Jump to content

To be named religious thread


lockmat

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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:

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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:

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 :)

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

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...