I just want to clarify that sin in the bible is anyone who isn't a Christian. It isn't bad stuff in a pushing old ladies sense.
Ask a Christian Theologian
- Thread starter maximilian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maximilian: so much of the Bible is open to interpretation that you cannot possibly claim to be a 'Christian' in the way you do without nailing your colours to the mast and asserting which version of the Bible you follow. Interpretation is such a massive part of Christianity that it is foolish to assert that you follow the grass roots, unadulterated version, and look down on those who have altered it. Especially when you follow such a random, modern version.
To many people I would be considered Christian. I grew up in a Christian country, observe Christmas and Easter, and revere Jesus above all other religious figures. I see the New Testament as an inspiring work, and indeed most of the Old.
I am, however, unconvinced by the existence of God, and dispute whether it is important. I am unconvinced even whether Jesus himself believed in him. I don't believe the Bible comes as the literal word of God even if God did the things that are ascribed to him. I can see that a newspaper published the day things happened, recording events that are also recorded on reviewable technology, get things wrong, so find it very hard indeed to see that a hundredth-hand document thousands of years old should be perfection itself. Most of all I find it impossible to countenance that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God gives a fig what I think in the confines of my head. If he's really bothered about being praised, then he isn't worth praising.
All of these things are perfectly compatible given my personal interpretation of the Bible and yet are, I'm sure, light years from your own beliefs. Am I the one who is adding and interpreting, given what we know of human weaknesses and nature, or is it you?
Religiously tolerant means recognising that we all fit the scheme of life in different ways. That there are many paths to God, whatever that is.
I have studies in some depth six major world religions, and know passing amounts of a few more. Nowhere but in Christianity do I find at its core the absolute confidence that it is the only way, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Now I'm going to sleep. If I don't wake up again, then there is a God. I'll let you know.
To many people I would be considered Christian. I grew up in a Christian country, observe Christmas and Easter, and revere Jesus above all other religious figures. I see the New Testament as an inspiring work, and indeed most of the Old.
I am, however, unconvinced by the existence of God, and dispute whether it is important. I am unconvinced even whether Jesus himself believed in him. I don't believe the Bible comes as the literal word of God even if God did the things that are ascribed to him. I can see that a newspaper published the day things happened, recording events that are also recorded on reviewable technology, get things wrong, so find it very hard indeed to see that a hundredth-hand document thousands of years old should be perfection itself. Most of all I find it impossible to countenance that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God gives a fig what I think in the confines of my head. If he's really bothered about being praised, then he isn't worth praising.
All of these things are perfectly compatible given my personal interpretation of the Bible and yet are, I'm sure, light years from your own beliefs. Am I the one who is adding and interpreting, given what we know of human weaknesses and nature, or is it you?
Religiously tolerant means recognising that we all fit the scheme of life in different ways. That there are many paths to God, whatever that is.
I have studies in some depth six major world religions, and know passing amounts of a few more. Nowhere but in Christianity do I find at its core the absolute confidence that it is the only way, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Now I'm going to sleep. If I don't wake up again, then there is a God. I'll let you know.
Oops, sorry I missed you.
Okay, pretty much it's this: Jesus told us to do good works, help the poor and sick, et cetra. If you truly had faith that this was actually God and wanted what was best for you, wouldn't you take His advice?
The waffle analogy totally works because God is timeless and hence looking back on everything.Amnestic said:
God loves all of us. If you loved your brother but he hated you, would you deny him the right to exist given the chance? Not if you actually loved him. God has done a similar thing. Even if you knew your brother would get in serious trouble because of his hatred for you one day (refusing your help to pay a ticket and winding up in jail for example) would you then deny him the right to exist? Not likely if you actually love him.
It is a conversion of ideas but not of intent. Believe it or not, you can be blinded by God, healed by someone and still walk away from what that God wanted you to do. Just like you can ask the Jewish leaders how you can help and then decide not to kill Christians because you don't want to murder. My point is that Saul always wanted to do God's will but simply misguided as to what that will was.
The Catholic view on this is that the idea that faith and love are intertwined or as James wrote that faith without good works is useless (Luther actually cut that particular book out of his version of the Bible)RebelRising said:
Okay, pretty much it's this: Jesus told us to do good works, help the poor and sick, et cetra. If you truly had faith that this was actually God and wanted what was best for you, wouldn't you take His advice?
Ummm. What about him being ill and on the verge of dead? Or was he just hanging with a great aunt? That seems like awful selective reading to me.cleverlymadeup said:
Similar in what way? What does this add to anything?
Got any proof?
What proof? I'm sorry, but you use no arguments any logical, empiricist atheist would ever use.
So where did you get this information from? And there are PLENTY stories of resurrection and saviour sons. I'm talking about the biblical narrative in which the person of Jesus makes sense.
Sorry, what? Why do I care about cults and Islam? Or why the solstice is binding or this bizarre rule regarding the solstice?
You're arguing against Christianity, in a non argument thread, with a supposed superimposition of Essene belief onto the top of Christianity in order to argue against what? If you're convinced Christianity is Essene, then what am I meant to be doing in reply? Also, what do you believe?
All evidence points to Jesus being 33 when he died. Ipso facto he wasn't 40 when entering Jerusalem.
[/quote]
actually no it points to him being 40, as most theories say he wasn't born in the year 0
if he wasn't 40 then he couldn't be divine, might have been why the Jews didn't recognize him
even the Prophet Mohammed was 40 when he started up Islam, Moses and Abraham too
[/quote] Oh good, so you're making up the rules of Christianity based on divine numbers. Also, his age is irrespective in context.
Well I'm baffled. Care to enlighten me to the source of all this? And why no real intellectuals hold to it?
Where did you get this information?
Ummmmm. You realise how impossible that would be what with oh, the Jews? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Also, how did they predict the crucifixion?
Who practiced these things and where is it in the Bible?npc255 said:
Largly agree except with him being a prophet.
Why all the fuss over translating it then? For one.
Agree.
And that's my issue. God didn't let Saul make his chosen 'mistakes' which he saw was following God, said deity deliberately intervened. Sure you can say he merely sent him where he wanted to go the whole time, but nevertheless he refused to let Saul make the mistakes he had chosen to make.
In which case in God's eyes I'm already where I'm meant to be. Assuming I'm going to hell and won't change my current beliefs, revisting Saul, I want what's best for me, why not come visit me and set me on the 'right' path? What of those who believe that murdering scores of people is God's will? Why did he fail to intervene there?
Knowing that allowing him a continued existence would cause him eternal suffering in hellfire? Hell yeah I'd end his existence right there and then. Annihilation is preferable to Eternal Hell, and in my eyes, Eternal Heaven as well, though voluntary annihilation after a time would be the most preferable.
I meant Max
Actually, the theory is that the Apostles had divine revelation (otherwise the whole Bible would be fallible and that would be bad) so it is incredibly possible that they did know they only need four. Another theory could be that they all wrote them but the Holy Spirit did not as heavily inspire the other 8 and thus when the church put the Bible together a few centuaries later, they didn't make the cut.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
His prophecies do include the Messiah of the Jews dying by piercing but it also says He would be crushed so, if you wanted, you could take both parts to be metaphorical instead of just the second one.
It is an interesting question. I've always thought of it like this; God gives you the choice, but he knows what you're going to do. He doesn't create people specifically to go to hell, but He knows what you are going to do and where you're going to go.Amnestic said:
My two cents. Many Apologies
But that's the problem. He knows where you're going to go, why not change people before birth so they don't go to hell? Why not make them 'better'? He may not create us with the intention of sending us to hell in a vengeful manner saying "HAH! There's another one for the flames!", but he creates us in full knowledge of where we're going to go. Why not stop himself beforehand and say "Hang on a sec, this is a bit douchey of me."?
The mistake wasn't his, though. It was the Jewish leaders. The argument is basically "those who want the truth, will find it." Noone who wants God will end up without Him. Don't tell the other Catholics, but I think a pagan or atheist who dies still has a chance at heaven as long as they actually, truly want God but were simply given terrible information and left lacking in answers plus being too overcome with the hypocrisies of the Christians (note: by me telling you this, I don't consider you to fall under this category anymore. It's more of a "being saved despite ignorance" idea of mine. Also, I don't believe the pope inherently backs me up on this)(also edit: the idea of atheists and pagans being saved is actually quite consistent with another largely rejected Catholic idea: purgatory. Purgatory is a place where the saved go to wash off their sins and mistakes so that nothing unclean will enter heaven and perfect for making up for your atheism)(note again: again, you have to actually want God and now that I've told you this you don't have this excuse)Amnestic said:
Okay, let's go back into my personal beliefs. Hell is only a punishment because you were made for God but you've denied yourself Him. You can't change your mind because of pride, hatred, etc. but the fact is you realize you missed something awesome and you know it. I guess a better example would be that your brother moves away from you and never comes back. Even you know he'll actually start to miss terribly but is too proud to come back or let you find him, would you still let him exist if you loved him?
Oh hang on just on sec. You can't blame the Jewish Leaders for Saul's actions. Right here we're talking about Free will. Saul chose to commit his deeds and he chose his path. The argument of pagans or atheists (and therefore Saul too) would get into heaven isn't applicable to Saul because he was influenced before death. That argument says he would get into Heaven anyway but God expressly intervened to change Saul's path anyway.
Again you give me an option limited by time whereas Hell is eternal. Eternity in any form, in my belief, is eventually torture of the highest degree so still, yes I'd end his existence. The very idea of Hell is something I've always disagreed with though. They make a mistake during 100 or less years of their measly existence and thus have to spend eternity suffering for it? Little bit harsh, dontcha think? Especially if you really look at the idea of eternity.
Really think about it. Forever. Never ending. It's absolutely fucking terrifying and the very idea that God, any God even, would subject someone to that is something which causes me no end of disgust.