← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 13540 | Posts: 58 | Started: 2004-05-05
2004-05-05 01:53 | User Profile
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/50404shelbygodofwar.htm[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=4][FONT=Book Antiqua]The God of War [/FONT] [/SIZE] [/COLOR]
by Alexander Shelby
[I]4 May 2004[/I]
"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
-- Bush to Texan evangelist James Robinson
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them..."
-- Deuteronomy 20:16
Americans believe their nation is a country without equals. They think of themselves as the new chosen people who go about the world spreading light and subduing evil. Anyone who is not an American ally is considered an enemy; anyone not following the American "celestial light" is a blasphemer; anyone not a friend, a foe. Ronald Reagan once called the United States "a shining city upon a hill" (In fact, the Puritan John Winthrop, in 1630, first referred to America as such). America was often called the "New Israel" or the "Promised Land" by Puritan settlers. According to the Bible and Talmud, Israel is a nation without equals. The Talmud teaches that Jews are the only humans in the universe, so since other nations were (are) subhuman, anything done to them by Jews (America) was (is) seen as the boon of the divine hand. If your people are ruined, you deserve it; if your land is occupied, God willed it; if your race is eradicated, it is your fault because your ancestors chose to settle on Jewish (American) land - the Bible is full of atrocities and holocausts committed by Jews against other nations.
In 1788, the American "patriot/preacher" Samuel Langdon said, "We cannot but acknowledge that God hath graciously patronized our cause and taken us under his special care, as he did his ancient covenant people," and after the destruction of an Indian village by George Washington, Ezra Stiles, Pastor of the Second Continental Congress, called Washington the "American Joshua," and later said about the incident, "Never was the possession of arms used with more glory, or in a better cause, since the days of Joshua, the son of Nun." Every action taken, every massacre committed, every atrocity made, was warranted by God and Manifest Destiny - the Destiny that Yahweh/Jehovah has ordained.
The wars that America fights are wars of liberation, not occupation. Like the Ancient Israelites who fought the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to extinction, America views every action taken as the ultimate plan of God. Therefore, any treaties broken or violations of international law are not a deviation; indeed, the US threatened to make the United Nations "irrelevant" if it did not agree with America's divine call for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like a perpetual tempest, the cycle repeats itself, as though it were the everlasting black spot on Jupiter or my inexhaustible desire for the annihilation of the Jews. Before the first Bush sent troops to Somalia, he described why America could not be defeated, "[T]o every sailor, soldier, airman, and marine who is involved in this mission, let me say, you're doing God's work. We will not fail." Almost ten years later, his son Dubya described his rationale for Iraq's invasion, "We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name." Later, Bush II, would justify his action further, "There is wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism of the American people." This "wonder-working power" places America's cause alongside that of Moses' and Jesus'.
America's causes are transmuted by its media from acts of aggression into acts of mercy, for the righteous cannot be belligerent. When civilians are murdered by US forces, they are classified as collateral damage; when US missiles slam into a hospital or mosque, terrorists were hiding there; when the US occupies another country, it is liberation; and when resistance fighters attack US occupation forces, they are called terrorists. Yet, America has every right - Manifest Destiny.
The expansion westward on the American frontier was God's role for the United States. Like Israel then and now, the American expansion into inhabited land was not at all villainous, for this effacement of American Indians was foreordained by God. All resources on the continent were America's resources; all land was America's land. Why? Because God said so! The Monroe Doctrine expanded Manifest Destiny to include the Western Hemisphere. After World War II, America added Western Europe and during the Eisenhower Administration, the Middle East became a sphere of the US.
America's recent actions in Iraq are odious. The recently repugnant measures in Fallujah are proof of American arrogance and Jewish influence (the tactics used in Fallujah are reminiscent of those used in Jenin in 2002). The only solution for America is a vicissitude in its political system. Unless an all-out revolution is carried out, the current political system will not change. Woe to those Americans who are credulous enough to think they can change the course of events by voting for John Kerry. So, what can be done? In the words of Roman Senator Cato,"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (And therefore, I conclude that Carthage must be destroyed).
ALEXANDER SHELBY
2004-05-05 05:43 | User Profile
I agree with everything this guy said - except when he tried to make our forefathers' conquest of North America seem as sleazy as the current War for the Jooze in Iraq. At what point did Americans need to put on sackcloth & ashes for their existence on this continent? After the War of Northern Aggression, when they took it to the Plains Indians in earnest? Why not at Jamestown?
The history of the world is the struggle of races for resources & living space, so as far as I'm concerned, White America (as originally conceived) is nothing to apologize for.
Totally unjustified wars on the other side of the globe, however......
2004-05-05 08:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]I agree with everything this guy said - except when he tried to make our forefathers' conquest of North America seem as sleazy as the current War for the Jooze in Iraq. At what point did Americans need to put on sackcloth & ashes for their existence on this continent? After the War of Northern Aggression, when they took it to the Plains Indians in earnest? Why not at Jamestown?
The history of the world is the struggle of races for resources & living space, so as far as I'm concerned, White America (as originally conceived) is nothing to apologize for.
Totally unjustified wars on the other side of the globe, however......[/QUOTE] I have a take on this perhaps somewhat similar to yours.
There are at least a couple of reasons why it's not quite legitimate to compare the conquest of North America with the current imperialistic US (and Israeli) doctrine. For one thing, the indigenous Indian tribes from which Whites took territory were constantly at war with each other, and they inflicted all kinds of atrocities on the members of rival tribes. It's not like they were all living in paradise until the White man showed up. Whites came in and simply did to them what they had been doing to each other all along, only the Whites were much more effective. I'm not a historian, but that's my present understanding, anyway.
The second point is that the White conquest of North America took place in a time that predated international law. Some sense of international law is required in the modern age in order to maintain global stability and prevent the widespread mayhem, destruction, and death that could result from any single nation (especially a nuclear power) taking a "might makes right" approach to foreign policy. That's the course America and her Israeli imp seem to be on now. Even if only relatively weak nations are conquered by ZOG at this point, it makes much more powerful countries nervous and therefore threatens global stability.
2004-05-05 08:57 | User Profile
Re the settling of America vs the conquest of Iraq:
Y'can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The thing is you only want to cook [B]one [/B] omelette if you can help it, and you'd better be fixing it to feed you and yours.
The last thing you should aspire to is to be what we've become this past century, an International House Of Omelettes, serving the customer 24 hours a day - and closed on Saturdays.
2004-05-05 09:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I've often wondered whether Shrub's invocations of God to justify his self-aggrandizement and his insane foreign policy are simply cynical ploys to win the hearts and minds of his dispensationalist constituency, or if he sincerely believes his own mutterings about late-night dialogs with the Holy Ghost.
Bush is too stupid to create such a facade on his own, which lead me at first to believe that he's authentically delusional, but then I remind myself that every word that comes out of his mouth is scripted and carefully crafted for public consumptions by the Wolfowitzes, Frums, Perles, Feiths, and Ledeens of the world. With that thought in mind, I'd put my money on it all being a cheap facade. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose situation for us either way.[/QUOTE]I've wondered about that as well, but I also think it's a facade. Whether or not it's his own facade or one that's been fabricated by his Jewish masters is a tougher call. In any case, politicians in "democracies" know very well about the power one can wield by appealing to the religious beliefs of a population. (I shudder when I think of the number of registered voters who watch Robert Tilton babbling in baby-talk on the TV and take him seriously enough to send him money.)
2004-05-05 09:19 | User Profile
[I]Watch it, Angler![/I] No badmouthing Robt Tilton, the funniest man on cable (though not nearly as hilarious as he used to be, before his legal troubles) and the one Christian that "Christian Nationalists" dread being used against them in an argument. Particularly if you have a VCR handy.
"You make many interesting and well-reasoned arguments regarding America's only salvation being possible through religious revival. Then again, on the other hand, there's [I]this [/I] to consider-" (presses the PLAY button; argument over, loud recriminations begin)
2004-05-05 13:30 | User Profile
Robert Tilton is horrific, although there is also Benny Hinn to consider. His show is like a vaudeville act. In the opinion of traditional Christians (traditional Catholics, Orthodox, and Old School Protestants) these guys are heretics. We are in a bit of a no-win situation here, however. If the Church does crack down on heresy, then it is considered evil because the Inquisition has returned and it is standing in the way of free thought, science, etc. If the Church does not crack down on heresy, then we get Judeo-Churchianity, Robert Tilton, and gay bishops, and everyone points to those and says, "Look at this lameness! How can we take Christianity seriously with these jokers around?"
2004-05-05 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno][I]Watch it, Angler![/I] No badmouthing Robt Tilton...the one Christian that "Christian Nationalists" dread being used against them in an argument.[/QUOTE]
That got me wonderin' who was the one atheist that 'Atheist Nationalists' dread being used against them in an argument.
Who do you think? Alan Dershowitz? Bill Kristol? Jello Biafra? Boy George? Ron Jeremy?
That's a tough one, for sure.
2004-05-06 03:13 | User Profile
It's a tricky choice. Jello probably wouldn't make the semi-finals though.
Then again, the sheer tonnage of Pious Embarrassments is such that it would take many weeks of elimination rounds just to [I]get [/I] to the semis.
2004-05-06 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]It's a tricky choice. Jello probably wouldn't make the semi-finals though.
Then again, the sheer tonnage of Pious Embarrassments is such that it would take many weeks of elimination rounds just to get * to the semis.[/QUOTE] I take it that you, then, would* be fully in favor of a new Inquisition? Or are you happier having it both ways, both blaming the Church when it tries to control heresy, and blaming it for heresy it does not control?
2004-05-06 14:04 | User Profile
The tonnage of embarassment is achieved by the news and entertainment media piling on any and all reported incidents involving those claiming to be religious leaders. These same moral watchdogs then turn back to creating, promoting and normalizing the lifestyles promoted on MTV, Queer Eye and Friends.
The Catholic churches priest crisis is generated more by an acceptance of homosexuals than by an invasion of pedophiles. This climate led to a reluctance to reject overt homosexuals and to root out those having sympathy with the lifestyle choice. The acceptance of homosexuality within the Catholic church and most of the mainline Protestant denominations has followed the explosive growth of homosexual promotion by the news and entertainment media. Jumping on the bandwagon of these culture wreckers is fulfilling the mission of Bernays and his Frankfurt School compatriots.
2004-05-06 19:51 | User Profile
I wasn't including the Catholic Church's recent problems since a media-engineered 'embarrassment' is usually a put-up job. Especially since the same media that loves to shriek 'pedophile!' wouldn't shriek 'homosexual!' if you were torturing them with woodworking tools, and a grown man consorting with 14 and 15-year-old boys is a homosexual -I believe the accepted term for such people is [U]chickenhawk[/U] - and [I]not [/I] a pedophile. We all know if this scandal were framed in terms of homosexuality rather than pederasty the legs would've been cut off this 'story arc' and it would've been treated - ohh, I dunno - the way [I]predatory-rabbi [/I] stories are: as unfortunate but unrelated (and unrepresentational) incidents.
[QUOTE]...are you happier having it both ways, both blaming the Church when it tries to control heresy, and blaming it for heresy it does not control?[/QUOTE]
By no means. The double standard that intrigues me is the way that Christians who repesent a tiny fraction of the aggregate flock maintain that not just the clowns like the Falwells, etc, but also the straight-faced variants who ordain lesbians and import Somalis, represent an insignificant statistical anomaly and that non-believers who point out (and, yes, jeer at) the vast numerical superiority of such believers to the relatively few Christian Nationalists around, are being bigoted and unfair. (This is why I maintain in all seriousness that CNs' time would be far more industriously applied preaching to their lapsed brethren rather than beating nonbelievers over the head with Scripture. I understand that atheists can turn to God just as believers can drift away from belief, but the sort of methods used by OD Christians towards agnostic members - a kind of hostile witnessing, with arguments made and 'won' by quoting from a book we don't view as divinely inspired in the first place - is highly unlikely to achieve results.)
And it's another sort of embarrassment I'm referring to, that of the Falwell/Tilton/Hinn variety. First of all these guys are so tacky and transparently fraudulent they're hilarious, yet somehow they regularly pack in crowds of 10,000+ in what appear to be converted aircraft hangers - business is usually quite good, and always untaxed. Secondly they tend to hold court in precisely those areas of the country where I'm supposed to believe that Real Christians (and Real Americans besides) reside (nobody dislikes Jew York more than I do, but even ZOG needs a partner to tango, and the American South and Midwest is where they find them). I would never restrict someone's else's freedom to worship (or not) as they please, but the loyal devotion of Christians who reside in "decent" areas of the country to these hucksters have catapulted Falwell, Robertson, et al to national prominence, fabulous wealth and power-politics player status - and it's that last one that directly affects me whether or not I choose to ignore them personally. God knows so long as the hierarchy of fundamentalist Christianity in this country remains unchanged, Jewish warmongers will find an eager amen corner allowing them to plunge my country into one insane miltary adventure after another - and need I remind you that the only payback this country's faced for her follies was not extracted from Farmer's Branch or Baton Rouge but from New York City, and so will the next one, and the one after that.
Given the preceding, the [I]least[/I] I should be allowed is the freedom to ridicule them.
2004-05-06 20:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] By no means. The double standard that intrigues me is the way that Christians who repesent a tiny fraction of the aggregate flock maintain that not just the clowns like the Falwells, etc, but also the straight-faced variants who ordain lesbians and import Somalis, represent an insignificant statistical anomaly and that non-believers who point out (and, yes, jeer at) the vast numerical superiority of such believers to the relatively few Christian Nationalists around, are being bigoted and unfair.
Ragno, I did not (and cannot, unfortunately) claim that these heretics are a tiny fraction of the aggregate flock. Adherents of some heresy or another are likely the majority. However, whether something is true has no correlation to the number of people who believe it. My point was that the Church has always been excoriated as authoritarian by secularists whenever it has tried to crack down on heresy. Heresy is dangerous, however, and when it takes root, it inevitably spreads, producing the current sorry state of Christianity. I just think it is unfair to criticize the results of the heresy (dispensationalism, Judeo-Churchianity, neon mega-churches) when you also criticize the only means possible of preventing those results. If you are able to make fun of Tilton, Falwell, et al while realizing that they are heretics, then knock yourself out. If, however, you see these heretics and make fun of them as a proxy for true Christianity, then, yes, you are being bigoted and unfair.
[quote="il ragno"]And it's another sort of embarrassment I'm referring to, that of the Falwell/Tilton/Hinn variety.
Given the preceding, the least I should be allowed is the freedom to ridicule them.[/QUOTE] I am NOT defending these idiots. Like I said before, as long as you realize they heretics, mock them all you want. I certainly do. :wink:
2004-05-06 21:28 | User Profile
The question is whether such 'heretics' comprise a numerical [I]majority[/I], because it's the many who get to characterize the few. I submit to you that - to take a ferinstance - any OD Christian who attempted to begin a dialogue on race within his congregation that doesn't arrive at a conclusion of 'we must build more bridges between the races' is going to be considered an extremist (which is what we call heretics in the modern era, after all). Unless he belongs to a like-minded congregation in which case the entire church is likely to be characterized as extremist, to be isolated and contained.
It's not like you don't have your work cut out for you: at this point, witnessing to the heathens while the faithful are slouching towards purgatory seems a dereliction of duty to me. But hey, it's [I]your [/I] bailiwick, to tend as you see fit.
2004-05-06 22:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]If you are able to make fun of Tilton, Falwell, et al while realizing that they are heretics, then knock yourself out. If, however, you see these heretics and make fun of them as a proxy for true Christianity, then, yes, you are being bigoted and unfair...I am NOT defending these idiots. Like I said before, as long as you realize they heretics, mock them all you want. I certainly do. :wink:[/QUOTE]
Sounds good in theory, Quantrill, but experience here shows that it is an unworkable approach. As Petr mentioned in another thread, total depravity aptly defining the condition of the unregenerate, their natural inclination will eventually lead to utilizing the most visible practitioners of false doctrine like Hagee, Tilton, etc. as props to hammer away at the true target, which is of course historic, orthodox Christianity itself.
2004-05-06 22:11 | User Profile
"Total depravity" and a bag of chips, that's me.
I regularly trap, kill and eat schoolchildren, even occasionally in that order.
2004-05-06 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]"Total depravity" and a bag of chips, that's me.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is all of us actually.
[url=http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html]De Servo Arbitrio[/url] (The Bondage of the Will) by Dr. Martin Luther
2004-05-06 22:27 | User Profile
their natural inclination will eventually lead to utilizing the most visible practitioners of false doctrine like Hagee, Tilton, etc. as props to hammer away at the true target, which is of course historic, orthodox Christianity itself.
Nope. As long as 'The Christian' does not start spouting "all humans are equal" nonsense, and as long as he Names The Jew, we be friends, bro!
2004-05-06 22:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Nope. As long as 'The Christian' does not start spouting "all humans are equal" nonsense, and as long as he Names The Jew, we be friends, bro!
-----------[/QUOTE]
No one seems to have any trouble understanding that human individuals aren't equal. I know many people who are smarter, better looking, and better athletes than me all at the same time. So why is racial inquality such a stretch for most people (and not just Christians, of course), especially in light of what we see around us every day, where serious failure and social dysfunction always seems to match up with large populations of non-Whites.
2004-05-06 22:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Nope. As long as 'The Christian' does not start spouting "all humans are equal" nonsense, and as long as he Names The Jew, we be friends, bro![/QUOTE]
As a personal motto, I'm glad that works for you, Franco. But you have no standing to place such a claim on Christians themselves.
2004-05-06 23:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Yes, it is all of us actually.
[url=http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html]De Servo Arbitrio[/url] (The Bondage of the Will) by Dr. Martin Luther[/QUOTE] Martin Luther certainly might have been "totally depraved" -- I have to take his word for that -- but he shouldn't try to drag the rest of humanity down with him. Sure, there's a lot of evil in the world, but some people, including myself, try to do what we instinctively feel is right even without expecting reward or punishment after death. If we fail, then at least we tried our best. If our best wasn't good enough, then that's our Creator's fault, since He made us.
Let me ask you a personal question, Tex, and I hope you won't get mad at me for this, as that's not my intention. I'm honestly curious. You have children, right? Let's say one of them renounces Christianity in the future, yet in all other ways tries to be a decent person -- is kind to others, volunteers at soup kitchens, donates to charity, etc., out of genuine compassion for others. Now fast-forward to the Final Judgment. You see God condemn your child to eternal torture for his honest failure to believe in Christianity. My question is, will you still love the God who is torturing your child, not just for a trillion years, but forever? Or will you just shrug and say, "He (or she) got what he deserved for not believing in the Bible," then sit back and enjoy Paradise? While your child is shrieking in those eternal flames? Just imagine that for a moment.
Personally, I would rather burn in hell alongside my loved one than be in Paradise with a God who tortures people in such a gruesome fashion. My love for my family is absolute and unconditional, and it transcends any fear of some "hell." And it's hard to see how it's possible to love God and fear Him at the same time. Fear and genuine love are incompatible (except perhaps in a "battered wife" type of relationship).
Fortunately, there is every indication that hell was invented by human beings to fighten others into submission, and Christianity probably adopted it from Roman converts (who already believed in infernal torments on account of their former paganism). The preserved writings of Roman historians such as Polybius, coupled with the lack of mention of hell by God in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, makes that pretty clear:
[url]http://www.zianet.com/godisgood/polybius.html[/url]
Maybe I'm wrong and hell really does exist. Maybe God is a deceiver and everyone goes to hell. If that were the case, how would we know until we died? But I see no point in worrying about such things. The best thing a person can do is follow his conscience, think for himself, and live as good and principled a life as he can.
2004-05-07 00:36 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red]- "... the lack of mention of hell by God in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures..."[/COLOR]
Angler, have you noticed that I refuted this claim of yours on this thread too:
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13372[/url]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
...
"Angler, you are missing the big picture – what the Old Testament consistently teaches is that YHWH is omnipotent and that breaking His Law is a serious matter.
And so, prophet Amos tells us that sinners will not be able to escape God’s righteous wrath even to the Sheol, the land of the dead:
[COLOR=Blue]Amos 9:
“2 Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, (Sheol) from there my hand will take them.”[/COLOR]
Psalms 139 echoes the same attitude:
[COLOR=Blue]“7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, (Sheol) you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.”[/COLOR]
After all, Moses already says that life and death are within God’s power:
[COLOR=Blue] Deuteronomy 32:
“39 "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.”[/COLOR]
In a way, OT thus treats you with some respect – it expects you to be able to draw the obvious conclusions of these premises yourself, and that is exactly what Solomon did at the end if his contemplative Ecclesiastes:
[COLOR=Blue]“13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”[/COLOR]
This clearly implies the Last Judgment, or as it called in the OT, “the Day of the LORD”.
(And it is also a nice contrast to, say, childish descriptions of torments that wait sinners according to Quran...)
And of course, then there's Daniel 12:
[COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Sienna]" (5) Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, (6) these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. "[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Petr
2004-05-07 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Sounds good in theory, Quantrill, but experience here shows that it is an unworkable approach. As Petr mentioned in another thread, total depravity aptly defining the condition of the unregenerate, their natural inclination will eventually lead to utilizing the most visible practitioners of false doctrine like Hagee, Tilton, etc. as props to hammer away at the true target, which is of course historic, orthodox Christianity itself.[/QUOTE] Tex, I understand your concern, and I share it. That is what I meant when I wrote that people make fun of these people as a proxy for true Christianity. At the same time, however, I don't think it is necessary to defend those who are clearly heretics (and ridiculous, to boot.)
[QUOTE=Il Ragno]The question is whether such 'heretics' comprise a numerical majority, because it's the many who get to characterize the few.
I would disagree with this statement. True Christianity has maintained consistent doctrine for 2000 years. To say that suddenly now, since there happen to be a great many heretics about, we must change the definition of what true Christianity is, would be mistaken, in my opinion. By the way, why do you feel it is necessary to put "heretics" in quotation marks?
[QUOTE=Il Ragno]It's not like you don't have your work cut out for you: at this point, witnessing to the heathens while the faithful are slouching towards purgatory seems a dereliction of duty to me. But hey, it's *your * bailiwick, to tend as you see fit.
It is not a dereliction of duty to share the Gospel with anyone, heathen, heretic, or Christian.
2004-05-07 01:37 | User Profile
In a way, OT thus treats you with some respect ââ¬â it expects you to be able to draw the obvious conclusions of these premises yourself, and that is exactly what Solomon did at the end if his contemplative Ecclesiastes Sorry, but that's really stretching those verses for all they're worth, and then some.
Amos 9:
ââ¬Å2 Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, (Sheol) from there my hand will take them.ââ¬Â There is nothing here indicative of eternal punishment.
ââ¬Å7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, (Sheol) you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.ââ¬Â Nothing about hell there, either. Sheol was believed to be deep inside the earth, the final dwelling place of both the good and the evil.
Deuteronomy 32:
ââ¬Å39 "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.ââ¬Â This simply refers to punishment during one's lifetime.
In a way, OT thus treats you with some respect ââ¬â it expects you to be able to draw the obvious conclusions of these premises yourself, and that is exactly what Solomon did at the end if his contemplative Ecclesiastes:
ââ¬Å13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.ââ¬Â
This clearly implies the Last Judgment, or as it called in the OT, ââ¬Åthe Day of the LORDââ¬Â. It does not necessarily imply eternal punishment. It simply implies punishment.
And of course, then there's Daniel 12:
" (5) Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, (6) these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. " My understanding is that the book of Daniel was written long after the other books of the Old Testament -- probably only a few years B.C. -- and therefore the influence of the pagan idea of eternal punishment is likely to have filtered into it.
Let's face it: If hell is the consequence of breaking God's laws, then God would certainly have told the Hebrews about it from the very beginning (at Sinai). But no, He merely threatened them with punishment -- not only for themselves, but also for their offspring:
Exodus 20:5 --- For I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Later on, in the book of Ezekiel, He changes His mind and says that each individual is responsible only for his own conduct:
Ezekiel 18:1-9 --- 1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, 2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
This is yet another instance where the Bible contradicts itself. Either God punishes children for the sins of their parents, or He does not. There is no middle ground. And the Bible also quotes God as saying that He does not change.
2004-05-07 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Let me ask you a personal question, Tex, and I hope you won't get mad at me for this, as that's not my intention. I'm honestly curious. You have children, right? Let's say one of them renounces Christianity in the future, yet in all other ways tries to be a decent person -- is kind to others, volunteers at soup kitchens, donates to charity, etc., out of genuine compassion for others. Now fast-forward to the Final Judgment. You see God condemn your child to eternal torture for his honest failure to believe in Christianity. My question is, will you still love the God who is torturing your child, not just for a trillion years, but forever? Or will you just shrug and say, "He (or she) got what he deserved for not believing in the Bible," then sit back and enjoy Paradise? While your child is shrieking in those eternal flames? Just imagine that for a moment.[/QUOTE]
Either the Bible is true or it's false. What we think about what's "fair" is completely irrlevant.
If you do go to heaven, it's my impression that you won't notice anyone shrieking in eternal flames.
[QUOTE]Personally, I would rather burn in hell alongside my loved one than be in Paradise with a God who tortures people in such a gruesome fashion. My love for my family is absolute and unconditional, and it transcends any fear of some "hell." [/QUOTE]
Speak for yourself. I wouldn't.
Your love for your family is the same as your love for food, sleep, shelter, sex. Human instincts that may or may not exist in the afterlife anyway.
J
2004-05-07 02:03 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red]- “Personally, I would rather burn in hell alongside my loved one than be in Paradise with a God who tortures people in such a gruesome fashion.”[/COLOR]
I know this sounds cynical, but I bet you’d change your mind after spending about one nanosecond in Hell. It is somewhat pathetic to see all these sentimental anti-God poets and philosophers bragging how they would defy God even in hellfire.
And you are simply rationalizing away the clear implications of those verses, Angler. I can sense that the idea of Hell bothers you quite a bit.
And as for book of Daniel being late forgery, you’ve got endless amount of counter-material in here:
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/TK-DAN.html[/url]
And that is not the only clear resurrection excerpt in the OT:
[COLOR=Blue]Isaiah 26:19:
“26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”[/COLOR]
And do you have any other material ancient pagan belief in “hell” besides that rather vague Polybius quote? I somehow suspect how seriously pagans took it – it is always erroneous to compare Christian and pagan nations just like that, merely using the same word like “hell”.
As that Jew comedian Lenny Bruce said: “Roman gods had nothing to do with religion.”
Petr
2004-05-07 02:17 | User Profile
And as for this problem,
which I admit might look first quite intriguing, is treated in context in here:
[COLOR=Blue]"The Problem of "Sins of the Fathers"
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_DPU.html[/url][/COLOR]
Petr
2004-05-07 02:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red]- It is somewhat pathetic to see all these sentimental anti-God poets and philosophers bragging how they would defy God even in hellfire.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if their children were burning in that hellfire. This doctrine is itself diabolical. Could a belief possibly be more offensive? I don't think so.
2004-05-07 02:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]- [I]“Personally, I would rather burn in hell alongside my loved one than be in Paradise with a God who tortures people in such a gruesome fashion.”[/I]
I know this sounds cynical, but I bet you’d change your mind after spending about one nanosecond in Hell. It is somewhat pathetic to see all these sentimental anti-God poets and philosophers bragging how they would defy God even in hellfire.[/QUOTE]
Suddenly those vaunted graduate-school degrees that qualify you to hold an opinion in the DARWINISM thread become the same ol' liabilities they usually are to the Faithful, and the insistence on empirical evidence that disqualifies Doubtin' Chuckie D goes out the window with it - while "You’d change your mind after spending about one nanosecond in Hell" is irrevocable truth because of that old standby "I'm telling you it's so - it's right here in my holy book."
And the Koran's take on hell is "childish" for the same reason - [I]just because[/I].
2004-05-07 02:51 | User Profile
Did I touch a raw nerve? Your comment seems quite unintelligible to me.
What have "degrees" got to do with this matter?
We're just having a l'il metaphysical conversation on this thread, not scientific debate, in the case you didn't notice.
I'd say that my point shows some common "horse sense" instead of weepy sentimentalism that even many anti-religion atheists indulge themselves in.
Petr
2004-05-07 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Did I touch a raw nerve? Your comment seems quite unintelligible to me. [/QUOTE]
Hey, you're the fellow who said "Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and [I]untested ideas [/I] about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on [I]careful experimentation[/I]."
Therefore, I ask: where is your empirical evidence of afterlife, either hell or heaven? Where are the records proving - even offering anecdotal evidence - that "you’d change your mind after spending about one nanosecond in Hell"?
You can barely offer Biblical passages that back up the existence of this "hell". Besides those stretching the definition of "imply".
[QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbie.org/english/Study04GodandDeath/0409Hell.html[/url]
[B]Hell[/B]
The popular conception of hell is of a place of punishment for wicked 'immortal souls' straight after death, or the place of torment for those who are rejected at the judgment. It is our conviction that the Bible teaches that hell is the grave, where all men go at death.
As a word, the original Hebrew word 'sheol', often translated 'hell', means 'a covered place'. 'Hell' is the Anglicized version of 'sheol'; thus when we read of 'hell' we are not reading a word which has been fully translated. A 'helmet' is literally a 'hell-met', meaning a covering for the head. Biblically, this 'covered place', or 'hell', is the grave. There are many examples where the original word 'sheol' is translated 'grave'. Indeed, some modern Bible versions scarcely use the word 'hell', translating it more properly as 'grave'. A few examples of where this word 'sheol' is translated 'grave' should torpedo the popular conception of hell as a place of fire and torment for the wicked:
"Let the wicked...be silent in the grave" (sheol [Ps. 31:17]) - they will not be screaming in agony.
"God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave" (sheol [Ps. 49:15]) - i.e. David's soul or body would be resurrected from the grave, or 'hell'.
The belief that hell is a place of punishment for the wicked from which they cannot escape just cannot be squared with this; a righteous man can go to hell (the grave) and come out again. Hos. 13:14 confirms this: "I will ransom them (God's people) from the power of the grave (sheol); I will redeem them from death". This is quoted in 1 Cor. 15:55 and applied to the resurrection at Christ's return. Likewise in the vision of the second resurrection (see Study 5.5), "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" (Rev. 20:13). Note the parallel between death, i.e. the grave, and hell (see also Ps. 6:5).
Hannah's words in 1 Sam. 2:6 are very clear: "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive (through resurrection): he bringeth down to the grave (sheol), and bringeth up".
Seeing that 'hell' is the grave, it is to be expected that the righteous will be saved from it through their resurrection to eternal life. Thus it is quite possible to enter 'hell', or the grave, and later to leave it through resurrection. The supreme example is that of Jesus, whose "soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption" (Acts 2:31) because he was resurrected. Note the parallel between Christ's 'soul' and his 'flesh' or body. That his body "was not left in hell" implies that it was there for a period, i.e. the three days in which his body was in the grave. That Christ went to 'hell' should be proof enough that it is not just a place where the wicked go.
Both good and bad people go to 'hell', i.e. the grave. Thus Jesus "made his grave with the wicked" (Is. 53:9). In line with this, there are other examples of righteous men going to hell, i.e. the grave. Jacob said that he would "go down into the grave (hell)...mourning" for his son Joseph (Gen. 37:35).
It is one of God's principles that the punishment for sin is death (Rom. 6:23; 8:13; James 1:15). We have previously shown death to be a state of complete unconsciousness. Sin results in total destruction, not eternal torment (Mt. 21:41; 22:7; Mk. 12:9; James 4:12), as surely as people were destroyed by the Flood (Lk. 17:27,29), and as the Israelites died in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:10). On both these occasions the sinners died rather than being eternally tormented. It is therefore impossible that the wicked are punished with an eternity of conscious torment and suffering.
We have also seen that God does not impute sin - does not record it against us - if we are ignorant of His word (Rom. 5:13). Those in this position will remain dead. Those who have known God's requirements will be resurrected and judged at Christ's return. If wicked, the punishment they receive will be death, because this is the judgment for sin. Therefore after coming before the judgment seat of Christ, they will be punished and then die again, to stay dead for ever. This will be "the second death", spoken of in Rev. 2:11; 20:6. These people will have died once, a death of total unconsciousness. They will be resurrected and judged at Christ's return, and then punished with a second death, which, like their first death, will be total unconsciousness. This will last for ever.
It is in this sense that the punishment for sin is 'everlasting', in that there will be no end to their death. To remain dead for ever is an everlasting punishment. An example of the Bible using this kind of expression is found in Dt. 11:4. This describes God's one-off destruction of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea as an eternal, on-going destruction in that this actual army never again troubled Israel, "He made the water of the Red sea to overflow them...the Lord hath destroyed them unto this day".
Even in early Old Testament times the believers understood that there would be a resurrection at the last day, after which the responsible wicked would return to the grave. Job 21:30,32 is very clear: "The wicked...shall be brought forth (i.e. resurrected) to the day of wrath...yet shall he be brought (then) to the grave". One of the parables about Christ's return and the judgment speaks of the wicked being 'slain' in his presence (Lk. 19:27). This hardly fits into the idea that the wicked exist for ever in a conscious state, constantly being tortured. In any case, this would be a somewhat unreasonable punishment - eternal torture for sins committed in a single human lifetime. God has no pleasure in punishing wicked people; it is therefore to be expected that He will not inflict punishment on them for eternity (Ez. 18:23,32; 33:11 cp. 2 Pet. 3:9).
Popular Christian thinking often associates 'hell' with the idea of fire and torment. This is in sharp contrast to Bible teaching about hell (the grave). "Like sheep they are laid in the grave (hell); death shall feed on them" (Ps. 49:14) implies that the grave is a place of peaceful oblivion. Despite Christ's soul, or body, being in hell for three days, it did not suffer corruption (Acts 2:31). This would have been impossible if hell were a place of fire. Ez. 32:26-30 gives a picture of the mighty warriors of the nations around, lying at peace in their graves: "The mighty that are fallen (in battle)...which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads...they shall lie...with them that go down to the pit". This refers to the custom of burying warriors with their weapons, and resting the head of the corpse upon its sword. Yet this is a description of "hell" - the grave. These mighty men lying in hell (i.e. in their graves), hardly supports the idea that hell is a place of fire. Physical things (e.g. swords) go to the same "hell" as people, showing that hell is not an arena of spiritual torment. Thus Peter told a wicked man, "Thy money perish with thee"(Acts 8:20).
The record of Jonah's experiences also contradicts this. Having been swallowed alive by a huge fish, "Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly, and said, I cried...unto the Lord...out of the belly of hell cried I" (Jonah 2:1,2). This parallels "the belly of hell" with that of the whale. The whale's belly was truly a 'covered place', which is the fundamental meaning of the word 'sheol', translated 'hell'. Obviously, it was not a place of fire, and Jonah came out of "the belly of hell" when the whale vomited him out. This pointed forward to the resurrection of Christ from 'hell' (the grave) - see Mt. 12:40.
Figurative Fire However, the Bible does frequently use the image of eternal fire in order to represent God's anger with sin, which will result in the total destruction of the sinner in the grave. Sodom was punished with "eternal fire" (Jude v. 7), i.e. it was totally destroyed due to the wickedness of the inhabitants. Today that city is in ruins, submerged beneath the waters of the Dead Sea; in no way is it now on fire, which is necessary if we are to understand 'eternal fire' literally as a flame burning forever. Likewise Jerusalem was threatened with the eternal fire of God's anger, due to the sins of Israel: "Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (Jer. 17:27). Jerusalem is the prophesied capital of the future Kingdom (Is. 2:2-4; Ps. 48:2), God did not mean us to read this literally. The great houses of Jerusalem were burnt down with fire (2 Kings 25:9), but that fire did not continue eternally.
Similarly, God punished the land of Idumea with fire that would "not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste...the owl and the raven shall dwell in it...thorns shall come up in her palaces" (Is. 34:9-15). Seeing that animals and plants were to exist in the ruined land of Idumea, the language of eternal fire must refer to God's anger and His total destruction of the place, rather than being taken literally.
The Hebrew and Greek phrases which are translated "for ever" mean strictly, "for the age". Sometimes this refers to literal infinity, for example the age of the kingdom, but not always. Ez. 32:14,15 is an example: "The forts and towers shall be dens for ever...until the spirit be poured upon us". This is one way of understanding the 'eternity' of 'eternal fire'.
Time and again God's anger with the sins of Jerusalem and Israel is likened to fire: "Mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place (Jerusalem)...it shall burn, and shall not be quenched" (Jer. 7:20; other examples include Lam. 4:11 and 2 Kings 22:17).
Fire is also associated with God's judgment of sin, especially at the return of Christ: "For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up" (Mal. 4:1). When stubble, or even a human body, is burnt by fire, it returns to dust. It is impossible for any substance, especially human flesh, to literally burn for ever. The language of 'eternal fire' therefore cannot refer to literal eternal torment. A fire cannot last for ever if there is nothing to burn. It should be noted that "hell" is "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14). This indicates that hell is not the same as "the lake of fire"; this represents complete destruction. In the symbolic manner of the book of Revelation, we are being told that the grave is to be totally destroyed, because at the end of the Millennium there will be no more death.
Gehenna In the New Testament there are two Greek words translated 'hell'. 'Hades' is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'sheol' which we have discussed earlier. 'Gehenna' is the name of the garbage dump which was just outside Jerusalem, where the refuse from the city was burnt. Such garbage dumps are typical of many developing cities today (e.g. 'Smoky Mountain' outside Manila in the Philippines.) As a proper noun - i.e. the name of an actual place - it should have been left untranslated as 'Gehenna' rather than be translated as 'hell. 'Gehenna' is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew 'Ge-ben-Hinnon'. This was located near Jerusalem (Josh. 15:8), and at the time of Christ it was the city rubbish dump. Dead bodies of criminals were thrown onto the fires which were always burning there, so that Gehenna became symbolic of total destruction and rejection.
Again the point has to be driven home that what was thrown onto those fires did not remain there for ever - the bodies decomposed into dust. "Our God (will be) a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29) at the day of judgment; the fire of His anger with sin will consume sinners to destruction rather than leave them in a state of only being singed by it and still surviving. At the time of God's previous judgments of His people Israel at the hand of the Babylonians, Gehenna was filled with dead bodies of the sinners among God's people (Jer. 7:32,33).
In his masterly way, the Lord Jesus brought together all these Old Testament ideas in his use of the word 'Gehenna'. He often said that those who were rejected at the judgment seat at His return would go "into Gehenna (i.e."hell"), into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not" (Mk. 9:43,44). Gehenna would have conjured up in the Jewish mind the ideas of rejection and destruction of the body, and we have seen that eternal fire is an idiom representing the anger of God against sin, and the eternal destruction of sinners through death.
The reference to "where their worm dieth not", is evidently part of this same idiom for total destruction - it is inconceivable that there could be literal worms which will never die. The fact that Gehenna was the location of previous punishments of the wicked amongst God's people, further shows the aptness of Christ's use of this figure of Gehenna.[/QUOTE]
If my earlier comment about you demanding to see credentials before conceding another's opinion to have merit or even to hold weight still 'seems unintelligible', your next response will clarify this - when you demand to know who the hell is the 'punk' author of this piece, and what divinity degrees did he brandish at the door to gain admittance past the bouncers.
2004-05-07 03:56 | User Profile
Whine, whine.
You are only making yourself look funny by making ill-thought comparisons to biology in the middle of a theological discussion.
And you embarrass yourself even more by quoting some obvious cultists who want to prove that even the NEW TESTAMENT doesn't teach eternal punishment.
[COLOR=Blue] - "Again the point has to be driven home that what was thrown onto those fires did not remain there for ever - the bodies decomposed into dust. "[/COLOR]
This is annihilationism, also preached by Jehovah's Witnesses.
(Here's everything you want to know about this heresy:
[url]http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm[/url] )
JWs are black-belt masters in devious sophistical re-interpretations of Biblical texts.
And here's the conclusive proof that you quoted some JW-like cultists: elsewhere on their site, they deny the full divinity of Jesus:
[COLOR=Blue]"These words are often misapplied to teach that Jesus existed before Abraham did. However, closer investigation reveals the opposite to be true:
[url]http://www.bbie.org/english/Study07OriginofJesus/D25BeforeAbrahamWasIAm.html[/url]
Petr
2004-05-07 04:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You are only making yourself look funny by making ill-thought comparisons to biology in the middle of a theological discussion.[/QUOTE]
Why is that? When you looked just as funny relying on equal parts science and superstition to 'prove' that [I]"it was pious Christians who have hugely improved our health and wealth – not the drawers of imaginary 'trees of life'. It is a complete, shameless NON SEQUITUR to say that our modern prosperity resulted from evolutionist imaginings! The fact is, we can kick evolution right out of our door and keep on living luxuriously!" [/I]
I especially like the (over) reliance on exclamation marks as well.
[QUOTE]You embarrass yourself even more by quoting some obvious cultists who want to prove that even the NEW TESTAMENT doesn't teach eternal punishment. This is annihilationist heresy, also preached by Jehovah's Witnesses. JWs are black-belt masters in devious sophistical re-interpretations of Biblical texts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, this is a bit like listening to an argument over the results of a fencing match fought with imaginary foils.
By the way, have you posted a heads-up at The Phora encouraging your rooting section to come watch you kick agnostic ass over here yet?
2004-05-07 05:16 | User Profile
I love the "I'll fall back on the Bible whenever I like to postulate stuff" trick :yawn:
2004-05-07 14:39 | User Profile
Whatchoo' talking about, maddy? On what basis should Christians "postulate stuff" concerning the afterlife other than through the Bible?
And Ragno - I'd say that once again, the source that you quoted was immediately caught red-handed with gross errors and distortions.
Petr
2004-05-07 15:47 | User Profile
Use the Torah, or the Koran, or some science fiction book. The possibilities are limitless for those "fools who want to believe".
2004-05-07 16:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]1. Either the Bible is true or it's false. What we think about what's "fair" is completely irrlevant. Aside from the fact that the Bible could easily be true in some parts and false in others, the fairness of God as portrayed in the Bible IS relevant to a discussion of the Bible's credibility. This is because God is presumed to be perfect, completely just and fair, and, above all, loving. If something in the Bible portrays God as being less than perfect in some regard, then that raises doubts about the Bible's inspiration. And yes, human beings are very much qualified to judge God -- otherwise, how can we say "God is good" without lying? If we're not qualified to call God "unfair," then we're not qualified to call Him "fair" or "just," either -- yet religious people presume to do so all the time. Besides, the Bible is quite clear in its implication that human beings instinctively know right from wrong (supposedly as a result of the eating of the apple from the Tree of Knowledge), so it doesn't make sense for anyone who believes in the Bible to say that "human beings can't understand God's justice" (an escape hatch frequently used by Christians in religious debates).
- If you do go to heaven, it's my impression that you won't notice anyone shrieking in eternal flames. Many fathers of the Church believed the opposite. In fact, more than a few stated that the souls in heaven will actually derive sadistic pleasure and satisfaction from viewing the sufferings of the damned. By saying such things, they truly revealed their sickness and lack of basic human compassion.
Anyway, even if someone in heaven can't see his loved one(s) suffering in hell, he'll know about it. If God erases that person's memory -- well, sheesh, why didn't God just create a bunch of robots in the first place?
Speak for yourself. I wouldn't. I was speaking for myself. :)
Your love for your family is the same as your love for food, sleep, shelter, sex. Human instincts that may or may not exist in the afterlife anyway. I understand what you're saying here, but I think love for family is stronger than love for those other things, which are actually not "loves" but "needs." I don't "love" to sleep -- in fact, I'd prefer to stay awake all the time -- but I don't have much choice. And if human instincts won't exist in the afterlife, then why didn't God make human beings without sinful instincts in the first place, i.e., make everyone like Adam and Eve were before their supposed "fall"?
Of course, there's no answering such questions. As I've said before, for all we know, it might be that we're all deceived and are ALL going to hell after we die, regardless of what we believe or do. Can anyone prove that that isn't the case? No.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-07 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Which makes me wonder why so many are so obsessed with refuting evolution, geology, and cosmology. Even if, for sake of argument, it were all proven to be false, how and why would that prove that the account in Genesis is correct? If evolution of cosmos, earth, and life didn't occur as science would suggest, then shouldn't we give Hindu, Norse, Shinto, African animist, and Amerindian creation myths a fair hearing? How about Scientology? Why do creationists believe that the debate is one of "evolution vs. the Book of Genesis" (as if the creation myth of the ancient Israelites has some priveleged status as a scientific "null hypothesis") when the alternative is really "evolution vs. some account of creation or some model for earth, life and cosmos we haven't thought of yet."[/QUOTE] !!EXACTLY!! I've tried to point that out to people as well, but it fell on deaf ears.
2004-05-07 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Why do creationists believe that the debate is one of "evolution vs. the Book of Genesis" (as if the creation myth of the ancient Israelites has some priveleged status as a scientific "null hypothesis") when the alternative is really "evolution vs. some account of creation or some model for earth, life and cosmos we haven't thought of yet."[/QUOTE] These are actually two related, but separate, debates -- Creation vs Randomly Occuring Existence, and Evolution vs. Genesis Creation Account. It seems to me that a large portion of this thread has been dedicated to confusing the two. The Intelligent Design folks, for example, are all about the former debate, while the Young Earthers are all about the latter.
For the record, though, AY, it is not only creationists who confuse the two debates. One of the first arguments that Ragno pulled out was to mock people who believe men and dinosaurs were contemporaries, thereby implying that that belief is the one that all those who don't buy evolution must hold.
As I mentioned before, I don't have the science background that some of you do, so I am not going to jump into questions of the fossil record and bacterial flagellum. I can, however, point out when passions are running high and logical mistakes are being made.
2004-05-07 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]And as for this problem,
which I admit might look first quite intriguing, is treated in context in here:
[COLOR=Blue]"The Problem of "Sins of the Fathers"
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_DPU.html[/url][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
Holding says:
We can expect little else from those who think that there is no life beyond their narrow view in the first place... As if the smug J.P. Holding is somehow more broad-minded in his views than anyone else...
...and who do not recognize the right of God to do with His creation as He pleases, It hasn't been proven that God exists, so why should we recognize any such right? Besides, if God is just, then He does NOT have the right to do what He pleases -- He is bound by justice. If God is unfair and cruel to people, then He's a monster and unworthy of worship, regardless of whether or not He has the capacity to be unfair and cruel.
...but for the Christian, the matter is resolved with a single thought: If the innocent cannot die for the sake of or under the punishment of the guilty under God's justice, then the sacrifice of Christ could not be permitted either. That's another reason why Christianity is suspect: because it is based on the notion that justice can be served by an innocent person suffering on behalf of the guilty. That's a very Semitic belief that survives even to this day (note the collective punishment of the Palestinians by the Israelis). But if an innocent person is killed to avenge the death of another innocent person, then guess what? You have two innocent people dead instead of one; that adds up to twice the injustice.
2004-05-07 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red]- ââ¬ÅPersonally, I would rather burn in hell alongside my loved one than be in Paradise with a God who tortures people in such a gruesome fashion.ââ¬Â[/COLOR]
I know this sounds cynical, but I bet youââ¬â¢d change your mind after spending about one nanosecond in Hell. It is somewhat pathetic to see all these sentimental anti-God poets and philosophers bragging how they would defy God even in hellfire. Maybe I would, but it would be too late then anyway. And what's so pathetic about having the courage to stick by one's principles rather than submit to fear? Christianity is based entirely on fear and, to a lesser degree, on the selfish hope of reward, using the ultimate stick (hell) and the ultimate carrot (heaven) to make people conform to certain dogmas. Truly good people do what's right for its own sake.
And you are simply rationalizing away the clear implications of those verses, Angler. I can sense that the idea of Hell bothers you quite a bit. There is nothing about eternal hellfire in those verses. Nothing at all. If there were, then the Jews would believe in the Christian concept of hell; they do not.
Yes, the idea of hell does bother me, but not because I believe in it. It bothers me because I spent many years of my life as a slave to that belief, and I'm never going to get those years back. It also bothers me because the threat of hell is still used today to frighten people into conforming to certain doctrines that are harmful to humanity (e.g., submission to earthly rulers even when they are tyrannical). Why should REAL truth need fear to back it up? If someone says to me, "Believe my scientific theory or else I'll torture and kill you and your family," do you think I'm going to find that more convincing than someone who sits down with me and quietly argues his ideas?
And as for book of Daniel being late forgery, youââ¬â¢ve got endless amount of counter-material in here:
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/TK-DAN.html[/url] I'll look at that link when I get some more time, but I have a generally low opinion of Holding's work based on stuff of his I've read in the past. He's a master of specious reasoning.
And that is not the only clear resurrection excerpt in the OT:
[COLOR=Blue]Isaiah 26:19:
ââ¬Å26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.ââ¬Â[/COLOR] I didn't mean to deny that the Jews believed in resurrection of the dead (well, most did, some didn't). I'm simply denying that they believed in Hell, at least around the time when they were at Sinai receiving the Law from Moses.
And do you have any other material ancient pagan belief in ââ¬Åhellââ¬Â besides that rather vague Polybius quote? I somehow suspect how seriously pagans took it ââ¬â it is always erroneous to compare Christian and pagan nations just like that, merely using the same word like ââ¬Åhellââ¬Â. "Vague"? What's so vague about it? It seems crystal-clear to me.
You asked for something besides Polybius:
Strabo (64 bc - 21 ad, Greek geographer): "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds....For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue--but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (Of the Furies), the dragons, etc., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology."
Seneca (4 bc - 65 ad, Roman essayist and poet): "Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment-seat, etc., are all a fable, with which the poets amuse themselves, and by them agitate us with vain terrors."
Source: [url]http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/classes/hell_and_purgatory.htm[/url]
As that Jew comedian Lenny Bruce said: ââ¬ÅRoman gods had nothing to do with religion.ââ¬Â I doubt Lenny Bruce knew as much as Polybius and Seneca about the religious beliefs of the Romans. ;)
2004-05-07 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Use the Torah, or the Koran, or some science fiction book. The possibilities are limitless for those "fools who want to believe".[/QUOTE]
CORRECTION: "Use the torah :caiphas:, the koran :osama:, or any science book :nerd:. The possibilities are limitless for those "fools who want to believe."
:lol:
2004-05-07 17:46 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - "I'll look at that link when I get some more time, but I have a generally low opinion of Holding's work based on stuff of his I've read in the past. He's a master of specious reasoning."[/COLOR]
It's not only Holding's own material. He links to other sources on this page too.
[COLOR=Blue] - "Nietzsche once remarked that belief in infinite reward or infinite punishment in the afterlife was the ultimate form of hedonism, only a hedonism deferred. In other words, the asceticism of one who believes in eternal reward or fears eternal punishment is not one born out of authentic virtue, but of fear or greed (albeit one based on a gamble). This is in contrast to Greek Stoicism or Buddhism, which teach asceticism and virtue as ends in themselves rather than means to achieving rewards or avoiding punishment."[/COLOR]
True Christians are not interested in shining and polishing their own virtues, which is all about glorifying your own ego, relishing on how perfectly spiritually enlightened you are, but serving their Lord and other men like their own selves.
I have read many Christian articles warning against the attitude of practising "mercenary religion", that would follow the devil himself if he would only lead them to Heaven. A mature believer doesn't think so about his coming rewards, as is rejoicing in knowledge that he is doing what he is supposed to do, according to the revealed Word of God, and not rebelling against his loving Creator, in whose justness he trusts.
Pagan piety is all about building one's own ego through fleshly exercises. I find religions like Buddhism incredibly self-centered - they don't indeed even need the concept of God, which would stand in the way of their self-glorying Pharisaic exercises of virtue.
Like Paul says in the letter to Corinthians, if Christian lacks love (towards God and his fellow men), it wouldn't do him any good if he would give all his possessions to poor and let himself burned to death. He would be only uplifting himself.
Extreme asceticism is actually quite alien to the spirit of Christianity, or at very least non-Catholic Christianity.
Christianity is all about submitting to the will of our Creator, FORGETTING ourselves while we work in the fields of the Lord.
Petr
2004-05-07 17:50 | User Profile
Hmmm. Am I the only one here who holds that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive?
Evolution presupposes the existence of a world. The existence of anything at all makes very likely the existence of a Creator, to say the least.
2004-05-07 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Blue] - "Nietzsche once remarked that belief in infinite reward or infinite punishment in the afterlife was the ultimate form of hedonism, only a hedonism deferred. In other words, the asceticism of one who believes in eternal reward or fears eternal punishment is not one born out of authentic virtue, but of fear or greed (albeit one based on a gamble). This is in contrast to Greek Stoicism or Buddhism, which teach asceticism and virtue as ends in themselves rather than means to achieving rewards or avoiding punishment."[/COLOR]
True Christians are not interested in shining and polishing their own virtues, which is all about glorifying your own ego, relishing on how perfectly spiritually enlightened you are, but serving their Lord and other men like their own selves.
I have read many Christian articles warning against the attitude of practising "mercenary religion", that would follow the devil himself if he would only lead them to Heaven. A mature believer doesn't think so about his coming rewards, as is rejoicing in knowledge that he is doing what he is supposed to do, according to the revealed Word of God, and not rebelling against his loving Creator, in whose justness he trusts.
Pagan piety is all about building one's own ego through fleshly exercises. I find religions like Buddhism incredibly self-centered - they don't indeed even need the concept of God, which would stand in the way of their self-glorying Pharisaic exercises of virtue.
Like Paul says in the letter to Corinthians, if Christian lacks love (towards God and his fellow men), it wouldn't do him any good if he would give all his possessions to poor and let himself burned to death. He would be only uplifting himself.
Extreme asceticism is actually quite alien to the spirit of Christianity, or at very least non-Catholic Christianity.
Christianity is all about submitting to the will of our Creator, FORGETTING ourselves while we work in the fields of the Lord.
Petr[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have been stated any better, Petr. Extremely well done.
The true contrast is between all the self-centered religions completely centered on one's own works (Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism) and Biblical Christianity which is centered on what Christ has already done and accomplished for all mankind on the Cross.
"But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith." Philippians 3:7-9
2004-05-07 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] Extreme asceticism is actually quite alien to the spirit of Christianity, or at very least non-Catholic Christianity.
Actually, there is an ascetic tradition in Orthodoxy, as well, Petr. In fact, some of the most repected saints are the Desert Fathers. The ascetism has a somewhat different focus than that of Catholicism, however. In Catholic ascetism, the point is to suffer, so that you can empathize with the suffering of Christ. In Orthodox ascetism, the point is to free yourself from slavery to the senses and passions, so that you can more truely focus on Christ.
[QUOTE=Petr] Christianity is all about submitting to the will of our Creator, FORGETTING ourselves while we work in the fields of the Lord.[/QUOTE] I agree with this completely. Please note, however, that this is completely compatible with the ascetic tradition.
2004-05-07 18:17 | User Profile
Seems we have moved beyond the discussion of Hell. I think it is only fair to mentioned that Angler took that debate, and in a right gentlemanly way too.
2004-05-07 18:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Seems we have moved beyond the discussion of Hell. I think it is only fair to mentioned that Angler took that debate, and in a right gentlemanly way too.[/QUOTE]
Wishful thinking, Bardamu. What this thread does give evidence of is the endless effort of hardened in self-pride, stiff-necked skeptics to continuously throw out point after point to discredit Christianity. When each point is refuted, they just come up with something else.
Yet just as it has for over 2000 years, the Truth of the Scriptures still stands and will continue to stand, just like Christ's Church which "the gates of hell" itself will not overcome.
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7:24-29
2004-05-07 18:48 | User Profile
A few points -- 1. I think it is relevant to point out the idea of God purposefully and actively punishing those who have sinned is not the only Christian conception of hell. The Orthodox view is that if we choose to not accept God's love and presence, He will not force us to do so. Since our very souls were made specifically to experience a relationship with God, it is impossible for us to be complete or happy without this relationship. If we hate God, we will find His love to be a torment. In this way, Hell is a state, and it is really self-inflicted. Blaming God for Hell is like a person with his eyes tightly shut blaming the Sun for his darkness.
If it is, in fact, the case that the ancient Jews did not believe in Hell, I don't see why that means that Christians should not believe in it. Christians believe in many things the ancient Jews did not, like the Golden Rule and the prohibition of divorce.
I also fail to see the importance of Polybius, Seneca, and Strabo not believing in Hell. It is their opinion that is is a fabricated doctrine. That's fine. However, the New Testament has Christ speaking about it, and as a Christian, I think I'll go with that.
2004-05-07 20:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wishful thinking, Bardamu. What this thread does give evidence of is the endless effort of hardened in self-pride, stiff-necked skeptics to continuously throw out point after point to discredit Christianity. When each point is refuted, they just come up with something else.[/QUOTE]
The problem of evil is a serious one for literal dogmatists such as yourself. It cannot be explained along with the idea of a just and merciful god. Of course, with me, I'm just reading this to relax. My neck isn't stiff nor is my self-pride provoked.
Yet just as it has for over 2000 years, the Truth of the Scriptures still stands and will continue to stand, just like Christ's Church which "the gates of hell" itself will not overcome.
You mean the fire and brimstone hell that the Jews themselves don't believe in because it's not in their own scriptures?
2004-05-07 20:28 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - “You mean the fire and brimstone hell that the Jews themselves don't believe in because it's not in their own scriptures?”[/COLOR]
The Old Testament certainly teaches that sinners will have HOT conditions in the Day of the Lord, when God has promised to settle His accounts with the mankind.
YHWH is the “consuming fire”, and his full Presence is literally intolerable for sinners (think about the ark-opening scene in the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to visualize it…)
Some examples:
[COLOR=Blue]“Deuteronomy 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
“Zepheniah 1:2 I will utterly consume all [things] from off the land, saith the LORD.
Zepheniah 1:3 I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.
“Psalms 68:1 Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.
Psalms 68:2 As smoke is driven away, [so] drive [them] away: as wax melteth before the fire, [so] let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
“Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Malachi 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
Malachi 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do [this], saith the LORD of hosts.”[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." [/COLOR]
Where do you think the term "Holocaust" came from - it originally meant burned sacrifices offered to YHWH in the temple.
It is no wonder that later Talmudic Jews started to interpret these verses allegorically – deep inside, they were (and are) materialistic unbelievers just like modern liberal “Christians” who actively forget these verses as well.
Petr
2004-05-07 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The problem of evil is a serious one for literal dogmatists such as yourself.
Evil is a serious problem for everyone, not just a 'literal dogmatist' like myself, Brother Bardamu. And I don't know if that label applies to me or not, but I and millions of other Christians do hold resolute in the belief that the Scriptures are the Holy Spirit-inspired, inerrant Word of God. You see, as soon as we make any concession that the least bit of Scripture may not be true, then the question immediately becomes what part IS true? That's a slippery slope that must be avoided.
It cannot be explained along with the idea of a just and merciful god.
I'm not trying to explain it, nor do I imagine that I could. How can any man know the mind of God? However, we do know God revealed in Jesus Christ and what the Scriptures state, and as St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:9, "He (The Lord) is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Or John 3:16, ""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (Jesus Christ), that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." We can know God via His revealed Word, believe it and trust it as true Truth. It's really quite simple.
Of course, with me, I'm just reading this to relax. My neck isn't stiff nor is my self-pride provoked.
And I did not mean to imply that you were. Just that Christians get knocked for being passive and meek, except when they do defend their beliefs then they are derided for being judgmental or self-righteous. It is our fervent desire though that all who do not believe will come to faith in Christ through the Spirit.
You mean the fire and brimstone hell that the Jews themselves don't believe in because it's not in their own scriptures?[/QUOTE]
I mean what Christ himself stated in Matthew 13. That's it.
Best regards.
2004-05-07 21:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Which makes me wonder why so many are so obsessed with refuting evolution, geology, and cosmology. Even if, for sake of argument, it were all proven to be false, how and why would that prove that the account in Genesis is correct?[/QUOTE]
Obviously it wouldn't. And I know of no one who claims otherwise.
2004-05-07 21:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Hmmm. Am I the only one here who holds that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive?[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. It's obvious the two are not mutually exclusive. Blind evolution could simply have been the mechanism God used to bring life into existence.
2004-05-07 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wishful thinking, Bardamu. What this thread does give evidence of is the endless effort of hardened in self-pride, stiff-necked skeptics to continuously throw out point after point to discredit Christianity. When each point is refuted, they just come up with something else. If any of my points were refuted, I must have missed it. To the charge of being "hardened in self-pride" (assuming it was directed at me), I plead innocent, as I have a healthy level of self-esteem and no more than that. Self-respect? Yes. Arrogance? No. As for being "stiff-necked," I have been both a Christian and an agnostic, which proves that I'm willing to change my views and admit that I can be wrong. Can you make that claim?
Yet just as it has for over 2000 years, the Truth of the Scriptures still stands and will continue to stand, just like Christ's Church which "the gates of hell" itself will not overcome. Hinduism is much older than Christianity (its roots date back to about 1500 BC). Does that mean that the "Truth" of Hinduism is even more credible than that of Christianity? Sorry, but longevity is no guarantee of correctness.
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7:24-29[/QUOTE]Jesus never said this to me; I have to take the word of those human beings who wrote the Bible and those who compiled it under the direction of Constantine.
Evil is a serious problem for everyone, not just a 'literal dogmatist' like myself, Brother Bardamu. And I don't know if that label applies to me or not, but I and millions of other Christians do hold resolute in the belief that the Scriptures are the Holy Spirit-inspired, inerrant Word of God. You see, as soon as we make any concession that the least bit of Scripture may not be true, then the question immediately becomes what part IS true? That's a slippery slope that must be avoided. Are you saying that you deliberately avoid even entertaining the possibility that the Bible could be errant on account of foreseen negative consequences to your faith? If so, then that's willful self-deception, Tex. It's like telling yourself you're perfectly healthy, then refusing to go to the doctor because you're afraid he'll find something wrong.
I'm not trying to explain it, nor do I imagine that I could. How can any man know the mind of God? We can't even know if He exists, let alone know His mind.
However, we do know God revealed in Jesus Christ and what the Scriptures state, and as St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:9, "He (The Lord) is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Or John 3:16, ""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (Jesus Christ), that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." We can know God via His revealed Word, believe it and trust it as true Truth. It's really quite simple. Actually, it's not so simple. You have no proof or evidence that God inspired the Bible. Sure, you can trust in it, but that's no different from trusting any other human beings who write books and claim to speak for God. They could be telling the truth, they could be mistaken, or they could even be lying.
2004-05-07 23:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If any of my points were refuted, I must have missed it.
Without any malice, mind you, I will say that I think you are missing quite a bit, Angler. That truly pains me, but I have to trust the Spirit to lead and guide as it wills and one can only come to faith through the Holy Spirit.
To the charge of being "hardened in self-pride" (assuming it was directed at me), I plead innocent, as I have a healthy level of self-esteem and no more than that. Self-respect? Yes. Arrogance? No. As for being "stiff-necked," I have been both a Christian and an agnostic, which proves that I'm willing to change my views and admit that I can be wrong. Can you make that claim?
I am quite certain that I am wrong much more often than not. But the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is not wrong, nor will it ever be. You can rest your eternal soul on that unchanging truth. The hard work has already been done -- in real, objective historical time by Jesus on the Cross. A free gift to all of us, as undeserving as we are. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Because of God's grace and our faith in that external, historical act of Jesus Christ death and resurrection as atonement for our sin, we are justified before God and made alive in Christ. "He was buried for our transgressions and made alive for our justification."
Now you may say to yourself, like I do--like everyone does, I just can't put my mind around this or that, there is so much I don't understand or doesn't make sense to me. That's ok, brother, it doesn't matter. God knows us better than we could ever know ourselves ("And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered") and certainly knows what we need and what is best for us. "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." Place your faith in Christ and he will grant you everything you need and much more. Much, much more. "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." This is the Gospel message and God's promise according to his Word.
Hinduism is much older than Christianity (its roots date back to about 1500 BC). Does that mean that the "Truth" of Hinduism is even more credible than that of Christianity? Sorry, but longevity is no guarantee of correctness.
That's not what I was implying. Paganism has been around since the worship of Baal, but that doesn't make it Truth. All those are religions based on the works of men, easily created by men. Christianity is based on God's grace and what he did for us in real history via Christ's death on the Cross. As Kierkegaard stated, surely not something man would ever have come up with of his own accord.
Jesus never said this to me; I have to take the word of those human beings who wrote the Bible and those who compiled it under the direction of Constantine.
If you just read it, then yes He did say it directly to you. I pray the Spirit will lead you to faith, my friend, so you too can have the peace that surpasses all understanding.
Best regards.
2004-05-08 01:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]CORRECTION: "Use the torah :caiphas:, the koran :osama:, or any science book :nerd:. The possibilities are limitless for those "fools who want to believe."
:lol:[/QUOTE]
My deity will kick ass of your deity.
2004-05-08 01:48 | User Profile
Not to sound mushy, but I'm genuinely touched by your kind words, Tex -- not to mention your patience. It sounds like you realize that my intent is not to annoy you or other Christians, but simply to bounce ideas and doubts off of people and see what they have to say about issues that I think are important. I learn something whenever I do that, and I hope that maybe someone learns something from me as well.
This thread has run dry anyway, I think, so let me close by reiterating that it is not my intention to be hostile to God or Christ per se; my lack of faith in Christianity is simply a reflection of my lack of trust in my fellow human beings. I know that human beings lie and deceive to acquire power; I know that religion has been used to manipulate people from the dawn of man right up to the present. That may or may not apply to Christianity in general, but Human beings wrote the Bible; that alone, in my view, is reason enough to be suspicious of its Divinely-inspired status.
If you're completely confident that the Bible was inspired by God, which you clearly are, then that's all good, and I hope it brings you happiness. I do hope, however, that you can at least understand why some people, such as a few people on this board, don't share your certainty. It's not because we're bad people; even the Bible says that you know a tree by its fruits, and most of the skeptics here are very concerned about the evil that's being done in our name by those who currently hold the reigns of power in the USA. Neither do we "hate God" or wish to mislead others. We simply have honest doubts about religion in general and are doing the best we can to find out, to our own satisfaction, what we can confidently believe in.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to "naming the Jew".... :)