom was and is called the HOUSE of Judah , that became known as the 'Jews' and despite some transient wanderings into pagan beliefs, they still keep to Judaism and that has kept the identity of the Jews going through their incredible number of severe trials in this world.

God eventually scattered the Jews for their apostasy from the old covenant, but long before that He had scattered the House of Israel amongst all nations... unlike the Jews though they had no single religion to keep them together, the nation lost its identity and merged into whatever nation would accept a few of them ...

Deuteronomy 28:64 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.

- thus they lived as pagan gentiles amongst gentiles even long before Jesus came to find them [Matthew 15:24 , Matthew 10:5-6 ,Acts 2:36] , and they worship pagan gods to this day excepting only those whom the gospel of their new covenant [of grace] with God [Heb 8:8-12]has reached

Ephraim was the leading tribe in the House of Israel ,yet the ceased to be a recognisable people , the name disappeared as the name of a people, yet persists to this day as an individual name among some pagans, handed down for thousands of years and showing their descent from Jacob despite that they are non-Jewish and worship pagan gods, their religion is not Judaism.

Isaiah 7:8 ... within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

Yet Moses prophesied that this nation which had ceased to be a people would return and make the Jews jealous [with knowledge of the still-awaited Jewish messiah] :-

Deuteronomy 32:21 ... I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

This long-lost disappeared House of Israel to whom alone Jesus was sent, re-emerge then as a holy nation in the NT as the priesthood of kings to be readied for ministry in the kingdom of God in the new earth :-

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

The promise of this role goes right back to Moses, so we know that it is not addressed to anyone who is not a descendant of Jacob [whom God renamed 'Israel']:-

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Again the new covenant [Jer 31:13-34, Heb 8:8-12] states that only those whose fathers broke the old covenant receive grace under the new covenant ... this is good news to the gentiles only because Israel is made a priesthood so as to minister to the gentiles in the kingdom come, the many go by the broad way through death for sin, but Jesus states that they are afterward saved too, not just the few of Israel who go by the narrow way :-

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Zechariah 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.

[ohmi]

the unity of message about Love and the wisdom speak for themselves... but read the scripture itself
I've done that. I found no unity of any kind. The only message speaking for itself seems to be your dogma.

:)

I have no dogma... and you seemingly have no discussion to offer :(

To begin to see the unity, note that the new covenant [Heb 8:8-12] is only with those whose antecedants broke the old covenant ...

[ohmi]

I have always found it very significantly strange that atheists spend so long convincing themselves about what they do not believe [yet content themselves with disproving inconsistent religious babble about 'god']


Actually, in my experience, most atheists are more interested in religion and God than the average religious person precisely because the “religious babble about 'god'” is so “inconsistent.”


:)

That's the strange thing, as I said, why study so deeply what you do not believe [yet simply ignore the proven faults in what you do believe , such as Godel's incompleteness theorem]

Their curiosity led them to dig deeply into the foundations of religion, which brought them to the conclusion that all gods originate from the same source, namely the human imagination. Many atheists really aren’t continuously trying to convince themselves about what they do not believe, but are actively working on proving their theory that God(s) do not exist by subjecting all known arguments and “evidences” held by believers to the test of logic and reason.

Logic and reason [and language] are incomplete , blunt tools which are very often treated as though they were complete, invalidating their usage ... atheists do not subject their own beliefs to the same scrutiny they very curiously reserve for discussion of god(s) ... the thrust for truth has thus perhaps been lost and maybe all that remains is an obsession to in any way find some words which can be said at least to disprove what is not believed... mere rationalisations of ardent belief that are perhaps no deeper than the babble of religionists about their pet hypocrisies.

Worst of all words are applied to the spirit [demonstrably outside time as creator of time] which evolved , ad hoc, within time... it is a basic philosophical error ,which invalidates the argument even before the propositional calculus is heaped on board to try to give the words some semblance of credibility by using formalism... the irrational passion to dsiprove god exists exceeds the will to play by the rules, that is what is significant , that this intense passion exists and defeats even reason in many atheists to the point of self-deceit about so-called 'proofs'

My point is simply that it is very remarkable, significant even, that anyone spends more time on what they DON'T believe than on what they do ... perhas think on it and see if you can see the point being made ?

They are not “still seeking” as is often speculated, but find intellectual stimulation and validation of their position in this process. Anyone who blindly holds onto any belief without continuously testing its validity is acting outside the realm of reason IMHO.

As I said previously, reason is based on blind belief [in axioms which not everyone accepts ] and there are paradoxes [contradictions] in the common usage of logic too , which men simply ignore , quite unacceptably irrationally ... but the main problem when discussing God is that God exists in a different realm than the one in which language evolved , one has to abuse words to use them to talk about time-less God ,and as such one cannot then simply apply logic as though the words were literal

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[ohmi]

Sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken.

Over-usage ?

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:

[Newfie]

That's the strange thing, as I said, why study so deeply what you do not believe [yet simply ignore the proven faults in what you do believe , such as Godel's incompleteness theorem]

Care to explain what a purely mathematical theorem has to do with Christian faith vs. atheistic rationalism?

My point is simply that it is very remarkable, significant even, that anyone spends more time on what they DON'T believe than on what they do ... perhas think on it and see if you can see the point being made ?

Many scholars do spend a lot of time studying ideologies that they believe to be false. How much scholarship has been done on communism and fascism by people who firmly believe in democracy, for example?

Incidentally, if you choose to consider my disbelief in an actual God as my belief system, then my spending time thinking about the many reasons why I disbelieve is, in fact, my spending time on what I do believe. Does that help you understand my position?

As I said previously, reason is based on blind belief

Faith is based on blind belief. Reason is the light that is cast upon belief, exposing either what you believed was there to begin with or something else entirely.

but the main problem when discussing God is that God exists in a different realm than the one in which language evolved , one has to abuse words to use them to talk about time-less God ,and as such one cannot then simply apply logic as though the words were literal

"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

God may exist in a different realm than language, but that has not stopped theologians from trying to define God by using ever increasingly dense layers of language.

Do you disbelieve in the literal reading of the Bible then?

[Doug Shaver]

I have no dogma
You must think the Bible is coherent, or you would not speak of its unity. The notion that the Bible has any coherence is a dogma.

[ohmi]

I have no dogma
You must think the Bible is coherent, or you would not speak of its unity. The notion that the Bible has any coherence is a dogma.

Nah, it's just a simple observation after 30 years study ... :)

[makerowner]

You must think the Bible is coherent, or you would not speak of its unity. The notion that the Bible has any coherence is a dogma.

Nah, it's just a simple observation after 30 years study ... :)

Apparently you haven't been studying too hard: A list (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) of 400 contradictions in the Bible.

[ohmi]

That's the strange thing, as I said, why study so deeply what you do not believe [yet simply ignore the proven faults in what you do believe , such as Godel's incompleteness theorem]

Care to explain what a purely mathematical theorem has to do with Christian faith vs. atheistic rationalism?


:)

rationalism is based on faith in axioms , modern apostate 'christinity' is based upon man-made creeds , knowledge of God is based upon faith in Love and His eventual revelaing of all truth to all flesh [Joel 2:28]

the relevance of Godel's formalisation of the 'Liar paradox' , a contradiction at the very heart of rationalism, logic, language, is that men's faith in reason is not even justifiable by reason , but much usage of reason is proven false in principle [by logic itself]

My argument is simply that it makes more sense to have faith in the absolute [me know Love is not wrong, men know when they do wrong], why even try having faith in concocted machinations that already have been shown to be inadequate, not worthy of faith in the way we use them?

Many scholars do spend a lot of time studying ideologies that they believe to be false. How much scholarship has been done on communism and fascism by people who firmly believe in democracy, for example?

Besides that 'communism' has never been proved false [since it was never truly implemented by any regime - since elite ruling classes always ruled], there is good cause to study means of government to see that none but 'theocracy' works, but it is of no practical significance yet because men in power would never reliquish it to God until all other possibilities have failed [at terrible 'cost' in human terms] ... [this then why we see the current worldwide decline in civilisation toward its end]

Incidentally, if you choose to consider my disbelief in an actual God as my belief system, then my spending time thinking about the many reasons why I disbelieve is, in fact, my spending time on what I do believe. Does that help you understand my position?

Perhaps I do understand your position, having been there myself ... that is not why I raised the point , but rather to show that there is a great passion in some to disbelieve anything that can be labelled a god , which exceeds their passion to even examine the already exposed holes in what they do claim to believe in... that is worthy of examination, why they reach that state, why it is 'unbalanced' in outlook between apparent 'options' ,and why it refuses to examine the basis of belief ...why it declines to examine intuition/inspiration despite knowing that this is the driving force behind knowledge of all kinds [realtive or absolute], not reason...

Faith is based on blind belief. Reason is the light that is cast upon belief, exposing either what you believed was there to begin with or something else entirely.

Reason too is based upon belief, not upon reason, and some usage of reason is against reason [reason is not complete, thus one should never use 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, yet men use them extensively]

but the main problem when discussing God is that God exists in a different realm than the one in which language evolved , one has to abuse words to use them to talk about time-less God ,and as such one cannot then simply apply logic as though the words were literal"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Yes, and on it goes... even though we know that almost everything we call knowledge is relative, conditional, and much of it is not even 'logically sound' because of our abuse of logic, reason, language...

God may exist in a different realm than language, but that has not stopped theologians from trying to define God by using ever increasingly dense layers of language.

Not only that, but God predicted that they would , and that most men will eventually unite into one false faith in a false god ... we shall see, but will men then see the true God ? - it seems not so until almost all have seen His power in resurrecting them ..

Do you disbelieve in the literal reading of the Bible then?

The power of the words of scripture is in its poetry, its symbolism... whether it is litearlly true [in part or whole] is scarcely relevant to its meaning [so why bother with seeing what is literally true, what is not?]

God has set a time for the few to know all things (toward redemption Rev 7:3-8)) [John 16:13, Matt 7:14] and a time for the many to know all things (toward redemption of those who go by the broad way -Rev 7:9-10) ... this curiously doesn't stop men asking why they do not know now and assuming that their not knowing shows that God does not exist ... it matters not ,except to see that it must be so ...

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

[Sapho]

Ohmi, there are no absolutes. You keep saying that love is not wrong, well its not right either, or left. Nor is it up or down, black or white. Love is a human emotion, and as such is relative.

nor would a singular being be capable of love, as it has no need of it.

[Doug Shaver]

You must think the Bible is coherent, or you would not speak of its unity. The notion that the Bible has any coherence is a dogma.
Nah, it's just a simple observation after 30 years study ... :)
What did you believe about the Bible when you began studying it?

[ohmi]

Ohmi, there are no absolutes. You keep saying that love is not wrong, well its not right either, or left. Nor is it up or down, black or white. Love is a human emotion, and as such is relative.

Love is the very spirit of what is right, what brings life abundantly, so none who knows it can deny it's rightness, its rightness is thus an absolute, not relative .

nor would a singular being be capable of love, as it has no need of it.

There 'are' no singular beings because we are within creation. This being , on becoming apparently separated from God still longs to Love Him and wants only to return to Him, despite the loss of self that entails

[ohmi]

You must think the Bible is coherent, or you would not speak of its unity. The notion that the Bible has any coherence is a dogma.

What did you believe about the Bible when you began studying it?

:)

I thought that it is the most reproduced work ever made and that it was time that I read and understood it for myself .
I wanted to resolve the different stories about what it says ...Many people said and say different things are in it, I found that it not only claims to invalidate their personal interpretations [creeds], but actually does so... hoards of people still only know what men say that it says, very few indeed bother to find out what is actually said. :eek:
Atheists mostly only bother zealously demolishing the false gods of religious creeds, never even seeing the God of the 'poetry' of scripture or His plan for this world and the next

[Sapho]

Ohmi, there are no absolutes. You keep saying that love is not wrong, well its not right either, or left. Nor is it up or down, black or white. Love is a human emotion, and as such is relative.

Love is the very spirit of what is right, what brings life abundantly, so none who knows it can deny it's rightness, its rightness is thus an absolute, not relative .

nor would a singular being be capable of love, as it has no need of it.

There 'are' no singular beings because we are within creation. This being , on becoming apparently separated from God still longs to Love Him and wants only to return to Him, despite the loss of self that entails

The singular being I was talking about is god, why would a being that has existed by itself for eternity, be capable of love? What would it love?

Love is a human emotion, we know this because we are capable of love and we are human. Love as we know it, does not exeist outside of the human context, unless you have actual evidence other wise?

[ohmi]

The singular being I was talking about is god, why would a being that has existed by itself for eternity, be capable of love?

:)

Yes, a penetrating question capable of extending our understanding beyond the everyday misunderstanding [made even by Newton] of thinking that time is infinite .

Contrary then to the common misconception, time is created with 'space-time', our universe , time is not independent of space or matter, this we have now proven by experiment, there is no infinite past time , nor does time survive the end of our universe ...

thus God as creator is time-less, without time, beyond time - a hard thing to imagine perhaps from within time , but thus God did not exist for an infinity of time , as commonly imagined, since there is no such thing , time is finite and is born and dies with our universe as part of it.

This tells us that the Love of God thus exists integral to the universe from the beginning and cannot change :-

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Thus the Love of God is seen in manifestation of love that we can understand simply by the acts of Jesus , the idea being integral to God and built-in to the universe, that men must see Love in order to come to live the best way of living, and so come the believe in God through the benefit to life of living the loving way

To say that God Loves is thus not the same usage of the words as to say that a man Loves

many misunderstand then what is meant by 'eternal' God, because of past misunderstanding of the nature of time ... as creator He is beyond time . The creator of time is not bound in time but outside it, beyond it [our words limited by our conception of that] ,not within time ,not living as we see ourselves to live through time.

What would it love?We might use license with words a little to say that God's 'Love' is expressed by including Love within the universe for us to know life more abundantly through Love and thus have confidence in going the way of Love instead of following the unloving ways predominant in the world

That then would give a meaning to the 'changeless' 'Love' of God for His creation and an answer to your question ... for God there is no time, so there is no infinite time 'before' creation or after it, time too is a created thing [and thus all of time is complete to God, just a fixed known object]

Love is a human emotion, we know this because we are capable of love and we are human. Love as we know it, does not exist outside of the human context, unless you have actual evidence other wise?Love indeed moves us [emotion], and rewards us when we do it [with abundant life] , but we should be aware that God is not a human being, not set in time, and thus God's 'expression' of 'Love' is timeless , unlike ours, we know Love because God put it within creation, and that is His 'Love', to have put it there for us to know :-

1 John 4:19 We love Him, because He first loved us.

[Newfie]

Care to explain what a purely mathematical theorem has to do with Christian faith vs. atheistic rationalism?


:)

rationalism is based on faith in axioms , modern apostate 'christinity' is based upon man-made creeds , knowledge of God is based upon faith in Love and His eventual revelaing of all truth to all flesh [Joel 2:28]

the relevance of Godel's formalisation of the 'Liar paradox' , a contradiction at the very heart of rationalism, logic, language, is that men's faith in reason is not even justifiable by reason , but much usage of reason is proven false in principle

Care to provide examples of how the 'Liar paradox' has been used to argue against the existence of God? Apart from one of my favorite Trek episodes I have never, to my recollection, actually seen anyone use it, although it would be interesting to see smoke actually come out of someone’s ears.

While not exactly an example of the 'Liar paradox' an appropriate paradox to this discussion would be a Christian general or president declaring “In the name of The Prince of Peace, destroy our enemies!”

My argument is simply that it makes more sense to have faith in the absolute [me know Love is not wrong, men know when they do wrong], why even try having faith in concocted machinations that already have been shown to be inadequate, not worthy of faith in the way we use them?

In what sense is love never wrong? Have you not read Shakespeare? The love of men can sometimes be tragic, misdirected and even illegal in certain cases involving small children. Similarly, men do not always know when they do wrong. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” after all.

Besides that 'communism' has never been proved false [since it was never truly implemented by any regime - since elite ruling classes always ruled], there is good cause to study means of government to see that none but 'theocracy' works, but it is of no practical significance yet because men in power would never reliquish it to God until all other possibilities have failed [at terrible 'cost' in human terms] ... [this then why we see the current worldwide decline in civilisation toward its end]

It doesn’t matter that communism has yet to be proven false. My point was that people studied it especially because they disbelieved in it. Such study only strengthened their own beliefs.

Can you name a theocracy that has worked? Iran is a 'theocracy'; is it an example of an ideal government?

Perhaps I do understand your position, having been there myself ... that is not why I raised the point , but rather to show that there is a great passion in some to disbelieve anything that can be labelled a god , which exceeds their passion to even examine the already exposed holes in what they do claim to believe in... that is worthy of examination, why they reach that state, why it is 'unbalanced' in outlook between apparent 'options' ,and why it refuses to examine the basis of belief ...why it declines to examine intuition/inspiration despite knowing that this is the driving force behind knowledge of all kinds [realtive or absolute], not reason...


Perhaps I misrepresented myself as an atheist. I actually prefer the label “freethinker” as I find many people view “atheist” to mean a firmness of position. I am constantly gathering new information so I cannot say that I am a “firm” atheist, but lately I have come to believe that this is definitely the direction that I am headed.

Currently, my working belief is that God of the Bible is as mythical as any of the other gods that mankind has created, and I assume that I will continue with this belief until new evidence comes to light that may contradict it. Each new thing that I discover from any of my readings tends to support my present position, which I find intellectually exciting. I personally have little regard for anyone who has maintains a position, be it religious, political or ideological, without thoroughly researching the merits of the opposing view. It’s about informed choice.

I would agree with you that anyone who does not put their beliefs to the test is being intellectually dishonest, which is why I frequent a Christian forum as well as this one, and why I read a “faith-based” book for every “atheist” work I read. I keep looking for “holes” in each side.

Reason too is based upon belief, not upon reason, and some usage of reason is against reason [reason is not complete, thus one should never use 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, yet men use them extensively]


I really only have ever seen Reductio ad absurdum used in Christian argument where a true/false flowchart leads people to down a path that implies that atheists believe in pedophilia or cannibalism or some such nonsense. How exactly can reason not be based on reason? You lost me there. :huh:

Yes, and on it goes... even though we know that almost everything we call knowledge is relative, conditional, and much of it is not even 'logically sound' because of our abuse of logic, reason, language...

I would agree with you that knowledge is relative and conditional. What is scientifically true today may not be tomorrow, and what was moral once is no longer so. This is precisely why the Bible, while containing some truths that are still valid, is nonetheless too outmoded to be taken literally for today’s society.

Not only that, but God predicted that they would , and that most men will eventually unite into one false faith in a false god ... we shall see, but will men then see the true God ? - it seems not so until almost all have seen His power in resurrecting them ..


Well, Nostradomus made predictions too, many of which appear to be more accurate than biblical prophesy. Ever consider the possibility that your belief is a false one?

The power of the words of scripture is in its poetry, its symbolism... whether it is litearlly true [in part or whole] is scarcely relevant to its meaning [so why bother with seeing what is literally true, what is not?]

You know, I’m a big fan of poetry and the Bible is a very poor example of poetic scripture (at least in English.) The Qu ‘ran is a much better example of poetic scripture and, honestly, a lot less incoherent than the Bible. Granted there is [B]a lot of symbolism in the Bible, much of which can only be understood through the viewpoint of it’s contemporary audience, which is why I am so amazed that anyone takes the book as speaking directly to today’s society.

[Doug Shaver]

What did you believe about the Bible when you began studying it?
I thought that it is the most reproduced work ever made and that it was time that I read and understood it for myself .
I wanted to resolve the different stories about what it says ...
So then, you assumed that there had to be a way to resolve everything it said? You assumed that its message had to be coherent?

Many people said and say different things are in it
Did you give any thought to the possibility that people say different things are in it because different things actually are in it and some of those different things contradict each other?

If you never considered that possibility, then your study of the Bible has been colored by a dogma from the very start.

[Sapho]

The singular being I was talking about is god, why would a being that has existed by itself for eternity, be capable of love?

:)

Yes, a penetrating question capable of extending our understanding beyond the everyday misunderstanding [made even by Newton] of thinking that time is infinite .

Contrary then to the common misconception, time is created with 'space-time', our universe , time is not independent of space or matter, this we have now proven by experiment, there is no infinite past time , nor does time survive the end of our universe ...

thus God as creator is time-less, without time, beyond time - a hard thing to imagine perhaps from within time , but thus God did not exist for an infinity of time , as commonly imagined, since there is no such thing , time is finite and is born and dies with our universe as part of it.

This tells us that the Love of God thus exists integral to the universe from the beginning and cannot change :-

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Thus the Love of God is seen in manifestation of love that we can understand simply by the acts of Jesus , the idea being integral to God and built-in to the universe, that men must see Love in order to come to live the best way of living, and so come the believe in God through the benefit to life of living the loving way

To say that God Loves is thus not the same usage of the words as to say that a man Loves

many misunderstand then what is meant by 'eternal' God, because of past misunderstanding of the nature of time ... as creator He is beyond time . The creator of time is not bound in time but outside it, beyond it [our words limited by our conception of that] ,not within time ,not living as we see ourselves to live through time.

We might use license with words a little to say that God's 'Love' is expressed by including Love within the universe for us to know life more abundantly through Love and thus have confidence in going the way of Love instead of following the unloving ways predominant in the world

That then would give a meaning to the 'changeless' 'Love' of God for His creation and an answer to your question ... for God there is no time, so there is no infinite time 'before' creation or after it, time too is a created thing [and thus all of time is complete to God, just a fixed known object]

Love is a human emotion, we know this because we are capable of love and we are human. Love as we know it, does not exist outside of the human context, unless you have actual evidence other wise?Love indeed moves us [emotion], and rewards us when we do it [with abundant life] , but we should be aware that God is not a human being, not set in time, and thus God's 'expression' of 'Love' is timeless , unlike ours, we know Love because God put it within creation, and that is His 'Love', to have put it there for us to know :-

1 John 4:19 We love Him, because He first loved us.

Ohmi, there is another word for timlessness, which I believe explains it better, that word is Stasis. A single unchanging instant, a frozen moment. Your God is a fly stuck in amber. Neither knowing nor acting.

[ohmi]

Care to provide examples of how the 'Liar paradox' has been used to argue against the existence of God?

:)

Is this proposition true or false : 'This proposition is untrue'
If true then it is false, but if false then it is false that it is true ...

The 'Liar paradox' shows that one cannot assume that every proposition is either true or false in any complex language [logicians make this into a proof that all language, logic, reason is 'incomplete']
- it means for instance that one cannot use the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument validly , yet of course it is used by people all the time , in science, Philosophy, religion, as well as in everyday life ...
- it is thus a wholly rational and valid objection to much that men term 'reason' , their reasoning is proven logically invalid if they use this argument
, finding a contradiction does not logically prove the opposite proposition because of incompleteness ... yet most people ignore this fact, ignore this logical proof which has been established with utmost rigour in Godel's formal incompleteness theorem ... now that is irrationality in extreme and seen even in almost all people whose main faith is in reason.

You will find it used in so-called disproofs of God too.

Apart from one of my favorite Trek episodes I have never, to my recollection, actually seen anyone use it, although it would be interesting to see smoke actually come out of someone’s ears.

That doesn't seem too loving an aim in life really >:D<

While not exactly an example of the 'Liar paradox' an appropriate paradox to this discussion would be a Christian general or president declaring “In the name of The Prince of Peace, destroy our enemies!”
:D Even God recognises that one cannot in the end stop some people except by death freeing them from sin [it matters not that god will take lives, since He will resurrect all when the kingdom is ready for mass redemption] :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Psalms 143:12 And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant.

Exodus 23:27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.

In what sense is love never wrong?

Love is a word used to describe many different distinct things , do not get confused in your considerations by the usage of different meanings of the word

Have you not read Shakespeare? The love of men can sometimes be tragic, misdirected and even illegal in certain cases involving small children. Similarly, men do not always know when they do wrong. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” after all.

Do not confuse 'Love' with lust , even when men use the word 'love' for their sexual or perverted sexual lust ... distinguish what are distinct matters even if people use that same word for them ,ambiguously .

Also be aware that God eventually brings His truth to all , and with that there is some grief

Can you name a theocracy that has worked? Iran is a 'theocracy'; is it an example of an ideal government?

Theocracy by a false god [such as the Roman Empire and the early Catholic system] is never going to work, but God has promised us true theocracy under Jesus in the new earth kingdom come... no system of government will work until then

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Perhaps I misrepresented myself as an atheist. I actually prefer the label “freethinker” as I find many people view “atheist” to mean a firmness of position. I am constantly gathering new information so I cannot say that I am a “firm” atheist, but lately I have come to believe that this is definitely the direction that I am headed.

God has promised to reveal His truth to all [Joel 2:28] , so all will know God eventually [albeit after death and resurrection for most] ,so it hardly matters if people don't believe in God now ... but one can have faith in Love because one knows in one's heart that Love cannot be wrong ...

On the other hand it is impossible to disprove that God exists , it matters not how inconsistent are the idol images that religionists worship , it does not disprove God that religion is wholly corrupted by creeds - but see that 'hard' atheism is also an untenable creed inconsistent with reason, merely an over-reaction to the deceit of religion...

Currently, my working belief is that God of the Bible is as mythical as any of the other gods that mankind has created, and I assume that I will continue with this belief until new evidence comes to light that may contradict it.

There is some great wisdom hidden in many myths , one can even learn about men by seeing what they are moved to invent... but god abandons even His chosen Israel to false worship in order to show them that there is but one true god , it is something which comes much later to the realisation of the rest of mankind ... what matter then what men believe for now, since men will be swept up in belief in the tremendous power given the antichristcwhen he emerges on the world scene , and it is just God's way of dealing with the inappropriate pride of men in relative and false beliefs [when after all our deepest hearts tell us to believe in Love, not the unloving ways that we show we have faith in because of false values we hold in the world]

Each new thing that I discover from any of my readings tends to support my present position, which I find intellectually exciting. I personally have little regard for anyone who has maintains a position, be it religious, political or ideological, without thoroughly researching the merits of the opposing view. It’s about informed choice.

You may one day like to consider what source that you believe is 'informed' that you use it to base any choice of belief upon .

Whatever relative belief one holds is undone when its conditions fail , thus one might sensibly seek the absolute to build one's belief upon solid foundations, not upon the shifting sands of relativism..

I would agree with you that anyone who does not put their beliefs to the test is being intellectually dishonest, which is why I frequent a Christian forum as well as this one, and why I read a “faith-based” book for every “atheist” work I read. I keep looking for “holes” in each side.

Rather ask yourself perhaps "Faith in what" ... and see that faith in anything but the absolute is certainly not faith in God [so what is it faith in?] ... also faith in 'reason' is tainted by the continual habitual irrational abuse of reason by men , wholly inconsistent usage of a tool ,which undermines vast tomes of written work in science, religion, Philosophy ... mmen simply ignore the restrictions of language almost all of the time

I would agree with you that knowledge is relative and conditional. What is scientifically true today may not be tomorrow, and what was moral once is no longer so. This is precisely why the Bible, while containing some truths that are still valid, is nonetheless too outmoded to be taken literally for today’s society.

Prophecy is by nature about the future, and much applies to our future still... how can predictions about the future be outmoded?

Well, Nostradomus made predictions too, many of which appear to be more accurate than biblical prophesy. Ever consider the possibility that your belief is a false one?

I don't actually think that you have the means to compare accuracy of different sources of prophecy, but prophecy is not the sole preserve of scripture, not by any means.

And my beliefs are only current working ones, as I have said , they are subject to falsification at any time , they have changed and will likely continue to do so... I am only discussing them, not trying to sell them to anyone...


The power of the words of scripture is in its poetry, its symbolism... whether it is litearlly true [in part or whole] is scarcely relevant to its meaning [so why bother with seeing what is literally true, what is not?]You know, I’m a big fan of poetry and the Bible is a very poor example of poetic scripture (at least in English.) The Qu ‘ran is a much better example of poetic scripture and, honestly, a lot less incoherent than the Bible. Granted there is [B]a lot of symbolism in the Bible, much of which can only be understood through the viewpoint of it’s contemporary audience, which is why I am so amazed that anyone takes the book as speaking directly to today’s society.

English translation certainly destroys much that is in the scripture, particularly as we have not even one half-decent [unbiased, consistent]translation ... it is the depth of scripture that it survives the abuse of it by religion , but one cannot appreciate the depth of scripture until discovering the metaphors , similes, etc that explain its symbolically represented meanings [one of the many ways that the message of scripture is secured from the fraud of religion]

Since prophecy covers the whole plan of God throughout all time, it is obvious that it addresses every age , past, present , and future ... how could it not do so?

The Qur'an is materialistic and self-contradicting and has not shaken off its origins in idol worship of the past, it is one of the shallowest books that I have ever taken the trouble to fully read ... as literature it is nowhere , not even close in any way to the quality and depth of the scriptures .

[ohmi]

Ohmi, there is another word for timlessness, which I believe explains it better, that word is Stasis. A single unchanging instant, a frozen moment. Your God is a fly stuck in amber. Neither knowing nor acting.
:)

No my friend, stasis is to stop IN time , time-less-ness is to see all time completely, know all things completely

God is not trapped in a moment of time nor limited to 'now' as we appear to be ... He sees everything that ever happened and will happen as a completed entity , the whole of time and everything we lived through and will live through ... none of it changes, none can change, the whole of time is just a completed fixed object .

Our bodies live by change that eventually destroys them, God simply cannot change because He is not within time at all and time is required for change...

[ohmi]

I thought that it is the most reproduced work ever made and that it was time that I read and understood it for myself .
I wanted to resolve the different stories about what it says ...
So then, you assumed that there had to be a way to resolve everything it said? You assumed that its message had to be coherent?


I didn't assume anything, I found that the scriptures actually demolish 'christian' creeds ,so discovered that all creedal religion is false , then found the prediction of that in scripture [which makes scripture unique amongst so-clled sacred texts , in that it demolishes the religions which claim to be based upon it , even Judaism too ignores its own prophets e.g. Jer 31:31-34]

Many people said and say different things are in it
Did you give any thought to the possibility that people say different things are in it because different things actually are in it and some of those different things contradict each other?

I have read what is in it, I know what is in it ... and I know many of the things people say is in it which are not there ...check it yourself, stop listening to people telling you what is there :-

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Sapho]

Ohmi, there is another word for timlessness, which I believe explains it better, that word is Stasis. A single unchanging instant, a frozen moment. Your God is a fly stuck in amber. Neither knowing nor acting.
:)

No my friend, stasis is to stop IN time , time-less-ness is to see all time completely, know all things completely

God is not trapped in a moment of time nor limited to 'now' as we appear to be ... He sees everything that ever happened and will happen as a completed entity , the whole of time and everything we lived through and will live through ... none of it changes, none can change, the whole of time is just a completed fixed object .

Our bodies live by change that eventually destroys them, God simply cannot change because He is not within time at all and time is required for change...

Time is one of those yin yang things, time either exists or it does not, change or no change. for god to have any action, or even consciousness, requires time, maybe not our time, but some other time space locality. For god to exist requires that it be somewhere and somewhen.

Everything at once is the same as nothing at all.

[ohmi]

:)

No my friend, stasis is to stop IN time , time-less-ness is to see all time completely, know all things completely

God is not trapped in a moment of time nor limited to 'now' as we appear to be ... He sees everything that ever happened and will happen as a completed entity , the whole of time and everything we lived through and will live through ... none of it changes, none can change, the whole of time is just a completed fixed object .

Our bodies live by change that eventually destroys them, God simply cannot change because He is not within time at all and time is required for change...

Time is one of those yin yang things, time either exists or it does not, change or no change. for god to have any action, or even consciousness, requires time, maybe not our time, but some other time space locality. For god to exist requires that it be somewhere and somewhen.

Everything at once is the same as nothing at all.

Time is the very essence of slow destruction ... clearly that cannot go on ...

We also know that time was created at the beginning and that it ends at the end of our universe

God is not transient like time, but as creator He is beyond time, independent of it... no corruption, no decay, no death ,for the spirit

God is thus time-less, not in any kind of time, not limited to time and space , not knowing what change is like, except through us ...

1 Corinthians 15:51 ¶ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

[Doug Shaver]

Did you give any thought to the possibility that people say different things are in it because different things actually are in it and some of those different things contradict each other?
I have read what is in it, I know what is in it ... and I know many of the things people say is in it which are not there
That doesn't answer my question. You say you were not assuming anything when you began your study of the Bible. Does that mean your mind was open to the possibility that you would find contradictions in it?

check it yourself
You seem now to be assuming that I have not already done that.

[ohmi]

Did you give any thought to the possibility that people say different things are in it because different things actually are in it and some of those different things contradict each other?

That doesn't answer my question. You say you were not assuming anything when you began your study of the Bible. Does that mean your mind was open to the possibility that you would find contradictions in it?

There are plenty of problems with scripture , that one has to resolve one way or another, but nothing interrupts the main message about Israel being the priesthood in the kingdom of God who later minister to the billions of resurrected gentile sinners , freed from sin by death and given the opportunity to live loving lives in the new earth. >:D<


check it yourself
You seem now to be assuming that I have not already done that.

Well you might discuss it if you have checked things, everyone makes mistakes , don't we :o

[Newfie]

Care to provide examples of how the 'Liar paradox' has been used to argue against the existence of God?


The 'Liar paradox' shows that one cannot assume that every proposition is either true or false in any complex language [logicians make this into a proof that all language, logic, reason is 'incomplete'] ...

I know what the “Liar paradox” and 'reductio ad absurdum' are, and I would agree that they are shameless tricks. However, as I only have examples of their use from the Christian camp, unless you can provide examples used by nonbelievers then I’m not sure where this is going?

You will find it used in so-called disproofs of God too.

Where?

Apart from one of my favorite Trek episodes I have never, to my recollection, actually seen anyone use it, although it would be interesting to see smoke actually come out of someone’s ears.

That doesn't seem too loving an aim in life really


If something knocked on my door and began spouting mindless gibberish, and appeared to look human, yet was easily flustered by simple, logical questions about its message, then I might expect that I was being visited by an android and the smoke out of the ears thing would be at least probable. So far, every time the Mormons do show up, and they do appear to be 'programmed' somehow, they end up walking away before this happens. I’m still watching their ears every time however, just in case.

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

I agree. You can’t do anything once you are dead, really. ;)

Or do you mean to say that people have no free will once they reach heaven or hell? Any existence where I am mentally incapable of making my own decisions sounds like brain damage to me. Is this your idea of an afterlife, basically identical to that of a mentally handicapped person blissfully unaware of their surroundings and incapable of complex thought?

Love is a word used to describe many different distinct things , do not get confused in your considerations by the usage of different meanings of the word

Do not confuse 'Love' with lust , even when men use the word 'love' for their sexual or perverted sexual lust ... distinguish what are distinct matters even if people use that same word for them ,ambiguously .


What is love then? It seems a matter of personal opinion. Missionary efforts to convert natives out of their “love”, while good intentioned from their viewpoint, was nonetheless devastating to the natives. Parents efforts to “straighten out” their homosexual children are justified as acts of love, but are they really?

Also be aware that God eventually brings His truth to all , and with that there is some grief [because the truth demolishes the ego and that is painful to many, and the truth shows one the inanity of mankind's mental defence of our unlovingness, which can make one sad when one perceives how blind we are to what would be so good for all ,and to what we truly want [to love and be Loved]

Ah, the old “prideful intellectual” characterization of atheists. Does this really neutralize all the arguments against believing that God is real? It’s like claiming that Darwin recanted, which wouldn't change the mountain of research that supports evolution one iota, even if it were true. The evidence and arguments remain just as valid regardless of the character of the person proclaiming them. Similarly, the fundamentalist missionary may be the sweetest little old lady in the whole world, but that wouldn’t change the gapping illogic of her beliefs.

Theocracy by a false god [such as the Roman Empire and the early Catholic system] is never going to work, but God has promised us true theocracy under Jesus in the new earth kingdom come... no system of government will work until then


So no actual theocracy has ever worked in your opinion, but Jesus will rule over you some day in a utopian paradise? Are you saying that Catholics do not worship the same God that you do?


Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


How will the Prince of Peace deal with nonbelievers at the end of time?

God has promised to reveal His truth to all [Joel 2:28] , so all will know God eventually [albeit after death and resurrection for most] ,so it hardly matters if people don't believe in God now ... but one can have faith in Love because one knows in one's heart that Love cannot be wrong ...

On the other hand it is impossible to disprove that God exists , it matters not how inconsistent are the idol images that religionists worship , it does not disprove God that religion is wholly corrupted by creeds - but see that 'hard' atheism is also an untenable creed inconsistent with reason, merely an over-reaction to the deceit of religion...


As you’ve undoubtedly heard in this forum before it is just as impossible to disprove the existence of many characters including Tarzan, King Arthur, Superman, Achilles, Robin Hood, Zeus, Baal, Thor, … and many, many more including God and Jesus. All of these characters have one thing in common: They are characters in literature. Some are universally accepted as mythical while some are definitely characters invented in literature. Some may have even been based on actual people, with dense layers of legend added for colour. I suspect the origins of God and Jesus to be somewhere within this spectrum.

As God is a religious invention then it really is possible to discredit all of our beliefs in God’s actual existence, at least as religions have defined it. Something obviously must account for the human need to invent the many conventions we generally label “God.” All of them may be vague articulations of “something” that really is “out there” or within ourselves, but none of these articulations hold up to much scrutiny. I am inclined to believe then that all religious systems with beliefs in the supernatural ultimately are making false claims, whether they realize it or not.

There is some great wisdom hidden in many myths , one can even learn about men by seeing what they are moved to invent...


Exactly! Which is why I regard all religions as equally valid.

You may one day like to consider what source that you believe is 'informed' that you use it to base any choice of belief upon .

Whatever relative belief one holds is undone when its conditions fail , thus one might sensibly seek the absolute to build one's belief upon solid foundations, not upon the shifting sands of relativism..

Christianity is on very shaky foundations IMHO.

Rather ask yourself perhaps "Faith in what" ... and see that faith in anything but the absolute is certainly not faith in God [so what is it faith in?] ... also faith in 'reason' is tainted by the continual habitual irrational abuse of reason by men , wholly inconsistent usage of a tool ,which undermines vast tomes of written work in science, religion, Philosophy ... mmen simply ignore the restrictions of language almost all of the time

Again, please give examples of “continual habitual irrational abuse of reason by men.”

Prophecy is by nature about the future, and much applies to our future still... how can predictions about the future be outmoded?

Actually a pretty good case could be made that “Prophecy” was originally understood by the Jews as the process of “professing,” where a prophet professed or explained how the nation or king went against God’s plan, or to explain God’s actions which seemingly appeared to be abandonment of the people. In this way prophecy was never meant as a prediction of future events. That way the prophets could have been valid in writing about events that had already occurred.

I don't actually think that you have the means to compare accuracy of different sources of prophecy, but prophecy is not the sole preserve of scripture, not by any means.

And my beliefs are only current working ones, as I have said , they are subject to falsification at any time , they have changed and will likely continue to do so... I am only discussing them, not trying to sell them to anyone...

By saying that your present beliefs could be subject to “falsification” some time in the future you don’t really mean that you are open-minded in any way, right? What you are truly saying is that you may drift from the one true path, correct? And I don’t believe that anyone here seriously accused you of trying to sell your beliefs.

English translation certainly destroys much that is in the scripture, particularly as we have not even one half-decent [unbiased, consistent]translation ... it is the depth of scripture that it survives the abuse of it by religion , but one cannot appreciate the depth of scripture until discovering the metaphors , similes, etc that explain its symbolically represented meanings [one of the many ways that the message of scripture is secured from the fraud of religion]

I would agree with most of that statement, I think? As long as you understand that I don't believe in scripture having the same level of 'depth' that you seem to believe.

Since prophecy covers the whole plan of God throughout all time, it is obvious that it addresses every age , past, present , and future ... how could it not do so?


Plenty of ways. Besides for my previous comment about prophecy possibly equaling profession, what is to say that all Bible prophecy hasn’t already been fulfilled? Perhaps Jesus really did mean that comment about his present generation being the beneficiaries of his kingdom. It wouldn’t be his fault if people falsely expected something a little more grand than he had in actually promised, right?

The Qur'an is materialistic and self-contradicting and has not shaken off its origins in idol worship of the past, it is one of the shallowest books that I have ever taken the trouble to fully read ... as literature it is nowhere , not even close in any way to the quality and depth of the scriptures .

Actually, I have the completely opposite opinion. I think that scripture as a genre probably reached it’s apex with the Qur'an, and maybe some of the Vedic texts, and then went way down hill with the Book of Mormon and other American attempts. That’s a stylistic critic based on it’s “poetry”, which was the topic of discussion at the time. Your opinion of the Qur'an’s message is quite similar to my opinion of the Bible’s.

[ohmi]

Are you saying that Catholics do not worship the same God that you do?

Yes.

[ohmi]

How will the Prince of Peace deal with nonbelievers at the end of time?

Time does not end until Satan capitulates , so there are no unbelievers at the end of time.

The most evil of men are the ones who reject the spirit of truth poured out upon all flesh [only made alive again at the second resurrection] and these are left alone in the last age before the end in the final trial of men [lake of 'fire'] after the less evil have been removed from their influence [so that evil no longer benefits anyone]

[ohmi]

As God is a religious invention...

Religions invent countless different gods, but none of them is God

[ohmi]

I regard all religions as equally valid.

I regard all religions as equally invalid.

[ohmi]

Plenty of ways. Besides for my previous comment about prophecy possibly equaling profession, what is to say that all Bible prophecy hasn’t already been fulfilled? Perhaps Jesus really did mean that comment about his present generation being the beneficiaries of his kingdom. It wouldn’t be his fault if people falsely expected something a little more grand than he had in actually promised, right?

Try the word 'stock' in place of the word 'generation' and discover how important it is not to trust the atrocious translation of our English versions of the bible...

[Newfie]

I regard all religions as equally valid.

I regard all religions as equally invalid.

Same meaning. ;)

[Newfie]

As God is a religious invention...

Religions invent countless different gods, but none of them is God

And perhaps God, your God, the God of the Bible, is invented and not really God. Perhaps no human has ever correctly identified the true source of the concept known as "God." With so many religions being wrong, perhaps all of them are.

[Newfie]

Plenty of ways. Besides for my previous comment about prophecy possibly equaling profession, what is to say that all Bible prophecy hasn’t already been fulfilled? Perhaps Jesus really did mean that comment about his present generation being the beneficiaries of his kingdom. It wouldn’t be his fault if people falsely expected something a little more grand than he had in actually promised, right?

Try the word 'stock' in place of the word 'generation' and discover how important it is not to trust the atrocious translation of our English versions of the bible...

From what souce would you translate to the word 'stock', and how, exactly, would that change Jesus' meaning?

[Newfie]

How will the Prince of Peace deal with nonbelievers at the end of time?

Time does not end until Satan capitulates , so there are no unbelievers at the end of time.

The most evil of men are the ones who reject the spirit of truth poured out upon all flesh [only made alive again at the second resurrection] and these are left alone in the last age before the end in the final trial of men [lake of 'fire'] after the less evil have been removed from their influence [so that evil no longer benefits anyone]

Refreshing change from all the Christians who actually believe the "Left Behind" plot is biblical. Perhaps you think too highly of Satan's importance, and not enough of the natural human capacity for evil. Satan really isn't neccessary, is he?

[Newfie]

Are you saying that Catholics do not worship the same God that you do?

Yes.

As Catholics outnumber Evangelicals by as much as ten to one by some counts, perhaps their God is the true, Christian God and the Evangelicals' is a false one. Perhaps you have your own, private god that you share with nobody else. How do two Christians know that they have the exact same idea of what God is? Probably no two people share the exact same understanding of any one thing, so why should God be any different?

[thentian]

How can God be said to exist if He is timeless? For: "to be timeless" means that you exist at no point in time. And that being so, if you have never existed at a point in time, how can you be said to have ever existed? And if you don't exist at this point in time, how can you be said to exist now?

Also, how can you act in time if you are timeless? An effect, in order to cause something, must be prior in time to what it is causing, and (at least according to Hume) immediately prior.

Cheers! :)

[ohmi]

Yes.

As Catholics outnumber Evangelicals by as much as ten to one by some counts, perhaps their God is the true, Christian God and the Evangelicals' is a false one.


:)

Compare what they say they believe with the scripture and you too will see that NEITHER is the true God


Perhaps you have your own, private god that you share with nobody else.

My God is witnessed in the heart of all people, that makes us all want to Love and be Loved, but most people do not do what they most want to do, rather they follow the foolish lies of the world [and call it 'normal to be unloving, because so many are unloving]

How do two Christians know that they have the exact same idea of what God is?

Rather they know that they don't, and thus that they aren't Christians at all , and the proof from God is that they never give up sinning :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


Probably no two people share the exact same understanding of any one thing, so why should God be any different?

The saints share the Truth of God because Jesus prommised it to them [John 16:13] , so some FEW [Matt 7:14] people know the God of scripture, the God of Love... just one in a million [Rev 7:3-8] for now ,but countless many later [Rev 7:9-10] who go by the braod way through death as sinners to Jesus [like all who now say they are 'christians' but continue to sin]

It matters not then what men say , since people delude even themselves in this life, and God will face all with the truth [Joel 2:28] after resurrection

[ohmi]

How can God be said to exist if He is timeless? For: "to be timeless" means that you exist at no point in time. And that being so, if you have never existed at a point in time, how can you be said to have ever existed? And if you don't exist at this point in time, how can you be said to exist now?


Time-less existence is not the same as apparent 'existence' in time , they are distinct and should ideally have different words for them ... but existence in time is transient , whereas time-less existence is not [indeed tautologically cannot be]

Also, how can you act in time if you are timeless?

God does not act in time, acts in time are all mediated.

An effect, in order to cause something, must be prior in time to what it is causing, and (at least according to Hume) immediately prior.

Cause and effect is a plausible belief in our space-time universe, but it signifies nothing to the spirit , God does not cause anything , all things, even time, are fixed, known, changeless and complete to God ... only through mediation does God know time as we imagine that we know it...

[sugarhitman]

:)

Do those who follow Jesus have to depart from all sin as scripture says, or do they have endless license to sin as the churches say ?

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are his.
And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [ 2 Timothy 2:19 ]

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged:
and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
[ Proverbs 16:6 ]

What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?
[Romans 6:1-2]

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; [ 1John 5:18 ]

-Did Jesus have the last word on this, that at his return he will leave behind all who are still sinners ? :-

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
[ Matthew 7:23 ]


ANOTHER MISCONCEPTION. NOONE WILL BE FREE OF SIN AS LONG AS THEY ARE HERE INCLUDING CHRISTIANS. WHAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE SHOWING IS THAT NOONE BORN OF GOD WILL INDULGE IN SIN. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE NO PLEASURE IN INIQUITY. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO STRIVE AGAINST SIN. WORKERS OF INIQUITY ARE THOSE HYPOCRITS WHO LOVE SIN AND DOES NOT STRIVE AGAINST IT. THE FIGHT AGAINST SIN IS THE FIGHT OF FAITH. PEOPLE MUST LEARN THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDULGING IN SIN AND FAILING. GOD WILL NOT DESTROY YOU IF YOU FAIL AT TIMES BECAUSE OUR FLESH AS PAUL MAKES CLEAR IS EXTREMELY WEAK AND WARS AGAINST THE SPIRIT "SO THAT YOU CANNOT ALWAYS DO THE THINGS YOU WANT" (I.E. THAT IS TO LIVE SIN FREE)



READ THE BIBLE ALL THE CHILDREN OF FAITH FAIL AT TIMES AND SOME COMMITED HORRIBLE SINS AND YET GOD SPARED THEM. THIS SHOWS THAT GOD IS EXTREMELY MERCIFUL AND DOES NOT JUDGE US BY OUR ACTIONS BUT RATHER OUR SINCERITY TO HIM (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A LICENSE TO SIN, ANYONE OF GOD SHOULD DESIRE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT IF YOU HAVE NOT THIS DESIRE BUT TAKE PLEASURE IN EVIL YOU ARE NOT A CHILD OF GOD)


"FOR I DESIRE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE"---GOD

[ohmi]

:)

Do those who follow Jesus have to depart from all sin as scripture says, or do they have endless license to sin as the churches say ?

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are his.
And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [ 2 Timothy 2:19 ]

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged:
and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
[ Proverbs 16:6 ]

What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?
[Romans 6:1-2]

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; [ 1John 5:18 ]

-Did Jesus have the last word