|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 06, 2016 03:46 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:49, 06 Jul 2016.
|
Neraus said:
I don't get why you are all in a fuss on the term "nature's God", semantically it's correct to use it to refer to the God of the Bible, as God created nature, He's the God of mankind, of the universe, of the world and of nature.
So, grammatically, nature's God is akin to saying God of nature.
Then of course, the term is more linked to Deists, but it's not wrong for a Christian to use the term to refer to our God.
Well, every God is supposed to be nature's God, aren't they, Neraus. But the emphasize has a reason. We are all "drinkers" and we drink stuff, but if I call someone a drinker, I mean something else. The emphasis is about the difference between deistic and theistic cosmology here. Where as in one natural laws are never violated, in the other they clearly are sometimes.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 03:56 PM |
|
|
God of nature makes question... Is another ,,God"? God of Chaos? God of Death? God of Life? God of Order?
Beter is One God. God of everything. Of course God is God of nature. Not a perversions. It is true.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 04:01 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 16:39, 06 Jul 2016.
|
Well, technically Allah means God, and is used by Arabic Christians.
I could say, praise be to Allah... and then people would think I'm a muslim... But! I wasn't actually doing my praisings as a muslim, even though I used their term.
I'm also a drinker, in both senses.
I'm getting too humorous today...
EDIT::
@Baronus
Well, you can specify one of the realms upon which God rules, or, refer to God as the Lord, or, well, that's a point in Semitic theologies (for once I'll also refer to Islamic teachings, what have I become...) God has many names.
Before the revelation of the tetragrammaton God was referred to as Elohim for example. And it isn't uncommon in the psalms to refer to God as the Sabaoth, the Lord of the armies, or, as in common Catholic liturgy, Sabaoth as in God of the universe. In the common use another way to name God is to use the Highest.
Let's also not forget the 99 names of Allah for muslims.
Also, I couldn't not notice the Heroes IV factions. 
(Corrected the number of names)
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's also not forget the 90 names of Allah for muslims.
It's 99 actually and they are like adjectives listing his qualities, like el muheymin - the one who sees all, el cebbar - the one who has power to do anything, el hafiz - the one who protects... etc etc.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 06:56 PM |
|
|
Ok, some people seem to be unaware that the Bible, theologians. Christian philosopher's, Christian song writers, and Christians in general refer to God by many names, titles and descriptions.
When the Bible speaks of God, the God of life, the God of hope, the God of love, the God of salvation, the God of glory, the God of peace, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of comfort, the God of grace, the God of heaven and earth, and so on the Bible is not referring to different Gods. Such phrases emphasize different aspects of God or how God relates to people in general or how he related to specific person's in the past. There are well over a thousand ways the One God is revered to in the Bible.
Likewise, Christians of all walks in life refer to God in ways that relate to our lives. The idea that "God of nature" has to refer to a deist God is simply silly. Especially when you look at the very non-deist phrases in the DOI. The DOI simply is not a deist document. It describes a God who is active and who engages with man.
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 07:03 PM |
|
|
Allah is arabic word in english the same is God. Simple translation.
99 names of God is a result of poor people reason. We cant imagine God. In reality God is One and only One.
Gods justice is the same like Gods love. Justice = love = beauty = true = ... etc. etc. God = Love = Justice = etc.
Its only ONE GOD! God is One Idea all people ideas. Like Platon said about ideas.
...
HIV factions :-) M&M World is near Bible :-) Based on Tolkien. Big scientist, big writer and big christian :-)
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 07:27 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Ok, some people seem to be unaware that the Bible, theologians. Christian philosopher's, Christian song writers, and Christians in general refer to God by many names, titles and descriptions.
When the Bible speaks of God, the God of life, the God of hope, the God of love, the God of salvation, the God of glory, the God of peace, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of comfort, the God of grace, the God of heaven and earth, and so on the Bible is not referring to different Gods. Such phrases emphasize different aspects of God or how God relates to people in general or how he related to specific person's in the past. There are well over a thousand ways the One God is revered to in the Bible.
Likewise, Christians of all walks in life refer to God in ways that relate to our lives. The idea that "God of nature" has to refer to a deist God is simply silly. Especially when you look at the very non-deist phrases in the DOI. The DOI simply is not a deist document. It describes a God who is active and who engages with man.
That is simply repeating the same sentences disregarding all the counter arguments and simply ignoring the fact that the very person who used the phrase "Nature's God" and wrote the DoI was a deist and openly rejected the historical authenticity of the revelations. DoI is not a deist nor a Christian document, it's a constitution and not one based on any theological (or theocratic) motive. God (or nature) simply grants man some rights and equality in these rights. He is not actively participating in any earthly affair like he does in ancient texts, he is just a reference as the creator of what is considered a "natural state" in which people are equal and free. Someone who doesn't even believe in God at all can also think that man's natural state is equality and freedom and tyranny/hierarchy is artificial. A God granting this is not necessarily deistic but also not necessarily theistic, especially in the Abrahamic sense.
Jefferson did believe in a "Nature's God" in the deistic sense though, the term is strongly associated with deism and since he is the writer, it's not hard to guess the reason he preferred such an expression was his deism.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 05:16 AM |
|
|
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
In researching the Declaration of Independence and the phrase "the laws of of nature and of Nature's God" it has become quite clear to me that the phrase harkens back to the writings of John Locke. I had not realized how extensively the writings of Locke were lauded in the colonies and by the Founding Fathers.
Thomas Jefferson said Locke was as one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception."
Locke and Natural Rights
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson ranked Locke, along with Locke’s compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty. Locke helped inspire Thomas Paine’s radical ideas about revolution. Locke fired up George Mason. From Locke, James Madison drew his most fundamental principles of liberty and government. Locke’s writings were part of Benjamin Franklin’s self-education, and John Adams believed that both girls and boys should learn about Locke. The French philosopher Voltaire called Locke “the man of the greatest wisdom. What he has not seen clearly, I despair of ever seeing.”
PDF with DOI Locke quotes
The above link is a good PDF that shows places where the DOI &Constitution quotes Locke, founding fathers quoting Locke, and lots more relevant stuff. Below is one quote from The PDF.
Quote:
Years later, in 1825, Jefferson set forth certain of the recommendations of the Board of Visitors of
the University of Virginia, stating in "Political Science":
... It is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney
in his "Discourses on Government," may be considered as
those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and
the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of
the Government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, The Declaration
of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States .. . (naming others) . . . And that in the branch of
the School of Law, which is to treat on the subject of civil
polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the
school.
Quote:
Further similarities in phraseology could be shown, but it is
assumed that the above passages make the point. It has been said
that, in writing the Declaration of Independence, "Jefferson had
... succeeded admirably in condensing Locke's fundamental argument into a few hundred words."
Quote:
Those last words indicate that the words "the pursuit of hap-
piness" do not constitute a departure in the Declaration of Inde-
pendence from the property theories of Locke, but are, rather, a
delineation of "property rights" as Locke explained them.5 Locke
speaks of the property a man has in his person, by virtue of his
ability to make land more profitable by his labor.6 In Section 6
of the Second Treatise, Locke refers to the need for "the preser-
vation of the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods" of the indi-
vidual. Thus the reference even in the United States Constitu-
tion concerning "life, liberty, and property" can also be said to
have been taken directly from Locke.
There are some other references to Jefferson quoting Locke in the PDF. Lots of good stuff there. Now I have one final quote from the PDF.
Quote:
The Declaration of Independence, as drawn up by Thomas
Jefferson, was the final proof-if Englishmen needed any
proof-that the doctrines of John Locke could be made to
serve the purposes of revolutionists everywhere. . . The
American mind of 1776 was saturated with John Locke.
The Declaration frequently repeats even the phraseology of
the philosopher of the "glorious revolution .... ,
The God of the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Christian theologian John Locke. Not a deist God.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 08:37 AM |
|
|
That is really a desperate leap. Nothing you quote is theological but it's all about Locke's political philosophy. Locke is known as "the father of liberty." Living in the 17th Century, he was religious as one can expect but he is significant in history and important to Jefferson not because of his religious views, but because of his political views. Locke is still a key figure for many American libertarians today who are often atheists, his faith is certainly not his legacy. Even your own quote says "Locke helped inspire Thomas Paine’s radical ideas about revolution." Paine is a deist on a directly anti-religious level. Everybody knows the tabula rasa: the notion that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.
Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed people to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". Most scholars trace the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence, to Locke's theory of rights, though other origins have been suggested. Wills, Garry (2002), Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.
And btw, do you realize that the article I linked about Jefferson's deism, written by an American history professor who specializes in the subject, is actually titled "Who's Nature's God." Are you aware that when somebody writes a book arguing how the origins of the United States is not Christian, they NAME the book Nature's God. From reader comments:
- This may be more background info on the philosophical origins of deism and what it really meant to people at the time than you want, but if you're tired of Christians trotting out quotes from Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington that make them sound like evangelicals, you should make the effort to get through this.
Maybe, you should, too.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 09:31 AM |
|
|
|
Deism is only if you agree there is God, but you dont interesting religion. Fathers of US dont interesting religion? No practice? Im not from US i dont know, they practicing religion or not..
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 10:27 AM |
|
|
They don't all share an identical position, most of the prominent ones, including Jefferson who wrote the DoI, value religion's moral philosophy but reject the notion that God will violate natural laws and the historical authenticity of biblical scripture. Jefferson thinks that organized religion corrupted the teachings of Jesus. You can say that, to him, Jesus is more like Confucian figure. Or Franklin... when formulating his 13 virtues, he advises to be humble like Jesus and Socrates but he doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, just like he doesn't believe Zeus was throwing around thunderbolts.
They basically represent their age's intellectual transition, priorly deistic when it comes to cosmology but not absolutely stripped away from theistic tendencies. As politicians, they are not trying to build a society without religion but they are neither trying to build it from religion or around religion.
Btw, deism is not only when you exclude religion, any theistic God, part of an organized religion or not, who will contradict natural laws, intervene in daily life with a super-natural reach, is conflicting with a deistic cosmology.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by Baronus at 13:40, 07 Jul 2016.
|
Deism in dictionary:
Doctrine from XVIII century.
+ God created World right
- God dont drive World absurd
- No wonders absurd
- No revelations absurd
Deism is a people doctrine full of mistakes and erros. Faters of US was sim peoples.
As we see we must read Gods textes non people if we want true. Only Gods revelation is true. It is Evangelion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 07, 2016 02:19 PM |
|
|
It is ALSO people who claim X text is God's word.
This text is true because it's God's word because this text says its God's word is circular logic.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2016 08:23 AM |
|
|
markkur said:
Fred, just one question; "IF" God exists and did create the Universe and subsequently our Natural world we stroll, how exactly is God not the God of Nature?
sorry it took me so long to reply; i've been bouncing my head off the mentality of everyday americans. meaning, working.
so...
1. if god created the universe and everything in it, why would he just make up some dumb rules for only HUMANS to follow?
2. if god had it stated in the bible that the beasts of the earth(meaning, animals), are to serve human beings, then why are they more free to live than humans? the only rules that apply to animals, are the ones forced on them by humans. god himself/herself doesn't give them any such rules; they are free to do what they do naturally.
3. if god were actually caring about nature(which, according to you, is his creation), why would he let people snow it up so badly? doesn't it seem contradictory of a god, to let part of his creation(humans) continually destroy the part that keeps it alive(the planet's resources and environments)?
i mean, really. i can never understand the mentality of those who have faith in something that was written thousands of years ago. there are just so many holes in what the religious believe, that i have real trouble trying to see them as sane.*
*not that i see humans as particularly sane as a race anyway, but to me, religious people seem even LESS sane. i don't mean that as an insult, i state that because i am truly confounded that people feel the need to believe; be it in politics, media, religion, societal structure, you name it. i find it very difficult to relate to a mentality that thrives on delusion and ego(which i see in everything that mankind creates).
markkur, you realize that i don't dislike you, right? i bear you no ill-will at all. but i just cannot fathom how anyone could believe in so many things that contradict each other, that surpasses sheer fantasy, and even worse, that what they believe was written thousands of years ago. you DO realize that there are other texts written BEFORE the bible, right(and more after them, as well)? why do you think that so many people no longer follow most of them?
what do you, personally, feel about the progress that science has made, insofar as it's use to understand the planet we live on, markkur? do you feel that that knowledge gained, is in direct opposition to a text that was written thousands of years ago? would you say that society, as a whole, has progressed to a better point now, or regressed in some way?
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted July 12, 2016 11:38 PM |
|
|
Hello to everyone who can see this  .
I tried to read a whole thread, but with obviously reasons I have make a little bit timeout (r1 - I have a low English, r2 - I am bored..).
I feel I will regret about this decision, but I want to ask some question in common believers and non-believers in the Christianity.
Just I need to know what the Christianity exactly is, because if I have meet a priest (I saw this kind of peoples before...) and he/she will say me the thing, and must know about what the is going on.
1) Ho the Christianity explaining a life, I mean The God has created a human male/female, or males/females??? This happens a many time ago? Is there only source of the God words is The Holy Bible, there New Testament, Old Testament.. . The Bible has been wrote by the God himself?
2) The Holy Bible is a some kind of a Law, that explain to the peoples how to things must going on? I.E. if you are bad - after death you will be in Hell, or if you are good after death you will be in Paradise. ??? How actually the Paradise and Hell looks like?
3) What was before Christianity - Pagans stuff? Or what. What was right after Eva and Adam has been planted on the Earth? They were a Christians or Pagan religious related?
I have a much more questions, and I hope the Christians there can explain to me many things, I hope they are "skilled" with Christianity.
Thanx for the answers! frostyssh with all regards.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2016 02:58 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:03, 13 Jul 2016.
|
I will try to briefly answer your questions.
1) In beginning, God created all things material and immaterial. He is the First Cause of all things. God fills and transcends the universe.
God created one man & one woman to begin the human race. How long ago he did this the Bible does not say.
The Bible is a book about the redemption of man. When man sinned he "died" spiritually. His innocent spirit was now tainted with sin and his ability to hear from, understand, communicate with God was impaired. Also his relationship with fellow man suffered.
The Bible was written through the infallible inspiration of God. It has a number of human authors but the Spirit of God is the ultimate author.
The Bible is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament covers the time and covenants before Jesus Christ. The New Testament (Covenant) covers the life of Jesus Christ and the early years of the church he established.
questions under 2
The "Old Testament" is not as relevant to Christians as the "New Testament" is because the OT covers "Old Covenant" times including some things that were only intended for Jews in Israel.
The New Testament is the part of the Bible that is specifically Christian. Jesus established the New Covenant through his sacrificial death and resurrection.
The New Testament teaches us Jesus is God manifesting himself as a man. God has always been the ever-present Spirit but 2000 years ago he began to also exist as the man Jesus Christ without ceasing to exist as the Spirit. God existing as a man willingly died as judgement for our sin to make it possible for us to forever live with God. Jesus is today God existing as a glorified man.
You enter the New Covenant relationship with God by being "born again." The New Testament instructs one to repent of his sin, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and receive the Holy Spirit. To repent of sin is to agree with God that one's actions have been wrong and to resolve to forsake sin with the help of God. You ask God to forgive you of past sins and when you sin from that time forward you ask for forgiveness.
Jesus said what God expects of us is summed up as to love God with all we are and to love our fellow man as much as we love ourselves.
Hell is described as a place of torment and Heaven as a blissful place where we will know our God as deeply as He knows us.
questions asked under 3
The early history of man is not dealt with in detail by the Bible. Adam passed on teachings to his children. Some would surely follow them to a greater or lesser degree. So there were followers of God and there were pagans. By the time of Noah most of mankind had become very corrupt.
We know the people before Noah and before Abraham had certain teachings of God passed on from ancestors. We know the prophet Enoch lived during Noah's time but we have few details of what he preached.
God called Abraham out of a pagan nation and He learned to trust God and became a "friend" of God. Later the Law was given by God to Moses and Israel was formed. Most of the Old Testament covers the period of the Covenant delivered through Moses.
Christianity began when Jesus rose from the dead and "poured out" his Spirit on those who believed in him. His church. Christians are under the Covenant of Jesus. The New Covenant.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 13, 2016 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 20:15, 13 Jul 2016.
|
@fred79
Quote:
1. if god created the universe and everything in it, why would he just make up some dumb rules for only HUMANS to follow?
Too vague, expand a bit? O.T. rules? N.T. rules? I need to know the question before I can attempt an answer.
Quote:
2. if god had it stated in the bible that the beasts of the earth(meaning, animals), are to serve human beings, then why are they more free to live than humans? the only rules that apply to animals, are the ones forced on them by humans. god himself/herself doesn't give them any such rules; they are free to do what they do naturally.
“then why are they more free to live than humans?”
Animals are not free, they are bound to nature, instincts etc. and do not have the capacity to be human nor free. If you mean carefree, than I would agree. Animals are free from any restraint that does not jive with reproduction and survival.
Humans can destroy civilization and force themselves to “strip away all Humanities and live like animals”. However, that is, once again, not an Instinct void of our Humanity but a Humanity void of its capacity - ending with dehumanizing results, <imo> caused by disastrous selfishly choices by which I will call Sin. Sin as defined by the separation from God and therefore God’s children.
Quote:
3. if god were actually caring about nature(which, according to you, is his creation), why would he let people snow it up so badly? doesn't it seem contradictory of a god, to let part of his creation(humans) continually destroy the part that keeps it alive(the planet's resources and environments)?
I’ll explain my Faith on this point this way; Let’s say I build a glorious house for you and then I give it to you unconditionally. For that house to be truly yours, it means I am NOT going to come in and repair a leaky roof etc. unless “you ask me to help”.
What then happens, when you don’t consider me a friend anymore (if you ever actually did) and further, think I am to blame when the roof does leak?
If you don’t take care of that house “I gave you for free” and then worse, you decide to use the house as a weapons test-site because of a big fat-check and the effect is that it is wiped from the face of the earth, am I to blame for giving the glorious house to your care? or are you? for not using your brain and destroying the house under your very own feet?
Quote:
i mean, really. i can never understand the mentality of those who have faith in something that was written thousands of years ago. there are just so many holes in what the religious believe, that i have real trouble trying to see them as sane.*
People do not like the fact that Faith of some form or another is needed to be human. There are all kinds of things a person can believe in, I.e. Government types, Personalities, Political parties, Scientific Theories, Historical records and “Causes of all sorts”
Fred when have I sounded insane to you? I have been a Christian for 35 years and have read reams of books full of argument and from “all walks of life.” I did not come to the beginning of my Faith till the age of 25 and even then it only just started. Then and only then began my learning of two things; myself (all that means) and the What and the Why of all Human-history before me. After 35 years I am still maturing, still trying to improve the man I am not yet towards the man I desire to be.
Quote:
*not that i see humans as particularly sane as a race anyway, but to me, religious people seem even LESS sane. i don't mean that as an insult, i state that because i am truly confounded that people feel the need to believe; be it in politics, media, religion, societal structure, you name it. i find it very difficult to relate to a mentality that thrives on delusion and ego(which i see in everything that mankind creates).
I have a huge problem with the word Religious and how most people use the word today. Let’s look the definition:
(Noun) Man’s expression of his acknowledgment of the Divine - A system of beliefs of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred and uniting its adherents in a community.
Or; Adherence to such a system…minus the Divine.
Or; Something that has a hold on a person’s way of thinking, interests etc.
Religions are very different and today one word is used for all. In case you have not noticed because of Muslim-Radicals and their actions Christianity is also under fire. But let’s not dwell their because I want to make an important point about today’s Christianity…much of it is Counterfeit false teaching that does not follow Christ.
So, even within one community of Faith, there are serious issues today. I am not going into that topic now because I am writing something of length to be posted later. For my purpose here, I sum it up as Faith in Christ versus Faith in Fabrications for Greed. As I said I will explain that later.
Quote:
markkur, you realize that i don't dislike you, right? i bear you no ill-will at all. but i just cannot fathom how anyone could believe in so many things that contradict each other, that surpasses sheer fantasy, and even worse, that what they believe was written thousands of years ago. you DO realize that there are other texts written BEFORE the bible, right(and more after them, as well)? why do you think that so many people no longer follow most of them?
Fred, of course I know we are “faceless-friends of the internet type.” 
Nothing that I believe contradicts itself. However, to understand anything I say/explain you need a decent background to see my arguments. Hopefully my future writing/post will explain my positions on many things. Even though you are not an insider (so to speak) you are smart enough to follow my explanation and then see for yourself. (if you care to confirm)
As far as the age of texts, so what? The Greeks, Romans and a slew of other learning has been inherited by modern man and to his profit.
I cannot speak about all Religions and why people fall away today but I can speak about Christianity and will explain what I believe. Again, in my near-future post.
Quote:
what do you, personally, feel about the progress that science has made, insofar as it's use to understand the planet we live on, markkur? do you feel that that knowledge gained, is in direct opposition to a text that was written thousands of years ago? would you say that society, as a whole, has progressed to a better point now, or regressed in some way?
Well, that would take a book to answer but the most concise answer I can give is “Moderation is a lost art.” Moderation speaks to Control and frankly I think the more Excess has gained the upper hand in most venues of the human experience I think we have declined as a Civilization no matter how many toys we have in reach.
As far as the conflict between “My Lord & his teaching” and this World today, yes there is a serous conflict today. However, I will guess that few can see what is really at stake.
Fred I know that last statement and likely others will appear vague but I intend on answering all and some more issues. Some of your objections have been burning in me for years and I have finally reached a point where I can and should speak for the Lord I follow and that is why I starting writing something about Christ and the Modern Christian Church. Hopefully in a few weeks I will post my thoughts about many issues, good and bad.
<Lifts glass of water: Salute!
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted July 13, 2016 09:55 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
I’ll explain my Faith on this point this way; Let’s say I build a glorious house for you and then I give it to you unconditionally. For that house to be truly yours, it means I am NOT going to come in and repair a leaky roof etc. unless “you ask me to help”.
What then happens, when you don’t consider me a friend anymore (if you ever actually did) and further, think I am to blame when the roof does leak?
If you don’t take care of that house “I gave you for free” and then worse, you decide to use the house as a weapons test-site because of a big fat-check and the effect is that it is wiped from the face of the earth, am I to blame for giving the glorious house to your care? or are you? for not using your brain and destroying the house under your very own feet?
The way I see it, you gave me a house that was meant to break, and forced me to own it unconditionally. Then proceed to not return my calls, and wonder why I do not consider you my friend. But of course friendship is not what you really want, you want to be praised. Yes, praised, for this awful house you forced me to own.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2016 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People do not like the fact that Faith of some form or another is needed to be human. There are all kinds of things a person can believe in, I.e. Government types, Personalities, Political parties, Scientific Theories, Historical records and “Causes of all sorts"
That is a very very broad definition of faith. Not all opinion or devotion is similar to religious faith because they don't proclaim eternal infallibility or, statistically speaking, they don't spread mostly by cultural identity. So,
Quote:
As far as the age of texts, so what? The Greeks, Romans and a slew of other learning has been inherited by modern man and to his profit.
Yes, we still value them and learn from them but we also modify their content, criticize them and can correct them or partially disagree with them without contradicting a notion that they can never be corrected because they are eternally perfect. We still read Aristotales for his contributions to philosophy but we don't formulate the world by four elements just because he thought so. The problem with any monotheistic text is that it addresses a self-proclaimed omniscient entity as it's source. And while doing that it suggests a cosmology, ethics, social order, which by an unbiased reading is clearly limited both historically and culturally. The more direct cosmological dualities or bloody social contradictions may usually be a thing of the past today, at least in modern parts of the world. Because institutional religions had learned "their lesson" from the past, nobody wants anymore Galileo's and 'eppur si muove's, nobody wants witch burning or denominations slaughtering each other either, so one of the regular duties of the modern clergy is reinterpreting ancient texts and make them compatible with current scientific information and social norms. You have your "symbolical" verses or things that can mean 2 or 3 things in ancient languages or things which can be stretched out as metaphorical stories etc. In modern theology, they are all semantic tools of cherry-picking. But can one still say:
Quote:
In case you have not noticed because of Muslim-Radicals and their actions Christianity is also under fire.
Not exactly. First of all, religion had been "under fire" for centuries now, and the conflict was much harder in the past. If we only focus on today though, while it is true that radical Islam makes many people aware where blind faith can lead individuals or even communities, and gives them an edge against religion in general, there is no categorical difference in the claims of omniscience or infallibility, regarding the two religions. If because of cultural tradition or transcendental experience or a combination of both, (which btw, can be explained much better by simple natural tendencies and psychological needs), someone claims that the Red Sea had divided into two to let a group of people pass or gays should not be married or stem cell research should stop even if it has the potential to cure cancer because "cells also have souls," what's happening in principle, is not extremely different than radical Islam. The only difference is, it's happening in a smaller scale and in the world of modern, Western Christianity, the radical believers are a social minority now, who have less impact, influence and legitimacy. They are not in control. However, even under such conditions, we can still see extremely irrational behavior such as denying mainstream science (evolution "debates"), sticking to an ancient code not because it is intellectually virtuous or still sensible but because it was "commanded that way" (condemning sex out of wedlock between consenting adults), embracing ethics that is based on group identity rather than merit (ones who are non-believers will go to hell) and so many more.
And while "believers" of all government types, personalities, political parties, scientific theories, historical records and causes of all sorts usually have no problem with the notion that their opinions should be convincing and reasonable to be valid or at least admissible, somehow religious people usually go with this lovely "only the ones in my tent can see the emperor's new clothes." (The tent analogy is yours.)
Gryphs said:
markkur said:
I’ll explain my Faith on this point this way; Let’s say I build a glorious house for you and then I give it to you unconditionally. For that house to be truly yours, it means I am NOT going to come in and repair a leaky roof etc. unless “you ask me to help”.
What then happens, when you don’t consider me a friend anymore (if you ever actually did) and further, think I am to blame when the roof does leak?
If you don’t take care of that house “I gave you for free” and then worse, you decide to use the house as a weapons test-site because of a big fat-check and the effect is that it is wiped from the face of the earth, am I to blame for giving the glorious house to your care? or are you? for not using your brain and destroying the house under your very own feet?
The way I see it, you gave me a house that was meant to break, and forced me to own it unconditionally. Then proceed to not return my calls, and wonder why I do not consider you my friend. But of course friendship is not what you really want, you want to be praised. Yes, praised, for this awful house you forced me to own.
You don't even have to come to that, to see the world (or universe) as a gift to mankind is an extremely archaic and self-centered idea. It maybe made sense back when we thought the world was the center of a not so big universe (the land, the sea and the sky above with tiny little stars!) and everything in it was put there for us to feed or tame etc. But both ecologically and cosmologically, it makes zero sense now. On a cosmic scale, we are really very very very insignificant in time and space.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted July 13, 2016 10:38 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 22:38, 13 Jul 2016.
|
artu said:
Gryphs said:
markkur said:
I’ll explain my Faith on this point this way; Let’s say I build a glorious house for you and then I give it to you unconditionally. For that house to be truly yours, it means I am NOT going to come in and repair a leaky roof etc. unless “you ask me to help”.
What then happens, when you don’t consider me a friend anymore (if you ever actually did) and further, think I am to blame when the roof does leak?
If you don’t take care of that house “I gave you for free” and then worse, you decide to use the house as a weapons test-site because of a big fat-check and the effect is that it is wiped from the face of the earth, am I to blame for giving the glorious house to your care? or are you? for not using your brain and destroying the house under your very own feet?
The way I see it, you gave me a house that was meant to break, and forced me to own it unconditionally. Then proceed to not return my calls, and wonder why I do not consider you my friend. But of course friendship is not what you really want, you want to be praised. Yes, praised, for this awful house you forced me to own.
You don't even have to come to that, to see the world (or universe) as a gift to mankind is an extremely archaic and self-centered idea. It maybe made sense back when we thought the world was the center of a not so big universe (the land, the sea and the sky above with tiny little stars!) and everything in it was put there for us to feed or tame etc. But both ecologically and cosmologically, it makes zero sense now. On a cosmic scale, we are really very very very insignificant in time and space.
I am aware. It is just I am arguing from a perspective similar to his. If you do not I find, from experience, (No disrespect to markkur) that Christians have a tendency to dismiss the argument.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
