As per Cartoon's request - continued religous debate thread by Amiton

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

As per Cartoon's request - continued religous debate thread

POSTED BY: AMITON
UPDATED: Thursday, October 19, 2023 08:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2173
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:49 AM

Hopefully this will help a little, Cartoon, but I suspect there are still going to be posts on the other thread =p

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
If you've seen my previous post to Burn, I recommend studying the Bible first and foremost.
Naturally, I'd recommend a good translation (not a paraphrase -- which isn't a literal translation). None of us instinctively know how to study the Bible, so I recommend a brief study in hermeneutics, too.

Naturally, if you know Hebrew & Greek, all the better (I don't, and have to rely on very expensive interlinears, lexicons, and the like).
The reason being -- we have good manuscript evidence that most of the Hebrew and Greek translations we have today (with only a few minor, non-critical variances) are accurate. Unfortunately, the scriptures were't written in English -- so no English translation will be as good (or relay as exactly) what the original language does.

I'd also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" (which is very affordable in soft-cover), which goes into some keen arguments about Christianity. I found it very interesting (although, I admit I was already a believer when I read it).

If you want solid evidence, though, I don't think it exists in a subjective form that will satisfy everyone. As I said previously (in the last response), God wants us to believe by faith, but of course, our faith doesn't have to be (or shouldn't be) without some factual basis.

Just as a point, I have read the bible in its entirety. That was a natural starting place for my search for the path twenty years ago

I do need to look into hermeneutics as you suggest, though. That's always been one of my major peeves with religous debates since I read the bible.

I do know that a lot of the modern bible translations are fairly accurate, courtesy of Luther and Wycliffe and their "heretical" deviation from the Latin Vulgate. We're pretty deeply in their debt. Unfortunately, I don't know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Something I'd like to remedy someday in my academic study of religion, but I'm not holding my breath. I also have a copy of Strobel's book. I do have to say that as an outsider looking in, his way of portraying the information in his book did more to reject Christianity prior to my acceptance of belief than any other single thing in my experiences. To be fair, it was a prejudice based in how his style and approach affected me than the information in the book, though.

Quote:

Yes (the Bible supports that assertion).

Well, we have it (on God's authority) that He is those things and will (in His perfect time) eventually set things right. (If I misunderstood your question, or you want more detail, please request it privately. I already feel like I'm hogging this thread, and it's taking forever to load with my decrepid dial-up).

Bah, you're not hogging a thread, you're participating in discourse

For some reason, though, I think a lot of people have stopped contributing. Religion is always touchy for some people, though.

My assertion with the question, however, is if there is a battle between good and evil when one is an all-knowing, all-powerful being (and only one), then how is there a battle at all unless it is the will of the creator? In that light, if the creator is all-*, then there is an indictment of some sort against Him (Him, historical, btw). Either He's allowing an evil to exist when he has means to stop it ir He wants it there. Period. The only other option I see is that He's not all-*. Like I said earlier, I don't want to believe that, and as you said, the Bible tells me so =p For me it's not a bad indictment. I think that what we refer to as evil is necessary as part of His design, but we in our lack of understanding want to assert it to something it's not. If there is a devil, I think he gets credit for a lot of stuff that he didn't do. At the end of the day, though, if a devil does exist, he's still part of the creation and subject to the will of the all-* creator.

Quote:

Our first instinct is to be quite angry. I admit it, myself, that the thought of some child molester/serial killer getting in at the last minute (as Ted Bundy allegedly did) is quite disturbing. But, that's because we're seeing it from the eyes of someone who (quite frankly) is closer in nature to Hitler than we are to God.

I tried to explain this previously (our distance from God's holiness), but let me try another analogy (and I hate analogies)...

Let's say that we consider our own "moral" geographical location to be in Central Park, NYC.

Someone else we know may be located in Battery Park (about 5 miles south of us). Still others may be way down in Florida. We might argue that possibly Hitler would be somewhere around Buenos Aires (some conspiratorial nuts used to actually believe that)...

Anyhow, compared to guy in Battery Park, Hitler's quite a ways away from us in our "moral" geographical positioning, right?

But then you throw God into the equation -- and where is God? Well, He's way off in another universe (not just another galaxy in our universe, but in a whole other universe altogether).

So, from our perspective, Hitler seems much worse than us (in Central Park). But, from God's perspective, Hitler and we are two peas of the same pod.

Hitler's punishment may be worse in hell than a more moralistic believer, but either way, why go to hell in the first place, when there's already a ticket with your name on it waiting to be redeemed and take you to be with the Lord?

I'm interested with the anger thing, although I understand the humanistic desire for it. According to my understanding of the scripture, Heaven is return to the presence of the Creator, we feel fulfilled, there is no anger or sadness, all is groovy. That to me means that either we're given the answers to our questions or we suddenly realize that all of those questions are irrelevant. Personally, I suspect it's option #2 since we're still just spiritual creations and not perfect beings ourselves.

I've made my peace with it now, however. I am not the judge and it's not my place to say who gets into heaven or why. It's not even my place to get myself there. It's my place to do what I can to serve the Lord I believe in and bring glory to His name. That might get me a seat in Heaven, and it really might not. I don't *want* to go to hell, and I don't want to be left behind at the Rapture, but it's not my place to say, it's not my place to question, and it's not my place to be angry with the Lord if things didn't go my way. It's part of the package to know that the list is short and you might not make the cut, metaphorically speaking. Sure there's *room* in Heaven for everyone, but the Good Book says that it's a pretty selective party and to be prepated for whatever comes, doesn't it?

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Cartoon said:
"Hitler's punishment may be worse in hell than a more moralistic unbeliever, but either way, why go to hell in the first place, when there's already a ticket with your name on it waiting to be redeemed and take you to be with the Lord?"

You mean, he'll be deeper in the magma than I will??
And how exactly can you be 'punished' without a body to feel the punishment with? Is it like in "What Dreams May Come"? (A very good movie, btw,IMHO)
Or is it like a really long time-out?
It can't be purely a mental thing, that would suggest that a spirit has a mental capacity that only a brain would manifest...or do spirits have brains?
If it's purely spiritual, why can't Satan put you in Hell while your spirit is in your body, or does a body produce a sort of 'bio-electric sheild' against that sort of thing?
Or is Hell geographical, like you literally go (On a long physical journey) to Hell?
What if you make dirty jokes at the Devil's expense, does your punishment get harder, or softer?
We need answers!

Either way...

Devil, I don't play well w/others in Hell!

Beligerent to Satan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:49 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Hopefully this will help a little, Cartoon, but I suspect there are still going to be posts on the other thread =p

Thank you. My gratitude knows no bounds.

Notice that Queen went and posted in there anyhow, just to irritate me.

But I can never say anything against her -- sweet, precious, northern-type sovereign (or "sovereign's consort" -- the title is applicable to both) that she is (she can kill me with her brain, so I have to pretend that's she very amiable and the like)...

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Just as a point, I have read the bible in its entirety. That was a natural starting place for my search for the path twenty years ago I do need to look into hermeneutics as you suggest, though. That's always been one of my major peeves with religous debates since I read the bible.

Yes. Unfortunately, man has tried (and often succeeded) in messing it up (the understanding of the scriptures).

If we would only just get back to the basics, we'd do fine.

Everything I've read in heremeneutics is just common sense. We shouldn't have to read about "how to read the Bible".

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Unfortunately, I don't know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Something I'd like to remedy someday in my academic study of religion, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm too lazy to learn either Hebrew or Greek (you don't need Latin for the original manuscripts). The whole "different" alphabet thing is irritating to lazy, English-speaking persons like myself. Even with my Hebrew-English interlinear, the Hebrew is in the Hebrew alphabet, not the English transliteration of it. Most annoying. And good lexicons are expensive (I don't have a good lexicon, but I have a great Hebrew-English interlinear).

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I also have a copy of Strobel's book. I do have to say that as an outsider looking in, his way of portraying the information in his book did more to reject Christianity prior to my acceptance of belief than any other single thing in my experiences.

Well, Strobel's whole approach was from his atheistic viewpoint. It was his "search" that turned him around. I found it fascinating from that standpoint alone.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
To be fair, it was a prejudice based in how his style and approach affected me than the information in the book, though.

I didn't have any problems with his style and approach, myself. What about it bothered you? (Just curious)(You can even tell me privately, if you don't want to go into it here)

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Bah, you're not hogging a thread, you're participating in discourse

Well, it feels that way at times. When I think I may be able to answer to someone's question, I want to attempt to answer it the best I can, but for most of these questions there are no short, easy answers. I know an internet forum (particularly one for a TV show) isn't the best place for a detailed analysis. One works with the tools they're given, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Religion is always touchy for some people, though.

Nah. You think?

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Either He's allowing an evil to exist when he has means to stop it ir He wants it there. Period. The only other option I see is that He's not all-*. Like I said earlier, I don't want to believe that, and as you said, the Bible tells me so

Well, believing the Bible (as we both claim to do) sort of us throws the second option out of the equation, altogether. And, as I tried feebly to explain previously, I don't think this is something anyone can understand on this side of a subsequent, divine enlightment. I mean, seriously, if apparently the angels (who are in God's presence) are curious about it, it's certainly beyond the understanding of the likes of you and I.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
If there is a devil, I think he gets credit for a lot of stuff that he didn't do. At the end of the day, though, if a devil does exist, he's still part of the creation and subject to the will of the all-* creator.

Well, you said you believe the Bible, and the devil is clearly there -- throughout (from beginning to end).

He's a lot more powerful than any of us can imagine. Firstly, all of the angelic beings are apparently enormously powerful (scripture doesn't talk a whole lot about angels, but when they do appear, people are usually quite intimidated).
Secondly, they've been around for several thousand years (at the very least), so they have a whole lot more experience and knowledge than all of us combined.

That being said, they are still limited, dependent, created beings and answerable (as you said) to their creator.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I'm interested with the anger thing, although I understand the humanistic desire for it. According to my understanding of the scripture, Heaven is return to the presence of the Creator, we feel fulfilled, there is no anger or sadness, all is groovy. That to me means that either we're given the answers to our questions or we suddenly realize that all of those questions are irrelevant. Personally, I suspect it's option #2 since we're still just spiritual creations and not perfect beings ourselves.

Well, I thought you meant -- are we "angry" about it now. And our natural inclination is -- yes -- unless we understand (as I tried to explain previously) that we have infinitely more in common with these deviant monsters than we do with God.

I can't comment specifically about feelings in heaven, or lack thereof, as the Bible actually says very little about it. There will be no sin, and all tears will be wiped away, etc. How that will be achieved is a mystery, and not really something anyone needs to spend time fretting over on this side anyhow. Our primary concerns here should be to accept the offer of salvation, then serve the Lord (who bought us at such a great price) in faithful obedience.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
It's part of the package to know that the list is short and you might not make the cut, metaphorically speaking. Sure there's *room* in Heaven for everyone, but the Good Book says that it's a pretty selective party and to be prepated for whatever comes, doesn't it?

Well, the basis for admission was already met. If you've truly received it, then your name's on the ticket. Only God knows our hearts, though, so only He knows if we've accepted the gift in faith, or if we're still trying to weasel our way in on our own merits (which definitely won't cut it). But the promise is there, and (as far as I can understand it) it's open to whoever would receive it. That sounds like a pretty good offer to me. Can't figure for the life of me, why I wasted so many years in rebellion, fighting against it. (Well, perhaps I could, but that's another story -- and it begins with one word: pride.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:58 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You mean, he'll be deeper in the magma than I will??

I don't know. Scripture doesn't elaborate.

As far as you are concerned, though, why go at all?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And how exactly can you be 'punished' without a body to feel the punishment with?

Well, everyone is getting a new body. The scripture does say that. And apparently, they will be eternal bodies (which cannot die).

The Bible isn't all that descriptive about either heaven or hell. The few details it offers on heaven are at the very end of the Bible, and the few on hell come from Jesus's own mouth in the gospels. I don't even know if the fire is literal or figurative. Point is, I don't want to be there. Jesus's mention of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" should be enough of a description to convince most people that they'd rather be elsewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:59 AM

CHRISISALL

Can someone please address my questions in the above post? I haven't got all century....
Edit: I edited the post w/more queries...

Chrisisall in a handbasket

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:05 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Well, everyone is getting a new body. The scripture does say that. And apparently, they will be eternal bodies (which cannot die).

Cannot die? Are they mechanical? Or do they get re-generated moment by moment by some nano-field?
Do they come w/a warranty?

Amusing hisself to no end Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:13 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Cannot die? Are they mechanical? Or do they get re-generated moment by moment by some nano-field?
Do they come w/a warranty?

I believe God guaratees everything He does. I suppose you can consider that a "warranty" of sorts.

How are they made? Probably the same way He made everything in creation. You know, He is handy like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:17 AM

CHRISISALL

*Wiping tears from his eyes*
I must appologize. My Wife pointed out that I stepped over the line here...

So I asked, "How thick exactly is that line? Did I cross it, or am I merely 'in' it, and not yet past it's border? Who drew this 'line', anyway? Is it theoretical?"

..she's gonna hit me....

Whimsical in the brainpan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:20 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if you make dirty jokes at the Devil's expense, does your punishment get harder, or softer?

Trying to answer a facetious question honestly...

The bible doesn't address jokes at the devil's expense, but from my understanding, he's going to be an eternal inmate there just like everyone else.

Either way -- it's not a place one wants to even visit, much less spend an eternity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:24 AM

CHRISISALL

You are so a gentleman, Cartoon.
Thanks for taking my nonsense in the spirit in which it was intended...well, mostly intended...

Looney Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 9:37 AM

AMITON

Cartoon, I don't mind long educational/informative posts, but just so you know, they're a bear to snag quotes from =p (Yeah, I suspect mine are probably just as irritating to quote =p). Anyway...

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Yes. Unfortunately, man has tried (and often succeeded) in messing it up (the understanding of the scriptures).

If we would only just get back to the basics, we'd do fine. Everything I've read in heremeneutics is just common sense. We shouldn't have to read about "how to read the Bible".

That's exactly what I mean, though. We *do* need to read about "how to read the bible." There are a few issues on top of that, too. For example, many, if not most, people who are raised in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic households are being told what is in their respective bibles before they can read. I will happily grant that they are told these things by people that *can* read, and even have seminary training (or its equivilent) and lots of experience in the topic.

Add to that, the (what I will assert as) fact that at least most Christians (as opposed to other religions I know significantly less about) have never read the bible for themselves. I'd venture to say that most of them are lucky if they read their assignment for Sunday School, much less any particular book of the Bible.

Even after reading it, a lot of the context is pretty messed up. The stories are from an entirely different culture and period in history. The language has changed. The environment is changed. We don't know what is literal and what is figurative, but it's pretty universal that there is some of each. My point is, 2000 years after Christ (again, just as the singular example I'm most familiar with...the Jews have it even worse), we don't have a definitive answer to what the Bible is saying.

That problem is compounded by the institution that created the Bible. A group of men with an agenda, even if it was the right one, decided what was going to make up the Bible over 400 years after Christ's death. There were a *lot* of different teachings to pick from. The church was already about as fragmented as it is today, and a lot of believers had to bring their beliefs in line with the new regime. Then the good book got jacked up a lot more by the Roman Catholics. Fortunately we had scholars that were willing to accept a label as a heretic in order to do what they could in a search for truth. But what about books like those in the Apocrypha? What about the Gospels of Thomas and Mary? What about the other books that were rejected as non-devine, or downright heretical? Those were decisions made by men, and we can't even agree about what they meant. That puts the fear of hell into me.

Quote:
Well, Strobel's whole approach was from his atheistic viewpoint. It was his "search" that turned him around. I found it fascinating from that standpoint alone.

The book was actually a gift to me from a church deacon who knew that I was struggling to find my way back to belief. It came *highly* recommended, and the concept seemed really exciting to me, too.

Quote:
I didn't have any problems with his style and approach, myself. What about it bothered you? (Just curious)(You can even tell me privately, if you don't want to go into it here)

Privately?? No way, this is an open discussion =p Anyway, Strobel really came off as a cheerleader and the language that he used sounded like he was trying to play sleight of hand with his choice of words. Also, knowing that he was coming from the atheism perspective, I *really* hoped that he would pull out some compelling discussion supporting conversion. If I may be blunt for a moment, that book wasn't written to convert a damn person. Lee Strobel wrote that book to help Christians that were struggling with their faith answer the basic questions they have so they can get back on the straight and narrow. If that book was the sole source for converting anyone who had deep-seated intellectual concerns for becoming a Christian (specifically, as opposed to any other religion), then I may just pass from shock. At any rate, reading that book made me feel like Strobel was a bit of a charletan and it felt pretty insulting academically from the leaps of assumption he was making.

Quote:
Well, believing the Bible (as we both claim to do) sort of us throws the second option out of the equation, altogether. And, as I tried feebly to explain previously, I don't think this is something anyone can understand on this side of a subsequent, divine enlightment. I mean, seriously, if apparently the angels (who are in God's presence) are curious about it, it's certainly beyond the understanding of the likes of you and I.

Well, as you may have gathered earlier, I believe fervently in Jesus Christ and the Resurrection. I feel really uncomfortable with a lot of the history of the Bible, but I accept it, as is, because it's the closest thing I have to a definitive reference. I also whole-heartedly believe that the better part of the truth of theology is well beyond the comprehension of humans. Unfortunately, it's a cornerstone of the church, and it's kind of the one that we sell ourselves on. If we have no idea what we're talking about where the creator is concerned and how good, evil, and the concept of sin and salvation work, then we're in trouble. If the angels, who, from my understanding of the story, live directly in the presence of the creator don't get it, then we're nose-deep in the go-se.

Quote:
Well, you said you believe the Bible, and the devil is clearly there -- throughout (from beginning to end).

He's a lot more powerful than any of us can imagine. Firstly, all of the angelic beings are apparently enormously powerful (scripture doesn't talk a whole lot about angels, but when they do appear, people are usually quite intimidated).
Secondly, they've been around for several thousand years (at the very least), so they have a whole lot more experience and knowledge than all of us combined.

That being said, they are still limited, dependent, created beings and answerable (as you said) to their creator.

I believe in the devil. To be honest, academically, I don't know why. He is spoken of in the Bible, and I know that when I do something shakey or I'm in a dark room thinking about things dealing with all things spritual that there are times I'm worried that I'm going to open my eyes and be face to face with him. Seriously. Piss myself, confronting my worst fear worried. I have to convince myself that it's irrational and open my eyes and hope for all that is holy that rational is still in action. When I think about the mechanics of it all, though, I am beyond baffled how this even became a concept. Logically, the concept of a devil doesn't fit in with the rest of the message. I've been on the verge of lighting into someone going on about there being a devil and hell before because for the life of me I can never find the fairy-tale, scare the crap out of everybody, fire-and-brimstone passages that everyone refers to in the Bible. I've seen the words devil, Lucifer, hell, and damnation in the Bible. I can't seem to make the leap from those passages to what everyone says about the devil. I actually can't find too much talking about the war in heaven and how the devil is a bad guy other than two or three lines in Revelation and the story saying he was cast out of heaven for trying to rebel against the creator. Well, yeah, he's called the Father of Lies by Jesus, too, huh? But he's still a devine creation. He's still answerable to the Man (btw, why do gender-neutralists want the creator to be female, but nobody is clamouring to claim the devil in their gender set?). The devil has obviously been accused of some poor actions, and he's a deciever...I don't know, I guess. It all really wraps my brain in a pretzel, though.

Quote:
Well, I thought you meant -- are we "angry" about it now. And our natural inclination is -- yes -- unless we understand (as I tried to explain previously) that we have infinitely more in common with these deviant monsters than we do with God.

I can't comment specifically about feelings in heaven, or lack thereof, as the Bible actually says very little about it. There will be no sin, and all tears will be wiped away, etc. How that will be achieved is a mystery, and not really something anyone needs to spend time fretting over on this side anyhow. Our primary concerns here should be to accept the offer of salvation, then serve the Lord (who bought us at such a great price) in faithful obedience.

Actually, I was intending to talk about people's feelings here on Earth (that-was). I do understand that people *really* want to be on the good list, and a lot of them work really hard at doing what they have to in order to get there. I also know that I am not mankind's judge at the gates (and where in tarnation did *that* metaphor come from?). If the creator deems that Hitler did what was necessary to gain entrance then it is my place as a servant of the creator to accept that judgement. While I wouldn't remotely understand how it all worked, I would understand that there are a lot of things in the cosmic realm of the heavens that I have no way to even approach. I don't think I'd be angry, but I'd hope to someday understand, and maybe be disappointed that I don't in the context that I know the world as it is.

Quote:
Well, the basis for admission was already met. If you've truly received it, then your name's on the ticket. Only God knows our hearts, though, so only He knows if we've accepted the gift in faith, or if we're still trying to weasel our way in on our own merits (which definitely won't cut it). But the promise is there, and (as far as I can understand it) it's open to whoever would receive it. That sounds like a pretty good offer to me. Can't figure for the life of me, why I wasted so many years in rebellion, fighting against it. (Well, perhaps I could, but that's another story -- and it begins with one word: pride.)

This all falls in with most of the above message. I don't claim to know how it all works. I don't know how the other major religions in the world will do, since Jesus said that the only way to his Father was through him. I don't know where that puts Christians if we misinterpreted that line. I don't *want* all of the other kind souls of the world, past, present, and future, to suffer in the afterlife or after the rapture. Certainly not for not finding their path to the same historical figure that I do. I'm not particularly fond of missing the afterlife because they were right and I was wrong. The exclusion thing just seems so far off of everything that I want (yes, *I* want) the creator that I know to be. Then again, so do a lot of things that were brought up in these threads that almost made me enter the discussion earlier...

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:26 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:

The exclusion thing just seems so far off of everything that I want (yes, *I* want) the creator that I know to be. Then again, so do a lot of things that were brought up in these threads that almost made me enter the discussion earlier...

I don't see God as one to be excludin' people; that'd be rude.

ChrisisallJayne-like

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:03 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
For example, many, if not most, people who are raised in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic households are being told what is in their respective bibles before they can read. I will happily grant that they are told these things by people that *can* read, and even have seminary training (or its equivilent) and lots of experience in the topic.

Yes. The worse thing about contempory, non-bible-reading society is that it causes all of us start off with a whole lot of misconceptions. We know what we're taught at home or church (if applicable) -- a lot of times by well-meaning people who know nothing at all about the bible. We see and hear things in newspapers, magazines, radio and television which (for the most part) is in total contradiction to the true message of scriptures.

That's a lot of misconceptions to overcome -- misconceptions with which we are constantly bombarded.

I grew up in a home where the bible was read (but neither of my parents understood it, so both were innocently passing their misconceptions on to me). I also attended churches where it was taught, but often in blatant contradiction to what it actually said.

It had been so drilled into me, that by the time I actually started reading it seriously, myself, that it made even less sense to me, and I was totally confused --resisting the truth (which is plainly portrayed throughout the scriptures for anyone who bothered to actually study them for themselves -- as a whole, and not piecemeal) because it was not what I had been taught.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
Even after reading it, a lot of the context is pretty messed up.

Yes, if taken piecemeal. That's why it has to be read as a whole. That's not easy to do. Firstly, where do I start? What order? I can't answer those.

I do know, though, that of all the times I've read through the scriptures, the time I got the most out of it was when I read it completely through in three months. Mostly, because it's fresh, and you retain it better. When you read something in the middle that was mentioned at the beginning, you remember hearing about it previously, because you'd only just read that previous passage a few weeks earlier.

Granted, reading it all the way through over a short time span is not easy to do, and it takes a huge committment. Also, when reading large portions at once, there's the danger of skimming (particularly in portions where the scripture may be dealing with a subject which is of little or no interest to you). One thing you don't want to do is read it so that you're missing what it's saying. It's better to read two sentences a day and understand them, than read it all through in one sitting. That being said, each individual has to find a pace which is comfortable for them to understand what they're reading, while retaining what they've read when they come across another passage on it later on.

A bible with good study notes will help a lot, too, as passages are cross-referenced. Although I've found no bible whose study notes I fully agreed with, the best I've read to date is the "New Geneva Study Bible". It uses a good translation, the notes are conservative, and (for the most part) the cross-references very helpful.

As I've said previously, though, if you really want to study it you need a knowledge of Hebrew & Greek (which I'm lacking), or interlinears in both languages (Hebrew ones are very expensive) -- plus a good lexicon and concordance to look up the words. It could be very expensive and time consuming. Fortunately, I bought my interlinears more than a decade ago when I actually had money. (I could never afford them now.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
We don't know what is literal and what is figurative, but it's pretty universal that there is some of each. My point is, 2000 years after Christ (snip) we don't have a definitive answer to what the Bible is saying.

Yes. A brief study in hermeneutics will help a lot with the former. Most of it should be common sense, though.

One runs into trouble, though, when dealing in OT prophesy which has more than one meaning (they're really annoying to me for that reason). There are passages in the prophetic books of the OT which talk about things which were shortly about to happen (and did happen), and things which related to the first coming of the Messiah (which did happen, although centuries later), and things related to the end times (which have not yet happened).

The worse bits are those which refer to more than one period at the same time. For example, there are passages in Daniel which refer to things which would happen in the 400 years leading up to Jesus's first coming, but these events also parallel end time events which have not yet happened. That's really confusing.

How do we know that they cover two different periods? Well, the initial fulfillment of them is obvious from history (particularly in Daniel), and then Jesus aludes to those same prophesies when He's speaking of the end of the age.

My recommendation with prophesy is not to worry about it.

I'm sure some of it is in riddles because we're not meant to know until it's actually upon us, and then we'll say, "Oh, so that's what that means!"

Along that tangent, in Revelation 10:1-4, the apostle John hears something spoken from heaven, and as he's about to write it down, he's told not to. Naturally, that only makes us want to know what he heard even more. And it's about as irritating as a television cliffhanger.

Unless I paint an even more dismal picture of bible comprehension, I want to say that most of the bible (at least the bits we need to concern ourselves with in the here and now) are fairly easily understood when read in the context of the whole.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
That problem is compounded by the institution that created the Bible. A group of men with an agenda, even if it was the right one, decided what was going to make up the Bible over 400 years after Christ's death.

Actually, this is the easy part. You'll only run into problems with the canon of scripture if you listen to the nonsense that liberal theologians have been spewing out for the better part of the last 200 years. (If it were up to them, none of the bible would be believed, and none of the miracles recorded therein would have actually happened, and everything is figurative, and Jesus wasn't really God, and none of the bible is inspired, and so on. My response to that is, if one wants to go that path, why read the bible at all?)

There should be no doubts as to the verity of the Hebrew scriptures, firstly. They are essentially intact -- at least as intact as they were 2200 years ago (as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls -- and the Greek Septuagint). And most importantly to me (and to anyone who believes that Jesus was indeed God) is that Jesus endorsed the Hebrew scriptures of His day as being the authentic and inspired word of God. Even contrary to liberal theologians of our day (who deny Moses wrote the Torah), Jesus clearly identified Moses as the one who gave God's law to Israel -- and even that Moses wrote of Him (Jesus). That's good enough for me.

Unfortunately, the Greek New Testament isn't as rock solid in the books which were included in the canon. However, as all of the New Testament authors lived (and wrote) their books during their lifetimes (duh)(c.45-95 AD), and those books were regularly circulated throughout the body of believers contemporaneously, (as I've said here previously) a counterfeit would've easily been identified -- as all it would've taken for a fake Pauline letter to be debunked, would be for Paul (or even someone who knew Paul closely) to say, "Hey, wait a minute. Paul never wrote that. He's standing right over there. Ask him."

Granted, the canon was decided centuries later, but they chose to include the books which they knew (without serious doubt) had been around since the first century. The standard for inclusion in the canon was that the book had to be written by either an apostle or someone very close to an apostle (Luke, who wrote "Luke" and "Acts" worked with Paul; Mark, who wrote "Mark", worked with Peter). This criteria guaranteed an eyewitness account. No book written after the death of the apostles was therefore included in the canon (makes sense to me).

There are also three variations of Greek texts for the NT -- the Received, the Critical and the Majority texts. A good study bible, however (like the one I mentioned above) will footnote all of the textual variations -- most of which are very minor, and none of which have any bearing on doctrine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
At any rate, reading that book made me feel like Strobel was a bit of a charletan and it felt pretty insulting academically from the leaps of assumption he was making.

Okay. I didn't get that view. I particularly enjoyed his chapter on the manuscript evidence for the verity of textual accuracy of the scriptures (although I was already aware of most of what he'd presented in that chapter).

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I also whole-heartedly believe that the better part of the truth of theology is well beyond the comprehension of humans.

As I've said above, you'd be surprised. While there are obscure passages throughout, I think most of the scriptures are fairly straightforward, if read in context of the whole.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I actually can't find too much talking about the war in heaven and how the devil is a bad guy ...

There is only a very brief passage referring to it in Isaiah 14:12 through (at least) 15. After that, it's uncertain how many more of the subsequent verses are referring to the devil, and which are referring back to the King of Babylon (it may be one of those things where the passage is equally referring to both persons after that point).

Apparently, it's another one of those things which God felt wasn't necessary for us to know at this time.

The Lord seems more concerned with how we avoid the devil's snares, schemes and lies (to which a significant portion of the New Testament is dedicated), than with his origins and fall.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I don't claim to know how it all works.

That's what the Bible's for.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I don't know how the other major religions in the world will do, since Jesus said that the only way to his Father was through him.

Yes, Jesus was very unambiguous on that. And, I can perfectly understand how that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But, Paul (in Romans) elaborates in saying that even people who haven't heard the gospel are still accountable because the very creation, itself, testifies of the glories of God, and yet in the face of their obvious sinfulness, people still chose to deny Him. (I'm loosely paraphrasing, which I shouldn't do, so see Romans 1:18-22 for the actual wording.)

Prior to Jesus's coming, the Jewish sacrificial system (which God handed down through Moses) pointed towards that final redemption through the Lamb of God, and those who believed that God would someday provide what the animal sacrifices only symbolized would be covered by His blood (as was Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. and all who believed and trusted in the Lord for their salvation, even though they didn't understand how He would accomplish it at that time).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:33 AM

MIRAGE

One thing I don't understand is where other religions fit in. If you're not a christian does that mean you automatically go to Hell?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:45 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Mirage:
One thing I don't understand is where other religions fit in. If you're not a christian does that mean you automatically go to Hell?

This is a tough question, and the answers given in the Bible aren't very politically correct.

Jesus did emphatically state that He was the only way to the Father -- a tenant repeated throughout the scripture. But, (as I've said before) no one should take my word for this (or anyone else's -- either endorsing this belief, or contradicting it), but read the Bible for yourself (in context) to see if this is true.

But as I mentioned above, Paul also elaborated on the accountability of mankind in Romans, where he related how all people throughout time have had witness of God through His creation, but still have refused to glorify Him. (see Romans 1:18-32) There are many other passages, too, which I could site when I have more time (I can't spend much time in here today -- if you're interested, let me know, and I'll try to get them up by Monday.)

Because Jesus said so, and because I believe that Jesus is God -- then He is indeed the only way to God -- and that His sacfrice on the cross was the only thing that would pay for our sins.

However, Job is a perfect example of a man who was (more likely than not) redeemed -- yet Job lived before Jesus, (and as far as we know) even before God's covenant with Abraham*. (*I've already briefly explained in a previous post about how the Jews of the Old Covenant who looked forward to the Messiah's redemption were also covered by the blood of Jesus.)

So, how could Job be redeemed if Jesus's sacrifice was the only way, and he supposedly had no knowledge or prophesy at that time to promise his redemption?

I believe Job was saved because (as we all must) he recognized his sinfulness and inability to please God in his own merits, and just had faith that God would somehow (at some point in the future) provide a means to blot out his transgressions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:47 AM

MIRAGE

"But as I mentioned above, Paul also elaborated on the accountability of mankind in Romans, where he related how all people throughout time have had witness of God through His creation, but still have refused to glorify Him. (see Romans 1:18-32) There are many other passages, too, which I could site when I have more time (I can't spend much time in here today -- if you're interested, let me know, and I'll try to get them up by Monday.)"
Yeah I'd be interested in that.

You seem too say the Bible and Christ teachings say that non Christians can't be saved, but it comes across to me that you don't necessarily think that, is that right?

My own beliefs are somewhat personal, I believe in God, just not necessarily Christianity or any other organised religion. I also personally believe that God doesn't mind whether you worship or how you do it, as long as you live a good life. Maybe because that’s how I feel about it, maybe I'm anthropomorphising God too much in my own image, what do you think?

It's always good to get another POV on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:51 AM

CARTOON

Hi, Mirage. I'll get back to you when I have more time. This weekend is a bit hectic, but I will get back to you. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:39 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Mirage:
Yeah I'd be interested in that.

Okay. This may be somewhat lengthier than either of us would've liked, but it's the best I can do under the time (and knowledge) constraints I'm working with...

The passage from Romans (to which I’d previously alluded) states how mankind is guilty and without excuse before God “because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (To see the whole passage in a more complete context, see Romans 1:18-32.

The Bible also clearly teaches (in a multitude of places) that all men are lost and need to be saved. Two prominent passages which refer to this are Isaiah 64:5-7 and Romans 3:10-18 (the latter which incorporates a quote from the Psalms) -- as well as nearly all of the books of the prophets, which contain multiple condemnations on mankind for its sinful rebellion. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire 59th chapter of Isaiah vividly portrays how mankind has estranged itself from its Creator, then demonstrates how it displeased the Lord that there was no justice with mankind, nor a suitable intercessor for mankind, so that the Lord, Himself had to intercede if we were to be saved at all.

Establishing that all mankind is guilty of sin, the Bible then demonstrates that the wages (penalty) of sin is “death” (Romans 6:23) -- the Lord said as much in the garden -- that if mankind sinned, they would “die” (and be both physically and spiritually separated from Him, and subject to His wrath).

The Bible also clearly teaches throughout that mankind cannot save himself, and that God alone is the Savior. Isaiah is full of passages on the glorious saving nature of God (and how false gods are useless and unable to save man). Isaiah 45:18-22 is one of many which speak of God’s salvation (and the whole 46th chapter is only one of many which deals with false gods, and the Lord’s contempt for them).

Romans 3:10 - “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, mankind cannot be saved by “being good” or following God’s law. The law is merely a mirror to show us that we need cleansing, but not the tool of cleansing. James also reiterates this (in the second chapter of the book which bears his name) where he says “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all”. (see also Acts 13:39-39)

Fortunately, the Lord established a covenant with Israel that He would forgive the inquity of those who came to Him in repentance. Initially, that repentance was demonstrated through the annual sacrifices which Israel was required to make, thereby demonstrating their acknowledgement of their “need” for salvation.

But, as the NT points out, these sacrifices were merely shadows of the fulfillment of God’s promise to provide a Lamb that would take away the sins of those who believed on Him. Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of the “New Covenant” the Lord would establish with Israel, which would fulfill the promises of redemption only hinted at through their previous animal sacrifices, and pointing to the Lamb of God (the Messiah), who would come and pay the price of sin (total obedience to the whole law) and be a willing substitute for those who would, in faith, receive that gift.

The Old Testament has many prophesies which point to the Messiah, but some of the most obvious (and also most-quoted throughout the NT) can be found in Isaiah -- specifically 11:1-5, and the four “Servant” prophesies from 42:1-9; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; and 52:13-53:12 (also Jeremiah 33:15-16). A few other passages quoted in the NT about the Messiah are Micah 5:2 and Zechariah 12:10.

In the first chapter of the book of John, John the Baptist declares Jesus to be the promised Lamb of God, then Jesus, Himself, tells Nicodemus (a Pharisee) what men must do to be saved in the 3rd chapter of John (specifically John 3:3-21). It’s also curious that in this passage, Jesus also confirms the previous scriptural affirmations that all men need to be saved (particularly the “he who does not believe is condemned already…”). (The Greek rendered as “is” in the English, actually is more properly translated “has been” -- ie. “he who does not believe has been condemned already…”)

Jesus clearly taught that all men needed to repent (see Luke 13:1-5), then alludes to the forbearance of the Lord, whereby the Lord generously offers men a limited time to repent (Luke 13:6-9) -- and that “humility” was an essential factor of true repentance (see Luke 18:9-17).

In Matthew 7:13-23 (and also in Luke 13:22-30), Jesus explains to His followers how the way to Him (and salvation) is narrow, and that only a few will find it. Frighteningly, Jesus elaborates (in the Luke passage -- see above) that many will “say” they followed Him, but were never truly His -- as He warns throughout the gospels that false prophets and false teachers will come distorting His word, and offering counterfeit means of salvation (see John 10:1-18) -- which brings us to a major point of contention to many who aren’t believers in Jesus: the fact that Jesus also clearly taught that He was the only way to salvation -- John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

The Apostle Peter reiterated this claim in the 4th chapter of Acts, when addressing the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:12) -- “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (referring back to Jesus -- see verse 10). (see also Acts 10:43; 13:16-41 & 16:31)

Clearly, from Jesus’s own words (and those of His apostles who followed Him), He is the only way. How much knowledge and understanding of the offer of salvation does one have to have in order to come to Him in salvation? I cannot say. (see below**)

The scriptures teach that salvation is by grace, through faith in the Messiah who paid the price in our place -- and it cannot be earned, but is a gift which we must freely receive. (see Romans 3:28; 4:5-8; 8:1-6; 10:1-4, 9-13; 11:6; Galatians 3:10-14, 22-25; Ephesians 2:8-10; II Timothy 1:8-10; Titus 3:4-7)

Quote:
Originally posted by Mirage:
You seem too say the Bible and Christ teachings say that non Christians can't be saved, but it comes across to me that you don't necessarily think that, is that right?

**If the Bible says it, I do believe it. It's just that I can't say how much understanding one needs to be saved.

For example, Jesus told the thief on the cross beside Him that he would be with Him that day in paradise. How much understanding did that thief have? I don't know. But, the scriptures teach that one needs to firstly realize that we're lost because we've transgressed against God's holy law (which apparently the thief must've understood and acknowledged in his heart -- and repented of it), that we're helpless to meet God's standards or save ourselves (ditto), and believe by faith that Jesus was paying that price in his place (ditto).

Quote:
Originally posted by Mirage:
I also personally believe that God doesn't mind whether you worship or how you do it, as long as you live a good life. Maybe because that’s how I feel about it, maybe I'm anthropomorphising God too much in my own image, what do you think? It's always good to get another POV on the subject.

I can understand where you're coming from, as I believed the same way for many years. I was even taught as much at several different churches I attended. Unfortunately, that isn't what the scriptures say, and by the time I actually found that out, I'd been so saturated with preconceptions that were totally contradictory to what the Bible actually says, that I resisted changing the way I thought for a long, long time.

However, don't take my word that something is one way (or someone else's that it's another way), but read the scriptures and see what they actually say for yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2023 8:55 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

A never ending war cycle

Palestine Arab types, vs Jew Zionists and other fight Hamas and Gaza and West bank and Israeli military and expanding Jews, another massacre an attack on Jewish and other national groups during a concert and kidnappings
Israeli reponding, perhaps an overkill and far superior technology for war

The softer Jihad invasion of propaganda and pushing Sharia Laws, the Civilization’s Fifth Columnists, Open Borders and The True Face of Islam Manifests in the West

Why They Yell "Allah Akbar" When They Kill and Rape
https://jamieglazov.com/2023/10/17/glazov-gang-why-hamas-shouts-allahu
-akbar/

Harvard students standing in solidarity with Hamas. These creatures will soon infiltrate American business and government. Hamas and their minions in brain-addled American liberal institutions hate Jews, whites, and want them dead. The American political left has gone insane
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1714649651184587015

Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison’s chief of staff promotes pro-Hamas rally in Minneapolis
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/10/minnesota-attorney-general-keith-el
lisons-chief-of-staff-promotes-pro-hamas-rally-in-minneapolis

ONE MILLION Palestinian refugees – what could possibly go wrong?
https://barenakedislam.com/2023/10/18/one-million-palestinian-refugees
-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/

How CAIR and Western Islamists Responded to Mass Murder in the Name of Their Jihad islamo Religion
https://islamism.news/uncategorized/western-islamists-respond-to-hamas
-attack-on-israel/

What the Palestinian terrorists did to the Israeli families before they executed them in their own homes.
https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1714847625130762425

Dearborn: Muslim doctor celebrates Hamas massacre with ‘Oh what a beautiful day’
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/10/dearborn-muslim-doctor-celebrates-h
amas-massacre-with-oh-what-a-beautiful-day

Did elected official RashidaTlaib incite a pro-Hamas crowd to take over the Capitol complex?
This event interfered with legislative business and work.
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1714765476310466583
Should be a clear insurrection according to the J6 Committee

Old School Leftie Global Hippie Social Liberals Shocked by Young Leftists Cheering Hamas
https://time.com/6323730/hamas-attack-left-response/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE