Christianity...

[c130]

I did have a specific answer in mind, and you provided one of many of good answers to it. Thank you.

Now that we all know I'm looking for personal response rather than academic suggestion, is there anyone else willing to share their thoughts?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by c130

I don't want to pick apart your beliefs or tell you why I think you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested to hear your beliefs and why you believe what you do, as difficult to believe as that may be, coming from an atheist on a goth forum.

Well, to mention it periodically, I'm a satanist. I don't believe in heaven or hell, so I cannot give you a personal oppinion of why is there a heaven and hell, but I can give you the reason that says there is.

On Demoness' post: There were indeed guards. We can know that by a test called the Adverse Witness test. Believers said "The body was resurrected." Non-believers said "You stole it" (or a similar argument). Believers said "We couldn't have stolen it, there were guards". Non-believers said "The guards could have fallen asleep."
If there were no guards, they could have easily said "What are you talking about? There were no guards."

Originally Posted by Splintered

Whose to say that there was not an account of Jesus murdering someone? Or Lying? Or some other thing that altered his teachings? If I write up a medical report, yet I alter some of the data, the entire report is invalidated.

But it wasn't so. Why would the apostles have covered some things and not others?
There are excerpts from the New Testament that are embarassing to admit from one's Messiah. Examples:
When crucified, the Son asked the Father why had He left Him.
Jesus was hungry, went to a fig tree, got upset that there were no figs, and withered the tree.
Women (very far below men in these times) were the first ones to have seen the tomb empty and worthy enough to have seen resurrected Christ before anyone else.
Jesus was tempted by the devil.

Originally Posted by Splintered

I disagree. Being in eternal torment, doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.

That's a statement both ignorant "seculars" and even more ignorant Christians say. Hell is always decribed as separation of God, and never torment. There's only one verse that comes close to our vision of Hell, where it speaks about flames. (If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. - Mark 9:43)

Originally Posted by Splintered

A moral guide can be relative.

Not if there's a God. Again, not agreeing with Him doesn't make him an unrealistic character.

Originally Posted by Splintered

And yes, I would rather be a robot.

Well, I certainly wouldn't. There's no price big enough to be able to be your own man.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Who said they wanted seperation from God? Homosexuals are violating God's law (In Both the New and the Old Testament), yet they could be uber-Christians in other areas. They simply won't regret being Homosexual. What about them?

The God of a homosexual Christian is not the same as the biblical one, because the biblical does not approve homosexuality. Even if that's the only thing that separates that God with the biblical one, they're not the same one, ergo "They have separated themselves from the real God". Just as well, my mother believes in basically the same God as in the bible, but she doesn't believe Jesus is the Christ, and therefore she has decided "To separate herself from the real God"

[Mr_Knuckles]

Jillian, you've really done your homework. Hats off to you. Were you formerly chrisitan?

Originally Posted by Splintered

Whose to say that there was not an account of Jesus murdering someone? Or Lying? Or some other thing that altered his teachings? If I write up a medical report, yet I alter some of the data, the entire report is invalidated.

Jillian answered this quite well, but I'll add something. The trivial facts aren't necessary. If they were included, it would be quite cumbersome to search through. "On Day 2 of Jesus' trek back to Jerusalm, Jesus said He was thirsty and needed to deficate. I, Matthew, got him a glass of water and waited as he went behind the donkey to do his buisness. We walked for hours on end, and geez was it hot! My sandals felt like weights....." All this is logically sound and could have happened, but there is no need for recording it. The integral point still stands, even though text is condenced. Also, would we be here discussing this in the first place if Jesus' teachings were previously invalidated by what you're speaking of?

As for the medical report analogy, that only applys if important data is altered.
Example:
"10% of the red blood cells show signs of infection. "
if it's written "89% of the white blood cells show signs of infection" then it's invalidated.
if it's written "10% cells red dfklaj signs infection", it's different data but the point is still attainable.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Sure, but that's not what I am pointing out. I'm pointing out that many people claim the apocalypse/global disaster is coming. Why would we listen to just this guy?

Not everyone is willing to have an ark built, or to bear such ridicule, all with such sincerity.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Note the word people. Why do we attribute such a powerful being, as having the same problems that plague our society, such as desire?

Because these characteristics are attrubited to God throughout the bible.

Originally Posted by Splintered

And we couldn't do this by methods in the Christian bible?

I don't understand your question. =/

Originally Posted by Splintered

Not true. If I am simply in a state where I am having a constant pleasure being put through my body, then why would I need to have pain?

Can you maintain this state? You're speaking of a specific instance in time. For your theory to work, everyone would have to be in this constant pleasure state for all time. Even if we take an intance in time, I'll bet that even though some are in a state of pleasure, there is just as many in pain. Existance isn't central to "I".

On a side note, I have a hard time believing in a "present tence", only "past present" and a "future present" as you can't caputre a moment. It's gone before you get there. Sorry to go off topic, but I just thought I'd share that thought.

Originally Posted by Splintered

I disagree. Being in eternal torment, doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest.

Not even if they choose it after a lifetime of forewarning?

Originally Posted by Splintered

You assume hell is heaven for the wicked. For all we know, it's simply where you experience constant pain, that is continually expanded until eternity.

I said that because it's their desire.

Originally Posted by Splintered

It was their choice to believe a lie?
Knowing the consequences, and not having a being created by God to tempt them, and not having God stop this being, was their fault? That's like saying it's my fault because someone put the gun in my hand, and pulled the trigger to shoot someone, when I was ultimately powerless to stop them, and told by an agent of the law (Or God for comparison), that it was a good thing.

Bad analogy (because nothing was forced), but I'll answer with this:

James 1:13-15 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Originally Posted by Splintered

And yes, I would rather be a robot.

Didn't see that coming.

Originally Posted by Splintered

If I give someone a gun, knowing they are going to shoot someone, am I not guilty as well?

Not if you forewarn this person and provide them with an absolute escape route ("hey, that'll kill you don't eat it" and "salvation through Jesus Christ").

Originally Posted by Splintered

Because the Creator created the consequence in the first place. It'd be like saying that George Washington should have been executed for treason, because he rebelled to the King, because he felt that America would be better off without English rule.

See earlier James 1:13-15 argument.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Who said they wanted seperation from God? Homosexuals are violating God's law (In Both the New and the Old Testament), yet they could be uber-Christians in other areas. They simply won't regret being Homosexual. What about them?

If you don't want to submit to God (Jesus), by lack of option, you're not; and therefore seperate.

This is where my opinion differs. If the homosexual is sincere in their christianity (Believing core concept, Jesus died for thier sins and was rose again and that He only is the way and light to the one true God and confess this publicly) then they are still serving the same God and still going to heaven. The only difference is when the homosexual is juged the sin of homosexuality is counted against them, just as good deeds are counted in favor, like a balance scale. Then you will be rewarded accordingly.

Accompanying verses:
hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Jesus won't stand up for us at the final judgement)

Rev 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

2 Cor 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (Person's argument is presented to God the Father by Jesus, who decides justification for all said person's actions)

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Hell is always decribed as separation of God, and never torment.

Hell is indeed a place of separation from God, but torment as well (being seperate from God, where pleasure is given or held back).

Rev 20:10 "and the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Rev 20:14-15 "and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 and whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Rev 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Originally Posted by c130

I did have a specific answer in mind..

Persons have faith according to certian "feelings". Feelings could possibly be self induced subconsiously. Or persons found Christianity simply because it presents itself being the most practiced. Is that where you're going w/ this?

Also, in response to your argument for the existance of Heaven or Hell, angels or demons: Would near death expereinces allude to existnace of Heaven or Hell? What of possesion for existance of demons? and mysterious persons lending a helping hand or "testing" people then vanishing w/o trace for existance of angels?

[RobinGreenwood]

I'm not sure if this has been answered, but what Jesus cried out on the cross when he died was, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?". It is the first line of Psalm 22. Read the rest of the psalm and you'll understand why.

[Mr_Knuckles]

Thanks Robin, I don't have to have doubts about that now.

[Gretchen Mädelnick]

I wonder how important this all is. In the end, whatever there might be "out there", it will be creation of you own mind. This has consequences.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

No one said it was important... It's simply interesting.

[Gretchen Mädelnick]

"Important" in the sense of "important to be happy or happier". Or "important to believe or not to believe".

And once again you read things I didn't post. I only wonder. Nothing more.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

I prefer to debate things that are interesting rather than important. When things are unimportant I feel more able to allow myself the luxury of hypothesis.

[Delkaetre]

When I die, I'm demanding to see the manager. if God exists, He's either very disorganised, very cruel, very senile, very apathetic, or some combination of the above. I'm just not feeling the love, here.
He does not create all men equal, He creates men in horrible poverty, doomed to inescapable lives of betrayal, pain, and cruelty (and don't bloody argue, you KNOW everyone can't get out, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone in such a situation).
He does not show any sign of love for His children when He tests so many people worse than Job when He apparently already knows everything- so He has no need to test! He only seems to test for the fun of it, since if He knows all, He knows that the person being tested either is or is not going to be a loyal follower at the end of it, rendering the test useless.
He allows cruelty, suffering, ignorance, and does not protect the weak as such a good Lord and Shepherd surely should. If God is real, then I'll go to Hell and be glad of it, for certainly I could never find one half so twisted and cruel as He in that Godless palce.

[Splintered]

But it wasn't so. Why would the apostles have covered some things and not others?
There are excerpts from the New Testament that are embarassing to admit from one's Messiah. Examples:
When crucified, the Son asked the Father why had He left Him.
Jesus was hungry, went to a fig tree, got upset that there were no figs, and withered the tree.
Women (very far below men in these times) were the first ones to have seen the tomb empty and worthy enough to have seen resurrected Christ before anyone else.
Jesus was tempted by the devil.

What if there was a passage that said, "Jesus had murdered this man, on this day", and was decided to be left out? Even though there are some embarassing facts, that can simply be a diversion. One of the tenets of a good lie, is that you leave in unconfirmable data. Such as "The popcorn was too salty, so I through it into the trashcan halfway during the movie."

If they were included, it would be quite cumbersome to search through. "On Day 2 of Jesus' trek back to Jerusalm, Jesus said He was thirsty and needed to deficate. I, Matthew, got him a glass of water and waited as he went behind the donkey to do his buisness. We walked for hours on end, and geez was it hot! My sandals felt like weights....." All this is logically sound and could have happened, but there is no need for recording it. The integral point still stands, even though text is condenced. Also, would we be here discussing this in the first place if Jesus' teachings were previously invalidated by what you're speaking of?

Condenced, or censored? Once again, how do we know that something major, as you described it in an upcoming example, was not removed? Having a wife, is something pretty considerable I imagine. If it is true that this was removed, then who is to say something else major, was not removed in turn? His teaching's may not be invalidated, but his credibility as the messiah most certainly would be, along with the integrity of the Bible.

That's a statement both ignorant "seculars" and even more ignorant Christians say. Hell is always decribed as separation of God, and never torment. There's only one verse that comes close to our vision of Hell, where it speaks about flames. (If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. - Mark 9:43)

"The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades ... he cried and said 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'" Luke 16:23-24

"And then He will say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matthew 25:41

"The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practise lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matt 13:41

"If anyone worships the beast ... he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Revelations 14:10

The sinners in Zion are afraid;
Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites:
"Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" Isaiah 33:14

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/hell.htm <= That's more, if you want.

Not if there's a God. Again, not agreeing with Him doesn't make him an unrealistic character.

See below.

Well, I certainly wouldn't. There's no price big enough to be able to be your own man.

That's a matter of opinion.

The God of a homosexual Christian is not the same as the biblical one, because the biblical does not approve homosexuality. Even if that's the only thing that separates that God with the biblical one, they're not the same one, ergo "They have separated themselves from the real God". Just as well, my mother believes in basically the same God as in the bible, but she doesn't believe Jesus is the Christ, and therefore she has decided "To separate herself from the real God"

To counter with one of your own arguements: Again, not agreeing with Him doesn't make him an unrealistic character.

If there is one constant universal God, then how can it be such a variable? In that case, you either approve my above arguement, or you have to take out both arguements.

Not everyone is willing to have an ark built, or to bear such ridicule, all with such sincerity.

Actually, there's this guy up in Canada, who has built an underground complex, made from school buses. He believes the apocalypse is coming (Whether it is, is another debate). I'm still trying to find the link.

Because these characteristics are attrubited to God throughout the bible.

But why? Why would such a being have such human emotions?

[quote]Can you maintain this state? You're speaking of a specific instance in time. For your theory to work, everyone would have to be in this constant pleasure state for all time. Even if we take an intance in time, I'll bet that even though some are in a state of pleasure, there is just as many in pain. Existance isn't central to "I"./QUOTE]

Yes. You can. Say I have a wire. If I constantly increase the electricity in the wire, the wire will always have that electricity.

Not even if they choose it after a lifetime of forewarning?

If the source is not credible, or does not have sufficent proof, why do you believe it?

I said that because it's their desire.

Unless they're some sort of Hyper-Masochist, I don't understand why they would want to burn in hell.

James 1:13-15 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

We're going to tell you not to be tempted! And if you are! You go to hell! It's not our fault! Even though we put it there in the first place! That essentially sums up that quote. It seems. As Spock would put it. Illogical.

Not if you forewarn this person and provide them with an absolute escape route ("hey, that'll kill you don't eat it" and "salvation through Jesus Christ").

"Don't do it man! Don't shoot the person!" *Hands them gun* "Don't do it!" *Hands them ammunition* "Don't do it" *Shows them picture of another man doing their wife....

See my point?

If you don't want to submit to God (Jesus), by lack of option, you're not; and therefore seperate.

This is where my opinion differs. If the homosexual is sincere in their christianity (Believing core concept, Jesus died for thier sins and was rose again and that He only is the way and light to the one true God and confess this publicly) then they are still serving the same God and still going to heaven. The only difference is when the homosexual is juged the sin of homosexuality is counted against them, just as good deeds are counted in favor, like a balance scale. Then you will be rewarded accordingly.

1 Corinthians
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Ah, you have beaten me on the issue on Hell, my friend.
Getting out of my "Christian" mode; Hell has always been the main subject for my arguments on christianity.
I'm trying to research and write a paper on it.
What I'm arguing is the fact that it's obvious christianity is nothing but another religion which takes its beliefs as its own from other religions.
The main example is Zoroastrianism.
Then it's the Greek belief of Hades.
Jews, if I'm not wrong, do not believe in a Hell, yet, for some reason, christians do.
If you read the verse you gave us of Isaiah, you will notice that there's a different tone and context to it than in the verses of the New Testament. Isaiah sounds more of powerful imagery than a literal place.
I haven't still found it, but I'm trying to see if Matthew and Luke were Roman born; ergo, before Christ, they'd have worshipped the Roman-Greek Pantheon and had believed in Hades. But I still can't fit revelations in that formula.

[Mr_Knuckles]

Originally Posted by Splintered

What if there was a passage that said, "Jesus had murdered this man, on this day", and was decided to be left out? Even though there are some embarassing facts, that can simply be a diversion. One of the tenets of a good lie, is that you leave in unconfirmable data. Such as "The popcorn was too salty, so I through it into the trashcan halfway during the movie."

If passages like this ever existed, passing validation themselves, no self respecting individual would believe in anything the bible had to say beyond that point, because the teachings would be invalidated. If Jesus did murder someone, and then taught "love thy neighbor"; would he have followers in the first place?

Originally Posted by Splintered

Condenced, or censored? Once again, how do we know that something major, as you described it in an upcoming example, was not removed? Having a wife, is something pretty considerable I imagine. If it is true that this was removed, then who is to say something else major, was not removed in turn? His teaching's may not be invalidated, but his credibility as the messiah most certainly would be, along with the integrity of the Bible.

The allegation of censorship implies that there was something to hide. If there were, why would one then hide it? This is exemplified by the Pharasees. They were trying their best to falsify Jesus' teachings. These people had such contempt for Jesus, they wanted him dead. If they couldn't do it, being heirarcheys of the temple "knowing the Law" (to catch Him in false teachings), and having first hand account (they saw with their own eyes), and paying people to find out what they could about Him (they did it with judas, there could have been others), why are we to believe that there is any evidence against Him? If they could have found something, they most definatley would have used it to publicly dismiss Jesus, His teachings, and His followers; as they went against then current Jewish tradition.

We've had roughly 2039 years to find evidence against Jesus. Don't you think if something credible would have turned up, it would overthrow the entire system?

The lack of a childhood account is pretty considerable too, but it's not an integral part of the point. It therefore can be nixed without negating the crucial data.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Actually, there's this guy up in Canada, who has built an underground complex, made from school buses. He believes the apocalypse is coming (Whether it is, is another debate). I'm still trying to find the link.

Who can blame him with North Korea testing nuclear technologies? Even so, I don't think this guy has evidence such as animals flocking in pairs.

Originally Posted by Splintered

But why? Why would such a being have such human emotions?

Because Humans were designed by/ of/ in similarity to God.

Gen 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."

Human: mind, body, and spirit

God: God the Father (mind), God the Son (Jesus/ Body), and God the Holy Spirit/ Ghost (Spirit)

We (humans) have desire to create (leonardo davinci). We have desire to love (valentines day). We have desire to rule (king henery v) We have desire to communicate (larry king live).

Originally Posted by Splintered

Yes. You can. Say I have a wire. If I constantly increase the electricity in the wire, the wire will always have that electricity.

Lets say electricity (current)= Pleasure (a positive)

By introducing the wire to current (pleasure), resistance causes energy loss exibited in heat, electomagnetisim, light, audible frequency, microwave frequency, etc. etc. (pain/ a negative). Again not relative to "I" (or in other words, a singularity). All wires in existance would have to have this constantly increasing state for all eternity. Also this goes against the law of conservasion of energy, the first, second, and third law of thermodynamics (as presence of heat would have to be null, else the wire would burn in two), and newton's third law of motion.

What of your power soruce? No source of power is infinate (`cept God, being omnipotent and all and not bound by time being the creator thereof).

Originally Posted by Splintered

If the source is not credible, or does not have sufficent proof, why do you believe it?

Because your conscience (God the Holy Spirit) convicts you of sin "Hey, that's wrong, don't do it", and you understand that there's a thing called "morality". Morality is best exemplified in a perfect judge (Jesus). You find valid firsthand witness to this perfect judge through testable written account. This perfect judge teaches of the one true God. God through His written word communicates Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Originally Posted by Splintered

Unless they're some sort of Hyper-Masochist, I don't understand why they would want to burn in hell.

Their desire is sin over God. Sin leads to Hell. Hell is seperation from God (also that whole eternal torment thing).

Originally Posted by Splintered

We're going to tell you not to be tempted! And if you are! You go to hell! It's not our fault! Even though we put it there in the first place! That essentially sums up that quote. It seems. As Spock would put it. Illogical.

1. God told them "Don't eat or you will DIE"
2. Satan chose to tempt them, not God; and I doubt the two are in cahoots.
3. They don't go to hell because they are tempted, they go to hell because upon choosing sin over God, they desire seperation from God.
4. Why did God put the tree there? I don't know. I suppose if they were to truely have free will, they would need a pathway away from God, as well as toward. It also goes on to say that the Tree of Life was also in the garden. Surely they would have known about this tree also, being "keepers of the garden".

Originally Posted by Splintered

"Don't do it man! Don't shoot the person!" *Hands them gun* "Don't do it!" *Hands them ammunition* "Don't do it" *Shows them picture of another man doing their wife....

See my point?

Yeah, I see your point, but it's not valid in this case as there is no force.

God gives Adam and Eve the paradise of the Garden of Eden (Stamped w/ his seal of approval "and it was very good"), and commands Gen 2:16-17 "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (including the tree of life): but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". This is already construed from transmission of Adam to Eve, as evident when she says "neither shall you touch it". Then Satan comes along and tells them essentially, "Hey, God's lying to you". Why then did Adam and Eve not go to God and ask "are you lying to me?" Eve then chooses to take Satan's word for it and eats the fruit. She then immediatly knows what's going on, so she gives it to Adam knowing the consequences. Adam chooses to eat it as well, being a witness, and also believing a lie.

God obviously knew what had went down, and decided to come "find" them. God knew where they were, yet He asks "Where art thou". This was to point out their condition/ state (seperate from God). Then they commence to pointing fingers, not assuming responsibility. The finger pointing inevitably leads back to God. "it was this woman YOU gave me" and "it was this snake YOU made". It makes sence then that God hates lies, and thus sin. He gets blamed for their irresponsibility.

Originally Posted by Splintered

1 Corinthians
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

But you left out the best and most intregral part (the point), outlined in the very next verse!

1 Corinthians 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

The subject is shame. 1 Cor 6:5 "I speak to your shame..." It's basically saying continuance these sinfull acts are shameful but not unforgivable. This text goes on to say that the Christian is bought for the price of Jesus' blood. To continue in sin would be a perversion of this, and also a bad witness. In context: joining to the harlot makes you of one flesh, thus making you a harlot. A harlot would hardly be of good reputation, and certianly unfit to convince others of thier sin and to present an alternative.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Come on. This thread cannot be forgotten.
There must be something we can still talk about.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Mr_Knuckles

If passages like this ever existed, passing validation themselves, no self respecting individual would believe in anything the bible had to say beyond that point, because the teachings would be invalidated. If Jesus did murder someone, and then taught "love thy neighbor"; would he have followers in the first place?

Sure, why not?
If Jesus told someone, that they could be read about by millions of people, have their name live on, and have people die for, for thousands of years, would they not logically take that chance, at the price of censoring something?

The allegation of censorship implies that there was something to hide. If there were, why would one then hide it?

You solved your own problem.

This is exemplified by the Pharasees. They were trying their best to falsify Jesus' teachings. These people had such contempt for Jesus, they wanted him dead. If they couldn't do it, being heirarcheys of the temple "knowing the Law" (to catch Him in false teachings), and having first hand account (they saw with their own eyes), and paying people to find out what they could about Him (they did it with judas, there could have been others), why are we to believe that there is any evidence against Him? If they could have found something, they most definatley would have used it to publicly dismiss Jesus, His teachings, and His followers; as they went against then current Jewish tradition.

Ever hear the expression, "History is written by the winners?". For all we know, the Pharasees did find something wrong with Jesus, they did use it against him, and they were punished. Don't believe it's possible? Look at the power of the Catholic Church during the pre-renaissance area. They had control over literacy, the scripture, and a vast army. It's temporal power was so great, that they could have made people believe anything. Who is to say that was no different for Jesus? Keep in mind, this is a very powerful figure.

We've had roughly 2039 years to find evidence against Jesus. Don't you think if something credible would have turned up, it would overthrow the entire system?

Who said we didn't?

Blind faith is a powerful tool.

Who can blame him with North Korea testing nuclear technologies? Even so, I don't think this guy has evidence such as animals flocking in pairs.

The point is, there is a guy, building a giant bunker, and spending a ton of money, to prepare for the apocalypse. Who is to say that Noah wouldn't have done the same? Whose to say many insane people didn't?

Because Humans were designed by/ of/ in similarity to God.

Gen 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."

Human: mind, body, and spirit

God: God the Father (mind), God the Son (Jesus/ Body), and God the Holy Spirit/ Ghost (Spirit)

We (humans) have desire to create (leonardo davinci). We have desire to love (valentines day). We have desire to rule (king henery v) We have desire to communicate (larry king live).

So, then would you assert that God, as we are, is flawed? If so, does this now put a very big kink in the Bible?

We 9Humans) have a desire to destory (Charles V). We have a desire to kill (Charles Manson). We have a desire to fight (Alexander the Great). We have a desire to oppress (Stalin and Hitler). Are these not logically qualities of God then? If not, where do you get the empirical evidence to contradict?

Lets say electricity (current)= Pleasure (a positive)

By introducing the wire to current (pleasure), resistance causes energy loss exibited in heat, electomagnetisim, light, audible frequency, microwave frequency, etc. etc. (pain/ a negative). Again not relative to "I" (or in other words, a singularity). All wires in existance would have to have this constantly increasing state for all eternity. Also this goes against the law of conservasion of energy, the first, second, and third law of thermodynamics (as presence of heat would have to be null, else the wire would burn in two), and newton's third law of motion.

What of your power soruce? No source of power is infinate (`cept God, being omnipotent and all and not bound by time being the creator thereof).

You solved your question of, "What is the power source", by yourself. God can simply be the ultimate power source, giving us the ultimate orgasm.

While it is true that you will always experience

Because your conscience (God the Holy Spirit) convicts you of sin "Hey, that's wrong, don't do it", and you understand that there's a thing called "morality". Morality is best exemplified in a perfect judge (Jesus). You find valid firsthand witness to this perfect judge through testable written account. This perfect judge teaches of the one true God. God through His written word communicates Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Unfortunately, a great many of philosophers are quick to point out: Morals are arbitrary, and depend more on the culture. For instances, in some culture it is wrong to point your heels at some people. Yet, we here in America, think that's perfectly okay.

Their desire is sin over God. Sin leads to Hell. Hell is seperation from God (also that whole eternal torment thing).

Which reminds me.
Why is it sin in the first place?
Because God arbitrarily decided that it is sin?

1. God told them "Don't eat or you will DIE"

Which makes no sense.
God made it. Put it there. Knew full well they were going to eat it. But put it there anyway.

2. Satan chose to tempt them, not God; and I doubt the two are in cahoots.

Yet, God made Satan too...

3. They don't go to hell because they are tempted, they go to hell because upon choosing sin over God, they desire seperation from God.

Yeah, I mean a being who has ****, torture, and oppression under it's belt, is everyone's best friend...

4. Why did God put the tree there? I don't know. I suppose if they were to truely have free will, they would need a pathway away from God, as well as toward. It also goes on to say that the Tree of Life was also in the garden. Surely they would have known about this tree also, being "keepers of the garden".

Which makes no sense.

Yeah, I see your point, but it's not valid in this case as there is no force.

God gives Adam and Eve the paradise of the Garden of Eden (Stamped w/ his seal of approval "and it was very good"), and commands Gen 2:16-17 "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (including the tree of life): but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". This is already construed from transmission of Adam to Eve, as evident when she says "neither shall you touch it". Then Satan comes along and tells them essentially, "Hey, God's lying to you". Why then did Adam and Eve not go to God and ask "are you lying to me?" Eve then chooses to take Satan's word for it and eats the fruit. She then immediatly knows what's going on, so she gives it to Adam knowing the consequences. Adam chooses to eat it as well, being a witness, and also believing a lie.

Let's look at this from the start.

God created Satan.
God put Satan with the task to tempt Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve trust God and his creations.
Satan is one of God's creations.
Adam and Eve trust Satan.
Adam and Eve learn from Satan, that they can eat the fruit from the tree.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the tree.
God get's pissed.

God obviously knew what had went down, and decided to come "find" them. God knew where they were, yet He asks "Where art thou". This was to point out their condition/ state (seperate from God). Then they commence to pointing fingers, not assuming responsibility. The finger pointing inevitably leads back to God. "it was this woman YOU gave me" and "it was this snake YOU made". It makes sence then that God hates lies, and thus sin. He gets blamed for their irresponsibility.

Yeah. I mean once again, it's not like giving someone the means, the drive, and the impression it's okay, leads to negligence and makes someone accountable.

Oh...
Wait...


Yes it does.

But you left out the best and most intregral part (the point), outlined in the very next verse!

1 Corinthians 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

The subject is shame. 1 Cor 6:5 "I speak to your shame..." It's basically saying continuance these sinfull acts are shameful but not unforgivable. This text goes on to say that the Christian is bought for the price of Jesus' blood. To continue in sin would be a perversion of this, and also a bad witness. In context: joining to the harlot makes you of one flesh, thus making you a harlot. A harlot would hardly be of good reputation, and certianly unfit to convince others of thier sin and to present an alternative.

Okay. Why would I want to ask God for forgiveness, if I am homosexual? I like being homosexual. Being homosexual is fun. I like my same gender partner, and I don't regret it.

Yet. God says I will go to hell, because I'm not ashamed of this. It doesn't make sense.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Those are a hell load of commentaries; so I can only answer one at a time. We'll talk about each if we get more in depth with them.

Originally Posted by Splintered

God created Satan.
God put Satan with the task to tempt Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve trust God and his creations.
Satan is one of God's creations.
Adam and Eve trust Satan.
Adam and Eve learn from Satan, that they can eat the fruit from the tree.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the tree.
God get's pissed.

Ok, there are some mistakes in here. First, God created Satan. But God did not place Satan with the task to tempt Adam and Eve. Satan, by his own free will wanted to be equal to or greater than God, and as so, God took away his place in the heavens.
As so, Satan decided to take away the thing that God loved the most: us.
Adam and Eve are tempted by Satan to eat of the fruit.
But, remember, God is omniscient. He gave us the opportunity to choose. Adam and Eve chose the apple.
God was dissappointed, but not surprised. Jesus knew he would come to this world even before God created Adam and Eve.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Ok, there are some mistakes in here. First, God created Satan. But God did not place Satan with the task to tempt Adam and Eve. Satan, by his own free will wanted to be equal to or greater than God, and as so, God took away his place in the heavens.

God created Satan.
Everything God creates must serve a purpose; otherwise existence is meaningless under God. To serve God, or to not serve God is a purpose.
Satan must then inherently have a purpose, given by God, granted the two above conditions are true.

Therefore,

God's creation of Satan must have had a purpose.
Since it is logical that God could have stopped Satan, it is also logical to assume that whatever Satan did, God must have wanted.
Therefore, God's purpose for Satan, must be the temptation of Adam and Eve; for such were his actions, and such was the lack of interference of God.

As so, Satan decided to take away the thing that God loved the most: us.

Which as demonstrated above, must have been allowed by God in the first place.

Therefore, by chain of causation, God allowed such an event to happen.

Adam and Eve are tempted by Satan to eat of the fruit.
But, remember, God is omniscient. He gave us the opportunity to choose. Adam and Eve chose the apple.
God was dissappointed, but not surprised. Jesus knew he would come to this world even before God created Adam and Eve.

Yet, if God is omniscient, why did he not stop Satan. More over, why did he create Satan, full well knowing what he was going to do? Using that logic, it must have been God's divine will, and fully embraces and supports my above argument. It also supports the entire original argument as a whole.

Which then begs the question: Why creation something as purposeless as this event in the first place.

We are to return to paradise (Heaven and Jesus).
We came from paradise (Eden and God).
Why must we travel through the middle ground? It serves no purpose.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Why didn't God stop Satan?
I have already told it. Because he gave us the choice to listen to Satan. God has never hindered our free will in any way.
And the middle ground does have a purpose. Not everyone returns to paradise.

[Splintered]

Actually, he didn't.
You see, if God is omniscient, then he must know the outcome of every event, because God created in totality, the events, and knows all possible outcomes.

Therefore, God must be inherently titled to predisposition the world so that it will fall out accordingly to a divine plan (Predestination). Therefore, God must have chosen such a plan, and laid out the variables in such a way, that they would fall into his divine choosing. Therefore, because there is such a divine plan, the element of choosing does not exist. Omniscience and creation of the universe, inherently titles the divinity to the full knowledge of the actions therefore. It is then only by the will of the divinity, that such actions can occur within the divine plan.

Therefore, God never gave us free will; instead only the illusion of it. Using such logic, we are predisposed to what actions we will go through, and therefore; it is by God's hand that not everyone returns to paradise, it is by God's hand that we do not have free will, and it is by God's hand that we had the original option, and chose therefore, to listen to Satan.

May I also point out how God has indeed, hindered our free will:
The Biblical Story of the flood, hinders our free will by forcing all sinners to henceforth, die. (Therefore, your argument that God has never hindered our free will is null. Instead of the natural outcome of their actions, they were divinely influenced.) (Cite: Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.--1 Chr.13:9-10)

The Biblical Story of Sodom and Gammorah, hinders our free will by forcing all sinners to henceforth, die.

The Biblical Story of Cain and Abel, hinders one's free will to kill Cain. 4:24 Genesis If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

The Biblical Story of Moses, hinders one's free will by divinely changing the water, and inflicting the lands with plagues.

The Biblical Account of How We Will All Worship Jesus, hinder one's free will by forcing you to worship Jesus. Philipians 2 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

The Biblical Account of How God Kills Fornicators, hinders one's free will by forcing people to die. 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. (Corinthians 1)

Therefore, I would rest that God does influence the world; therefore having divine control, the lack of free will, and alters events that displease him.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The issue is that God's plan does not work through our choices. It works around our choices.
If God's plan had predetermined everything from the beginning - who goes to heaven and who goes to hell - then it's useless to have created everything.
Knowing the plays moving towards the outcome is not the same as moving the plays to the outcome.
Now, on the examples you gave of punishing, you have to notice something:
God didn't hinder any of it. He punished them. He doesn't like the acts. But he still gave them the option of doing them.
Of course we all have to answer for our acts. But the acts themselves are still attainable, no matter what the outcome of choosing such action is.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The issue is that God's plan does not work through our choices. It works around our choices.

Which could be then directly argued that such actions inherently effect our choices. If I blow onto the water around toy boat, will it not be swayed, under my control?

If God's plan had predetermined everything from the beginning - who goes to heaven and who goes to hell - then it's useless to have created everything.

Which is the exact argument I am making.

Knowing the plays moving towards the outcome is not the same as moving the plays to the outcome.

Actually, for all intensive purposes, it is.
If I have a scenario, from point A, to point B, exactly as it will play out, down to the minute detail, does that not have the same constituent as reality?

Now, on the examples you gave of punishing, you have to notice something:

God didn't hinder any of it. He punished them. He doesn't like the acts. But he still gave them the option of doing them.
Of course we all have to answer for our acts. But the acts themselves are still attainable, no matter what the outcome of choosing such action is.

Unfortunately, he did.
Free Will does not come after you've been ceased to exist. It's in pure defiance of natural events that occur, and therefore require divine action to occur. Ergo, not free will.

And, if you want to extend that: He prevented it from happening again.

[knightmare]

Free Will and Predestination are intertwined. One does not affect the other. He already knows about human nature, and He knows how humans will respond to the events of life. This does not limit free will in the least. People still can act out of their desires, and still fulfill God's plan. Let me use an analogy in regard to chemistry. Let's say God is the chemist, we are the intial reactants, and the mixing reactant is the consequence of your actions. The chemist knows the product of the reaction before he even mixes the reactants. His knowing of the product does not interfere with the behavior of the chemicals in anyway. Since he created them, he knows how the chemicals react, and will know the outcome. "If God's plan had predetermined everything from the beginning - who goes to heaven and who goes to hell - then it's useless to have created everything." No, since how will His plan come to pass? Do you plan for inaction? The chemist knows the product that will result, but he still needs his reactants to make it occur. Also, the destructive consequences of your sinful behavior actually supports free will. In the Bible, sin is bondage. Mankind's view of free will is different than God's view. What is freedom for us, is bondage to Him. Why do you think He is without sin? We were made in His image, and the only way to break the cycle of bondage is death.

[Linen]

Firstly, I consider myself to be agnostic. Yeah I know, sitting on the fence blah blah... I am very spiritual though.

I don't have an arguement for you, but I do have a comment with which you might disagree:

I adamantly do not believe in Satan or Hell (and not really a Heaven per se but a place like it), so I guess that in itself makes me non-Christian. I believe that "evil" exists on Earth and that people are driven to do "bad" things by a combination of biological, social, and psychological factors. I believe the only supernatural type of evil comes from people who were "evil" in their lives and now cannot rest as spirits because they are always consumed with hatred. I believe in reincarnation as well.

[knightmare]

Wow do you have a complex belief system or what! How can you be an agnostic and still believe in the supernatural and the afterlife? Most agnostics are not spiritual at all, and are essentially humanists. You have an interesting hybrid of religions mixed with social and psychological factors. And I still respect your beliefs, and I am certainly not going to preach to you about the fence.

[Linen]

Originally Posted by knightmare

Wow do you have a complex belief system or what! How can you be an agnostic and still believe in the supernatural and the afterlife? Most agnostics are not spiritual at all, and are essentially humanists. You have an interesting hybrid of religions mixed with social and psychological factors. And I still respect your beliefs, and I am certainly not going to preach to you about the fence.

I'll take that as a compliment. I don't know what "most agnostics" believe because I'm the only agnostic I know other than my husband. Most of the people I know, because I live in the South, are Christian (though not all of them are church-goers), and a few are Athiest.

I definitely do believe in the supernatural, though, because I have seen and experienced ghosts, believe that Astrology is generally pretty accurate, and I get "feelings" about people and things sometimes. I don't claim to have ESP by any means, but when all scientific reasoning can't make a decision for me, I can easilly pick up on positive or negative energies from people or situations and I know what to avoid or pursue from that.

If I *had* to choose a religion I would be either Pagan, Buddhist, or Hindi. I read a lot on the ancient (as well as modern) Pagans when I was in high school, but have read only a little on the latter two. The main thing for me is that I feel very in touch with nature and animals as well as with people. Probably the biggest reason I don't claim a certain religion is because I don't want to feel restricted by a certain way in which I'm supposed to practice it.