|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 20, 2013 10:03 PM |
|
|
Why would we pick a door AT ALL?
Strictly spoken, whether god exists or not, whether he is good or evil, if he does - all that would seem relevant only with a view on a possible AFTERlife and some hope that death is not the end, everything has a purpose and so on and so forth.
However, THE PICK IS MADE FOR US ANYWAY.
Because belief or not, our body will wither and die, and when that happens we'll see about the afterlife - or not, but then we won't know or be disappointed or something.
Now, let's say we come to the conclusion Godexists and he is evil - what would that gain?
And if we came to the conclusion, God is good? Then this life would still be the way it is - and we would still just speculating.
God or not - since he doesn't act here he simply isn't a factor in the here and now. Which means, contemplation can actually wait.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 10:19 PM |
|
|
Drakon-Deus said:
Deos God really not care? Or is it that there is some sort of afterlife and the pain and suffering of this life will be nothing compared to it?
I would choose door number two.
If there is suffering, as much as there is suffering in this plane of existence, in the afterlife,then even if that god exists, its not worth believing in a mind/thought dictator. An omnibenevolent god that is omnipotent would not force its subjects to suffer in eternal pain and fire mostly because there are thousand other ways to sway sinners to do the good thing.
Now somebody has to claim "How dare you question god?".
Its like having a gun to the head and having the "Choice" to praise the killer and be "Saved" or getting tortured by being shot by not praising him.
Christianity contradicts itself on moral levels, on what god is and does(Holy trinity?), and about afterlife.
Some guys here believe that hell is metaphorical, some do not. The mere fact that there are so many inconsistencies and that all adherents of Christianity claim to know better or what truly is written in the bible, underlines that the bible, the supposed perfectly written holy book with the words of god, is imperfect.
Imperfection undermines the concept of god.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 10:48 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:06, 20 Aug 2013.
|
JJ:
I pretty much agree with that post, as anyone with a healthy dose of agnosticism probably does. If definite knowledge on a subject is currently beyond our reach, and we can't see how that subject affects us, we can't really visit the topic on a level higher than the personal philosophical one. Still, it's a nice workout for the mind.
Seraphim:
Kant, Spinoza and Nietzsche appear terrible and contradictory as well until you decide to immerse yourself openly into the subject. A medieval knight would regard philosophers as idle at best and heretics at worst, while he'd regard the words of the Bible, though without much understanding of it, as a strange and wonderful thing and a landmark of mankind. A lot of people even today share that sentiment. We consider them primitive. In my experience, those that are the loudest in considering them primitive are those that do the same thing, but swap philosophers and the Bible. The idea is to be open to both, as they all concern metaphysics and philosophy, albeit slightly differently, and every religion, just like every philosophy or art direction, has a mindset that we can learn from.
MVass:
Mvass, what is happiness?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 11:22 PM |
|
|
Bak:
It's hard to define without reference to the actual feeling. Contentment, freedom from disturbance, being pleased with your life, being comfortable with yourself, etc. It's hard to describe without the experience itself. I'm not trying to give a definition, because you can be happy despite disturbance such as illness, deprivation, etc, but they reduce happiness. It's what knowing that you're a good person, being in a good relationship, being healthy, and doing things you enjoy all have in common. Suppose I'm mentally and physically healthy, have a job that I enjoy (it's not too difficult, but it's intellectually stimulating, I have good coworkers, good hours, comfortable working conditions, and get paid a lot), good interpersonal relationships (at least a few close friends and a girlfriend or wife I love and trust completely with whom I am very compatible), no money troubles, everyone I care about is in good shape too, I do fun things in my spare time, etc - that's a happy life. It doesn't need anything bad in it to make it happy. If something bad would happen to me, it would make my life worse, not better.
JJ:
Some Christians believe that believing in God has effects in the present life. Faith healing, for example.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 04:02 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
If He wanted to, He could make us eternally happy, safe, free, and intelligent, all at the same time.
The Parable of the Mount, by Corribus:
There once was a young twenty year old man named Adam and God placed Adam at the bottom of a mountain. And God said, "Adam, at the top of yonder mountain layeth paradise. Climb ye hither and thou shalt be happy for the rest of thy life!"
So Adam climbed the mountain, and this took sixty years, for the mountain was very tall. He fell often and scraped his knees, slipped when it rained, froze when it snowed. He went hungry and was often alone, for the mountain was also a brutal, unforgiving place. Ages passed, and when Adam finally crested the summit he was very old, his skin wrinkled, his teeth gone, his back bowed, his eyes clouded with cataracts. He staggered to the top and sank to his knees, lowered his head and wept.
God saw his son Adam weeping at the summit and said, 'Welcome Adam, to paradise! As promised, thou shalt now be happy for the rest of thy life!'
Adam raised his eyes and looked around, and saw the summit of the mountain was indeed a paradise. But this did not bring joy to his heart, and on seeing the beauty of the mountaintop he buried his head in his hands and wept anew.
And God said unto Adam, 'My son, why dost thou weep? Doesn't this paradise please thee?'
Adam looked up and said, 'Father, I am old, ugly and bent. My life is nearly over. What use is happiness to me now? Why did you not just bring me here when I was young and able to partake of the pleasures of life rather than making me waste so much of my life climbing?'
God looked down at his child and said, 'Because if I hadn't forced thee to climb the mountain, thou wouldst not have understood the value of hard work. Now, thou mayest appreciate more the paradise I have wrought for thee!'
Adam pondered this, but was not convinced. "So what am I supposed to do in this paradise you've made for me?"
God beamed. "Why," he said, "Run around, enjoy the beautiful weather!"
Adam frowned. "When I was twenty, I was full of vigor, but now I am too old to run around. So many years of climbing made it so I can hardly walk."
God thought for a moment. He snapped his fingers and great bags of gold and gems appeared out of nowhere. "Look!" he cried. "Money, jewels, and gold as reward for thy long years of toil!"
Adam's frown deepened. "To spend on what? I am too old for cars or fancy clothes. Besides." He looks around. "There is no place to spend it here. Perhaps when I was thirty, this would have been nice to have."
God snapped his fingers again. Women appeared, dozens of them, big of breast and wide of hip, naked, willing. "Beautiful women as thy reward. Be fruitful and multiply, for thou hath earned it through thy earnest and honest work!"
Adam's frown deepened further. "In my thirties I yearned for a warm, naked body to cuddle with as I lay freezing on the mount. But now I am too old for sex. I can barely get it up."
"How about a feast?" God asked, growing desperate.
"When I was forty I thought often of a fine meal while I was eating acorns and mice and the detritus of the unforgiving mountain. But now, alas: I have no teeth with which to chew," Adam said.
"A fabulous library filled with the finest novels?"
"Eyesight's too bad. Would have been nice when I was fifty."
"A string quartet?"
"What? You'll have to speak louder. My hearing's been bad since I was sixty."
"Board games, dice, bingo every night!"
"Were I only seventy again! But now, who would I share it with? I am the only one here."
God's mouth snapped shut. He tried desperately to think of something, some reward to illustrate the whole point behind it all, that without struggle, without his people learning for themselves how to overcome obstacles, they will never be able to find true happiness, to be fulfilled, to have the pleasure of teaching their children what it means to succeed! Isn't this, after all, the secret to his great benevolence? He thought and thought, and then, finally, he had it. "What about pride?" he blurted out.
Adam's jaundiced, clouded eyes opened wide. "Pride?" he asked.
"Yes!" God cried. "Pride! The knowledge that thou hath accomplished something great, that thou hath made it to this place through thy own strenuous effort. Surely this achievement is an end in itself that justifies it all! Surely in this, thou canst find happiness to the end of thy days! Pride is the key!"
Adam considered this for a moment, and then he scowled and said, 'I'd have been happier if sixty years ago you would have just made me a snowing helicopter."
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 09:47 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:52, 21 Aug 2013.
|
Quote:
Like I said, one of the (if not THE) main aspects of Jesus' teachings is repenting, stray sheep returning to the flock, the chance for everyone to discover God and attain salvation. To claim that this is not a pillar of Christianity is, objectively, heresy, or at least it was in my theology class.
The facts are that God demanded the execution of murderers before the Law and during the Law.
The fact are that that in the New Testament God says the state has the power of the sword, is to be a terror to evil doers, and is an agent of God's wrath on evil doers.
The fact is nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New Testament is the State tasked with bringing a criminal to repentance. The fact is a sword is not used to rehabilitate.
The fact is nowhere in the New Testament is the state tasked with preaching the gospel to any sinner, incarcerated or not. That is the job of the church.
Quote:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
A sword is not used for reformation. A sword is not used to whip someone. A sword is used to kill.
When Paul stood before Rome he did not say, "It would be immoral for you to kill me. The state has no power to execute anyone. Your job is rehabilitation and bringing me to repentance." Instead, he acknowledged Rome had a right to kill him IF he had done wrong.
Quote:
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
Quote:
No mortal minister of the Lord, especially the ideal state that Paul spoke of in the Romans, can have the right to decide, in His name, who is to live and who is to die.
God gave the state the power to execute before the Old Testament and during the Old Testament. Why do you say the power of the sword does not mean to execute? Why would God withdraw the power to execute from the state during the New Testament?
You are confusing the state and the church. The state has not one thing to do with the church. A state can be wholly secular and still be the instrument of God's wrath on evildoers.
Also, repentance was just as much an Old Testament thing as a New Testament thing. In the Old Testament times God did not say that after the trial the criminal was to be allowed to go offer an offering at the temple so his soul could be saved. He said if the person was found guilty of a capital offense the witnesses were to cast the first stones. Then the community was to join in.
Quote:
Life and death are in His hands, before and after our worldly deaths.
God delegated life and death decisions to man when it comes to executing criminals.
Quote:
This is why we can't even decide on our OWN deaths, as suicide is a terrible sin.
Suicide is self murder. Execution of murderers is not murder but is something commanded by God.
Quote:
Besides, nowhere in the Romans does it even mention the type of punishment involved. Why do you assume the death penalty? Because it was so in the Old Testament, because it's been like that in the Jewish world, because it's been like that in Texas (or is it still? Haven't been following)? Does it come so natural to you? Paul wasn't a lawman, when he doesn't specify the severity of a penalty, does that truly mean he automatically supported executions, undermining the core of Christ's religious philosophy in the favor of increasing public order through fear?
"Does it come natural to you." What is up with that crap?
What comes natural to me is God and to study and seek to understand his Word. Catechism and creeds and theologies are nice and all but they can lead one astray from the simple truths spelled out in the Bible. The Bible is the only source of authoritative doctrine that I recognize.
Paul did not spell out what "the power of the sword" means because the straightforward meaning is obvious. None of the Romans Paul wrote the epistle of the Romans to thought Paul mean that by "power of the sword" Paul meant that Rome has the power to try to reform criminals and try to bring them to repentance. They knew he meant the power to execute. Execution is a "terror" to evildoers, a threat to preach to them the gospel is not a terror to evildoers. Execution is the state being a "minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Executions DO NOT undermine Christ's teachings at all. Christ taught how individuals are to be saved and how his followers are to conduct themselves. He said not one word about how the state is to operate.
Quote:
I just can't fathom how that'd be in concordance with the essence of the New Testament. I meant to add "at least in Eastern Orthodox tradition", but I don't think that's even open to interpretation. I simply believe that no one who believes they follow Christ can support the death penalty. I don't have a problem with people supporting it, they can be fairly good blokes, with a strong sense for worldly justice and lack of belief in the otherworldly one. But it's just not right to go around telling people the Bible clearly supports it, when it doesn't. I often see claims like those incorporated into irresponsible and dangerous demagogy, that's why I get interested in their origins once in a while.
I can't fathom how a person can deny that God has always demanded that murderers die at the hand of man and how anyone can NOT understand what "the power of the sword" means. The state does not have the job to preach or to teach or to bring to repentance. The state is tasked with protecting the citizens by being a terror to evildoers and executing the wrath of God on evildoers.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 10:03 AM |
|
|
So if I understand you correctly, you say that enforcing the law against criminals is the job of the state, and since God demanded to execute murderers, SHOULD the state decide to do so, this doesn't undermine Christian teachings. Right?
Now God also demanded to execute homosexuals and adulteresses.
So SHOULD a state have explicit laws against homosexuality and adultery and should a state decide to execute people breaking those laws, I suppose, this wouldn't undermine Christian teachings either? Right?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 11:00 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:04, 21 Aug 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Because: why would a god described the way he is, insist on people believing in him, no matter what else they would do? Wouldn't he be satisfied, if the world was a good place, people believing all kinds of things, but being good, honest people mostly, instead of the kind of hellhole it sometimes is, lots of people not being good and honest, but supposedly believing in him?
First, anyone who gets to heaven will get there on the merits of Christ, not on his own merits. Also, every person who goes to hell goes to hell because of his sins.
Second, the Bible says every person is accountable for his sins and knows that he has done wrong.
Third, the Bible says everyone has an opportunity to know God and that certain facts about God are readily known.
Fourth, the Bible says no one has any excuse for their sin or for not knowing God.
Fifth, the Bible says that apart from the sacrificial death of Christ and his resurrection we are all without hope.
In my third point I said the Bible says everyone has the opportunity to know God. It is obvious from creation that there is a God. The still small voice of God also speaks to everyone. God is a God who seeks the lost. A person does not have to know God perfectly to be cry out for mercy. God will not turn away those who cry out for mercy. If and when a person responds to the Spirit of Christ by crying out for mercy, it is the same as anyone else who has the fuller, richer understanding of God through Christ turning to Christ. That person will be forgiven.
The folks who never had the opportunity to hear of Christ will be judged based on the natural law and whether or not they followed what they knew and sought God and cried out for mercy. Christ's sacrificial death will apply to those people who cry out for mercy just as it applied to the Old Covenant believers who died before Christ sacrificed himself for us.
Quote:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Jesus said to whom much is given much is required. To whom little is given little is required. Everyone is accountable for what they had the opportunity to know and how they responded to God dealing with them.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 11:13 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
But God doesn’t stop every rapist, which shows that He's not a loving parent as we use that term. If we still say that he's ommibenevolent, that benevolence clearly has a different meaning than when it's applied to humans. If rape and torture are part of an omnipotent and omniscient God's plan, and yet we still call that plan "good", either we're really messed up or are worshipping a Lovecraftian deity.
No, it shows God did not make us robots. He made us with free will. But there will be a day of reckoning.
Rape is part of man's plan, not God's. God's plan for man is that every man love his neighbor as himself.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 12:39 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:45, 21 Aug 2013.
|
Elodin:
In my previous posts, there are answers to everything you're saying (parts which we're in disagreement about). God demanded all kinds of things in the Old Testament. But to say that the New Testament not only allows but makes it obligatory to execute people is to hold, well, I won't say delusions, but certainly misinterpretations about this specific religion. Have you tried Islam? It's more open to interpretation that way.
On another, smaller note, if you did something worthy of the death sentence (which you believe should be decided by the Old Testament, as the New one doesn't mention levels of punishment, let alone execution. So, for example, if you commit adultery), is suicide still murder or an execution? Or is the State the only creature allowed to execute? What if you're a state executioner that did something worthy of the death sentence? Should you be allowed to execute yourself?
Corry:
Making me chuckle as that post does, we all know the idea with dying and reproduction is for mankind (or any specie) to not be an individual prone to weariness. If you put some family next to that guy climbing the mountain, and a few generations in between, you get half the Bible. And a lot of happy people once they get to the top and find all the string quartets and naked chicks (killer combination by the way).
MVass:
That is a rather vague definition of something that you would blame God for not handing it to us on a platter, without even giving him the benefit of a doubt. You are very certain of what you are saying, but I think we're missing several key pieces of the puzzle here, both philosophical and biological.
Are there levels of happiness? A range, from contentment to intense joy?
Is happiness, like any other feeling, a chemical reaction, a term applied for a wide range of chemical reactions, or something else?
Does it, as with any other positive feeling, mean that our body, or mind, is rewarding us? What does it reward us for?
Is every man's happiness the same? Should it be? Should God grant us everything we WISH for, or just enough for us to OBJECTIVELY be happy (and would we be happy then), or simply make our minds make us feel happy regardless of the circumstances?
Would a job be intellectually stimulating without the possibility of something bad happening, or you making a bad calculation? Can anything be intellectually stimulating without a chance of failure?
What happens if, to prevent mental and physical decay of mankind, as you proposed, God grants everyone superb intelligence and prowess?
In the end, do you believe the only rational course for God would have been to clone himself indefinitely instead of creating the world?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 03:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:44, 21 Aug 2013.
|
@Corribus
Why doesn't God turn Adam into a younger man in your story? 
@Baklava
This is a reply to your previous post, not the one above:
The difference between Kant, Nietzsche, Spinoza etc etc and religion is that those philosophers don't claim being omniscient and we certainly don't consider their teachings timeless, we evaluate them within a historical context. Also, I think there is nothing wrong with being agnostic as long as you don't build an artificial symmetry of 50/50 possibility. Almost all social sciences tell us there are a lot of reasons to assume we created the concept of God(s), not vice versa and for the first time in history it is not just the intellectual elite who sees that but a serious amount of the population. Especially if you take Gods of the religions, you are talking about a very local, mythological and conceptually limited, anthropomorphic kind of God. A serious amount of people are getting fed up with the expectancy of the special kind of respect religions demand and I think it wouldn't be fair to call that as primitive as the religions themselves, since their voice is still just the buzzing of a fly if compared to the noise of religious propaganda which starts from elementary school. If religions were not thought to people till they are grown ups with their own decisions and then they were thought all together in comparison (well, since there are more than 10000 religions claiming to be holy and unique that would be a little hard actually, so let's just say major religions), imagine how many people would (not) be religious... Comparing the recent propaganda machine of religions to a dozen books some atheist authors wrote which are only sold if you want to buy them is not only out of proportion, it's also in a way biased. Atheist people should get vocal, they are even a little late for that.
And also,
Quote:
This is not about a choice between gods. The Hindu pantheon doesn't exist alongside the Abrahamic God. It's all the same metaphysical God, if you will, viewed from different perspectives.
Quote:
There are no automatic pitchforks for Hindus and atheists.
If you are not a non-religous theist with your own philosophy and you speak on behalf of the religious doctrines themselves, these are plain wrong statements. Hinduism has many gods, it's polytheistic and that itself is not compatible with Christianity. Non-believers do belong to hell beyond any reasonable doubt according to Abrahamic religions. What you are doing is nerfing the religions into a more modern spirituality that they are not.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 04:38 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
God can give us free will and still prevent rape, by making rape impossible.
Bak:
Are there levels of happiness? A range, from contentment to intense joy?
Perhaps. It's a semantic question - there is a range of feelings between contentment and intense joy, the question is whether the word "happiness" applies to all of them in every context. Though it's not quite a range, because contentment isn't just a mild form of joy, it's also something that's more lasting. But sure, let's say they can all be lumped together as "happiness".
Is happiness, like any other feeling, a chemical reaction, a term applied for a wide range of chemical reactions, or something else?
It's at least one chemical reaction, though I can't say more because I'm not a neuroscientist.
Does it, as with any other positive feeling, mean that our body, or mind, is rewarding us? What does it reward us for?
There is a variety of evolutionary reasons why certain things cause happiness. For example, being happy with a mate increases the likelihood that you'll stay with her and raise children. However, that's not really relevant in the current world, because humans (as all living beings) are adaptation executers, not fitness maximizers.
Is every man's happiness the same? Should it be? Should God grant us everything we WISH for, or just enough for us to OBJECTIVELY be happy (and would we be happy then), or simply make our minds make us feel happy regardless of the circumstances?
Given the biological similarities between humans, I would expect the feeling of happiness to be the same between people, though there are differences from person to person as to what causes it. For example, I might really like chocolate ice cream, and you might like vanilla ice cream, and in that case there's no reason to say that one of our tastes is better than the other. On the other hand, if someone has mental problems (depression, sociopathy, etc), then they would be happier if they were fixed.
God should grant us everything that would make us happy. The extent to which that would include things a person wishes for would differ from person to person. Some people can wish for things that don't make them happy and in fact make them unhappy.
Would a job be intellectually stimulating without the possibility of something bad happening, or you making a bad calculation? Can anything be intellectually stimulating without a chance of failure?
Depends on how broadly you want to define "failure". It can be intellectually stimulating without any negative consequences from making a bad calculation. By "negative consequences", I mean something of the kind of you losing your job, someone being displeased with you, your company doing noticeably worse, someone being injured, etc.
What happens if, to prevent mental and physical decay of mankind, as you proposed, God grants everyone superb intelligence and prowess?
Paradise on Earth.
In the end, do you believe the only rational course for God would have been to clone himself indefinitely instead of creating the world?
I don't know. It would be complicated if multiple omnipotent beings existed at the same time. It depends on what God wants. From what the Bible tells us of God's actions (as opposed to just saying he's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent), it leads me to think that the God of the Bible is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, but merely a very powerful (but not all-powerful) being that's doing something like playing a game.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:31, 22 Aug 2013.
|
@ Cor. thanks for whatever you did to my post, my health is bad so it's good to have you on the job.<S>
That's not the point either - the rewards, I mean.
JollyJoker said:
The point is that it would seem that it's not enough JUST to live a "good" life, doing no harm, care for your family and friends, be a good spouse and parent and screw no one over - not thinking about religion AT ALL or simply not wanting to think about life after death, god or not, religion, prayer, you name it. That it wouldn't be enough to JUST be a halfway good human instead of a Christian.
Umm, remember your old argument about defining "Good"  it works here too. Good IS quite invisible and only God can see the "pages behind the cover".
Moving on, this is hard to explain but here's my belief + "some guesswork" because as Paul said; <my words> it's hard for me see the spiritual-world clearly, it's more like pieces of the puzzle of life show up here an there so I can see some sort of picture coming together but it's far from complete.
Jesus talked about "blindness" right? It was not earthly things that He meant but the spiritual-realm where Love resides. As I've said before, Love is something you can see and feel "the effects of" but it is not something you can see & hold in your hand...like candy. It's exactly like Wind because we cannot see Wind (only effects)but no one doubts that it exists.
Now with candy, something of the physical realm, we can get recipe's and make the stuff to hold in our hand and enjoy, even to the point of sickness.<L> There have been many of the same sort of recipe-books for Love too (they can help)but Love and all the big-things that matter don't really work that way; the New Testament & the Life of Christ taught "me" how this invisible world of the internal works.
For me, (one aspect)at the heart of Christ's message is hooking-up with God; the pure Love. Christ said that before I learned of Him I was blind and He was correct, blind as a bat about love; I knew puppy love and some things I was told told but I had no command of it because "then" I believed Love was chance-based and I sought it more like I was in a rudder-less boat rolling wherever the waves of my life took me and hoping to hit the rock of love.<LOL> Silly but it makes my point.
OK, now to Heaven. That's a far-off concern that is built on a Promise Christ said. For me (still seeing darkly) it's a no-go. Since I'm not perfect, there's too much right in front of me that I don't have right yet and there are far more pressing things that need the love and sacrifice of Christ and because of my weakness and inability towards all that I can dream-up I have to pull back and concentrate on now.
So Here I am, not now, not ever working on Heaven and working only on Now. Will God toss me for that? No way Jose; I've been "Free" since Christ said so or the whole shabang is toast.
With others? Whether they profess Christianity, or NOT! or something else; that's between He and they; that's God's-Realm at a distant time and I have no right to judge or debate it. My part is "my role with or without a focus on God in my life" and one way or another I'll answer (past, present and future)for that in the fullness of time.
Jesus said "judge not" about small things so, "who knows God": is much larger and just as impossible to know.
JollyJoker said:
And now the question: Is there any relevant difference between 2 persons living basically the same life in terms of social relations, but one is a Christian and the other is not?
For me...a big Yes; pre-Faith it was like living a mental-sketch, after Christ I've been carrying in hand, a torn blue-print; still not the full picture, just far more of it, to use as my rudder to guide me into life-waves, instead of being driven by the currents of chance.
This is not the complete picture because there is one last but all ruling impact on my reality; I did have the conversion experience at 25. It indeed was a magical moment that came from my first belief and utterance of Faith.
Just notice this; I don't make my experience a bar for all other souls to hurdle. I believe God calls all children (young and old alike) and that each one will one day, just yield and come as they are.
MOD EDIT: No problem, my friend. And I just did it again.  Still looks kind of screwy though. I think you meant to quote JJ and deleted the quote part. Fixed it best I could so at least the formatting is right..
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:03, 21 Aug 2013.
|
baklava said:
Elodin:
In my previous posts, there are answers to everything you're saying (parts which we're in disagreement about). God demanded all kinds of things in the Old Testament. But to say that the New Testament not only allows but makes it obligatory to execute people is to hold, well, I won't say delusions, but certainly misinterpretations about this specific religion. Have you tried Islam? It's more open to interpretation that way.
No, Islam says Jesus Christ is not divine and Islam's portrayal of God is very different from the way God is revealed in the Bible.
It is you who is at odds with the plain teachings of the Bible.
You also deny a real hell, which when the New Testament plainly teaches a real hell that is eternal torment. Maybe you should try a religion that teaches no one goes to hell, 'cause the Bible teaches no such thing.
"The power of the sword" was well understood by the Romans Paul wrote the epistle of Romans to. Rome never used a sword to discipline someone. They used a sword to kill.
Never, not one time in the entire Bible does God say the job of the state is to make a person more spiritual or to bring them to repentance. Not once. The state's job as spelled out in the epistle to the Romans is to be a minister of God in executing the wrath of God upon evil doers with the power of the sword. The Romans Paul wrote the letter to did not think that Paul meant that Rome has the power to preach the gospel to them or to beg them to change if they murdered somebody.
To say that Paul writing to the Romans that the state is to be a "terror" to evildoers and "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" via the "power of the sword" does not include capital punishment is, well, I won't say delusional, but certainly misinterprets the obvious straightforward meaning of the passage.
Have you tried Scientology or the Unitarians? I think they'd be more in line with your interpretation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
Elodin, did you conveniently ignore my answer to ypu?
Quote:
So if I understand you correctly, you say that enforcing the law against criminals is the job of the state, and since God demanded to execute murderers, SHOULD the state decide to do so, this doesn't undermine Christian teachings. Right?
Now God also demanded to execute homosexuals and adulteresses.
So SHOULD a state have explicit laws against homosexuality and adultery and should a state decide to execute people breaking those laws, I suppose, this wouldn't undermine Christian teachings either? Right?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Nixonite
|
|
posted August 21, 2013 11:19 PM |
|
|
Elodin: One problem I have with capital punishment being endorsed in the New Testament is this:
Saul/Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians. If there was anyone who deserved to be punished, I think it was him. But instead he was forgiven and given a very important mission by God.
So, why can't other people be changed like Paul was? It never made sense to me that Paul was forgiven for his crimes and others have to be executed.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 12:42 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:42, 22 Aug 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
Elodin, did you conveniently ignore my answer to ypu?
Quote:
So if I understand you correctly, you say that enforcing the law against criminals is the job of the state, and since God demanded to execute murderers, SHOULD the state decide to do so, this doesn't undermine Christian teachings. Right?
Now God also demanded to execute homosexuals and adulteresses.
So SHOULD a state have explicit laws against homosexuality and adultery and should a state decide to execute people breaking those laws, I suppose, this wouldn't undermine Christian teachings either? Right?
No. I answer what I have time to answer.
There was no commandment before the Law given to Moses that gays or adulturers were to be executed. There was a commandment before the Law of Moses that murderers be executed.
Later, God formed the nation of Israel. Sin was also considered crime as Israel was designated by God as a theocracy. Every person in Israel repeated the Law, the penalty for breaking the Law, and vowed to follow the Law.
When God gave the Law (Old Covenant) through Moses to the nation of Israel Israel was commanded to execute a number of people for various crimes, including murder and all sex outside marriage (except an unmarried man and unmarried woman who had sex were to be wed instead.)
It was not a mystery to anyone what would happen if they got caught committing adultery or worshiping false gods or engaging in gay sex. They had repeated the Law themselves and had vowed to follow the Law and had repeated the penalties for breaking the Law.
The Old Covenant is over, finished, fulfilled in Christ, and was a covenant with the specific nation of Israel.
The New Covenant did not set up another theocracy. The New Covenant set up no physical nation. The New Covenant does say the state has the power of the sword to execute the wrath of God on evil doers. Remember the epistle to the Romans was written to people living in Rome. So we should understand "evildoer" in this instance to be things that even pagan Rome would consider evil. Such as murder, rape, kidnapping and such. Things even people who do not know God generally consider to be evil.
Does a state have the right to make laws for purely moral reasons? Yes. Should a state execute someone for non-predatory things like adultery and gay sex? In my opinion, no. God has not set up another theocracy. Ancient Israel was the last true theocracy, and insofar as we know was the only true theocracy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 01:14 AM |
|
|
Drakon-Deus said:
Elodin: One problem I have with capital punishment being endorsed in the New Testament is this:
Saul/Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians. If there was anyone who deserved to be punished, I think it was him. But instead he was forgiven and given a very important mission by God.
So, why can't other people be changed like Paul was? It never made sense to me that Paul was forgiven for his crimes and others have to be executed.
Saul's killing of Christians was blessed by the Jewish leaders. In fact they gave him letters authorizing him to murder the Christians. Rome turned a blind eye because they did not care about what the Jews were doing as long as they kept it within the Jewish community (Israel was ruled by Rome, remember.)
When Saul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus he came to the realization that Jesus is the LORD (YAHWEH) and that what he had been doing was wrong. The Bible says Saul was "trembling and astonished." He asked the Lord what he must do and he followed what the Lord said he must do.
So, the Jewish leaders had told Saul to kill Christians, Rome did not care that Jews were killing Jews (all the early Christians were Jews.) There was nobody around demanding that he be prosecuted for murder.
Jesus forgave Paul of the sins of murder (he did not forgive Paul for any crimes) and chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
If the state would determine with 100% accuracy that someone had been truly transformed some time after they committed the murder, then sure, there would be no reason to execute such a person. But the state can't see anyone's heart. The state is to execute murderers for the crime of murder. People suffer hell for the sin of murder.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:08 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:11, 22 Aug 2013.
|
Elodin said:
Does a state have the right to make laws for purely moral reasons? Yes.
Absolutely no! First, it's totally subjective and there are no objective criteria to determine which level of this or that behavior is immoral. To you intercourse out of wedlock is immoral, to some just holding hands qualify, to some even this is immoral:
Let me translate, it's two Muslims, the uploader of the picture says her little niece is supporting the protests in Egypt too, the other one objects by saying she's not small, she definitely reached puberty and the picture is suggestive and demands it should be removed.
(Btw, liberal(!) defenders of the burqa maybe can have a clue about the mindset behind it with such examples.)
But even if there was a universal morality and everybody agreed upon it, the law should be about rights not what's right. Even if we all agree that being mean is an immoral thing and furthermore even if we agree on what constitutes being mean, being mean can not be outlawed. People should still have a right to be not nice, mean snows.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:35 AM |
|
|
Laws against murder, theft, etc, also are justified for moral reasons. "Moral reasons" =/= religion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
