Jump to content

To be named religious thread


lockmat

Recommended Posts

view of Christians:

They believe in the Father (Yaweh)

The Holy Spirit

The one who came to redeem their sins (Jesus, God the son)

Is this all true? I thought there were some divisions of Christianity that don't do the Holy Spirit thing.

I think I've found a title for this thread:

"Lockmat and Memebag's personal one-on-one religious debate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Is this all true? I thought there were some divisions of Christianity that don't do the Holy Spirit thing.

I think I've found a title for this thread:

"Lockmat and Memebag's personal one-on-one religious debate."

Seems more like a discussion now, which is better. I don't want to debate.

There may be divisions that don't believe in him, but whether they do or not, the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is God also.

1 Corinthians 3:16 - Do you not know that (you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1 Corinthians 2:9-12 - (When indented and in caps, that means it's a reference to the old testament, fyi)

but just as it is written,

"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,

AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,

ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

A plethora of verses on this subject can be googled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have several questions/observations.

(A little background on me first: I grew up without religion. Not antitheistic, just non-existent. The exposure to different denominations I have had has been interesting and scary at times).

Some folks I have spoken with claim that god eventually makes his presence known to you, and that just hasn't happened to me yet. However, this same person also was raised with religion and therefore I question true "revelation" since it was ingrained since birth practically.

I hope also that I serve a good example of someone with ethics not based in religion (some claim this is not possible or "ethical").

Thoughts?

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yeah, the God of Abraham is the God of the Bible. I can't really say anything about the Muslims, because I don't know. Part of their source may be the Bible, and therefore Yaweh, but they're not applying anything correctly.

OK, that's what I meant a long time ago about people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible" wanting to kill other people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible". Just basing one's morality on Abraham's god isn't enough, obviously, to make people decent to one another. I don't want to kill anyone, but I don't base my morality on any gods or any documents, so I figure I have a better system of morals than a lot based on "the God of the Bible".

Is this all true? I thought there were some divisions of Christianity that don't do the Holy Spirit thing.

Yes, there are Christians who reject the concept of a Holy Spirit. There are also many different views among Christians about the Trinity doctrine. We pretty much avoided the subject in my church, but it's caused a lot of strife throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, that's what I meant a long time ago about people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible" wanting to kill other people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible". Just basing one's morality on Abraham's god isn't enough, obviously, to make people decent to one another. I don't want to kill anyone, but I don't base my morality on any gods or any documents, so I figure I have a better system of morals than a lot based on "the God of the Bible".

So are you speaking of conservative/zealous muslims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Christians and Jews, yeah.

I don't know of any specific instances you're speaking of, but as I noted before the Bible does not teach or condone that behavior. Any behavior like that justified by the Bible is wrong and not true. This all stems from wrong teaching and interpretation. That's why when the Bible teaches on how to set up a church and it's leaders, one of the characteristics they are required to have is "sound doctrine." Without sound doctrine, things like this happens.

edit: to add Titus chapter 1...qualifictions for elders (leaders, including pastors and teachers) in the church...

5For this reason I(Paul is writing here) left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

7For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,

8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,

9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

10For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any specific instances you're speaking of...

I can find lists of those if you're interested. You might start with Bosnia in the 1990s.

...but as I noted before the Bible does not teach or condone that behavior. Any behavior like that justified by the Bible is wrong and not true. This all stems from wrong teaching and interpretation. That's why when the Bible teaches on how to set up a church and it's leaders, one of the characteristics they are required to have is "sound doctrine." Without sound doctrine, things like this happens.

But "sound doctrine" is pretty subjective. What seems "sound" to one may seem insane to another. I can't see how basing morality on Abraham's god provides any better footing than basing it on game theory or sociology, for example.

And who are "those of the circumcision", exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found a title for this thread:

"Lockmat and Memebag's personal one-on-one religious debate."

I think you're correct - and it doesn't look like my questions will be answered any time soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot, there are even "Christians" who believe in Jesus and/or the Bible but don't worship the true Jesus or believe what the Bible really says (they misinterpret the Bible). Take the Mormons for instance. They believe in Jesus and the Bible, yet they add extra stuff to the bible or leave important things out(a direct violation of Bible teachings, Revelation 22:18-19). They pick and choose. You can't do that.

But the Bible didn't just fall from heaven as a complete and finished document. Who, in your view, is the authority who determined that its current state is the absolute truth? It is a text that has gone through translations, revisions, additions, subtractions.... church leaders over the centuries have made decisions about what to include and what not to include. What makes those mortals different than the Mormons or Jews or anyone else who "picks and chooses," or adds and subtracts? What makes the mortal authorities you agree with more reliable than those whom others agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're correct - and it doesn't look like my questions will be answered any time soon!

I'll have a go, but I don't think I'm the one who should be answering them.

Some folks I have spoken with claim that god eventually makes his presence known to you, and that just hasn't happened to me yet. However, this same person also was raised with religion and therefore I question true "revelation" since it was ingrained since birth practically.

I hope also that I serve a good example of someone with ethics not based in religion (some claim this is not possible or "ethical").

Thoughts?

I don't believe religion makes a better basis for morality (or ethics) than mathematics. Jesus said "turn the other cheek", but he didn't put an iteration limit on that. Game theory says "turn the other cheek once, then stop".

I believe most humans seeking a mystical experience are capable of producing it. I don't believe there is anything supernatural about it (but I don't believe there is anything supernatural, so like I said above, I'm probably not the person to answer these questions).

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

You have to squint just right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

One of the ways the Bible proves itself to be inspired by God is prophecy in both testaments. I really don't want to get involved in the debate, but when studied, Biblicle prophecy can be astounding. Another point that scholars will use is the sheer amount of manuscript evidence of the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts alone are over 5000 in number, with Homer coming in 2nd with just a few hundred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have several questions/observations.

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

Two things --

One, saying the Bible isn't a factual book is not quite correct. There is quite a lot of facts and history in there. It is also a story book and does have portions with creative license. But there is a lot of good historical information (a lot of it genealogical) and it shouldn't be discounted as not factual.

Two, we don't want proof of God. If there's proof then there is no faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "sound doctrine" is pretty subjective. What seems "sound" to one may seem insane to another. I can't see how basing morality on Abraham's god provides any better footing than basing it on game theory or sociology, for example.

And who are "those of the circumcision", exactly?

Sound doctrine is biblical teaching.

Being circumcised back then, if I remember correctly, was a sign to show you were a believer in Yaweh. It was something that set them apart from unbelievers.

But the Bible didn't just fall from heaven as a complete and finished document. Who, in your view, is the authority who determined that its current state is the absolute truth? It is a text that has gone through translations, revisions, additions, subtractions.... church leaders over the centuries have made decisions about what to include and what not to include. What makes those mortals different than the Mormons or Jews or anyone else who "picks and chooses," or adds and subtracts? What makes the mortal authorities you agree with more reliable than those whom others agree with?

We have the Bible now. If anything someone wants to add is contradictory, then it's obvious it's not from God. He does not contradict himself.

1 John 4:1-6

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

There's another verse, I can't remember where, that says if even of one the apostles says something contradictory to God's word to deny them. That's a very loose paraphrase though, but that's the gist of what it say. I can find it later if anyone really wants to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have several questions/observations.

(A little background on me first: I grew up without religion. Not antitheistic, just non-existent. The exposure to different denominations I have had has been interesting and scary at times).

Some folks I have spoken with claim that god eventually makes his presence known to you, and that just hasn't happened to me yet. However, this same person also was raised with religion and therefore I question true "revelation" since it was ingrained since birth practically.

I hope also that I serve a good example of someone with ethics not based in religion (some claim this is not possible or "ethical").

Thoughts?

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

First, I understand your concern that they believe what they simply grew up with. But that doesn't make it inherently wrong, correct?

Second, although it is true God draws those whom he will save towards him, he still holds men responsible for seeking him out. As said before, he did not make us robots. We have the ability to make right and wrong decisions, including obeying him and turning from our sins.

And really, morality isn't the main issue. The Pharisees and Saducees were the looked upon as the most righteous people of their day. But Jesus rebuked them because they were relying on their good works for salvation, when that is not possible. Salvation is by grace (something that cannot be earned, ie through good works). However, salvation and repentance results into good works.

I don't completely understand your last question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God is real, why does he care so much that we believe in him?

Because we are his creation. Since the fall of man, when sin entered the world, we became separated from him, both physically and spiritually (adam and eve were kicked out of the garden and no longer had fellowship[spent time with] with God)

Although he hates the sin, he still wants us redeemed back to him. He doesn't want his creation to suffer eternal death. That's the basic reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And really, morality isn't the main issue. The Pharisees and Saducees were the looked upon as the most righteous people of their day. But Jesus rebuked them because they were relying on their good works for salvation, when that is not possible. Salvation is by grace (something that cannot be earned, ie through good works). However, salvation and repentance results into good works.

I suppose this explains why many Christians practice so many beliefs that appear not to be "godlike". Apparently, one need not be moral or ethical to go to heaven, merely "graceful".

This bible that proves God's existence, which one is it? The King James version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this explains why many Christians practice so many beliefs that appear not to be "godlike". Apparently, one need not be moral or ethical to go to heaven, merely "graceful".

I'm curious what you expect out of Christians. Perfection?

While I agree there are too many "Christians" out there living completely hypocritical lives, being a Christian doesn't mean they are without sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna try this again:

So, does this mean you would be willing to accept documents millions of years old? These documents were not written solely by the Hand of Man, but by the actual Hand of God as well, at least the god of my consciousness.

These documents are written in the form of rocks, and fossils, and tools, and some have names, such as Lucy, and Heidelberg Man and the Taung Child. Some documents like Piltdown have been dismissed as forgeries, because they did not stand up to the truest tests of all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious what you expect out of Christians. Perfection?

Honestly, I have learned to expect little of Christians, other than that they will disappoint. I would prefer that they keep their beliefs out of my life and my government, but I don't really expect it. It is what they do. Even your presumptuous statements that "everyone knows there is a god, some choose to ignore it", no longer fazes me. It is a function of your fragile belief system, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darwin pretty much blew that story out of the water. At least he got the ball rolling. Science has proven that Evolution and not Creationism as our origins.

Your kidding right? Science has NOT proven Macro-evolution, in fact as we go, we're finding more to disprove it's theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your kidding right? Science has NOT proven Macro-evolution, in fact as we go, we're finding more to disprove it's theory.
And those disproofs are . . ? Who discovered them? Where were they discovered? Can you name any scientific journals where these disproofs can be found?

And no, I am not kidding. Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those disproofs are . . ? Who discovered them? Where were they discovered? Can you name any scientific journals where these disproofs can be found?

And no, I am not kidding. Are you?

First of all, I would suggest doing some unbiased research on the subject of Macro-evolution (I'm assuming your familiar with the term). Secondly, it's impossible to discuss all of the details here because of the subjects depth. However, one significant example would be the almost complete lack of a fossil record reflecting evolution between species.

Edit: I also agree with lockmat below that the concept of evolution as determined by Darwin (we were created by the primordial ooze) is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those disproofs are . . ? Who discovered them? Where were they discovered? Can you name any scientific journals where these disproofs can be found?

And no, I am not kidding. Are you?

That's a whole different thread. And even if micro evolution was true, where did the first cell/whatever come from? And where else in life do we see life coming from nothing? Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a whole different thread. And even if micro evolution was true, where did the first cell/whatever come from? And where else in life do we see life coming from nothing? Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Humans can synthesize single-celled organisms in labs that replicate conditions of the early Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...