I care. Frankly, claims like that completely destroy Jesus’s message and His authority. As far as I see it, you can’t do that. Especially going as far as calling Him a homosexual. Some on here will write this off as homophobia, but really, if Jesus was who He said He was, then He wasn’t pursuing women (despite what Dan Brown wants you to think) and He definitely wasn’t homosexual. You’re right in the sense that the message is important, but the character is what gives any truth to the message.
Fixed that for you. No need to thank me. You’re welcome.
I would actually respect christianity much more if Jesus did suck some cock and/or gave out some handjobs. It would show a more welcoming depiction of heaven that didn’t discriminate on stupid shit that doesn’t matter.
I will repeat an earlier quote:
By you’re own words, we are born inherently evil. However, god made us. If god made us to be evil and then punishes us for it, god is a douchebag. If he made us and then punishes us only if we don’t accept that Jesus is the savior of mankind, then [media=youtube]Gqt_gmbKE8g[/media]
imho anyway.
Not perfect, is the right word. Why do you guys like talk about God with even knowing the simple theology first?
There are biblical examples that where given that answers the argument of God allowing devastation. It is not of his will, there is a reason for no intervention, it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want to.
So you admit that God discriminates? Since he is willing but not motivated.
You religious folk contradict what you preach so much its pathetic.
Thats why I just have faith.
Who gives a shit what elton john, a drug guzzling fagbag from the fucking 70s, has to say about Jesus in the first place. This thread is derogatory based on the source alone, not to mention some of the comments made, and should be shut doooooooown.
fact: nobody is going to change anybody else in heres mind about religion.
u mad?
fact: it’s cuz of ppl like you that we can’t have nice things
if there is a satan, what would his IQ be relative to ours.
Probably much higher, since the religious person would say we crumble to his advances on a daily basis.
Greed, lust, glutton and sloth. Thats when you know youre successful. And everyone strives to be successful.
Hey, hey!
Don’t knock lust.
I likes me some lust.
Don’t overdo it on the deadly sins. Your death may end up investigated by Brad Pitt.
Wait, that would be awesome. Here I come, greed.
Word.
Just so long as you don’t end up like a Cannibal Corpse number, like that chick did in said movie, then lust is A-OK! XD
From a Biblical standpoint, most of our sin comes from our own flesh. While the devil and demons are technically a source of temptation, some people do good enough of a job without his help. Remember this, the devil is not omniscient. He doesn’t know everything about you. He can make appeals to you, but as far as he’s concerned, he still has to guess as to what will hook you.
I’ll preface my next argument with this article, as I think it does a better job than I can. I typed up a response before I put this article here though, and I don’t want to delete it, so I’ll leave my response as well.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html
@Just B: You argue that I’m saying we’re inherently evil. That is true. I do think that we’re inherently evil. If you don’t think we are, I could pose a few questions that I would ask you to consider. If you think we are inherently evil, then keep reading. God did not make us evil. The Bible says we were created in His image. As such, we were made as sinless beings. Now, though we were created good, we were created with a capacity to do evil. Why? This is the only way for us to truly show love. Imagine you have a teddy bear or something to that effect. Every time you squeeze it, it says “I Love You.” Now, do you really appreciate the programmed love that this Teddy Bear is going to display to you? It’s the same with God. He could have made man as emotional dummies. They could tell God how much they love Him, but unless He gives them the option to choose something else to love, they can’t truly love Him to the fullest extent. Does this make sense? Only with the option of choice can we display true love.
Then you say, if God made man with the ability to choose, and man chose different than God, then God must not be omniscient or omnipotent. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent God would foresee that His creation would rebel. I would agree with that too. But I also think that an omniscient, omnipotent God can only prove His omniscience and omnipotence when the situation starts going seemingly out of control. Because even though the situation seems to go out of control, God is still very much in the driver’s seat. All throughout the old testament there are allusions to Jesus Christ and the redemption that he represents. In the Bleach thread, people throw around the term “Prep-time Batman.” In other words, Batman with time to plan is unbeatable. When I think of God’s plan for mankind, I can only think “Prep-time God.” He had enough foresight that He presented man with free will AND an entire system through which man can find redemption. On top of that consider this: If man is inherently evil, then he is born with a predisposition against God, who is good. How much more magnificent would the love be between man and God if man overcomes his own predisposition to find reconciliation?
God made us good with the option to choose good or evil, man chose evil. Now all of creation is cursed with this evil. Because creation itself is evil, bad things happen, even to “good” people. God ultimately punishes you when you die (judgment). He gives you the ability to avoid being punished (Salvation through Jesus.) As far as punishment is concerned, this earthly idea of suffering (i.e. death by earthquake) is somewhat small scale. While I will admit, it does suck, any human notion of suffering is not even close to what the Bible considers to be real suffering. Suffering itself is just one of the conditions of living in a world that has been tainted. Why does God allow suffering? It’s our suffering that makes us love Him in the way He deserves. Is suffering out of His control? Not in the least. He can intervene and He can act as He chooses. Is He evil because He doesn’t intervene? No. You can still be morally good and upright even when suffering still happens.
Consider this analogy: The war in Iraq. How many of you would say the war in Iraq is a good thing? There was suffering in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a harsh dictator. Now, the United States intervened, and their intervention caused them to be more hated than before they stepped in. While I’m not equating the United States to God, I am implying that in such a scenario where God clearly made His intervention known in suffering (He still intervenes, He just has His own reasons, beyond what I could possibly understand, for saving certain people.) how many people would think that He did it wrong and get just as jaded as before?
Yet it isn’t truly an open option.
It has coercion on one side: Love me or burn in hell.
It has temptation on the other: Love me and be blissful in heaven.
Sounds more like the scheme of a religion trying to gain followers, not the loving intentions of a being looking for “free” beings to have a relationship with.
Not to mention he doesn’t engage people directly, his program is mediated by dubious writings some people made up in a particular religion thousands of years ago. That’s how much he cares.
actually there is no hell under proper christian beliefs.
giving up the ghost, soul spirit have been mis understood.
psalm 146:4
“his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish.”
ecclesiastes 9:10
“for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.”
ecclesiastes 9:5:6
"for the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten"
only jesus is immortal
timothy 6:15-16
15 “the king of kings the lord of lords…”
16 “…who only hath immortality, to whom be honor and power everlasting. amen.”
translations for soul spirit, holy ghost, breath of life were words such as
gava, pneuma, ruach and naphesh
leading people to believe that when you die you gave up a soul. but really you just were taking your last breath.
genesis 2:7
and the lord god fromed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, and man became a living soul.
Matter, Energy, consciousness.
w’ere just lightbulbs that go out when we’re unplugged. take away energy theres no consciousness or soul and just a corpse of matter.
Even though it seems like coercion, it is still an open option, it’s just an open option with harsh consequences. Coercion would be more akin to God forcing you to love Him, with no alternative. There is an alternative, it’s just somewhat harder to stomach. The Bible goes as far as calling God a jealous God. In other words, God, as creator of all, deserves our love and affection, undivided. He gets upset when we place our love somewhere else. Consider you had a kid, and then you gave that kid a whole bunch of things and basically provided for him completely. You’d expect him to love you on the principle that you provided him with life. If he doesn’t love you back, you become jealous. Now this is where things become harder to explain, because the argument is based on the God of Christianity and His righteousness. Only a perfectly just and righteous, completely good being is capable of feeling emotions, especially jealousy, and still maintain their righteousness. So though covetousness and jealousy are sins by human standards, the way God displays jealousy and the way man displays jealousy are different. Man’s jealousy is an imperfect copy of God’s jealousy. Like any copy, it is prone to flaws. Besides, there is nothing that man does in comparison to God that warrants praise and affection. God on the other hand, as creator, deserves respect and praise from all of His creation, and He expects it.
I wouldn’t call heaven a temptation as much as a benefit. Or moreso, a reward for those who are continually faithful, and I don’t disagree with you that religion tries to gain followers. (If I didn’t want you to learn my way of thought, I wouldn’t be discussing this, simple as that. If you didn’t want me to think like you, you would have stopped this discussion too.) There has to be a line drawn though, where a reward for performing goes past a simple scheme. That line is drawn when people do more than just the bare minimum. If the scheme were simply love God, go to heaven, there would be very little theology involved. Christianity becomes very watered down and I would probably go as far as saying that it becomes impersonal.
He does engage people directly. I assure you, I’m also skeptical when people claim to experience God. I think far too many people say that God spoke to them, then they run around doing things that are unbiblical and contrary to God’s nature.I do think that people indeed have personal experience of God, however. I don’t mean this on some New Age “I experience god because he is the life force,” type experience either. I think He engages people directly. What an empty and hollow relationship Christianity would represent if God were so impersonal. A.W. Tozer’s “The Pursuit of God” basically says that the reason someone is unable to experience God is because they don’t pursue Him. While the Bible is a good way to get a feeling for His nature, there’s more to pursuing God than just reading the Bible. While the church is mediated by the Bible, to say God doesn’t engage people directly seems like more of an assumption. I will admit, it’s quite difficult to verify either way, but that’s more where the understanding of God’s nature comes into play.
nice cherry picking gkhorwon
Capn spanky, you should question your beliefs more and what you understand God to be, it all sounds very sunday-schoolish and common
you ascribe petty human emotions to God and really belittle him, of course he doesn’t exist, but still…it’s just bad manners
I’m not ascribing jealousy to God randomly, or off of impulse.
The Bible itself refers to God as jealous.
If I wasn’t open to questioning my beliefs, I would have closed my browser a long time ago.
gkhorwon, from a Biblical perspective, have you considered the differences between a spiritual death and a physical death?
edit: Netology, and everyone else, I’ve said pretty much all I can say. If I think of more, I’ll post it. I realize my argument still will come up insufficient for many of you, and for that, I apologize. I think the discussion has been quite good, and I’m glad SRK was able to carry on a reasonable and logical discussion without getting things locked up. It means alot that GD is useful for more than posting about sports or messed up news puns. Netology especially, you’re very logical and inquisitive, and I respect that. While we may think the other to be incorrect, you were able to present your argument without outright calling me a religious, hyperfanatical nutcase, and I appreciate it. I wish more people like you existed on SRK. For what it’s worth, I’ll be praying for you. If you don’t want me to, I understand, just tell me not to and I won’t, I promise. Maybe I do have a sunday school faith, or at least a more developed version of Sunday school faith. I see nothing wrong with Sunday School faith. I will pose the question once more though, if I’m wrong, then what? I become the laughing stock on SRK. Just by perpetuating this thread I think I’ve helped that along. So thanks for the good discussion, and I hope there’s something worthwhile for us (myself included) to think about here.
More bible shenanigans.
Someone explain how God isnt a malicious and vindictive god for creating Eve in his image, only to doom mankind by eating the forbidden fruit.
This is under the assumption that God is an all-knowing god and knows your fate and determines the path you take. Pretty silly to create us in your image, then have us destined for heaven or hell.
Ive become very sacrilegious lately. But I really want to believe deep down in my heart.
The pope is the anti christ
vicarivs fili dei meaning
in the place of son god
vicars of christ, derosa pg 206
“not a single creed. nor confession of faith, nor catechism, nor passage in patristic writing contains one syllable about the pope, still less about faith and doctrine being derived from him”.
dignities and duties of the priest vol 12 pg 27
“and god himself is obliged to abide by the judgement of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon according as they refuse or give absolution, the sentences of the priest precedes, and god subscribes to it”
cardinal bellarmine, authority of councils, vol 2, pg 266
“all the names which in scripture are applied to christ, the same names are applied to the pope”
this is the problem…the catholic church has turned scripture upside down, so people cant even understand the bible properly.
the bible explicitely states who the anti christ, even says he is the little horn who cometh out of the fourth beast. if you read my statue post on daniels dream which was a re-dream of king nebuchadnezzars, there was the 5 kingdoms or beasts.
nebuchadnezzars
the medes/persians
alexnader the greats bronze empire
the roman steel 4th empire
and the 5th stage, the 10 toes or ten kingdoms of steel/clay
3 of those kingdoms were destroyed, but the little horn rose out of the 4th beast, or roman empire in the midst of the 10 horns. (5th beast)
to restructure this. there were 5 beasts the 4th came the little horn, the 5th beast had 10 horns and 3 horns fell. which is historical.
the little horn was different from all the rest but was man-like. but differed from all the rest. well vatican city is a soverign state the the papacy is an entity which cannot be sued. there arent too many people like the pope in this world. if somebody can better interpret things let me know
Also forgot, the main biblical hint as to who the anti christ is
daniel 7:20
“and concerning the 10 horns that were on its head. and the other horn which came up, and before which 3 fell. even that horn had eyes and a mouth that spake great things, whose look was more stout than its fellows”
corncordance translation spake great things = spoke spiritual things
the anti christ can then be reasoned to work under the auspices of religion.
You know what I discovered last week? The account in Genesis says that Adam and Eve didn’t realize they were naked until they both ate the fruit. I thought that was interesting, I figured I would share.
I posted this article once already, but I think it has an answer to your question. Perhaps not the most sufficient one, but an answer nonetheless.
http://www.leaderu.com/isr/articles_resources/whydidjesusdie.html
My thought on the matter is that by being good beings in God’s image, Adam and Eve were not cynics. Cynicism is a byproduct of sinful tendencies. That’s how they were taken advantage of. According to the Genesis account, the serpent twisted God’s original commandment from “Don’t eat the fruit or you will surely die” to “Don’t eat it or don’t touch it, or you will surely die.” Eve touched the fruit, because she had a warped view of God’s initial command. She then observed that she hadn’t died, assumed that because one part of the command was wrong, then the whole thing was off, even though the command she was following at that point wasn’t the initial one. Make sense?
And here’s a few articles addressing why God doesn’t just save everyone:
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-god/why-doesnt-god-just-save-everyone
I believe it was John Calvin that said that God has grace sufficient for all, efficient for some. It’s not that it is out of God’s ability to save everyone, but some of salvation is human choice. In essence, it’s what makes us human. We are able to think and choose. Therefore, as much as God doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked, He is just and has to punish because of His justice.
@gkrohwon: I’m not Catholic. I don’t think the pope is any more holy than the next. In fact, I think by being Pope, he’s put himself in a very tough place to have any real faith himself. He has to please too many people, and there’s a lot of potential for pope pride. It scares me to see that much spiritual authority thrown onto a contemporary.