Christian Answers Questions

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom


good answer to the question, x council, the authors of the bible often recount details from the previous chapter.

Originally posted by one_man24
Do I think the actual opinion has had an ill effect on humanity? No.

But surely if you brought a child up whilst constantly informing and reminding it that it was somehow morally deficient/inherently bad/full of sin - this conditioning would have a wholly detrimental effect on his/her healthy mental development and level of self esteem.
The negative roots of this guilt inducing indoctrination would most likely result in some form of adult phychosis.

Have people who this particular belief had an ill effect on humanity, of course. People tend to forget that Jesus does the saving, not us, in any way, especially not with violence or force.

But what about the instructions in the bible which command true beleivers to treat non beleivers with contempt or worse?

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27

Regardless, it shouldn't change the sum of the commandments, which is love one another.

Yes but aren't the ten commandments just conveniently borrowed from the Egyptian book of the dead?
They look very similar to me:

BIBLE

Have no other gods before me

Make no idols

Do not misuse the name of God

Keep the Sabbath holy

Honor your mother and father

Do not kill

Do not commit adultery

Do not steal

Do not lie

Do not covet another’s property



BOOK OF THE DEAD

I do not tamper with divine balance

I stop not a god when he comes forth

I do not offend the god who is at the helm

(Egyptians had no Sabbath)

I do not harm my kinsmen

I do not kill

I am not an adulterer

I do not rob

I do not tell lies instead of truth

I do no wrong or mischief to others

Also,the Mesopotamian Hammurabi's code is very similar:
en.wikipedia.org...

I think that many have done terrible things in God's name.

Yes ,I've always admired the honesty of this quote:

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction".
Blaise Pascal

I also think that early roman catholic church didn't represent God very well, not to His liking that is.

Well its obviously a tricky one as the bible is based on opinion/speculation/conjecture/heresay and just relies on the subjective interpretation of the reader.
If we just take the 'actions' of the god in the bible as indicative of his true nature then he doesn't come out of it too well:

Malicious cruelty:
skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Running murder total:
dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

Some christians tend to forget that God gave all the choice to reject Him.

I thought the bible prescribed the death penalty for the following activities?

*Sex crimes, including adultery, male homosexual sex, bestiality (Leviticus 20) and rape (Deuteronomy 22)

*A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-4)

*A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding (Deuteronomy 22:13-22)

*Worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10, Exodus 22:20)

*Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)

*Taking God's name in vain or cursing God's name (Leviticus 24:16)

*Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15, 2:17, Leviticus 20:9, and in the New Testament Mark 7:10)

en.wikipedia.org...

Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

A person should always stand up for what they believe, but when it comes to forcing it down your neighbor's throat, that isn't brotherly love at all.

Well we're in complete agreement there -a person attempting to forcefully impose their opinions on anyone ,especialy about something as vague and ambivalent as religious opinion, is a terrible sight to behold and,to my mind, just smacks of childish insecurity.
In relation to this subject,its interesting to note that the (abrahamic) government of Pakistan still has the death penalty for blasphemy -in other words they execute their citizens in cold blood if they do not mindlessly conform to non provable opinion:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

As far as a motive, there have been many. Suppression of knowledge, make money of the masses, conquering land..

Yes,theres some apt quotes by one of Americas finest authors Mark Twain which touch on the motivations of organised religion:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.
Mark Twain


"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Mark Twain

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain

And I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this quote by Bertrand Russell:

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell

Rest assured, God sees all.

Yes but which god?
Last time I looked there were thousands upon thousands of gods and goddessess worshipped/invented by man.
Due to a complete lack of tangible,cogent evidence isn't it fair to say they are all as feasible,plausible and credible as one another?

Hypocrites usually get what is coming to them.

I sincerely hope your right.

I'd leave you with this quote about the bible by John Hartung:

"The bible is a blueprint of in-group morality,complete with instructions for genocide,enslavement of out groups,and world domination.
But the bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder,cruelty and rape.
Many ancient works do that-the Iliad, the Icelandic sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans,for example.
But noone is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality.
Therein lies the problem."
John Hartung

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by miriam0566


Miriam,

I am not sure what your exact point is.

If you are saying that faith without works is dead faith, then I agree. True faith produces a love for others that makes us want to do good unto others, and live a Godly life.

If you are saying that you are somehow responsible for your own salvation, then I disagree completely.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;" (9) "not of works, that no man should glory."

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. - Gal. 3:11-12

You are misunderstanding the verses that you are quoting.
You quoted:

james 2:[17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
[18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
[19] Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Focus on the words in verse 18, particularly "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

James isn't telling you that works redeem you in any fashion or form, he is telling you that works and true faith go hand in hand.

Take a look at some verses from Matthew 7, a chapter you quoted the other day

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

the bible paints a clear picture of what true faith is, and it in no way supports the belief that we have any part in our salvation

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

reply to post by karl 12


Karl 12,

I definitely have my hands full with you! lol OMG, where to begin!
Give me some time to write a full reply, and I will post it all at once.
Thanks for the challenge!

reply to post by one_man24


Appreciate the response,I think debating these points can only be a good thing.
Obviously the human virtues of benevolence,empathy and compassion are of extreme importance in the world today (as they have always been) but I think many aspects of abrahamic lore are contradictory,ambivalent and hypocritical in this regard-particularly when dealing with society as a whole and not just specific beleivers/members of their organised
religion(s).
Regards Karl


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12


Karl 12,

I have thought about your post, and I have decided that it requires a reply of similar standards. I am at work when I am on here, so I cannot devote the time it would require to answer you properly. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to use the next day or two to write you a formal response. I hope that is ok. Thanks!

reply to post by miriam0566


Miriam,

In your post about mortal vs immortal, you are arguing semantics. I believe that adam and eve were created immortal, that is, to live forever with God in the garden, and then had mortality thrust upon them when they chose to disobey God, showing that death is the consequence of disobedience.

you believe God created them moral, but protected them from death until they disobeyed.

potato, po-tah-toe

reply to post by one_man24


created them "mortal", sorry for misspell

reply to post by one_man24


No probs matey
Appreciate the thoughtful and sincere manner you have answered
the other posters and I'm sure we can engage in open,honest debate.

reply to post by miriam0566


1 peter 3:19-20
18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

and also

Luke chapter 16

adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. 19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And 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. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

these verses make it clear that there is a prison, or place of torment, after death. unless Peter and Jesus were liars, of course.

reply to post by karl 12


Most definitely, if we can't discuss our beliefs openly without hostility, are we anything other than animals? Thanks for the compliments. You're not so bad yourself.

reply to post by one_man24


I see your point. But why would Moses go on to put creation in a different order then his first description!
And why would Moses add inn a Garden and the tree of knowledge!

I know it's about details. But even the details should be in order with both descriptions. If not you cant tell fact from fiction.

In the first description it sounds a lot like God is creating earth into one Garden of Eden. And it tells us that he rests at the 7th day. All is Good.
The second description separate creation into two different creations. Earth as one part and the Garden of Eden as another. Now this is not in line with the first description at all.

I just see Moses description of Eden as Adam and Eves property. As in the aria where they lived. Or walked around. That would be in line with the first telling of Gods creation. Eden is just a spot on earth that Adam and Eve was. I dont see this place as any different from the rest of the earth. It is just a place on earth.

And since this is the way i see it. I cant get the tree of knowledge to fit in with anyone else's description of sin. I cant see that Adam and Eve ate a fruit from a tree of knowledge. As eating something that made then sin. Because God didn't create such a tree in the first description of creation.
God didn't create anything bad,but the tree is not good.
God rested the 7th day. All was Good.

Then you have the description of the serpent. He sure ain't good either. And i dont get him to fit into Moses second description of creation.
God looked at his creation and told It was all Good. The 7th day he rested.

This dosent make sense at all.

I believe in God. But i dont see the same things as any of you. Why is that!
Do you people understand words in a way i dont!

I think miriam makes a lot of sense. But she still has to convince me about this part.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Authors in the Bible often use literary devices to put emphasis on a particular part of their words. In my opinion, that is probably why there are two accounts of creation. They don't contradict each other so to speak, but there are things mentioned in chapter 2 that aren't in chapter one. This happens a lot more later in the bible, especially in the books of kings and chronicles. Who can know why? It was just the writing style that author chose to use in order to reveal his words. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was bad. in fact, God said all his creation was good. who knows what the tree was intended for? some would say that God set a stumbling block for adam, and should never have created the tree. who can know the mind of God? could be possible that he wanted to test his new creation's devotion, and test his heart. did adam love God as God loved adam? sometimes I feel like we are God's experiment, or his pets. lol. rest assured that He cares for us though. adam and God walked together in the garden, and had conversations. could you imagine a conversation with God? it's like.... "so God.... you watch the game last night?" lol. and God says "nah, I knew who was gonna win already. " lol

reply to post by spy66


I like Miriam's outlook on a lot of things, but I think she relies too much on personal outlook than biblical doctrine (just an opinion Miriam, please don't view it as an attack!). I think she is a devout believer, and very, very intelligent, but if you believe in the God of abraham and isaac you have got to believe the bible. It's the definitive guide to our faith. The OT's purpose is to give God's law, and show man as incapable of following it. It also shows God's relationship and history with the israelites, His people. Also, it has to do with preparing the people for the coming of the Savior, the prophecies dealing with it, etc etc. The NT has to do with the coming of the Savior, fulfilling God's promise, and a guide for living a Godly life.

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by spy66

 

Authors in the Bible often use literary devices to put emphasis on a particular part of their words. In my opinion, that is probably why there are two accounts of creation. They don't contradict each other so to speak, but there are things mentioned in chapter 2 that aren't in chapter one. This happens a lot more later in the bible, especially in the books of kings and chronicles. Who can know why? It was just the writing style that author chose to use in order to reveal his words. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was bad. in fact, God said all his creation was good. who knows what the tree was intended for? some would say that God set a stumbling block for adam, and should never have created the tree. who can know the mind of God? could be possible that he wanted to test his new creation's devotion, and test his heart. did adam love God as God loved adam? sometimes I feel like we are God's experiment, or his pets. lol. rest assured that He cares for us though. adam and God walked together in the garden, and had conversations. could you imagine a conversation with God? it's like.... "so God.... you watch the game last night?" lol. and God says "nah, I knew who was gonna win already. " lol

Good explanation I also use this thought as well hehe

That's also why i like to read everyone else's posts on this topic. I like to see if i can relate to other's opinion's
The Bible is not a easy book to get a proper opinion of what it is trying to describe. Well some things are easier to grasp then other things.

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by spy66

 

I like Miriam's outlook on a lot of things, but I think she relies too much on personal outlook than biblical doctrine (just an opinion Miriam, please don't view it as an attack!). I think she is a devout believer, and very, very intelligent, but if you believe in the God of abraham and isaac you have got to believe the bible. It's the definitive guide to our faith. The OT's purpose is to give God's law, and show man as incapable of following it. It also shows God's relationship and history with the israelites, His people. Also, it has to do with preparing the people for the coming of the Savior, the prophecies dealing with it, etc etc. The NT has to do with the coming of the Savior, fulfilling God's promise, and a guide for living a Godly life.

I just believe in God. Is there other ways to really believe in God.Religion places people in boxes. I dont want to belong to any of them.
I dont really read the Bible that much. I use all of you instead. What is important for you is also important for me. But i use your opinions to learn about them. Then i read the bible so i can make up my own opinion. I like to use my judgment. Because my love and believes give me knowledge to understand. I want my knowledge to come straight from the source God.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


no doubt, the bible can be a tough read. if you want some advice, I always liked the saying "let scripture interpret scripture". if you are struggling with a passage, find other passages in other books that relate to what you are reading, and compare. it helps a lot.

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by spy66

 

no doubt, the bible can be a tough read. if you want some advice, I always liked the saying "let scripture interpret scripture". if you are struggling with a passage, find other passages in other books that relate to what you are reading, and compare. it helps a lot.

Thanks. I am really new at this so all advice is good advice

reply to post by spy66


be careful about forming your own opinions. I would say it is ok to form your own opinion on what God means when He says something unclear, but it isn't okay to decide something God said was wrong.

For instance, the bible clearly indicates we cannot save ourselves, and that salvation is a gift of His mercy.

So to take the opinion that you have to do good things to go to heaven is a false doctrine.

As far as other ways to get to Him, depends on what you mean. If you mean other Gods, then no, He states that He is it, the only. If you mean other ways of following Him, then sure. There are many different denominations with different ways of worship. Just make sure they have good doctrine, and teach what the bible says.
I once heard that the bible and Jesus are God's attempt at getting to us,
and religion is our attempt at getting to Him. lol

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by one_man24

 

I see your point. But why would Moses go on to put creation in a different order then his first description!
And why would Moses add inn a Garden and the tree of knowledge!

I know it's about details. But even the details should be in order with both descriptions. If not you cant tell fact from fiction.

In the first description it sounds a lot like God is creating earth into one Garden of Eden. And it tells us that he rests at the 7th day. All is Good.
The second description separate creation into two different creations. Earth as one part and the Garden of Eden as another. Now this is not in line with the first description at all.

I just see Moses description of Eden as Adam and Eves property. As in the aria where they lived. Or walked around. That would be in line with the first telling of Gods creation. Eden is just a spot on earth that Adam and Eve was. I dont see this place as any different from the rest of the earth. It is just a place on earth.

And since this is the way i see it. I cant get the tree of knowledge to fit in with anyone else's description of sin. I cant see that Adam and Eve ate a fruit from a tree of knowledge. As eating something that made then sin. Because God didn't create such a tree in the first description of creation.
God didn't create anything bad,but the tree is not good.
God rested the 7th day. All was Good.

Then you have the description of the serpent. He sure ain't good either. And i dont get him to fit into Moses second description of creation.
God looked at his creation and told It was all Good. The 7th day he rested.

This dosent make sense at all.

I believe in God. But i dont see the same things as any of you. Why is that!
Do you people understand words in a way i dont!

I think miriam makes a lot of sense. But she still has to convince me about this part.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I am still wayting for a answer to all this

God created two special trees in the Garden of Eden one Good and one Bad. The good tree with eternal life. The other with knowledge of good and bad or life and death.

To me it sounds a lot like sin is the actions done by Adam and Eve's free will. And the serpent is the evil teacher of this knowledge they eat. Meaning took onto them. The serpent thought Adam and Eve to be bad. And i guess that the serpent did this when God rested.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]