Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lockmat

To be named religious thread

Recommended Posts

Then why are some of the people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible" so intent on killing other people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible"? It looks like "the god of the Bible" doesn't lift a finger to stop people from making up their own morality.

1. What specific instance are you talking about, Christians killing other Christians?

2. God did not make us as robots. He's not going to make people be moral. There is punishment and judgment for those who do not repent. The Bible talks about God being patient with people of the world, giving them time to turn from their sins. If his righteous judgment was immediate, there would be nobody alive right now. That time will come.

And shoving their 'beliefs' down everyone's throats. Religion is just as corrupt as any other forms of business (probably even more so since it is so deregulated).

I do not want religion to be the moral test for a leader any more than I would want it to be the litmus test for whether I got a job or not.

On what should we judge their morality on then? To what should we compare it to? Our own morals?

Remember, we should not compare our morality to each other, b/c we all fall short. The only true standard is the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only true standard is the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ.

Really? What about religions that don't use the Bible or the life of Jesus Christ as their standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What specific instance are you talking about, Christians killing other Christians?

2. God did not make us as robots. He's not going to make people be moral. There is punishment and judgment for those who do not repent. The Bible talks about God being patient with people of the world, giving them time to turn from their sins. If his righteous judgment was immediate, there would be nobody alive right now. That time will come.

On what should we judge their morality on then? To what should we compare it to? Our own morals?

Remember, we should not compare our morality to each other, b/c we all fall short. The only true standard is the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ.

Whenever I hear statements like this... I cannot help but think of this, everytime...

PGODP.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? What about religions that don't use the Bible or the life of Jesus Christ as their standard?

This is really just periphial issue.

Other "religions" can have good morals and stuff. But the bible teaches there is only one God. All others are not really even gods, just false idols.

And righteous deeds can only truly be accpetable to God if they're done out of love for God of the Bible.

Any other religion is just self-righteous. A true Christian life is not.

Whenever I hear statements like this... I cannot help but think of this, everytime...

PGODP.JPG

Reading the book of Revelation would be a healthy exercise. It's not about sitting around a bonfire, holding hands in love and singing cumbiya. It's the prophecy of God's judgment on the unrepentant world. Christians don't just make this stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only true standard is the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ."

Genesis 1:1 - God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 2:7 - Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Exodus 20 - The ten commandments. He told them what was righteous and holy (morals)

God created humans. He is perfectly righteous. He makes the rules, not his creation. We do not decide what's moral and what's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming of course, that your God actually exists. To begin with the basis that your God and your Bible are in fact the correct foundation of all things is more than just a little presumptuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What specific instance are you talking about, Christians killing other Christians?

2. God did not make us as robots. He's not going to make people be moral. There is punishment and judgment for those who do not repent. The Bible talks about God being patient with people of the world, giving them time to turn from their sins. If his righteous judgment was immediate, there would be nobody alive right now. That time will come.

On what should we judge their morality on then? To what should we compare it to? Our own morals?

Remember, we should not compare our morality to each other, b/c we all fall short. The only true standard is the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ.

Ok...bringing this back to politics...

I would submit to you that religion is a subset of metaphysics, and that the establishment clause of the First Amendment has a dual reading. One is that Congress cannot establish a national religion, with the intent being that religious organizations should not be permitted official power over a secular government--which could easily be a threat to national sovereignty. But an underlying intent is to preserve the free practice of religion in the U.S.

Personally, I think that the Clause can be read more broadly, eveloping the whole of metaphysical thought. Whereas it is the metaphysical realm from which any concept of morality is conceived of (whether you, lockmat, agree with it or not), but also whereas metaphysics makes for an excellent defense of fringe avant-garde philosophical, political, and scientific theory, I think that it is important to acknowledge that traditional or organized religion is only one part of the issue, and not even the central part.

I observe, for instance, that of the principled atheists that emphatically shout against any perceived interaction between government and religion (although usually this shout-down only applies to Christianity), many don't seem to have the slightest qualms about promoting policy that they themselves find morally justifiable. Take universal healthcare as an example. Many principled atheists see it as immoral not to provide care for the indigent of society. That's a moral view, and it is based in metaphysics. It is no more or less valid than a traditional Christian take on abortion. Both want to influence the lives of others, not necessarily out of self-interest, but exclusively to influence the lives of others...whether the others like it or not. Each group, whether it admits it or not, wants to influence government with its brand of morality.

...and to me, that's an acceptably imperfect world.

Government should not endorse an official religion or metaphysical philosophy, nor should it infringe upon free thought or speech. But at the same time, it is inevitable that it will embrace policy that is based upon morality. It has to. The policy rightfully should reflect the culture as it is at present, acknowledging and providing for the equally inevitable reality that the culture and its views on morality are constantly changing and that that should not be discouraged (nor encouraged)...only reflected.

Reading the book of Revelation would be a healthy exercise. It's not about sitting around a bonfire, holding hands in love and singing cumbiya. It's the prophecy of God's judgment on the unrepentant world. Christians don't just make this stuff up.

I would beg to differ. :)

Alternative response: And you think other religions do make their stuff up, but yours doesn't? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternative response: And you think other religions do make their stuff up, but yours doesn't? :huh:

It's interesting that we're willing to accept our own made up thoughts and opinions but reject historically accurate documents thousands of years old that also include many fulfilled prophecies.

edit: and really niche, your opinion and anyone elses, is really just as good as any other "made up religion" when you think about it, isn't it? It's a different belief. Just spoken by a new individual. Thousands of years from now, you may have a huge following and people will look back and say the same thing, no?

Christianity is the only religion who had(has) a prophet (Jesus) who claimed to be God and is still alive. All others are dead.

I'm just saying.

But really, I'm wasting my time. I can't logically convince anyone it's true. Belief only comes when one humbles themselves and searches for the truth and a whole lot of other doctrinal reasons that wouldn't matter if you knew or not unless you believed. I'll stop now. Because the real issue is sin. We've all sinned against a Holy God. There is punishment for sin. First our death on this earth and then eternal death. But Jesus Christ dying on the cross for peoples sins (he's the only acceptable substitute/sacrafice for our sins) and coming back to life gives us the opportunity to repent from our sins and be obedient to him. I don't look down on anyone for not believing even if my "fact presenting" seemed so.

Assuming of course, that your God actually exists. To begin with the basis that your God and your Bible are in fact the correct foundation of all things is more than just a little presumptuous.

Everyone knows he exists. Most just choose to reject it. Deep down, everyone knows it's true.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really, I'm wasting my time. I can't logically convince anyone it's true.

Everyone knows he exists. Most just choose to reject it. Deep down, everyone knows it's true.

Nice consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice consistency.

What I meant is that I can't logically convince anyone that Jesus Christ is God and to repent and obey and become a "believer."

However, whether people choose to or not, they all know there is a God and he is the creator of all things.

Anyway, I'm willing to drop it for Marks and the threads sake, unless the mods want to move it over to one of our other discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting that we're willing to accept our own made up thoughts and opinions but reject historically accurate documents thousands of years old that also include many fulfilled prophecies.

edit: and really niche, your opinion and anyone elses, is really just as good as any other "made up religion" when you think about it, isn't it? It's a different belief. Just spoken by a new individual. Thousands of years from now, you may have a huge following and people will look back and say the same thing, no?

Your foresight is astounding! Your logic...irrelevent...yet for the sake of my ego, I must dub it compelling.

All hail TheNiche, so sayeth the prophet lockmat! :lol:^_^

-----------

OK, I'm done with the religious/metaphysical stuff. Back to presidential politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I meant is that I can't logically convince anyone that Jesus Christ is God and to repent and obey and become a "believer."

However, whether people choose to or not, they all know there is a God and he is the creator of all things.

Anyway, I'm willing to drop it for Marks and the threads sake, unless the mods want to move it over to one of our other discussions.

LOL LOL :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What specific instance are you talking about, Christians killing other Christians?

Christians aren't the only people worshipping the "God of the Bible". Jews and Muslims worship the same god, or so they often say.

2. God did not make us as robots. He's not going to make people be moral. There is punishment and judgment for those who do not repent. The Bible talks about God being patient with people of the world, giving them time to turn from their sins. If his righteous judgment was immediate, there would be nobody alive right now. That time will come.

Then I wish he would have left his Bible and other documents in heaven. I think we'd get along better without them. I mean, I'm one perverse SOB, but giving us books that are sure to whip us into genocidal frenzies because he "loves" us is too much even for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians aren't the only people worshipping the "God of the Bible". Jews and Muslims worship the same god, or so they often say.

sevfiv...might as well move it over :)

Jews believe in the Old Testament, but not Jesus. They don't believe he was the true Messiah, so they're still looking for him to come. From what I know about the Muslims, they simply believe Jesus was a good man or a prophet, but not God incarnate.

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. So one must always compare what Christianity is to what the Bible says, not necessarily what a Christian might live out(the Bible teaches about wolves in sheeps clothing[false prophets/teachers] and warns against "righteous" people who claim Christianity but really are not[Pharisess and Sadducees] And these types of people still exist today). (after all, not even Christians are perfect, nor should they claim to be. They continue to sin, just like anyone else. However, they should be in the process of sanctification (sinning less) and asking for forgivness when wronged and giving it out when wronged against them.)

Then I wish he would have left his Bible and other documents in heaven. I think we'd get along better without them. I mean, I'm one perverse SOB, but giving us books that are sure to whip us into genocidal frenzies because he "loves" us is too much even for me.

I guess you're talking about the Crusades? But remember, anyone can take a good thing and turn it into something wrong, especially when they misinterpret things and take things out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The posts have been separated - anyone have a name for this thread? :)

How about

"He said/she said...but none of you actually know anything for sure, nor will you be able to change each other's minds"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this, and most, discussions of religions on the internet is the use of broad groups like "they" and "Christians" to describe the actions of a single person or a group of people.

I learned the other day that some atheists don't understand there are dozens of different types of Christians. The people I was with thought they were all identical, no difference between a Quaker and a Baptist and an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. But still they felt qualified to argue religion on the internet.

People hate and fear what they don't understand. Most of the atheists I know don't understand religion, so they are critical of it, which makes them feel superior.

Atheism on the internet has become its own religion with leaders and a gospel and martyrs and meetings and everything.

Another problem I see is a lot of people on the internet calling themselves atheists when they're not. They're antitheists. But they're not educated enough to know the difference, so they go with the internet groupthink.

(I took a bunch of theology classes in school.)

Jews believe in the Old Testament, but not Jesus. They don't believe he was the true Messiah, so they're still looking for him to come.

One point of clarification here -- Jews do believe in Jesus. They believe he existed. They just don't believe he was the Messiah.

It's important to make that point because there is a number of people who believe that Jesus was fictional. They're a pretty rabid bunch who are pretty good at ignoring historical and archaeological evidence, and also very good at working the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with this, and most, discussions of religions on the internet is the use of broad groups like "they" and "Christians" to describe the actions of a single person or a group of people.

I learned the other day that some atheists don't understand there are dozens of different types of Christians. The people I was with thought they were all identical, no difference between a Quaker and a Baptist and an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. But still they felt qualified to argue religion on the internet.

People hate and fear what they don't understand. Most of the atheists I know don't understand religion, so they are critical of it, which makes them feel superior.

Atheism on the internet has become its own religion with leaders and a gospel and martyrs and meetings and everything.

Another problem I see is a lot of people on the internet calling themselves atheists when they're not. They're antitheists. But they're not educated enough to know the difference, so they go with the internet groupthink.

(I took a bunch of theology classes in school.)

One point of clarification here -- Jews do believe in Jesus. They believe he existed. They just don't believe he was the Messiah.

It's important to make that point because there is a number of people who believe that Jesus was fictional. They're a pretty rabid bunch who are pretty good at ignoring historical and archaeological evidence, and also very good at working the internet.

True. Josephus' writing include Jesus. Although they may be historically accurate, only the catholics accept as divinely inspired.

What I highlighted in bold is something I have been trying to get across, but in more confusing terms :)

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jews believe in the Old Testament, but not Jesus. They don't believe he was the true Messiah, so they're still looking for him to come. From what I know about the Muslims, they simply believe Jesus was a good man or a prophet, but not God incarnate.

But Jesus isn't "the God of the Bible". That's YHVH. Lots of Jews, Muslims and Christians consider him to be the same god for all of those religions.

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. So one must always compare what Christianity is to what the Bible says, not necessarily what a Christian might live out(the Bible teaches about wolves in sheeps clothing[false prophets/teachers] and warns against "righteous" people who claim Christianity but really are not[Pharisess and Sadducees] And these types of people still exist today). (after all, not even Christians are perfect, nor should they claim to be. They continue to sin, just like anyone else. However, they should be in the process of sanctification (sinning less) and asking for forgivness when wronged and giving it out when wronged against them.)

So basing one's morality on "the God of the Bible" isn't enough. It's basing one's morality on the single correct interpretation of "the God of the Bible".

I guess you're talking about the Crusades? But remember, anyone can take a good thing and turn it into something wrong, especially when they misinterpret things and take things out of context.

So anyone can take the one true source of morality and corrupt it, but no one can base their morality on any other foundation. Wow, that's hard.

The problem with this, and most, discussions of religions on the internet is the use of broad groups like "they" and "Christians" to describe the actions of a single person or a group of people.

Yeah, generalizing is always bad.

Atheism on the internet has become its own religion with leaders and a gospel and martyrs and meetings and everything.

Yeah, generalizing is always bad.

Another problem I see is a lot of people on the internet calling themselves atheists when they're not. They're antitheists. But they're not educated enough to know the difference, so they go with the internet groupthink.

Antitheists are usually atheists.

(I took a bunch of theology classes in school.)

I took a lot of science classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Jesus isn't "the God of the Bible".

That's your interpretation. Other people believe differently. That's why there are many religions and not just one.

So basing one's morality on "the God of the Bible" isn't enough. It's basing one's morality on the single correct interpretation of "the God of the Bible".

Congratulations! You just described "religion" -- people whose morality is based on their interpretations of their sacred references.

I took a lot of science classes.

Too bad. Maybe if you took science classes and theology classes like I did you might be more well-rounded, better informed, and not making judgements based on your more limited understanding.

You should not be proud that you have failed to learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's your interpretation. Other people believe differently. That's why there are many religions and not just one.

I think lockmat was saying there is only one true religion and only one morality based on "the God of the Bible".

Congratulations! You just described "religion" -- people whose morality is based on their interpretations of their sacred references.

So "the God of the Bible" isn't enough. Morality based on religion is just as open to personal interpretation as morality based on other foundations.

Too bad. Maybe if you took science classes and theology classes like I did you might be more well-rounded, better informed, and not making judgements based on your more limited understanding.

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions about other people. I didn't study theology in college, but I've studied it at length outside of college. My judgements are based on a good understanding of a broad range of religions and human history.

You should not be proud that you have failed to learn something.

What did I fail to learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lockmat, all we need is another religion as old as Christianity that has views as militant as yours and their views would be justifiable/valid? Religion is called faith-based for a reason. No reason to hold everyone, including Christians, to your personal beliefs or interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Jesus isn't "the God of the Bible". That's YHVH. Lots of Jews, Muslims and Christians consider him to be the same god for all of those religions.

Actually, he is. Jesus claims to be him.

Old Testament:

Exodus 3:13,14 - Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

New Testament:

John 10:30-33 "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

John 14:9-10 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

There are many more instances when Jesus says he is the God of the Old Testament.

So lockmat, all we need is another religion as old as Christianity that has views as militant as yours and their views would be justifiable/valid? Religion is called faith-based for a reason. No reason to hold everyone, including Christians, to your personal beliefs or interpretations.

Militant? I've never read in the Bible where it tells believers to be militant.

And no, because it is old does not validate it. But it's historically accurate and one way it validates itself is by the prophecies that were fulfilled.

And yes it is faith, but it's not a blind faith.

So basing one's morality on "the God of the Bible" isn't enough. It's basing one's morality on the single correct interpretation of "the God of the Bible".

There is one true interpretation. Most of the Bible can be interpreted accurately. Some things are too far removed to understand fully in context, but they do not take away from the major themes of the Bible nor do they disqualify or confuse what it takes to live a God honoring life or to be truly saved.

So anyone can take the one true source of morality and corrupt it, but no one can base their morality on any other foundation. Wow, that's hard.

The Bible teaches there is only one God. Therefore there is only one creator. That creator is the sole basis and creator of morality. The logic in that doesn't allow any wiggle room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, he is. Jesus claims to be him.

Old Testament:

Exodus 3:13,14 - Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

New Testament:

John 10:30-33 "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

John 14:9-10 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

There are many more instances when Jesus says he is the God of the Old Testament.

So if the god of the Jews isn't "the God of the Bible", who is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the god of the Jews isn't "the God of the Bible", who is he?

The god of the Jews is the god of the Bible.

I'm sure you've heard of the trinity(which by the way is not in the Bible, but the evidence is there. It's just a word men came up with to describe the dynamic.). God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. They're all God, one God, yet separate. It's something we humans can't completely understand.

Both Jews and Christians believe in Yaweh. Since Adam and Eve sinned, they've (the Jews) been waiting for one that would come and redeem them from their sins. Jesus is God and the one who can redeem men from their sins, yet they rejected him. They denied (did not believe) that he was who he said he was, God (Yaweh).

They've just rejected God the Son. But even if they worship the correct Yaweh, they cannot have salvation because Salvation comes through Jesus.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The god of the Jews is the god of the Bible.

I'm sure you've heard of the trinity(which by the way is not in the Bible, but the evidence is there. It's just a word men came up with to describe the dynamic.). God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. They're all God, one God, yet separate. It's something we humans can't completely understand.

Both Jews and Christians believe in Yaweh. Since Adam and Eve sinned, they've (the Jews) been waiting for one that would come and redeem them from their sins. Jesus is God and the one who can redeem men from their sins, yet they rejected him. They denied (did not believe) that he was who he said he was, God (Yaweh).

They've just rejected God the Son. But even if they worship the correct Yaweh, they cannot have salvation because Salvation comes through Jesus.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

So Jews worship "the God of the Bible", but they don't worship "the God of the Bible"? I'm confused.

Maybe we can make this more clear by calling him Abraham's god?

Edited by memebag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting that we're willing to accept our own made up thoughts and opinions but reject historically accurate documents thousands of years old that also include many fulfilled prophecies.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Jews worship "the God of the Bible", but they don't worship "the God of the Bible"? I'm confused.

Maybe we can make this more clear by calling him Abraham's god?

view of Christians:

They believe in the Father (Yaweh)

The Holy Spirit

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

view of the Jews:

They believe in Yaweh (the Father)

The Holy Spirit

The one who is coming to redeem them (which was Jesus but they reject(ed) him)

That help?

Also, I'll throw this in there to validate a prophecy and validate Jesus is who he says he is.

Isaiah 53 (It's not very long, but it predicts the redeemer[Jesus]) link

Googling Messianic Prophecies will give a slew of other prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That help?

Not really. A lot of religious scholars say that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the god of Abraham. I assumed that's who you meant by "the God of the Bible". Is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. A lot of religious scholars say that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the god of Abraham. I assumed that's who you meant by "the God of the Bible". Is it?

I'd be careful of who I listen to, even if they do say they are a religous scholar or teach at a university. That's the problem, so much bad teaching out there.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're correct - and it doesn't look like my questions will be answered any time soon!
You took the words right outta my mouth!

OK, so there was just one questin, but one statement, too.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...