Thread: Questions about christianity, I have answers.

Thanks for answering the questions. I'll get to comments.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Ok I sense some confusion here, as far as I know the disciples do not claim that they are part of God at all, just that they are his servants and have been given the ability to preform miracles. Jesus does distinguish himself from God in many ways, you just have to think of it like this, Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the loving forgiving side of Gods personality which God deposited in a person and then brought to life through mary the Virgin, in this way Jesus was God but not God, seperate but the same. This is an incredibly confusing topic and I am probably not the best person to answer this question. I guess the thing to do would be to look at the three leaf clover, three seperate parts, one whole.

Yeah, it's a kind of confusing topic unless you get my whole story. Here's a thread I made a while back, with the whole concept.


http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=53674

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

I must have forgotten to put "all-forgiving" in the question also. If God always forgives, then there is no need for a hell.

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

Is it sin if we do not know of God's love, yet commit acts that are viewed as sins by Christians, even if they are not very morally wrong? What if somebody knows of God's love, and sins, but not for the sake of sin, but to get by in life?

These are wrong, it's just that simple. You have to remember that the church and conversion are all human endavours and therefore subject to human flaw, sometimes the wrong tactics get used, just like in a war (not that I'm saying conversion is a war.)

So you view them as wrong or mistakes made by the Church and many Christians or you neglect them? I'm confused from your wording a little bit.

If the first, then you agree that Christianity is enshrouded in hypocrisy. (Not necessarily directed at you or bad for you, just for the religion as a whole.) If the latter, then you are obviously ignorant.

The uncertainty of intepretation is another human flaw that has harmed religion. You have to remember that the bible was written over 2,000yrs ago and people might have lost track of exactly which parts where literal and which parts metephorical. As for the slavery and the stoning of women both of those things where denounced upon the arival of Jesus as were the food requirements.

That is exactly my point. Because it was written so long ago and has lost so much meaning and interpretation, as well as how to interpret, it leaves it as a very unreliable source of any historical relevance. When it turns completely metaphoric, it is only a set of morals

I never knew or heard of them being denounced. Is there any scripture showing this? I remember mostly hearing and reading scriptures where Jesus had said something about the lines of the Torah being completely correct.

Both the church/christian community and I believe that both Agnostics/Atheists and people of any other religion will go to hell upon death.

So, is there any chance that you are in the wrong religion, and will consequently go to Hell because the right religion says so?

This is the sad part about Christianity. The arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy surpass any other group of people.

I believe morality can exsist outside of God's command and that it is not the only source of morality.

K.

I believe that evolution carried on normally outside of the Garden and after Adam and eve commited the first sin he sluaghtered the dinosuars, spread the modern vegitation and then threw them out and killed the garden.

It sounds like a highly distorted form of scripture that keeps getting twisted as science furthers itself.

Many people believe that a verse in paul's letter to the romans condemns Homosexuals. I think that being Homosexualy oriented is perfectly ok but actually engaging in homosexual acts is the sin. I think that if one seeks forgiveness and then trys to resist acting on their urges they are going to heaven.

Homosexuals are humans just as you and I are. It's not a voluntary thing, and although it may not obviously be the normal, it's not controllable. Just as you and I have sexual urges for women and straight girls have sexual urges for men, they have the same urges, but for opposite genders. Acting upon something that seems only natural to your physiology can't be considered morally wrong, because your body makes it chemically right.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Yes I guess I should be suspicious of writings done in the past but these writings form the base of the religion. You have to trust someone or you will have no one when you really need them. I guess I believe them because I WANT to believe they are true. I have found nothing to suggest to me that the writers where purposely misleading just as I have found nothing to suggest that they all believed what they were writing. I guess it is really comes down to the fact that I don't have proof either way.

Sounded like you were describing a death cult for a second.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Also almost the whole bible is revolved around the Zodiac celestial coordinate systems used in many early religion.

Exactly. Yet astrology is a no-no in the religion? 0.o

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Okay...History in the bible... and I can add pages and pages to this:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

t was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

* The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by historians Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
* Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
* Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
* Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
* Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
* Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
* Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
* Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
* Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
* Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Bears no meaning to anything I said at all. Do try to pay attention.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

I'm curious about something Lucid Boy, If un-righteous people die and go to hell then why the need for 2 resurrections as indicated the book of Revelations?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love.

I'm a little puzzled by this one as well. If God is "Omnipotent" why would he lack the feeling/knowledge of real love?

God is not omnipotent, omnicient, or omnibenevolent if anything exists that he thinks is "Bad". If God has any kind of preference, he is not Omnipotent, Omnicient, or Omnibenevolent. Period.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

God is not omnipotent, omnicient, or omnibenevolent if anything exists that he thinks is "Bad". If God has any kind of preference, he is not Omnipotent, Omnicient, or Omnibenevolent. Period.

Why? Because it's illogical? If so what you just mentioned has very little merit if any.

Because if god was Omnipotent:

- He dictates what does and what does not exist, what can and cannot happen. Why would he hate what he made if he loved it?

If god was Omnicient:

- He could forsee all problems with everything, and be able to fix them so he is not dissatisfied with his creation.

If god was Omnibenevolent:

- He would not see anything as sinful, there would be no pain or suffering or even a possibility of eternal torture, and Satan would not exist.

And if I am not allowed to be logical then I will leave now, because illogicalities (Bullshit) is what started many of Humans' problems.

^^

ALL BOW TO THE KING OF THE LOUNGE!!!!!

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

If God is omnipotent, why can't he create us with the experience of real love and free will as well as not having any suffering or evil?

If god needs to permit the possibility of evil and suffering for us to experience true love, then doesn't that make him not omnipotent?

Great job, Seis.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

If God is omnipotent, why can't he create us with the experience of real love and free will as well as not having any suffering or evil?

If god needs to permit the possibility of evil and suffering for us to experience true love, then doesn't that make him not omnipotent?

That's what I said as well

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That's what I said as well

It's the classic problem of evil.

It's fun.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

- He dictates what does and what does not exist, what can and cannot happen. Why would he hate what he made if he loved it?

If god was Omnicient:

- He could forsee all problems with everything, and be able to fix them so he is not dissatisfied with his creation.

If god was Omnibenevolent:

- He would not see anything as sinful, there would be no pain or suffering or even a possibility of eternal torture, and Satan would not exist.

And if I am not allowed to be logical then I will leave now, because illogicalities (Bullshit) is what started many of Humans' problems.

I’ll take this as your logical argument; let’s consider the statements you’ve posted. If this truly is your logical argument then once again it hold’s no merit. Would it not make sense for logic on an Omnipotent level to supersede this form of low-level logic, considering being Omnipotent would naturally be above logic? Do you agree that an Omnipotent being is above your sense of logic? If not then we have another problem.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I’ll take this as your logical argument; let’s consider the statements you’ve posted. If this truly is your logical argument then once again it hold’s no merit. Would it not make sense for logic on an Omnipotent level to supersede this form of low-level logic, considering being Omnipotent would naturally be above logic? Do you agree that an Omnipotent being is above your sense of logic? If not then we have another problem.

So you're claiming omnipotence is above logic?

Because usually in philosophy of religion the assumption is that omnipotent does not mean above laws of logic. So an omnipotent being can create a 4 sided triangle?

I just want a simply yes/no to what you are arguing for here btw, nothing more yet.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

So you're claiming omnipotence is above logic?

Because usually in philosophy of religion the assumption is that omnipotent does not mean above laws of logic. So an omnipotent being can create a 4 sided triangle?

I just want a simply yes/no to what you are arguing for here btw, nothing more yet.

Omnipotency breaks logic. Take your 4 sided triangle which is absolutely meaningless but's lets use it, since you've presented it.

Answer: An Omnipotent being "can" create a 4 sided traingle while leaving it 3 sided at that same time.

Alright..

So your original argument was the criticism of the impotence of logic to argue about a being which is above logic right?

Again yes/no.

Yes

So from that it makes any argument about the nature of "god" meaningless because we argue via logic, and logic doesn't apply to him?

y/n, last one, i promise.

Hey Lucid Boy, if Jesus denounced some of the ideas in the Old Testament, does that mean that version was wrong?

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

So from that it makes any argument about the nature of "god" meaningless because we argue via logic, and logic doesn't apply to him?

y/n, last one, i promise.

Sorry but I can do a simple y/n on this one because the argument is truley paradoxal by definition. However I'll give an answer.

God doesn't have to follow our ideas of what is logical and what is illogical because in his omnipotent nature he is the essence of both what is logical and what is illogical.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Sorry but I can do a simple y/n on this one because the argument is truley paradoxal by definition. However I'll give an answer.

God doesn't have to follow our ideas of what is logical and what is illogical because in his omnipotent nature he is the essence of both what is logical and what is illogical.

Ok, ok, so it does make it silly to argue about his nature using just logic right?


But I'm assuming you came to your belief in God using logic right?

okay before we dig deeper into this, let's make sure we are both on the same page in regards to what is logic.

By definition I assume that Logic: is the study of principles by correct reasoning, do you agree?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Answer: An Omnipotent being "can" create a 4 sided traingle while leaving it 3 sided at that same time.

"Triangle" is a man-made designation for three-sided objects...when an omnipotent being makes a four sided object, man will define it as a "quadrilateral".

Well logic is a tricky one to define, and I know where you have that definition from, which is a good one, but in the type of logic i'm disputing God being above i'm verging on the most solid, which is mathematical, although not entirely.

For example

"If a then b,

a,

so b"

or 1 and 1 is 2.

I don't want to restrict myself to the definition you suggest but logic of this sort and of the triangle example earlier.


Basically yeah, the study of principles by correct reasoning, but I just wanted to throw these out there as not to get completely bogged in the wording.