|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
posted November 29, 2015 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
what does a Christian exactly mean when he says that the Bible is the word of God?
Exactly that Artu. We don't have a lecture from God we had witnesses that recorded events around Christ. An also there is not near the dispute about who wrote what in the N.T. or even when the texts were written. The fact is 12 men did not forsake all and suffer incredible hardship for a BS story. Thinking otherwise is...nevermind.
There is another aspect behind the scenes; my Faith (and every Christian I know) is a supernatural experience, therefore it is NOT possible for me to explain everything in any easy way. i.e. When Jesus said; "The Blind will see and those that think they see are made blind" and later Paul said "will appear foolishness" to non-believers, nether were joking.
Artu, you must come inside the tent, before you can see the inside of the tent. Sorry, not trying to be mysterious or difficult at all, it's just the way it is and I cannot do anything to change that fact. When I was 25 I thought "bible stuff was living in past" etc. But soon after an event happened to me that rocked my world view and I have never been the same.
Anyway, this is a thread "about Christianity" and that pre-supposes God. I'll sign off now, I did my sage-bit by adding some thoughts for believers to consider.
"May Love rule you" to believers and "Good fortune" to non-believers.
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2015 04:42 PM |
|
|
@artu, what makes Bible the Word of God you ask. In Bible, God who is a creator who makes everything by words: God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. In New Testament it's explained even clearer. In beginning of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Bible tells us that Jesus where the Word of God and where send from heaven to earth, incarnated. Now that Jesus is God in flesh, he's teaching are directly the will of God (the Word of God). Jesus had a mission besides words and good deeds as an example. The main reason he came was the crucifixion. Been both man and a God at the same time. He was punished, made as a sin behalf of all humankind that we could get redemption. Only God can forgive sin and He made that so we could stand before God whitout sin as he has carried it to the cross.
Jesus rose from the dead and as He had promised: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you. [John 14:26] God 'third person' if you will where send to earth, to beliavers. That same Spirit has given the apostoles authority breach the God's word. Everything in New Testament is written whit influence of Holy Spirit there for it's all will of God. The same Holy Spirit is given today to beliavers to understand the scriptures and to do the will of God in everyday life.
The Bible canon is collection of earliest christian writings. They almost all knew Jesus personally exeptions maybe Paul and Luke. They are the most trusted source and well-preserved, qumran findings are proves of that. I have read writings of 'disciples' of apostoles and they are good reading but they don't add anything importan, canon is sufficient.
In Old Testament times mainly prophets only had the Spirit of God. Prophets teached what's the will of God to people of Israel. Even then God speaked to it's people tough lot has changed after Jesus came. Only by accepting Lord Jesus as your savior you will grasp the beautiful plan our God had store for us. How we understand these things, by fate alone.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
Svartzorn
Known Hero
Dead struggling with death.
|
|
posted November 29, 2015 10:39 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Sorry Svatzorn, I mistook you for another member from a previous Catholic/Orthodox debate. Ok, so you're an exception to the rule and you are a minority in your country in terms of religion. That hardly changes the fact that almost everyone who is religious end up in their particular religion because of social circumstances though. You're from Brazil, why do you think "Latin" America is mostly Catholic and Northern America is mostly not? Because, it was the Spanish who invaded the South and they were Catholics. And how many of you would be Christians today if historically Rome (the Empire) didn't convert to it by a very coincidental decision by Konstantin, resulting in Christianity to be the major religion in Medieval Europe? You don't reach 20, study hundreds of various religions from all over the world and go "hmm, this one's it." It's mostly about how you're brought up and what is presented to you.
And when it comes to what Christianity is about, it may not be about discussing Bible verses to you, it can be about spirituality or family tradition or psychological comfort, people become religious out of many reasons. Yet, when one member of a communion says to the other one "our interpretation is more accurate than yours," the number one source to justify that claim would be the Bible, obviously. And what I said was, in most cases both parties can find verses that seem to support their understanding of what Christianity truly is. It's not like you're reading a contract with clear-cut directions.
Also wrong on the assumption you're making about catholicism and my country. Catholicism has been in downfall for a great time. SA is not exception. Most people are turning to protestantism and most catholics already think like protestants.
I do think history and the environment play a role, but it's not as strong as you're trying to make, as if faith was imposed to people, it's really not like that. Not to mention, christianity has a long tradition of respecting free will.
The fact that the world has so many religions is an argument favouring the absolute, not against it. I do believe, as I mentioned, that other religions hold fragments of the truth. I just believe orthodox christianity to hold the absolution of it.
I became a christian to cultivate a tradition and to reach God. That's pretty much the fundamental reasons. People who look for religion for comfort are fools. Religion is not a convenience.
The Bible is not the number one source. The number one sources are tradition, patristics AND the Bible. The fact that I've chosen orthodox christianity is not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of faithfulness.
But I do agree grasping the proper sense of evangelical tradition is not a simple task.
Besides, there is no point in talking about those "what if" hypothesis you're making. The romans may have not adopted christianity, but they did, that's what matters.
As for the Bible, it's understood as God's word, as HOLY Scripture, because the ones who have written it did so through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit being saints themselves.
homer171 said:
(...)
Yes, Bible says Jesus is the new Adam, nothing of Mary being new Eve. She is blessed, glory be to God.
Yes, saints got the power to heal, deliver and all that but they did it in the name of Jesus. I have prayed whit people also myself. The point was, when praying we ask God to heal in Jesus name and not Mary because she is not God, nor are the saints. We should pray on others behalf but whom we ask responce, only God.
Third point was the main thing. My source comes from the Bible alone and all traditions, teachings what Jesus and Apostoles gave. Everything what came later than 1st century, i don't take in count. I have read church history but only for knowlage. So the traditions, the way we should practice our religion is the same as in New Testament, alone. That's my view.
Almost every single word i said misunderstanded. Is it really that hard to grasp what i try to say
The Bible doesn't need to say that: the correspondences are obvious. The Bible is not exhaustive, I cannot say that enough.
You're slowly grasping what it means to ask the intercession (not the intermediation) of the saint. You'll get there eventually.
About the third point: you can't interpret Scripture without Tradition. I have mentioned the orders of Saint Paul, but Saint Peter also says that, even more explicitly:
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2nd Peter 1:20)
There's no point in dismissing what comes after the 1st Century... the Bible comes after the 1st Century and you seem very attached to it. Christ gave us his assurance that the Church would remain whole: "upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:19). So... what's the excuse? Veneration of the saints and their intercession, the vereration of the Most Holy Theotokos, venerations of Icons (images)... those all come BEFORE the 1st century and you reject them.
I'm really struggling here to understand your point.
____________
Death to the world.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2015 11:20 PM |
|
|
Svartzorn said:
Not to mention, christianity has a long tradition of respecting free will.
Ok, enough is enough.
Christianity doesn't even know what free will means, not to mention respecting it.
Christianity likes to explain the absence of god in worldly dealings with "free will" He have humans - alas, he's not respecting it. Someone who really wants someone else to love him doesn't go, "hey, I realy want you to love me as I love you, but of course you are free to reject my love - but understand, in that case I can't do anything for you; go to hell."
That's not how loving fathers deal with their kids, and "you do this or else" has nothing to do with free will. At all.
Following that tradition, christianity has fought very hard to actually suppress free will. Be it Christian missionary missions, not shying away from genocide, be it Catholics trying to kill "heretic" "protestants" or being protestants not suffering anything else beside that.
No, free will is just a learned phrase Christians like to throw around - even though this is isn't an exclusively Christian problem, but a general problem of a believe in one absolute being.
Free will is a difficult to maintain concept in the face of absolute values. If there really was an absolute being like this supposed god, the free will of insignificant subjective mortals is completely irrelevant. What can such an absolute being gain from dealings with the imperfect - and why would a perfect, absolute bing create something so imperfect like us?
Back to the start. How can you love someone who says, "love me, or else"?
Answer: You CAN'T!
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted November 29, 2015 11:43 PM |
|
|
Free will and fate are just two extremes for me.
I prefer to say limited will. Because I believe in God.
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2015 11:53 PM |
|
|
Svartzorn you are slowly getting to understand me 
You can have your icons and Theotokos traditions all you want, the reason why i reject most tradition after the first century is that paganism has influenced some of it.
Even if Bible is canonised after the 1st century it's context is from that time and is therefore the safest and everything is unchanged from the surrounding world. Of course church developes, only natural but it's not always been in right direction, this is same whit all nominations.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 12:09 AM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 00:10, 30 Nov 2015.
|
JollyJoker said:
Svartzorn said:
Not to mention, christianity has a long tradition of respecting free will.
Ok, enough is enough.
Christianity doesn't even know what free will means, not to mention respecting it.
Christianity likes to explain the absence of god in worldly dealings with "free will" He have humans - alas, he's not respecting it. Someone who really wants someone else to love him doesn't go, "hey, I realy want you to love me as I love you, but of course you are free to reject my love - but understand, in that case I can't do anything for you; go to hell."
That's not how loving fathers deal with their kids, and "you do this or else" has nothing to do with free will. At all.
Following that tradition, christianity has fought very hard to actually suppress free will. Be it Christian missionary missions, not shying away from genocide, be it Catholics trying to kill "heretic" "protestants" or being protestants not suffering anything else beside that.
No, free will is just a learned phrase Christians like to throw around - even though this is isn't an exclusively Christian problem, but a general problem of a believe in one absolute being.
Free will is a difficult to maintain concept in the face of absolute values. If there really was an absolute being like this supposed god, the free will of insignificant subjective mortals is completely irrelevant. What can such an absolute being gain from dealings with the imperfect - and why would a perfect, absolute bing create something so imperfect like us?
Back to the start. How can you love someone who says, "love me, or else"?
Answer: You CAN'T!
Enough is enough also for me, away with the concept of a hell of suffering for unbelievers, for hell is their paradise, did you know that hell is actually the heavenly realm where God won't act in any way, for one that rejected God to stay in the same place as Him it would be a great torture, but alas, demons and satan also went to hell for their rejection of God, and as such they'll bully the poor atheists.
Sinners reject God in another way, not adhering fully to His love and as such giving precedence to other worldly things, their suffering is to know that what they loved so much was nothing but a feeble thing.
Hell is a place of suffering basically for the lack of God, then there are also other reasons.
Your beloved heretic Protestants, by the way, had suppressed Catholics in their country, in England or Sweden a Catholic couldn't hold any administrative career, and when somebody tried to lift such a restriction it was voted down by the protestant majority, the poor pagans were genocided by Charlemagne, who in turn was reprimanded heavily by bishops for such an act.
Our knowledge of Paganism comes from not fully converted pagans, who weren't forced to convert.
Sicilian Muslims were allowed to stay and continue to practice their religion without restriction, Muslims who will later educate a Christian Emperor, Frederick II Hohenstaufen.
What about the Jesuits and Dominicans who defended the Indios from the Conquistadores?
And I'm forgetting all those poor Jews defended by the Pope during WWII.
As you can see two can play that tango, you can bring examples of individuals not respecting the free will of another while I can give you examples of other individuals valuing the free will of the other, but people don't care anyway.
And by the way, why compare the doings of parts of an organization, when they weren't sanctioned by the whole of it?
And finally, the doings of man aren't related to the doings of God, comparing what some colonizers did to some natives won't indicate the will of God.
By the way, you're correct about this, why should God value our freedom of choice, yet He does, for we are lesser than ants at the feet of giants compared to Him, he doesn't need you, so that's why he'll let you choose, basically, he's not a control freak, if you ask why he should value our freedom of choice I'll ask you why should he care of what we do then.
Homer171 said:
You can have your icons and Theotokos traditions all you want, the reason why i reject most tradition after the first century is that paganism has influenced some of it.
Like what, did you know that actually Christmas isn't a Roman holiday?
Yep, that's actually based on calculations, long story short the high priest Zacharias was given the revelations that his son, John the Baptist was concieved, so nine months later, in June, the baby was born, and, since John the Baptist and Christ had 6 months of separation actually the 25th of December has a certain explanation.
And since I'm late I will be writing the full explanation tomorrow.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 12:34 AM |
|
|
Thank you JollyJoker finaly some strong opinion.
I try to explain the free will and love consept a bit. New Testament is full phraces like: God first loved us. My one favorite ones are: He loved while we still where sinners! No oblication there. What that love did? He went to the cross that you might found his love JollyJoker. He truly, deeply loves us all, but what good is to know or hear that God is loving, unlesh you get it for yourself? It's the love that changes us. God does not ask your love, he asks that you become loved and in his love transformed willingly.
Free will is often talk when we speak, why they are bad men and evil in the world if God is good, why make evil? If we don't have opinion to reseave the love of God there would not be free will. Why evil then? Because God's one mighty angel called Satan turned against God for pride. After eating the apple, the human sould it's 'ownership' to the Satan. Human cave it willingly and God can't take us back forcefully because that would not be justified. We are forced to live in darkness and there can't be any light until God himself make it right. The light what shines from the cross of calvary is the only thing what can make your soul pure. When God asks of you to follow Him, you either obey or don't, God respects your freedom of choice. Even when walked long path whit God you may ask yourself, is there really a point in all this madness in life, why don't just throw all away, but then again the Love of God is so pure, so touching, yes it's deffinetly something to keep hold on. Everything else fades but the love of God substains forever, love never fades.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 01:55 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 02:00, 30 Nov 2015.
|
Neraus said:
Like what, did you know that actually Christmas isn't a Roman holiday?
if i'm not mistaken, the christians took every pagan holiday, and made it their own, because they were against paganism. for every season there is a solstice, and a special day, according to the pagan calendar. christmas falls under the winter solstice.
but that's all besides the point, really. as you have stated, people have used many religions to push their own agendas on others. the christian missionaries always push christianity wherever they go, as the price for their help. from what i understand, that's not very christian of them. true christians will help someone regardless of their faith.
the base of all these flaws is humanity itself. religion only helps that along, in my opinion. it caters to an grandiose sense of self-worth. it postulates that human beings were created by a god or gods, and are meant to serve a god or gods(agendas), and that everything else is meant to serve humans(ego-stroking).
religion, all religion, is irresponsible. it's many different sets of guidelines for people to follow, and most only follow what they feel like following. religion and faith cannot hold up under scrutiny, it will falter; because it is largely illogical. arguments(either with religion vs religion, or religious vs non-religious) will run in circles, with no one getting anywhere with one another.
you either have faith or you don't. you choose which religion to follow, or you don't. it all comes down to a matter of choice. what the religious tend to forget, is that through their faith in THEIR religion, they are damned to hell(or a facsimile of) in ANOTHER. and since people like to believe in fantasies by whatever name(religion, gods, politicians, leaders, laws, societal structure, whatever), nothing will ever change. because nothing is really being scrutinized. nobody wants how things are, to change. they see it as necessary.
and why? because it strokes their ego, and tells them that everything will be ok, regardless of reality.
(edited for spelling errors)
|
|
Svartzorn
Known Hero
Dead struggling with death.
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 01:56 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Svartzorn said:
Not to mention, christianity has a long tradition of respecting free will.
Ok, enough is enough.
Christianity doesn't even know what free will means, not to mention respecting it.
Christianity likes to explain the absence of god in worldly dealings with "free will" He have humans - alas, he's not respecting it. Someone who really wants someone else to love him doesn't go, "hey, I realy want you to love me as I love you, but of course you are free to reject my love - but understand, in that case I can't do anything for you; go to hell."
That's not how loving fathers deal with their kids, and "you do this or else" has nothing to do with free will. At all.
Following that tradition, christianity has fought very hard to actually suppress free will. Be it Christian missionary missions, not shying away from genocide, be it Catholics trying to kill "heretic" "protestants" or being protestants not suffering anything else beside that.
No, free will is just a learned phrase Christians like to throw around - even though this is isn't an exclusively Christian problem, but a general problem of a believe in one absolute being.
Free will is a difficult to maintain concept in the face of absolute values. If there really was an absolute being like this supposed god, the free will of insignificant subjective mortals is completely irrelevant. What can such an absolute being gain from dealings with the imperfect - and why would a perfect, absolute bing create something so imperfect like us?
Back to the start. How can you love someone who says, "love me, or else"?
Answer: You CAN'T!
Man was born with free will, and he chose to distance himself from God.
That's quite literally the first thing you read in Genesis, so I really donno what you're talking about.
Hell is not a place created by God. It's a distortion of his creation that came to be with the fall of Lucifer and other evil angels. It's simply a state of soul beings choose for themselves. It's a place in where God's goodness, virtues and love are non-present, thus its current depiction.
So there's really no such thing as "or else". Hell is a consequence of a choice we and other beings make: distancing ourselves from God.
God doesn't condemn anyone to hell, we condemn ourselves through our free will.
Uuuh... God's pedagogy has a lot to do with free will, since it shows the consequences of bad choices, stuff we all have to deal with in our lives.
Who told you we are insignificant? Christian tradition says we are his prime creation, object of his most intense love. does that sound irrelevant to you?
God does not want to gain anything from us. He doesn't need anything from us. He made us and has established a relationship with us because he loves us. You just don't want to accept that fact because you don't love him back, thus you feel discomfortable when people mention him or his love.
I know that feeling. It's like someone who really cares for you wants to hug you and nourish you, but you're full of anger at that person.
Multiply that feeling for a 1000 and you'll get a notion of what hell is.
As for good and evil, we can always go back to St. Augustine and see for ourselves that there's no such thing as "evil" in christian tradition. Evil is non-existing, it's just the lack of good that we perceive and call "evil".
The manicheists were also defeated.
Homer171 said:
Svartzorn you are slowly getting to understand me
You can have your icons and Theotokos traditions all you want, the reason why i reject most tradition after the first century is that paganism has influenced some of it.
Even if Bible is canonised after the 1st century it's context is from that time and is therefore the safest and everything is unchanged from the surrounding world. Of course church developes, only natural but it's not always been in right direction, this is same whit all nominations.
That makes no sense. Christ guaranteed that hell wouldn't prevail over the Church. You're basically saying his promise is void.
You're basically saying that the gates of hell, through paganism, were able to overcome christian teaching. That's antibiblical, it contradicts Christ's promise.
As I mentioned, the veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God and of icons come from the primitive Church. St. Luke was the first iconographer.
The scriptures may have been compiled with texts written in the 1st century, but the decision of what's canon and what's not came in the 3rd or 4th century. Your argument simply doesn't sustain itself.
If you want to embrace only primitive christianity, you have to embrace icon veneration and the veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos - AND REJECT THE BIBLE.
That position makes no sense. Might as well follow the tradition which connects all those elements, present at the Orthodox Church.
____________
Death to the world.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 03:54 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
and why would a perfect, absolute bing create something so imperfect like us?
Well, you will likely shut your mind to this too; with "fully-alive" in mind, I believe this world IS a perfect place, even with all the catastrophic natural events etc.
<imo> If God does exist he (the existence) is brilliant. I was like most people and thought what a mess this earth is and how unfair, horrible etc. But the reason the earth is, (I agree with you here) is US. How you can not see that Free-will is hugely important to "actually living" I don't understand, without it you are a robot and that is not life at all. We are told to strive for perfection and if it is a goal we can evolve in our control and understanding of our incredible creativity and imagination.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 04:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:37, 30 Nov 2015.
|
Neraus said:
First of all, you're seeing this in absolutes, Catholics and Orthodox are extremely more similar in nature than Protestants, and you'll see there are far more similarities between the first two than with the last.
Who are you to say that I didn't follow a rational path to decide? Just because I was born in Italy doesn't mean I'm automatically a Catholic, here in Sicily we have a significant Orthodox portion, some scattered Protestant communities, and a Muslim population.
By chance my family was Catholic, but in my younger years I was a Catholic just by name, but I believed in fallacious doctrines and I was even ready to deny certain truths.
Then I discovered the Middle Ages, I started digging up on that culture, saw the predominance of Catholicism in Europe and studied more what being a Catholic meant.
Long story short, from a young boy who thought that sin is relative I now believe is something absolute with possible attenuants that will always be decided by God and not by us, from liking the music in Church to despising it for its lack of depth etc...
Ask anyone from my home town, they don't believe these same things, yet they are called Catholic too.
The Orthodox and the Catholics having more similarities compared to Protestants is totally beside my point, so I don’t know why you feel the need to mention it but I agree to that, they both have a institutional Church defining itself as the authority on theological matters and claiming to be universal which is very different than Protestants.
Naturally and obviously, I’m not suggesting all religious people are totally brainwashed robots directly copy/pasting their parent’s faith. Of course, you will have phases, doubts, change of opinion about details etc. But if you are suggesting that you ending up a Catholic had nothing to do with where you’re from and it was a comparative decision, checking out all major religions of the world, I’ll just shrug. Yes, some people are just culturally religious and others dig more, but most of the time -and we’re not talking about 51.3% percent kind of most of the time here- really, most of the time, the religion they decide to dig is their traditional one. I already explained there can be exceptions and I didn’t suggest environment is an absolute determinant. It’s you who’s carrying my emphasize to an absolute, not me.
Neraus said:
True, people adhere for various reasons, and true, some are more strict on the Bible than others.
As I've said earlier the language of God is an obscure one, to maintain the possibility of choice, if God valued so much your freedom of choice would He go down and appear to everybody with the truth of all things clear and understandable, that would force everybody to worship Him since at that point we're absolutely certain of His existence and we know for certain that He said so and so.
As such, interpretations are necessary in this work, unfortunately, but that isn't a reason to be unfaithful.
That is just a very common example of religious people stretching logic to try to bring an explanation about why their God isn’t more direct in showing himself. Being direct does not interfere with free will at all (which is a very questionable concept to begin with, in many cases, we only have the illusion of free will, but that’s for another thread.) I don’t lose my ability to decide when something is lucid, imagine someone presenting this argument for any information: Sir, we could have presented you with the exact distance of moon with clear evidence but we’ll just riddle it a little bit and blend in some abstract symbolism, so if you decide to believe us, it will be by your free will!
And you don't need an extra reason to be unfaithful.
Neraus said:
The whole point of making the canon was to exclude books that were either incorrect or contradictory, the very reason the 4 sinoptic gospels were included in the canon was because they were written in a time close to that of the life of Christ, so that they were coeval and correct (or in the case of St.John's gospel, written through divine revelation) and at the same time were coherent with one another, unlike some unaccepted gospels or books.
If things went differently, it's true, the story itself would change, but Christ is always Himself, and as such He would have said other things accordingly to the situation and so the message wouldn't change anyway, but the story would.
There is also the fact that bishops were appointed by the Apostles, so they should be extremely knowledgeable about the Bible, due to tradition, so they should have at least known a good part of the story, since we are now including the oral transmission of the Gospel.
So, this canon has the highest probability of being correct, but, like I said, there is no clear cut, and that's part of faith, unless you believe that God forces you to worship him.
markkur said:
We don't have a lecture from God we had witnesses that recorded events around Christ. An also there is not near the dispute about who wrote what in the N.T. or even when the texts were written. The fact is 12 men did not forsake all and suffer incredible hardship for a BS story. Thinking otherwise is...nevermind.
There are many inconsistencies even between the four synoptic gospels the was selected to begin with, I already linked a book written by -a once-devoted Christian- scholar who is a theologian, presenting them in great detail. I mention only him, so that you can check out the pdf yourself comparing it to the four books, doing a horizontal reading. He’s not a marginal scholar in his field, the vagueness and unclarity about the true biography of Jesus is accepted today, even among Christian scholars. There is no scientific historicity based on proper documents, it’s all hear-say of the time and many variations on the same theme not different than other ancient stories of oral transmission of that age. It even happened to actual kings back then, legends took over the real stories, why should this be any different. To call it a BS story wouldn’t be exactly fair, it was how people told the news back in the day, to exaggerate, to blend in the super-natural was the norm. People explained everything with the super-natural and it was THE way of expressing something was important for them.
Svartzorn said:
Also wrong on the assumption you're making about catholicism and my country. Catholicism has been in downfall for a great time. SA is not exception. Most people are turning to protestantism and most catholics already think like protestants.
I do think history and the environment play a role, but it's not as strong as you're trying to make, as if faith was imposed to people, it's really not like that.
I was talking about Latin America in general within a historical context. Yes, in modern times, the demographic values got more diversified compared to older times, immigration is easier, people are educated better and less xenophobic, information about everything is on the internet. But you’re kind of proving my point while you think you are objecting to it, you explain the rise of Orthodoxy and the decline of Catholicism in your country as a SOCIAL TREND. How come? is it a huge coincidence that all those individuals started to convert from Catholicism? Why didn’t this many individuals go that way a century ago? Did they all happen to do some soul-searching around the same time?
Or look at this place, it’s mostly filled with people from Christian countries, so I can open a thread about God or religion in general and almost everybody will debate about the Christian God without even noticing, if I do the same in a Turkish site, and present some question like “why would God give us free will,” then, everybody will automatically debate with Allah on the table. Now, did every individual, here or there, choose that association with their free will? No. Religion is still mostly cultural, and when I say that, I don’t mean they force it to you with blatant force like they did in the middle ages, it’s in school, it’s in popular culture, it’s in art, it is not shoved down your throat if you live in a decent country but it’s not something you choose with a Tabula rasa either.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 09:27 AM |
|
|
markkur said:
@JJ
Quote:
and why would a perfect, absolute bing create something so imperfect like us?
Well, you will likely shut your mind to this too; with "fully-alive" in mind, I believe this world IS a perfect place, even with all the catastrophic natural events etc.
<imo> If God does exist he (the existence) is brilliant. I was like most people and thought what a mess this earth is and how unfair, horrible etc. But the reason the earth is, (I agree with you here) is US. How you can not see that Free-will is hugely important to "actually living" I don't understand, without it you are a robot and that is not life at all. We are told to strive for perfection and if it is a goal we can evolve in our control and understanding of our incredible creativity and imagination.
Markkur, I direct your attention to the Bible, Luke 4 5-7:
Quote:
Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Himall the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”
You don't need to stretch your imagination to grasp what Satan is saying here. The world is HIS - which means, God has given him authority over it.
Which is perfectly in keeping with Christian belief striving so hard to transcend the physical and concentrate on the spiritual: the physical is the realm of the devil.
For the rest, assume for a moment, the Bible would tell the true story. Do you really think, after all the things happened there, generations and generations of people suffering and being killed because of the "sin" of our fore...fore...fore-parents it would the the right thing for us a species to try and please either this no-good-father or this envious serpent-devil?
We - that is, our fore-parents - missed a MOTHER there, for GOD'S sake! (Or didn't you notice? God is single parent father to his children that he created - supposedly - so that they could love him, but he should have done the same thing he did for Adam whom he - supposedly - made a partner or friend from his rib, so Adam wouldn't be alone. In other words, God should have created himself a partner, not children he mishandled.)
We must find OUR OWN way, and screw all this nonsense about gods and devils. We've always been our worst enemy - and devil - ourselves, and we've always been our beloved partners and children and parents for ourselves as well, and we have to try and find our own way through this.
As a species, we have to solve our EARTHLY existence - and with that one God won't help, because it's owned by the devil anyway. The realm that comes after that is supposedly God's, so if God really is this loving fella then we are safe oin that realm.
Free will is a farce when you are forced to decide. You know about these "dilemma" games: they are based on BEING CONFRONTED with two equally non-appealing alternatives. You do nothing - people die. You do something - people die. Ultimately - does it matter what you do or not do? Does your free will matter? I would answer with No. I can pick my poison, but that's it.
Same with God. We are CONFRONTED with something we don't grasp in all its monstrosity (what kind of a silly war is this between god and the devil, and why are we spoils in that war...), but we are supposedly given a choice and have to decide between two options. However, it's something I do not want to decide. It's like I have to decide as a 9-year-old whether I want to marry or not.
So MY free will says, it's a decision that isn't of my making and that I'm not interested in at this point and with my limited information available. I simply CANNOT make an informed decision here - and I'm not letting myself getting forced into one.
My decision has consequences, you say? This is what I would call a "hostile environment", then. Rash decision needed? Isn't that how this TV stations work that try to sell you something?
EDIT: And before I forget it: you do know that Christianity actually NEEDS the concept of free will, because without it you couldn't be held accountable. Accountability is important because everyone gets what they deserve, it is written, and that in turns makes it necessary that you can be blamed for what you did. Without that, the whole idea of a "judgement" would be silly.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 10:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't need to stretch your imagination to grasp what Satan is saying here. The world is HIS - which means, God has given him authority over it... Which is perfectly in keeping with Christian belief striving so hard to transcend the physical and concentrate on the spiritual: the physical is the realm of the devil.
You guys and your salvo-texting. I told you I am NOT well. Dang-it be merciful for a change.
There is a "tri-ality" in life, not some ticket where you pass earth and head straight to Heaven. Also, think about Authority. Did not Jesus rebuke any authority given to Satan? If not than he could not have healed. Love could not exist here, and on and on.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 10:50 AM |
|
|
@ Artu
Quote:
There are many inconsistencies even between the four synoptic gospels the was selected to begin with, I already linked a book written by -a once-devoted Christian- scholar who is a theologian, presenting them in great detail.
I remember my friend though I am beginning to forget things. The 4 Gospels are 4 snapshots in time about the same event and <imo> should be blended into one narrative. Ofc, that would get me roasted. The thing is any recorded event, unless it was only witnessed by one person has different angles, just like with multiple cameras shooting an accident or storm...whatever.
Btw, thanks for the short response. Sorry about my above grumble. You guys are just being you and I am not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 11:01 AM |
|
|
Look, what I don't understand with all this is the following. Jesus himself said, that it's about individual BELIEVE (faith) (which had a different meaning then, than it has now, since as a species we refined our methods to gather information and knowledge); it's definitely not about proving that your faith is actually supported by a wealth of information and knowledge because in that case it wouldn't be faith anymore (or faith wouldn't be necessary).
So why even bother to debate on a quasi-rational level? Completely beside the point. If you look at the meaning of things, then the individual decisions, whether they believe or not, are of utmost importance, looking at the bigger picture, but then an actual individual decision is necessary.
It doesn't do to tell people what to do or not to do. It doesn't do to help them on their way to make the "right" decision. If all this free will stuff and accountability is supposed to be true, then the important things are taking place on an individual level, and in the end what counts isn't talk, because talk is cheap. What counts is what you actually do. Your deeds are what you will be held accountable for - not any lip service.
That means - for me -: there shouldn't be a competition between different Christian "denominations", because it's bogus and bollocks: everyone has to decide for themselves how to LIVE as a Christian, because that is what faith should transfer into: a certain way of life. Not a debate about interpretations about God's word.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 11:21 AM |
|
|
Not replying in a particular order since I don't want to flood with quotes (since I've already flooded with text  ).
And dammit, I've been trying to post this since two hours, you're giving me more material to write. 
@artu
You misunderstood me then, when I was talking about the synoptic Gospels, tradition and the like, I was talking about the reason why they were the most probable combination to make the canon, instead of some gnostic inspired gospel or other apocryphal gospels, and it was done due to people knowing the gospel at least in general lines through oral transmission, discussing about their historicity wasn't my intention, at least now.
And by the way we know there are differences between them, in fact we've given a kind of another title for each one of them, which helps to understand what these differences are.
I can tell you it was highly improbable for me to become a traditionalist Catholic even in my hometown, my father isn't particularly religious, and my mother is not traditionalist.
I forgot to give you the background, since I didn't want to bore anyone, but anyway, my point was, true, I didn't go knock at muslims, but that's because I thought that their theology was even more illogical at the time (mostly due to historical reasons, I didn't go too much in depth) but I did confront myself with other theories, and didn't simply return to Catholicism, but reasoned my way up, actually I didn't mention my phase as agnostic and the other as some kind of a new age pagan, and I'm sorry for confusing you. (Philosophy helped a lot there...)
Basically, what I was trying to say was that reason can be used to follow a religion, as I thought you said it was in great part due to the environment, it was a coincidence I thought Catholicism was the right one according to me.
I mentioned the similarities between Catholics and Orthodox to cite this thread for our relative tolerance compared to Protestants, to give a perspective on how both we think that we betrayed one another, yet we believe that one could return to the other, or at least in my view, so, one of us holds the truth, but one is closer than the other ones (that was really something of the moment).
Regarding the obscurity of texts, you missed the point of them being written for a certain audience, so that symbolism was clearer for them than for us, secondly, if you were given irrefutable, absolute and certain proof of something you'd be a complete idiot to not believe it exists, and you'll be forced to believe in it whatever if you want or not, it's not a phenomenon or a theory, this book is law, and if a law is clear and there is said proof you can't go against it.
If the bible was talking about solely of the distance between the moon and the earth then I'd concede your point, but here we're talking about the transcendent, so it's another story.
@JJ
Congratulations, you discovered why the devil is called the prince of this world, did you also know that the devil makes pots but not their lids?
The devil likes to lie to people, he wants to bring you to his side, yet he's in the losing side, and he knows this, the devil is also the being who covers temptations over worldly pleasures, he can make men succumb to his will through any vice you could convince that man with, so he is able to assert dominion over men through that. The reason why he wanted to tempt Christ was to try to assert his dominion over God a second time, since he failed by force maybe he could use the human nature of God as Christ to defeat him, but alas, the devil couldn't prevail (go figure).
Anyway, the problem is that almost nobody understands what this original sin is, and why did it bring destruction to all, otherwise you'd understand the point of markkur, eating the fruit of knowledge can be compared to growing up, when we are children we don't have problem in being naked, since we are pure, and yet, growing up we cover ourselves for decency, why? Well apart for the obvious covering ourselves to not die because of cold, there is also the exposure of private parts and the relative impulses of man and female, if we were all naked in a plain, and we felt the impulse of having sex and we acted on it without any societal problems we would act like animals, acting on our urges without control. The problem that arose once we gained knowledge of good and evil was twofold, we were already able to decide, otherwise neither Adam or Eve would've ate from the tree since they were commanded by God not to, and yet they were convinced by the serpent, once they ate though they realized that they ignored a direct command from God, and you can't tell me they hadn't experienced his greatness before so you would feel terribly if the one who created everything including you out of love was angry with you.
The second is that they gained the famous knowledge of good and evil, and so they became conscious of their actions, not anymore would they feel lightly of their actions, even though, I think that sparked not by the fruit, but rather because of the realization of the first sin. They felt shame, because after all they were the virtuous firstborns of mankind, but they introduced the impulse of temptation to their kind, so basically, that moment devolved us to being like animals, and I'm sure there's someone that can explain it better than me...
And that is the point of all of this religious discourse, it's to return to our original state, to revert our fall, since we are given this chance, I ask you this, if as you say God doesn't value our free will why wasn't He present at the tree then? Couldn't He stop us? He didn't, mostly because He thought we would think better, but truthfully because He wouldn't want to interfere. Finding our own way isn't exactly comfortable when you have a way laid out for you already, yes it may be hard to use, but at least it's a way to salvation. But you do whatever you want, you can try to climb the mountain by hand, only that isn't granted to function.
Anyway, since you made another post while I was still writing, deciding your way as a Christian depends on how you interpret the scriptures, otherwise you are some kind of Theist who believes in Christ or something, debating is supposed to form a coherent form of worship which should help the person, especially when there are things that may need to be known, and if we're trying to base our faith on documents and historical fact is because there is always someone who jumps in and calls us retarded because we believe in somebody who may have not existed, you can see how that's annoying...
Now, sorry for being a tease, but I wanted to get this off my chest, and I thought when I would get this opportunity again in my life to post this.
Christmas isn't exclusively a pagan holiday rebranded as Christian.
I present to you three reasons it is in the 25th of December:
a) The common theory: Christian Romans who identified Christ as the Sol Invictus placed Christ's birth in the same day
b) The coincidence theory: Christians, as artu would put it, wanting to embolden Christ's greatness wanted to place his birth at the solstice of winter.
c) The calculated and certain one: Christians, basing themselves on certain dates, calculated what should have been the birth of Christ.
So, as we know the 25th of December is also known as the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (or for the Anglo speakers: Day of the birth of the Undefeated Sun), related to the rebirth of the sun due to the solstice of winter, due to a cult in the Roman empire that worshipped the sun. The origins of the cult may span from the East, like most new cults in Rome, and most notably the cult of Mithras, this cult was introduced to the imperial sphere in the III century AD, when emperor Heliogabalus adhered to this cult and attempted to codify this cult to law, due to his violent death the cult wouldn't stick, but during the reign of emperor Aurelianus effectively the cult could spread more easily into Rome, and from this we get the famous date of the day of the rebirth of the sun, in the III century AD, so after Christ.
Eventually with emperor Costantine this day will be codified into law, and later, after the emperor's conversion will be codified as Christmas.
According to the common theory it's simply because Costantine didn't want to estrange the Roman worshippers of the sun, and if we consider the other two theories this was due to a coincidence of dates.
While on the use of Christians of the date the use is nebulous, due to the relative unimportance they had at the time, but we know they celebrated Christmas in various days one of which was indeed the 25th of December, but due to the lack of texts, we don't know when that tradition came along for certain, but there is one text made by Ippolitus of Rome, who wrote in 203 AD about Christmas, placing it eight days before the kalendae of January (25th of December), so before the reign of Aurelianus, another one is what St.Augustine of Hippo said about Donatists, who accepted the 25th December but refused the epiphany of the 6th January due to it being a new use, the Donatists were founded in 303 AD.
There is also another calculation that bases the death of Christ at the 25th of March, due to rabbinical tradition that was his day of conception and as such, nine months later it's the 25th yet again, this is a theory surfacing in the III century, in 221 AD with Sixtus Julia Africanus and reprised by St.Augustine of Hippo in the IV century, so I'll just leave it as one of the explanation that were given during the centuries, even if it will be reprised coincidentally in the next theory.
Now, let's talk about the third theory, it's based on some chronological events that happened before the birth of Christ, namely Zacharias the priest being blinded since he wouldn't believe his wife was pregnant, the birth of St.John the Baptist and the six months distance between the birth of St.John the Baptist and the birth of Christ.
We start through the discovery of the book of Jubilees, written in the II century, used mostly by the Essenes, a Judaic sect which Zacharias, St.John the Baptist, and Christ all adhered to.
In the gospel of Luke we get the information that Zacharias became blind since he didn't believe his wife was pregnant, this event happened while he was officiating his turn of the rites, and, since he was of the order of Abia, there were two turns for this rite, of which one corresponded to the last decade of September, this actually reprises a "lost" Oriental tradition according to which Zacharias had his announcement between the 22 and the 25 of September.
Nine months later it's June, and St.John the Baptist is born, and, since the previous date has at least one historical evidence backing it up, then we can assume that the birth of St.John the Baptist in between the 22 and the 25 of June is correct, and since it's said that Christ was born six months after St.John the Baptist, Christ was born between the 22 and the 25 of December, placing His conception between the 22 and 25th of March.
So, people smarter than me placed the dates and there you go with the Chronology:
23rd September: Announcement of the conception of St.John the Baptist
25th December: Announcement to the Holy Virgin
24th June: Birth of St.John the Baptist
25th December: Birth of Christ
Make that of what you want, but still, it's a reason to believe Christmas is actually Christian and not Pagan.
And my next post will be smaller, I swear.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 12:06 PM |
|
|
@ Neraus
I guess, God has free will as well. The way he handled the paradise situation is simply ignoring his own free will in judging. He could have handled things in in a million different ways, and blaming things on the humans is simply giving them way too much credit.
Sure, being tempted by the serpent and then disobeying god was what THEY did, but they did it without knowing the full picture that God failed to mention (important was only to obey).
God was free in his own decision how to handle things. He chose to blame it on his children instead of asking whether he as their creator may be partially at fault as well. He passed the judgement of a very stern and unforgiving father, and clearly the love and care of a mother is absent from this story.
The story in all its sternness represent the patriarchal structures of old.
God left his children in the care of a very dangerous babysitter without preparing them for anything, demanding one thing only: mindless obedience.
Don't you see the problem in
a) handing out "free will" and
b) demanding mindless obedience?
Humans are not made for mindless obedience.
For a supposedly almighty, perfect and loving being god is in an awfully vulnerable situation here. If you'd transfer the case into a real one of a single-parent father of two children, ending with him banishing them from his home, leaving them to themselves, the father would be identified as the culprit, neglecting his duties and reacting unreasonably harsh.
It's trying to somehow let this appear as a perfectly reasonable, loving way to act for such a being that raises eyebrows from everyone reading this stuff with less awe and more "free will".
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 04:57 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:06, 30 Nov 2015.
|
I find it amusing that some people love to judge God for pronouncing judgment. As if they are qualified to judge God but God is not qualified to judge them.
God sees all that has been, all that is, and all that shall be or could be. As well as the thoughts and intents of the heart. Additionally God has experience of being the God and experience of living a completely human life in Christ.
God is the perfect judge. Judgement rendered by imperfect man will always be imperfect.
Free will simply means one is free to act as he wills, not that there are no consequences for one's actions. If I jump off of a cliff and die as a result I have exercised my free will and experienced the consequences.
Adam exercised his free will to eat the forbidden fruit and experienced consequences of his choice. He bowed his knee to the devil, instead of submitting to God. This made the devil in practical terms his god. As Jesus said, you can only have one master.
Satan is not the god of the earth. He is the god of those who do not live in submission to God--that is, Satan is god of the sinful world of man. Satan offered to Christ the rule over those who are not in submission to God. Jesus rejected the offer and chose to go to the cross to make it possible for man to forever be delivered from the darkness of Satan's dominion into the kingdom of Light.
Quote:
Colossians 1:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2015 05:22 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
I find it amusing that some people love to judge God for pronouncing judgment.
It's no "judgement" it's a contemporary opinion on a character in some old story that would be seen differently in modern than in earlier times.
Judgement needs a court, a judge, a sentence and it's execution - which is what God did:
Quote:
God sees all that has been, all that is, and all that shall be or could be. As well as the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hew knew what would happen, did nothing to prenvent it, blamed everything on his children, judged them, passed sentence and executed it.
Accepting that this was in God's power to do is not the same as accepting that this is what a loving parent - or creator - would do. And keep in mind that that he created them “... “in Our image, according to Our likeness. So we should be able to understand God's judgement - do you really think that a father would act that way?
Quote:
Free will simply means one is free to act as he wills, not that there are no consequences for one's actions. If I jump off of a cliff and die as a result I have exercised my free will and experienced the consequences.
Adam exercised his free will to eat the forbidden fruit and experienced consequences of his choice. He bowed his knee to the devil, instead of submitting to God. This made the devil in practical terms his god. As Jesus said, you can only have one master.
What you want to say is, that ignorance doesn't prevent being sentenced, which is obvious when you look at your first example: if you don't know you'll die (say, you are a little child), when you jump off a cliff, you'll still die. That's the realities of life - however, say you'd hear the story of a little child jumping off a cliff to his death, his father looking on, having forbidden the child explicitly to jump from the cliff, saying, I expected obedience, and when he decided to still jump off that cliff, listening to Satan telling him he would fly like an eagle, I let him run his course and his free will - would you accept that as good parenting?
Quote:
Satan is not the god of the earth.
No one said that - the Bible says he holds authority over it. Quote:
He is the god of those who do not live in submission to God--god of the sinful world of man. Satan offered to Christ the rule over those who are not in submission to God. Jesus rejected the offer and chose to go to the cross to make it possible for man to forever be delivered from the darkness of Satan’s dominion into the kingdom of Light.
That's not what the quote says - keep it to the next, not to your interpretation.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
