question about Christianity

[PKT_VOL]

It would not be the first time I was included in a limited minority. I was once asked not to return to a small Baptist church because of Dogma type issues. I always find it odd that people don't read the book. LDS or Mormons believe in three beings for one purpose but call themselves Christian. Glenn Beck being the most famous member of their church. Church of Christ tend to be like the Baptist but they add Baptism as a requirement for salvation. Catholics believe the pope is infallible, Mary is a co-Redeemer, priest are required for your sins to be forgiven, and you go to Hell Light (Purgatory) if its been to long since your last confession. this is a brief example why I feel they are not worshiping the same God. A better way to say it would have been I'm not sure they know who God is. (I'm sure they really care what I Think)
As far as gaps are concerned, I agree that is a tough concept to deal with. We agree there was a Large explosion billions of years ago that began time as we know it. We don't agree on what caused it though. I freely admit I can not explain a God who never had a beginning. And from the other view point how does everything come from nothing. If that was not hard enough, define nothing. Even empty space is something.

Umm...Conservation of Mass?

The concept of a trinity God has not been much of a problem for me. to put it simply( the only way I know how) We are made in the image of God having a body soul and spirit. So why would He not also have a Body, Soul, and Spirit? Even a computer, which is made in the image of man has a body, operating system and programs.
You may can tell I have ADD and my thoughts jump from place to place. Sorry. In unrelated news if my Kids Church of Christ based high-school football team can make it to the 2a finals we will likely face Grace Christian from Knoxville. I've already started working on a name for the game but to use your help. Right now I'm leaning toward Dogma Bowl.

"Man created God in his own image" ~ Ludwig Feuerbach

 

[Orangeslice13]

Umm...Conservation of Mass?

Neat trick. Do it again.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Umm...Conservation of Mass?

Neat trick. Do it again.

?

 

[Orangeslice13]

?

Sorry, on several boards at once and responded to the wrong guy.

But while we're here you're welcome to explain how everything came from nothing to a non science guy like me. in my limited science study in school 20 yrs ago COM dealt with one state to another. not something from nothing.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Sorry, on several boards at once and responded to the wrong guy.

But while we're here you're welcome to explain how everything came from nothing to a non science guy like me. in my limited science study in school 20 yrs ago COM dealt with one state to another. not something from nothing.

No problem. It is something many people (not just you) seem to gravitate towards. I view the whole topic as a never ending struggle between metaphysics and physics. Both are in constantly trying to answer the same questions in their own way. Although metaphysics is intriguing, I feel many people do not keep their arguments within the harmonic balance between metaphysics and physics.

To say that everything or anything came from nothing is disingenuous at best. As Hume would say, there are no impressions within our known universe of matter being created or destroyed, only conserved or transferred into energy E=MC2. Therefore, without impressions (sensations) there can be no idea about something being created from nothing. The Conservation of Matter is in agreement with the Big Bang theory. The point of matter in the Big Bang was infinity (loose definition/interpretation for me) massive. The mass was always there, just with way more gravitational pull. A newer theory (one I like better) states that our universe was created from another universe. Much like how new stars and planets are created from old dying stars which eventually collapse in on themselves before exploding violently; thus giving birth to new stars and planets.

 

[therealUT]

It would not be the first time I was included in a limited minority. I was once asked not to return to a small Baptist church because of Dogma type issues. I always find it odd that people don't read the book. LDS or Mormons believe in three beings for one purpose but call themselves Christian. Glenn Beck being the most famous member of their church. Church of Christ tend to be like the Baptist but they add Baptism as a requirement for salvation. Catholics believe the pope is infallible, Mary is a co-Redeemer, priest are required for your sins to be forgiven, and you go to Hell Light (Purgatory) if its been to long since your last confession. this is a brief example why I feel they are not worshiping the same God.

They are still assigning the same ultimate properties to this God.

As an aside, your understanding of Catholic doctrine is off the mark:

- Papal Infallibility: this has nothing to do with individual proclamations by the Pope. Papal Infallibility only comes about on issues of Dogma in which there is a unanimous agreement in the College of Cardinals (76 member body).

- The Role of Mary: she is not a co-Redemeer; she is a Mediatrix between man and God.

- Reconciliation (and other Sacraments): a Sacrament is simply an outward symbol of an inward change. When one takes a Sacrament, it means absolutely nothing if said person has not made that commitment to God in their heart. Therefore, Reconciliation is an outward symbol of true contriteness and a true desire to change future behavior. The absolution from the Priest is only as profound as the actual state of Conscience of the one receiving the absolution.

- According to Catholic Doctrine, all but the select few (Mary) go to Purgatory. If humans are by nature imperfect creatures, God is perfection, and Heaven being in the immediate presence of God, then Purgatory makes absolute sense. One cannot be perfect at any point in life, yet one must be perfect to join in the immediate presence of God. Therefore, there must be a purging stage for the soul after one's body has died. Whether this lasts only a moment or years makes no difference to the principle of the idea of Purgatory.

 

[Orangeslice13]

No problem. It is something many people (not just you) seem to gravitate towards. I view the whole topic as a never ending struggle between metaphysics and physics. Both are in constantly trying to answer the same questions in their own way. Although metaphysics is intriguing, I feel many people do not keep their arguments within the harmonic balance between metaphysics and physics.

To say that everything or anything came from nothing is disingenuous at best. As Hume would say, there are no impressions within our known universe of matter being created or destroyed, only conserved or transferred into energy E=MC2. Therefore, without impressions (sensations) there can be no idea about something being created from nothing. The Conservation of Matter is in agreement with the Big Bang theory. The point of matter in the Big Bang was infinity (loose definition/interpretation for me) massive. The mass was always there, just with way more gravitational pull. A newer theory (one I like better) states that our universe was created from another universe. Much like how new stars and planets are created from old dying stars which eventually collapse in on themselves before exploding violently; thus giving birth to new stars and planets.

Ok I've already admitted the inability to grasp the concept of a God who just is. "some things you take on faith". for this reason I've never had a problem with the Big Bang Theory. ( not the TV show which is very entertaining ) In my simple mind all things have a beginning and an end. If I understand you correctly our current state is a redistribution of matter. It existed previously as a different universe before collapsing and Bang! Because nothing is created or destroyed. Ultimately under this theory our current universe will collapse on itself and Bang into reality a new universe.
Is this not asking for the same faith? I liked it better when Everything came from nothing and we were discussing the catalyst for the big bang. In all of this what is lost is the question of the creation of life. What do you feel was the genesis of life? How does life begin? Or a better way of asking would be how does life convert from raw energy to being a self aware being?
I'm sure you realize I'm not trying to trap, argue, or disrespect you in any way. I enjoy good conversation with people who have a different point of view and can discuss it rationally. I say this in case you have seen any of my post in the football forum where I'm often trying to be an ass.:whistling:

 

[Orangeslice13]

They are still assigning the same ultimate properties to this God.

As an aside, your understanding of Catholic doctrine is off the mark:

- Papal Infallibility: this has nothing to do with individual proclamations by the Pope. Papal Infallibility only comes about on issues of Dogma in which there is a unanimous agreement in the College of Cardinals (76 member body).

- The Role of Mary: she is not a co-Redemeer; she is a Mediatrix between man and God.

- Reconciliation (and other Sacraments): a Sacrament is simply an outward symbol of an inward change. When one takes a Sacrament, it means absolutely nothing if said person has not made that commitment to God in their heart. Therefore, Reconciliation is an outward symbol of true contriteness and a true desire to change future behavior. The absolution from the Priest is only as profound as the actual state of Conscience of the one receiving the absolution.

- According to Catholic Doctrine, all but the select few (Mary) go to Purgatory. If humans are by nature imperfect creatures, God is perfection, and Heaven being in the immediate presence of God, then Purgatory makes absolute sense. One cannot be perfect at any point in life, yet one must be perfect to join in the immediate presence of God. Therefore, there must be a purging stage for the soul after one's body has died. Whether this lasts only a moment or years makes no difference to the principle of the idea of Purgatory.

Here we go off on a tangent. I had my neighbor, who is devoutly catholic, read my post and description of Catholics. He assures me that my assertions were correct and in line with the Roman Catholic Church. He did suggest that you were a Batholic. I've never heard this term before and found it humorous. He says that the Batholic position is an American phenomenon. Apparently its easier to get along if we appear to be closer to the same. I find this possible as the Methodist have so many versions and denominations they felt the need to number them. I actually saw a 4th Methodist church in Alabama while there on business.
This is by no means an assault on Catholics in any form. for that matter its not an assault on you in what ever you believe.
I still contend that just because you agree to the attributes of God that you know who He is. If the deity you believe in (not saying you do) says you must wash your hands to gain access to Him in the after life, and mine says there is nothing you can do on your own to gain access then they're not the same God.
as for purgatory, either the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is enough to cover my depths or its not. That's the whole free gift of Eph:2 8-9.

 

[therealUT]

Here we go off on a tangent. I had my neighbor, who is devoutly catholic, read my post and description of Catholics. He assures me that my assertions were correct and in line with the Roman Catholic Church. He did suggest that you were a Batholic. I've never heard this term before and found it humorous. He says that the Batholic position is an American phenomenon. Apparently its easier to get along if we appear to be closer to the same. I find this possible as the Methodist have so many versions and denominations they felt the need to number them. I actually saw a 4th Methodist church in Alabama while there on business.
This is by no means an assault on Catholics in any form. for that matter its not an assault on you in what ever you believe.
I still contend that just because you agree to the attributes of God that you know who He is. If the deity you believe in (not saying you do) says you must wash your hands to gain access to Him in the after life, and mine says there is nothing you can do on your own to gain access then they're not the same God.
as for purgatory, either the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is enough to cover my depths or its not. That's the whole free gift of Eph:2 8-9.

Your friend should read the Catechism:

I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503

965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."505

. . . also in her Assumption

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)508 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Feel free to look up the roles of Reconciliation and Purgatory as well:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Oh, and send that link to your "Catholic" friend, he might want to know what it is he is adhering to.

 

[Billy Costigan]

I've read a lot of good stuff in this thread. Some good points being made from both sides.

2011 Poli Board Thread of the Year ??

 

[ImTheCrew]

Sup freak.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ok I've already admitted the inability to grasp the concept of a God who just is. "some things you take on faith". for this reason I've never had a problem with the Big Bang Theory. ( not the TV show which is very entertaining )

I am not entirely sure what you mean by that; I’d love for you to explain what you mean exactly. When I interpret that phrase, I tend to think of a pantheistic God. I am not sure if that is what you are referring to. Secondly, how exactly does that relate to your acceptance of the Big Bang theory?

In my simple mind all things have a beginning and an end.

I generally agree with this notion. I would be more precise with my language (borrowed from Heraclitus) and instead say that everything is in a state of flux. However, if we are to be exact, this is just a mere perception. Parmenides has taught us that our minds trick us into believing that we perceive reality to be in a state of flux when reality is ultimately stationary. His pupil, Zeno, made this concept famous with his paradoxes. My favorite is the paradox of the arrow.

If I understand you correctly our current state is a redistribution of matter. It existed previously as a different universe before collapsing and Bang! Because nothing is created or destroyed. Ultimately under this theory our current universe will collapse on itself and Bang into reality a new universe. Is this not asking for the same faith?

You bring up two excellent points. First, that ultimately, everyone has to lay “faith” into something. It is well known that scientists and religious folks lay their faith in different things. Scientists have faith in reason, logic, and the scientific method while religious folks tend to have faith in whatever metaphysical beliefs suit their tastes. However, it is not well known (at least by the general public) that scientist have to lay their faith in certain premises. This can be as simple as the problem of induction (Hume, Popper) or as complicated as two leading competitive theories which act as a premise to a more complex theory. Basically, this leads to a constructive scientific paradigm in which the scientists operate. However, paradigms are subject to change, known as “paradigm shift” (Kuhn). The second point builds off the first. In order to have theory about the eventual demise of our universe, a scientist must first accept one of two competing premises; whether our universe is a “flat/open” universe or a “closed” universe. The only differentiation between the two premises is the escape velocity of the universe (very similar conceptually to the escape velocity of the Earth). The escape velocity of the universe is unknown. The implications of the escape velocity paint two very different pictures. If the expansion of the universe is greater than the escape velocity, the universe will die a slow tragic “Heat Death” (ironic name because the universe will basically freeze to death). If the expansion of the universe is less than the escape velocity, the universe will eventually collapse in on itself. The later implication raises some interesting sceneries. One of which I am currently reading a book about; The Omega Point Theory (admittedly it is farfetched, but it will get you to think of things in a very different manner). The book is entitled The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler. As I have posted before in this thread, science and religion are not as far apart as we once thought.

I liked it better when Everything came from nothing and we were discussing the catalyst for the big bang.

I do not blame you. It is much easier to break down complex things which are not in our control into manageable thoughts. In essence, this is what religion does.

In all of this what is lost is the question of the creation of life. What do you feel was the genesis of life? How does life begin? Or a better way of asking would be how does life convert from raw energy to being a self aware being?

As a BCMB major, I have often wondered about this myself. However, I tend to wonder about the biological logistics involved in the rise of biological life from ancient bacteria. The area of abiogenesis (the jump from inorganic life to biological life) has not been a major concern for me though. I believe the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1952 conclusively explains (for me) the conditions and materials available for such a jump. *Side note: all of which are found elsewhere in the universe, just some food for thought.

Self-awareness is another can of warms; worthy of its own thread.

I'm sure you realize I'm not trying to trap, argue, or disrespect you in any way. I enjoy good conversation with people who have a different point of view and can discuss it rationally. I say this in case you have seen any of my post in the football forum where I'm often trying to be an ass.:whistling:

Ha. I try to stay away from the football forum, especially after a loss. I definitely don’t engage the idiots by posting in their mind-numbing threads. Many of our “fans” in the football forum truly make me ashamed to be an alumnus, let alone a fan. That said, I know that you are not trying to trap or disrespect me. I tend to only respond to posters who I feel are capable of carrying on a rational/logical conversation. I don’t mind arguing as long as the other party is doing it in a rational and logical manner.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Religion is more of a way to cope with our own mortality, imo. I guess that's just a specific version of what you are talking about.

 

[Orangeslice13]

PYK VOL, Sorry for the delay. Ive been busy at work and only had time for quick shots in football forum. I feel you deserve more thought than a quick smart ass answer.
To explain from my point of view "A God that just is" requires a brief explanation of my personal biases. I Believe that God defines himself. This definition is derived from What I call the book. The book consists of the bible and other ancient writings such as the book of Enoch. Not all ancient writings fit as I operate on the principal of when in doubt throw it out. In the book god defines himself in different ways but they have one thing in common. He always has been and always will be. Some examples would be..
I am the alpha and the omega, The beginning and the end.
I am the everlasting. there is Me and no other, there is no one like me.
And from the burning bush God simply told Moses "I AM that I AM"
I guess what I'm getting at is a God that Just is means no beginning and no end. just exists without creation just like all matter from the scientific point of view.

I have a tough time with "Just is" and it does not matter which side I'm on.

As for science and "religion" being closer together than most will accept, I couldn't agree more. Except that I would say God and science. In my opinion you can't claim a God outside of science. Although most do exactly that trying to argue things that are not in the book and attribute them to God.( young Earth theory ) Science can be found throughout the Bible. The Book of Job in particular is impressive. When God speaks to Job from the whirlwind you and I could spend hours on. That of course would be a different thread.

If you enjoy reading and don't mind wild speculation there is a book you called Nephilim and the Pyramid of the apocalypse you might enjoy.

 

[Orangeslice13]

therealut, My friend I have no interest in discussing what it means to be Catholic. My neighbor says he is , good enough for me. it all comes down to personal accountability. If you believe you will be judged by a God one day you better know what you believe. I say study for yourself and to hell with what the Pope or some Baptist preacher has to say.
I find it interesting that Jesus spoke out the most against the organized Church of the day who lead the people to destruction. Going as far as to say that the way is narrow and few find it. And on the day of judgement many will say remember me Lord because I did all these things for you and Christ will say depart from me you who do evil I do not know you. (Orangeslice13 translation)

 

[Gramps]

therealut, My friend I have no interest in discussing what it means to be Catholic. My neighbor says he is , good enough for me. it all comes down to personal accountability. If you believe you will be judged by a God one day you better know what you believe. I say study for yourself and to hell with what the Pope or some Baptist preacher has to say.
I find it interesting that Jesus spoke out the most against the organized Church of the day who lead the people to destruction. Going as far as to say that the way is narrow and few find it. And on the day of judgement many will say remember me Lord because I did all these things for you and Christ will
say depart from me you who do evil I do not know you. (Orangeslice13 translation)

Good post, nice translation
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[PKT_VOL]

PYK VOL, Sorry for the delay. Ive been busy at work and only had time for quick shots in football forum. I feel you deserve more thought than a quick smart ass answer.

No problem. I tend to stay away from the football forum though. Just one facepalm thread after another.

To explain from my point of view "A God that just is" requires a brief explanation of my personal biases. I Believe that God defines himself. This definition is derived from What I call the book. The book consists of the bible and other ancient writings such as the book of Enoch. Not all ancient writings fit as I operate on the principal of when in doubt throw it out. In the book god defines himself in different ways but they have one thing in common.

I have a problem with this within the realm of organized Judo-Christian thought. A supernatural being (God) can define himself. I don’t dispute that. In fact, he can most likely change himself if he is a thinking being. However, God is God and man is a mere mortal creation by him. The problem then becomes a matter of revelation. How does God reveal himself to his creational beings? Most Judo-Christians rely on texts which were written a couple thousand years ago to describe not only God’s actions but his will. These texts have been tampered with many times by various powerful historical figures for political gain. Furthermore, these have been translated from one language to another which inevitably dilutes the original message (realUT seems to be a connoisseur in these discrepancies). Needless to say, we have fairly terrible secondhand sources for information about God.

Now, this is assuming that God did in fact reveal himself exactly as described in the original texts. I find this occurrence to be rather troublesome too. Revelation of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supernatural being to finite mortals creates many problems of legitimacy. To think of it in a different context, if God really wants us to know about him, why would he not reveal himself to us individually? Why does he force his beloved creations to rely on ancient texts which have been maliciously tampered with and translated from language to language? I understand this is the inspiration which calls for “faith” but I cannot help but to think that if he truly loved us as many Christian leaders would like us to believe, that he wouldn’t make a more concerted effort to sway our minds; after all, he did endow us with the abnormal rational/logical brains which would make us inherently skeptical of the texts we have access to at the present time.

He always has been and always will be. Some examples would be..
I am the alpha and the omega, The beginning and the end.
I am the everlasting. there is Me and no other, there is no one like me.
And from the burning bush God simply told Moses "I AM that I AM"
I guess what I'm getting at is a God that Just is means no beginning and no end. just exists without creation just like all matter from the scientific point of view.

I guessed that a God that “just is” would be somewhat similar to a pantheistic God. These attributes are akin to a pantheistic God. A pantheistic God means that what we perceive of as “God” is nothing more than all things natural. That is the most generic answer I can give because, like Christianity, there are many sects of Pantheism. “Natural” normally includes but is not limited to the known natural laws of the universe coupled with mathematics.

However, the rest of your beliefs about God contradict Pantheism (caring, like us in image, etc.).

As for science and "religion" being closer together than most will accept, I couldn't agree more. Except that I would say God and science. In my opinion you can't claim a God outside of science. Although most do exactly that trying to argue things that are not in the book and attribute them to God.( young Earth theory ) Science can be found throughout the Bible. The Book of Job in particular is impressive. When God speaks to Job from the whirlwind you and I could spend hours on. That of course would be a different thread.

I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure Genesis if taken literally is the foundation of the Young Earth Theory (Creationism). Genesis is in the OT which is part of the Bible or your “book.” Do you disregard the OT and just focus on the NT?

If you enjoy reading and don't mind wild speculation there is a book you called Nephilim and the Pyramid of the apocalypse you might enjoy.

I took the time to actually look up an interview with the author of Nephilim and The Pyramids. Although I think he is a bit crazy when it comes to the Nephilim part, he is dead on about the pyramids. I have been utterly fascinated about the Great Pyramids for quite some time. One thing is crystal clear: either the ancient Egyptians didn’t build the pyramids as history dictates (which I gravitate to) or if they did indeed build the pyramids, we don’t know s*** about the ancient Egyptians.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Religion is more of a way to cope with our own mortality, imo. I guess that's just a specific version of what you are talking about.

Difference in opinion I guess. I feel the chief objective of religion (and to a lesser extent, metaphysics) is to explain the unexplainable.

However, I do not dispute that religion plays an integral role in shaping the personal ethics and morality of billions of people around the world.

 

[VOLatile]

However, I do not dispute that religion plays an integral role in shaping the personal ethics and morality of billions of people around the world.

Do you believe this can be achieved sans religion?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Do you believe this can be achieved sans religion?

Depends on what you mean exactly. If you are asking can people find morality and ethics outside of religion, then I would say absolutely. If you are asking can billions of people worldwide achieve a relatively similar and uniform standard or code of morality without religion, I would venture to guess that they couldn't.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I think a lot of people find comfort in knowing that there is some sort of existence after death. A huge reason people buy in, imo. That and their parents force them to go...

 

[ItsDarwinism]

Put me down on the side of science.

Only 2900 more posts before I can start my own thread. Woohooo! :crazy:

 

[Orangeslice13]

No problem. I tend to stay away from the football forum though. Just one facepalm thread after another.



I have a problem with this within the realm of organized Judo-Christian thought. A supernatural being (God) can define himself. I don’t dispute that. In fact, he can most likely change himself if he is a thinking being. However, God is God and man is a mere mortal creation by him. The problem then becomes a matter of revelation. How does God reveal himself to his creational beings? Most Judo-Christians rely on texts which were written a couple thousand years ago to describe not only God’s actions but his will. These texts have been tampered with many times by various powerful historical figures for political gain. Furthermore, these have been translated from one language to another which inevitably dilutes the original message (realUT seems to be a connoisseur in these discrepancies). Needless to say, we have fairly terrible secondhand sources for information about God.

The question is how does God reveal Himself. It is up to every living person to answer that question for themselves. On the day of Judgement ( it is appointed to man once to die ,then the judgement. ) I get to stand before god and answer for all my actions. I could try to say there were to many options and I got confused as to what was correct. That is not my approach. From my personal experience I asked God to reveal himself to me if He was there. So as I began seeking answers at the age of 30 I was seeking with an open mind. This often gets me in trouble with people on both sides of the argument. Scientific people say my experience is not verifiable. the "Christian community" says I don't fit their denomination. From my perspective God reveals Himself both on a personal level and threw writings. I will concede that translation of the old causes problems for many but seeking truth and using common sense as to what is intended solves most problems. (ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, Knock and it will be opened)

Now, this is assuming that God did in fact reveal himself exactly as described in the original texts. I find this occurrence to be rather troublesome too. Revelation of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supernatural being to finite mortals creates many problems of legitimacy. To think of it in a different context, if God really wants us to know about him, why would he not reveal himself to us individually?

Got ahead of myself earlier.

Why does he force his beloved creations to rely on ancient texts which have been maliciously tampered with and translated from language to language?

My friends and I often debate "why". To be fair all I have is wild speculation which is best saved for another thread.

I understand this is the inspiration which calls for “faith” but I cannot help but to think that if he truly loved us as many Christian leaders would like us to believe, that he wouldn’t make a more concerted effort to sway our minds; after all, he did endow us with the abnormal rational/logical brains which would make us inherently skeptical of the texts we have access to at the present time.

As is true in almost everything in life, It depends on your perspective. Dems and Repubs see the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I say seek the truth wherever it may be and answer only to yourself.

I guessed that a God that “just is” would be somewhat similar to a pantheistic God. These attributes are akin to a pantheistic God. A pantheistic God means that what we perceive of as “God” is nothing more than all things natural. That is the most generic answer I can give because, like Christianity, there are many sects of Pantheism. “Natural” normally includes but is not limited to the known natural laws of the universe coupled with mathematics.

However, the rest of your beliefs about God contradict Pantheism (caring, like us in image, etc.).

I don't like labeling. terms like Christian and Pantheism tend to limit or not fully convey my beliefs. I find it easier just to tell you what I think.

I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure Genesis if taken literally is the foundation of the Young Earth Theory (Creationism). Genesis is in the OT which is part of the Bible or your “book.” Do you disregard the OT and just focus on the NT?

The problem with young earth is that it is taken literally form an English translation and a modern perspective. With reading old literature you should always consider the intended audience. Thousands of years ago the reader had no concept of the universe. There was sky and land. In the Hebrew creation story the first couple of verses say heaven and earth. they soon switch to sky and land. In the English version Heaven and Earth are used threw out. A proper reading of the text does away with the silliness of a young Earth. It has been my experience that when God and science do not agree it is a matter of Dogma. (from both sides)
If you are interested David Snoke wrote a decent book called "A biblical Case for an Old Earth"

I took the time to actually look up an interview with the author of Nephilim and The Pyramids. Although I think he is a bit crazy when it comes to the Nephilim part, he is dead on about the pyramids. I have been utterly fascinated about the Great Pyramids for quite some time. One thing is crystal clear: either the ancient Egyptians didn’t build the pyramids as history dictates (which I gravitate to) or if they did indeed build the pyramids, we don’t know s*** about the ancient Egyptians.

You should check the book out. Its crazy.

Clearly you are a respectful individual who is capable of the exchange of thought and ideas. That is rare these days. I have enjoyed this so keep it coming.

 

[KiffinKiller]

uh oh

 

[therealUT]

For those who believe in the divinity of Christ:

In terms of percentage, how sure are you of the following:

(1) there is a God

(2) based upon (1), that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent

(3) based upon (1) and (2), that this God is personal

(4) based upon (1)-(3), that this God decided to make Himself incarnate in order to atone for the sins of Man

(5) based upon (1)-(4), that this God was born into this world

(6) based upon (1)-(5), that this God was born of a Virgin

(7) based upon (1)-(6), that this God was crucified

(8) based upon (1)-(7), that this God was resurrected from the dead

(9) based upon (1)-(8), that this God ascending, in bodily form, into Heaven

(10) based upon (1)-(9), that the stories of this God (the Gospels) were divinely revealed and protected to the authors and by the translators for two thousand years