Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Tsuyoiko]

God judges Christians in the same way parents "judge" children, but He does not judge non-believers as a parent would.

I don't think a good parent would treat someone else's children any differently than they treat their own with regard to punishment.

With non-believers, He is the righteous Judge (not parent), as in a courtroom scenario where sometimes the guilty are condemned to death.

In the UK criminals are not condemned to death - I think the death penalty is uncivilised.

It sounds like god isn't an equal opportunities employer Isn't it illegal to treat people differently based on their beliefs?

Also, I'm interested to know what you think hell is like Pararousia.

 

[Mars Man]

I think the hang up in trying to get around the authorship issue is understanding the concept of inspiration- It is not like some muse type inspiration, nor what we think in modern society- nor is it a pure mechanical- God-as-puppet master inspiration. It is more along the line of God as author and finisher of my faith- the intercept of what we percieve of as our creativity and free will with his perfect pre-destination. Thus the view that is is authored by God, through the hands of man- would be accurate but limited. Parousia may still have it entirely correct.

My goal with the analogies was to try to explain why from the Christian point of view, primarily Parousia, your "facts" are readily dismissed as irrelevant. It is not to be insulting or anti intellectual- hence the analogies. It is difficult to explain without sounding dismissive or arrogant.

Thanks for the 'inside' information there. Of course I have heard a number of views on just what might be meant by 'inspiration' of religious works, not only including the NT or OT, so I do have some idea, but am pleased to get different views. I still maintain that there is a major problem with that, and I can't quite see that Pararousia shares exactly the same explanatory concept that you do, but hope to look at that later.

We humans really do have to reason things out, and it is hard, in a lot of ways. There are some very, very basic things that it would be wrong to overlook. I will try to put that out as solidly as I can, for debate and consideration, a bit later on--BOY, OH GIRL, how I wish I had more time !!!!

Gotta run now, will try to get back tonight? maybe? See you all !!!:wave:

 

[kumo]

The Bible says arguing with a foolish man is foolishness itself and that a man who doesn't believe in God is a fool. All of creation points to the fact of a Creator-God--only the hard-hearted cannot see that.

but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Guess I'll be seeing you in hell :flower:

 

[Mars Man]

Like I said before, the premise that Paraousia starts with, like me, precludes a real discussion of the matter at hand in the way you would like. Every argument has its starting points- the basic premises and delimiters that determine a person's reality.

If you were starting from the position that God does exist and He does actually participate in our affairs (in some circles He predetermines them) than inspriring, producing and protecting this book is child's play. Any minor "discrepancies" you find are in Paraousia's words "of no consequence." We study the bible in depth and with the same intensity, but with a focus quite different than you are showing.

It is like going over Shakespeare's plays to find errors and trying to explain them to a devout Royal Shakeperian Actor. The fact that real witches never say, "double double boil and trouble..." makes absolutely no difference in the enjoyment of the play.

I am still very much considering the totality behind this, and once I get it all worked out in a very presentable manner, I will answer to a number of points.

For now, as you surely know I know, I do know, sabro san, that you have admitted being fully aware of the circularness of such an argument; and yes, such argumentation is not logical argumentation, but is emotional. I reason that a number of major premises above are incorrect.

Will get back with this by Tuesday, Japan time. In the meantime, Pararousia, I am am beginning to see that you either cannot, or are not willing to do anything other than preach--which is perhaps expected, but which is what has caused the major misconception in Christianity, namely, the assumption of knowing before knowing. I really do hope to get you in on the discussion !!

 

[Revenant]

Pararousia, thanks for your effort in answering my question.

Why would you want to have a relationship with Jesus and go to heaven? I just want to know where you're coming from.

Some things that I would like clarification on, is what do you mean by God is all-righteous? What does it mean to be all-righteous?

To me all-righteous might mean all-loving, but that is as I see it.

 

[Pararousia]

Revenant-san,

Why did I want a relationship with God/Jesus Christ? I confess that when I was given the opportunity to receive Christ, it was more of a drawing by the Holy Spirit than something I initiated myself. It?fs a great mystery how the Spirit draws someone to believe in Christ. Like the wind blowing through the trees, you can?ft see it but when it happens you have to acknowledge the effect.

But afterwards, as spiritual growth begins within, there is something?\Someone?\inside of you giving you appetites you?fve never had before?\spiritual appetites, drawing you closer and closer to the One Who has redeemed you.

And then there is the liberation from sin that begins to take place?cand keep in mind that I was ?gsaved?h when I was 14. I?fm now 51. This liberation is still taking place. See that means that I still screw up and that things in life still screw me up. But it means also that I have that Someone?\a heavenly FATHER I can go to?\for HELP. All human beings are very frail in our heart of hearts, in our core. Sin has done a number on us through the generations--whether in our genetics, our self-esteem, how other people treat us, how even FAMILY members treat us, it all goes back to the corrupting nature of sin coming into the world.

Knowing Christ gives me HOPE in this life and for the one to come (the one after death). In a world filled with so many awful things, so many ugly things, God's peace fills my heart, because I know Him and I know I can fully totally trust Him, because I can depend on His promises that He will make all things right again one day. And I find great joy in knowing that in the life to come every thing will be right and perfect and whole once more.

Read the entire first chapter of Ephesians if you have time: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians 1 ;&version=49;
But this passage describes what I?fm trying to say: ?gwhile making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.?g

Praise God--"There is therefore no condemnation for them who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1)

Your last question: ?gSome things that I would like clarification on, is what do you mean by God is all-righteous? What does it mean to be all-righteous??h
God has several attributes which define His nature, both natural and moral. The natural attributes are omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity; the moral attributes are holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy and loving-kindness, and love.

God?fs holy character is manifested in dealing with mankind as righteousness and justice, sort of like legislative holiness (imposing of laws, demands) and judicial holiness (executing the penalies attached to those laws). So in the righteousness of God we have His love of holiness and in the justice of God, His hatred of sin. (paraphrased from Evans ?gGreat Doctrines of the Bible?h)

So simply put, "All-righteous" means basically absolutely just and completely pure in both motive and action, morally right, genuine, and true. Applied to God, it further means He is unable, by His very nature, to do anything false, unjust, or unfair. It has nothing to do with love, which is a separate attribute. God would have to be God in order to be able to balance and maintain these attributes with each other and not violate His own character.

Can you begin to see why Christ HAD to die on the cross? God Himself was the only sacrifice that would be perfect enough to be an eternal atonement. He loved us but had to make a way for us to be able to approach Him Who is without sin. The law makes no one perfect, but Jesus suffered once for all to do away with the reproach of sin for us who believe. This God-Man, Christ Jesus, offered Himself in our stead to receive God?fs wrath on sin, rose on the 3rd day, proving He was Who He said He was, and ascended back into heaven to the Father?fs right hand, where He ever lives to make intercession for us. This is why we believers can go BOLDLY to the throne of grace to find mercy and HELP in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

And that?fs why I love Him. I had to do nothing to deserve this grace.
?gJust as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!?h – Charlotte Elliott, 1835.

 

[bossel]

the moral attributes are holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy and loving-kindness, and love.

Doesn't sound like the god from the Bible. You're no Christian, then?

Can you begin to see why Christ HAD to die on the cross? God Himself was the only sacrifice that would be perfect enough to be an eternal atonement.

Didn't you say something about omnipotence?

 

[Revenant]

Pararousia, thanks again for the effort in answering my question. You would seperate all-righteous and all-loving as two different things, but I would maintain they all come from the same emotion, love. Empathy and compassion play huge roles within this idea of love, but so do patience. tolerance, humility, gratitude, and justice.

A lot of the laws in the Bible I saw as just guidelines, and not infallible. I would lie to save another from suffering would be the end goal, and not that it was actually the 'not lying' part that was the end goal. The underlying message to me of even the more contraversial Christianity is that of love, and those traits that support love, such as patience, tolerance, humility, etc. The same traits are found within all religions, and all have their own method of 'getting up the mountain'.

So in a courtroom setting, were the law to say all theives were to have their right hand cut off, but the person was stealing to feed his family, would I say that out of love (mercy), should the law not be upheld, but that the person be given the means to happiness, for both himself and his family.

That's just an illustration, and I of course do not agree with the cutting off of someone's hand for stealing.

Christianity gives you hope, and that being a form of happiness, would I say does you very well. Being a person that likes to attempt to intellectually understand what I'm doing, and to reason all that I believe in, Christianity just causes me a whole lot of confusion.

 

[Mars Man]

premises .vs. preclusions

We start with an idea, a concept, a notion, as a propostition and we term it a 'premise'. (..assertion that serves as the basis for an argument; specif. LOGIC either of the two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn: see SYLLOGISM[Websters New World Dictionary]) Logical thinking applied to and in congruency with this premise, especially in connection with a minor premise which has been coupled to our major (first) premise, is to lead to a conclusion. (c) the third and last part of a syllogism; inference [ibid]) Conclusions are thus logically deduced from the premise(s).

If we were to start with an idea, a concept, or a notion, as a conclusion (which first of all is technically impossible by definition as it requires 'thought', 'reasoning process', etc.) we would have no premise, no logic, and no deduction. This would be one likely candidate for the concept behind the word 'preclude'--to make impossible, esp. in advance; to shut out; prevent [ibid].

To that degree, in English, we can say that any 'preclusion' precludes any 'premise', which in turns cancels out any 'thought', 'reasoning process', 'logic', and or 'deduction'. Of course, it is not necessary to take it to such a technical degree since we don't usually keep our colloquial language so technically defined.

There's a rockbed of volcanic ash left over from some 3.5 million years ago in an area called Latoria (sp. I'll check tonight after getting home), in Africa in which a trail of human footprints have been left with a few other long extinct animal tracks. Let's assume, for illustration, that they had come up with an idea, concept, or notion that there were a god. What would their god be like? How would they explain it? Without any doubt whatsoever, it would have been explained by the contents of the total experiences by their 'culture' and mental capacity. Without any doubt whatsoever, it could not have been the god of the early settlers of the tribe of 'Abram', the god of the Indus River Valley, the god of the Aztec peoples, nor that of the celtic tribes.

allow me to point out here that the process of dating the above mentioned volcanic ash is based on as firm a theory as that which created the atom bomb--which most of us, so unfortunately, would not dream of attempting to deny as being a reality.

To keep these readible, next...

 

[Mars Man]

premises .vs. preclusions II

If we start with the idea, concept, notion, or, in better terms, the working hypothesis that a god exists, we will naturally describe, define, and personify that god. We will naturally ascribe personality, acts and events within the framework of 'history' to that god. We will naturally avow the necessity of obedience and obeisance to, admiration, fear, and love of this god. And, naturally, we will act so as to apease and will ask favor from this god.

So, what god are we talking about? Whose god? It is for this reason that I had pointed out before in that old 'Missionaries' thread that 'we would have to go down to the Bible itself--that is the very foundation for all tenents and dogma.' (#171, p7) It is for this reason that I had counterpointed that 'if the Christian (basically) Jewish) god can and must be known only by revelation, how are we to know to whom that exact and direct revelation has been given?' (#180 p8)

It has more than well since been proven by the many quotes of and allusions to scripture, that my understanding above is the most correct one. No one can talk about something that they do not have in their brains--it is just a plain ole everyday fact! So no one today is going to talk about YHWH or Jesus without having knowledge of there ever having been anything published (in a general sense of spreading information) on or about YHWH or Jesus.

To say that a certain god exists in your mind because you have learned about it indirectly or directly through those who have said so or talked about it having been said so in centuries gone by, and in the same breath claiming that those writings pertaining to such are truthful to the extent that there be no need to investigate their truthfulness, is exactly saying that your god cannot exist without those writings. To hold the position that the source of your god knowledge (and it cannot be denied that that is the position held due the constant reliance on such writings to prove the understanding of that god) is not the source of your god knowledge is pure vanity.

Therefore, the source is to be acknowledged, not to be precluded from discussion !! If the claim is that the source is from that one and same god which the source advances, then the source must be shown to match the definitions and attributes of that same god that the source induces. This is where, how, and why it is obligatory that believers in the source prove the source.

(and I can preach too).....next...[but not tonight perhaps]...

 

[Mars Man]

Void san, please come back again with questions number 2 and 3, I didn't quite catch them...:sorry: :wave:

 

[Pararousia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pararousia
the moral attributes are holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy and loving-kindness, and love.
Doesn't sound like the god from the Bible. You're no Christian, then?


Quote:
Can you begin to see why Christ HAD to die on the cross? God Himself was the only sacrifice that would be perfect enough to be an eternal atonement.
Didn't you say something about omnipotence?

Bossel,
Can you expand on what you're asking? I'm not following your question.

 

[bossel]

Bossel,
Can you expand on what you're asking? I'm not following your question.

Mercy, loving-kindness & love according to your god, taken from the Bible:
- the Flood

- Deut.20
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;

- Gen.19
24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25: and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

- ...


Re omnipotence:
If your god is, as you say, omnipotent, there is absolutely no reason why Jesus "HAD to die on the cross". An omnipotent being has infinite possibilities.

 

[Zentron]

A couple of things I remember reading:

"If any man come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

"O woman, what have I to do with thee?" Said Jesus to his mother

"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Ouch, that'll hurt.

 

[Revenant]

"If any man come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

I cannot answer the other ones, but according to one source (I have forgotten the source), the original tongue didn't have more or less, but just words like love and hate. This passage basically says that one must love Christ more than his family, or even himself. That would then better fit in with most of the other passages that put forth love, and compassion.

 

[Zentron]

I cannot answer the other ones, but according to one source (I have forgotten the source), the original tongue didn't have more or less, but just words like love and hate. This passage basically says that one must love Christ more than his family, or even himself. That would then better fit in with most of the other passages that put forth love, and compassion.

Yeh but, for ever passage that puts forth love, there's usually 2(or more) passages that put forth hate and stuff.

"If any man come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

"The 'New Testament' was originally written in Greek and the word that was used here was 'Miseo', Christian apologists claim that "hate" in this passage really means "to put into disregard" or "to love less than me." however, 'Miseo' does, in fact, mean hate." quote Mr Barker.

Here's a quote I just found in one of my old word docs: "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."

 

[Pararousia]

Mercy, loving-kindness & love according to your god, taken from the Bible:
- the Flood

- Deut.20
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;

- Gen.19
24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25: and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

- ...


Re omnipotence:
If your god is, as you say, omnipotent, there is absolutely no reason why Jesus "HAD to die on the cross". An omnipotent being has infinite possibilities.

Bossel, Your original question was "you're no Christian?" What does Genesis and Deut have to do with me being a Christian in your context?

 

[bossel]

Bossel, Your original question was "you're no Christian?" What does Genesis and Deut have to do with me being a Christian in your context?

You said that your god's "moral attributes are [...] mercy and loving-kindness, and love. Since the god of the Bible can hardly be called full of mercy & love (as can be seen by numerous examples), & since Christians believe in the god of the Bible, it's rather improbable that you're a Christian.

 

[Mars Man]

So, there's this book, which comes bound in a single volume that actually is not a single book. This book is called by a number of names, but the most common English name is, 'Bible'.

It is a fact, that as much as this is not a single book, it has no single author.

It is a fact that the several documents that are contained within that book of collected writings have been written by humans.

Now, if one were to wish that it be believed that no human had been responsible for the communication within those documents, I would argue that either of two courses remain to be taken. One, those who wish it to be believed must convince others of the value of believing beyond and without explanation of or appeal to those documents--because it is just faith (unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence [Websters New World Dictionary. Or two, on the other hand, they should show evidence for the validity of the wish to have others believe (as in think it to be so) using the documents. It goes without saying, however, that all efforts to appeal to any document must be supported by evidence, that in turn, validates the evidence from the document being used.

In other words, one cannot just turn to some sentence or passage in the Bible, such as 2 Timothy 3:16, read it, then while closing the Bible claim that that author was saying that that very letter, even the original autograph, had been written by a non-human, without either asking the audience to believe it at face value because you say so, or, providing validated evidence for the claim to have knowledge of that being factual, at the least.

This is the problem of the greatest misconception in Christianity--all else comes afterwards, without doubt or question!

Bossel, I can appreciate your angle of approach with this matter, using fire to fight fire, if you will, yet wish to point out that more often than not, the text should firstly be considered for historical value. I would not say, for example, that the text at Exodus 32:9, 10 "And Jehovah went on to say to Moses:'I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation.'" were any more historically true fact than I would say that Acts 5:1-10 were historically true. (and please check that one, it's too long to put here.) However, your approach may very well be the best for dealing with those who emphasize the 'faith' angle.

 

[bossel]

However, your approach may very well be the best for dealing with those who emphasize the 'faith' angle.

It's hardly possible to argue on historical grounds when talking about some god's features, since gods (most probably) don't exist. But if people tell me that their god is oh so nice, while their religious texts quite clearly state otherwise, I want to know how they come to that conclusion.