Log in to check your private messages
Faith
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:35 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 7857
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Skywalker2B wrote:
BTW, there is a TON of eschatology in the OT. Daniel and Ezekiel are the most prominent. But there's end-times prophecy in a lot of the other OT books too.

Oh, I know there's eschatology happening in the OT. I'm just specifically wondering where you got the idea that people who lived before Jesus, but "had faith in God and tried to obey God's commandments went to Paradise" - Paradise being like a waiting room for the age to come.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:15 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Skywalker2B
Knight
Knight

Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 373

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/what-about-those-who-lived-in-old-testament-times/

Here's a start. Need to do some more research to get a more consise answer.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:56 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 1692
Location: Simulation and Simulacra

Good stuff guys, I don't have much to add on, but one specific thing that caught my eye that I'm glad you explained further was the concept of Hades/ Sheol/ Hell.

Some people who may not be that familiar could get the wrong idea about Hades, confusing it for the Hellenic concept of the underworld ruled by the deity of the same name. Of course it's a different thing in Christianity, that's just the common Greek word for "place after death." Like how I was talking about logos, in the NT there are a lot of Greek concepts because that was the common language of scholars during the time of the Gospels, but they may not share the same philosophic or theological meanings.

Another is the Jewish concept Gehenna, also from Greek, which is generally considered analogous to Hell by Christians and Muslims.

And of course the word "Hell" itself traces back to anglo saxon origin, and is used because of English etymology, not theological reasons.
_________________
Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:38 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Skywalker2B
Knight
Knight

Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 373

Ah, yes, DPW, I forgot about the term Gehenna. Interestingly enough, the Bible mentions...let's just say "that place" since there are several terms/names for it...more than it mentions Heaven. Although the Bible does tell us a bit about Heaven, our knowledge of Heaven is limited. Consider this, from 1st Corinthians: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” I've heard it said that if we REALLY knew what God has prepared for us in Heaven that we would want to immediately die to get there.

Maybe we're told about "hell" enough to realize that it's not a place that anyone should desire to go, and just enough about Heaven to know that is where we should want to live for eternity.

I like Jack Kinsella's (deceased) commentary on Heaven: http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=6520


Reep, I found some commentaries that you may find answers your questions about the Old Testament saints.

The Saints, Part 1 - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7652

The Saints, Part 2 - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7654

The Saints, Part 3 - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7658

Lastly, you might find this one interesting too: http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7316


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:52 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Skywalker2B
Knight
Knight

Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 373

Here's some more about pre-cross salvation:

https://gracethrufaith.com/?s=Old+Testament+salvation

there are several Q&A's here that you might find helpful in your study.

Oh, and someone mentioned about "fairness" and God being "just" (justice) if people die without knowing. Here's something on that...

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/what-aboutthose-who-died-without-knowing-god/


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:54 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Location: New York, USA

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
Salaris Vorn wrote:
For me the Unitarian view always made more sense as it always seemed like a logical paradox that Jesus could father himself (or put another Jesus required himself to exist prior to existing in order to bring about his own existence). That said I'm not a Christian so this is merely puzzlement from the view of an outsider and I accept that it may be logical to someone who is a Christian and I don't mean to disparage anyone's beliefs.


It was rude and wrong for me to say that those beliefs were idiotic because of my ignorance. I'm sorry about that.

I chose this quote to single out because that is totally understandable to me. That was my intention with starting this discussion, it was about a belief that I couldn't understand, it didn't make sense to me.

If you believe that there is only one aspect or Being of God, not a Trinity, then isn't that disbelieving in the aspect of God the Son, which is the Christ? In that case, how could one be a Christian? Without Christ, in what sense is there a theology of Christianity? It seems to me that is the logical reasoning of the thing, which leads to an illogical outcome.


Sorry I didn't reply sooner, the weekend was pretty crazy with work and other busy things so I didn't have time to sit down to actually write a reply.

My answer to your question is largely going to be based off of this website: http://www.americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm

As I've said while I would say I'm Unitarian I'm not Unitarian Christian (I will explain my distinguish in a moment).

First off Unitarians define two types of religion, natural and revealed (copy/paste quotes below):
Natural religion is that which is awakened by the sight of the order and beauty of nature, of its suitability to the use of living beings, and of its variety and unity, leading the rational mind up to the conception of a Creator who is supreme in power, wisdom, and goodness.

Revealed religion consists of the disclosures, or discoveries, of divine truth made to inspired persons, thus producing lawgivers, prophets, philosophers, and spiritual leaders for the human race.

They see Christianity as a revealed religion but not in opposition to natural religion and the two are complimentary. According to Unitarian Christian beliefs you're a Christian if you 1) try to live your life by the words of Jesus 2) live according to Jesus' teaching of love to God and love to humankind 3) while you might find insight or thought provoking ideas in other philosophers or religious teachers (Moses, Confucius, Mohammed, Socrates etc. etc.) you believe Jesus to be intellectually the best of them.

This last part is where I distinguish myself most as a Unitarian. I can't really ATM say I fit #1 but that's largely due to not having read much of the NT (time constraints of what I can realistically do/read each day) rather than an unwillingness to ever do so #2 somewhat follows #1 obviously. #3 I clearly don't fit because I feel that to sincerely make such a hierarchical assertion I would need to do a thorough studying of major non-Western religious on top of a very thorough reading of the NT. I don't feel it would be right on my part to say "Jesus is the best" and has about all the logic of saying "I've only gone swimming in the Atlantic but based on this experience I can confidently assert that the Atlantic is better for swimming than the Pacific." Either of those would be assertions based on emotion and/or convenience rather than a place of actual knowledge, experience, and most importantly unbiased analysis (I feel that learning about all the other religions of the world would also lack sincerity if I was doing with the intention of proclaiming at the end of the study that Jesus was the best). That said I identify as Unitarian as I largely agree with their general philosophy and the Unitarian interpretation of the Bible makes the most logical sense to me.

So having established that to move on to your other question about Unitarian's take on God the Son. What follows is basically my tl;dr information from the above webpage.

First and foremost according to Unitarians nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity outlined by Jesus and his apostles with attention to clarity and precision to prevent misunderstanding and in all the passages that describe the nature of God nowhere is God described as a threefold being. Additionally, the passages that list the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit prove nothing except the existence of those three entities but do not inherently prove that they are 3 aspects of the same being. Unitarians also note that where Jesus and God are described in the NT as having the same attributes or titles is not proof either because most of the divine attributes ascribed to Jesus are also claimed for his disciples (the webpage has a long list of quotes from the NT which for the sake of coherent to my post I will not copy/paste here but well worth a look if you're curious about it). Finally Unitarians assert that the Trinity is a doctrine established at the Council of Nicene several centuries after Jesus and not something that was eagerly agreed upon by all the bishops in attendance and adopted by some reluctantly for the sake of unity rather than because it was a doctrine that had been consistently, universally practiced since the time of Jesus' life.

Unitarians go further in their analysis of who Jesus is noting that the scriptures teach that there is only one God which is distinct from Jesus and that Jesus himself distinguishes between himself and God. further there is no record in the scripture where Jesus makes this big reveal to his disciples which Unitarians assert would have been pretty mindblowing and well worth recording how awestruck they were by the revelation yet no such account exists (Unitarians note that Son of God =/= to God the Son in that you can't logically conclude the latter from the former). Unitarians also use the cases where Jesus prayed to God, taught his followers to pray to God not to Jesus, God is called "God of Jesus Christ" (I believe Unitarians see such a statement as illogical if God is Jesus since there's no logic to stating "this is the deity Jesus believes in if Jesus is that same deity"), and that Jesus himself taught that his was subordinate to God (I believe Unitarians also see this as a paradox as it is illogical to for Jesus to bother teaching that Jesus is subordinate to himself if the Trinity is true).

The final bit for why Unitarians don't believe Jesus is God is that there is no record of the Jews regularly and routinely opposing such doctrine which would obviously be highly offensive to them. Yet despite the writings of the apostles recording the objects to Christianity they don't record having to defend over and over again an assertion of the Trinity/Jesus as God which Unitarians assert would have be an if not the major theological criticism that Jews would have had of Christianity. Unitarians note that when Jesus answers the charges by Judeans of teaching that Jesus is God responds not by embracing the charge but by quoting part of Hebrew scriptures in which all individuals who God spoke to where described as gods and Jesus concludes by stating that he has only called himself the Son of God (I believe Unitarians are using this moment as conclusive proof by Jesus himself that Son of God =/= God the Son). According to the Unitarians after this moment the Jews never charged Jesus as proclaiming himself God again nor where his apostles charged with calling Jesus God and were only ordered to not teach in the name of Jesus.

Now again the webpage has a lot of chapter and verse where they point to specific passages to back up Unitarian interpretations which I haven't copy/pasted for the sake of not making this even longer but again well worth the look if you're curious. I'm also unsure how much a specific translation of the Bible has influenced their interpretation of the passages or if the interpretations are based off of readings in the original Greek (?). Again I make no claims to being a Unitarian Christian so any aspects where I deviated from the webpage is an error on my part in trying to condense it all down.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:00 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 1692
Location: Simulation and Simulacra

Thanks SV, that actually does clear it up a lot.

One thing that I found strange, though. You mentioned it and I'll quote it from the text:" "Because we find no opposition made by the Jews to the doctrine that Jesus was God."

Their logical conclusion is that the reason for this is that therefor Jesus and his disciples did not make the claim that Jesus was God. I'm not sure that follows.

Another logical conclusion would be that they did not oppose it because they did in fact believe it was true. That is obviously not the case, since we know that they don't believe it. In that case, I don't think that it is sound to say their reasoning is based on never having heard of the idea.

If I was to say I myself am God, and Pope Francis did not oppose it, what could you conclude about my divine status in the Catholic Church? In that case, indeed it's very likely that Francis may not have heard my claim. But let's say that he did hear it, like I totally sent it to his twitter, wouldn't it be likely that he wouldn't even think it worthy of consideration, let alone the effort of making a proclamation to refute it?

You don't have to believe Jesus is God, but the opposing idea that the very concept of Jesus as a Divinity was invented whole cloth by the Catholic Church and was never considered by Apostolic tradition and the early Christian Church, I find that to be pretty unbelievable myself.

But now I think that I do understand the position that I first questioned. In a general way the Christians that I was referring to believe in following the teachings and the examples of the life of Christ. They might not believe that he is God, they might not even believe that he was a real historical person. But they believe in it, as opposed to say the teachings of Lao Tzu, for example, because they believe those instructions were given, on some level, to us by the true God.
_________________
Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:08 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Location: New York, USA

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
Thanks SV, that actually does clear it up a lot.

One thing that I found strange, though. You mentioned it and I'll quote it from the text:" "Because we find no opposition made by the Jews to the doctrine that Jesus was God."

Their logical conclusion is that the reason for this is that therefor Jesus and his disciples did not make the claim that Jesus was God. I'm not sure that follows.

Another logical conclusion would be that they did not oppose it because they did in fact believe it was true. That is obviously not the case, since we know that they don't believe it. In that case, I don't think that it is sound to say their reasoning is based on never having heard of the idea.

If I was to say I myself am God, and Pope Francis did not oppose it, what could you conclude about my divine status in the Catholic Church? In that case, indeed it's very likely that Francis may not have heard my claim. But let's say that he did hear it, like I totally sent it to his twitter, wouldn't it be likely that he wouldn't even think it worthy of consideration, let alone the effort of making a proclamation to refute it?


I personally don't disagree with your argument that absence of evidence does not inherently indicate the opposite to be true. But I would guess that the argument is directed at those who believe the Bible to be the absolute truth, free of error, a complete record of the life of Jesus and his teachings, and believe Jesus was a really big deal and not dismissed as just another guy preaching his own thing. If you approach the argument from that logic then the argument does follow.

Absence of evidence means that no such evidence existed (otherwise you just agreed that there are errors in the Bible, in this case an accidental omission). If you accept the premise that the teachings of Jesus, however objectionable to Jewish tradition, was just dismissed, you also just acknowledged that Jesus wasn't considered a particularly big deal. Which is also a problem if you're saying God itself didn't have much of a "stage presence" to draw much attention.

That said I think the bigger reason why Unitarians make the argument that the absence of evidence is significant is if you draw on stories of miracles like feeding the multitude. Again if you're assuming the number of individuals to be accurate and not an extra 0 or two added then Jesus had up to 5,000 followers massed in one area at once. That's roughly the size of an entire Roman Legion.

If you assume a Roman Legion adjusted in numbers to be equivalent to modern day armies then in your scenario that would be like you massing 100,000 to 200,000 followers in once place. That's a reasonably sized large city and would be all but impossible for local Bishops not to notice. Now they could ignore you in the hopes you'll just go away but would they really want to ignore someone who is gathering that large a following through teaching beliefs that are effectively against everything the Church stands for? Medieval history seems to make that unlikely and I see no reason why Jewish leaders contemporary with Jesus would (or could) just quietly ignore a movement on that scale.

Quote:

You don't have to believe Jesus is God, but the opposing idea that the very concept of Jesus as a Divinity was invented whole cloth by the Catholic Church and was never considered by Apostolic tradition and the early Christian Church, I find that to be pretty unbelievable myself.


My take wasn't that Unitarians thought it was invented whole cloth, rather that it wasn't nearly as universal as modern day followers are led to believe. Which I think is their point with the Council of Nicea and drawing attention to the idea that current mainstream Trinitarian beliefs are a product of centuries of tradition (potentially based on older traditions that may date to Jesus' lifetime) rather than being the product of a unanimous belief held universally since Jesus was alive as is frequently portrayed.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:53 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 1692
Location: Simulation and Simulacra

I'm having a little trouble following this.

The Jews don't believe that the "New Testament" comes from God, like at all as far as I know. As for it being the exact true words of God, I don't even think most or all of them believe that about the "Old Testament".

I understand the purpose is to appeal to Christians that believe in Biblical literalism, but I guess basing that on Jewish dogma is kind of a moot point, then?

I think using the Bible to justify what isn't in the Bible is kind of circular logic. Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 or sure, let's say 200,000 people. If you take that as a fact, the fact that Jewish leaders didn't say anything about it, by the same source, is hard to explain. I don't see any other explanation that they didn't hear about it, or that they didn't care.

That's not the same thing as explaining a lack of comment on Jesus saying that he is God, but the point is that a total lack of commentary on Jesus' miracles in total supports my reasoning that it "wasn't a big deal" to them.

That was the whole purpose of the Gospels, to spread the word about him. If they didn't meet him in person, most people, even in nearby areas, would never have heard of Jesus.

Now I agree with the idea of challenging the "Universal" doctrine of Christianity. Anyone who thinks that everyone agrees on a common Christian theology in the year 2017, let alone in the year 117, clearly doesn't know very much about the subject.

That was just that one thing. As the whole premise of the argument about Jesus and the Trinity, I'm not really cut out to, or rather I just don't have an inclination to try to argue against it.
_________________
Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:44 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 2028
Location: Ontario, Canada

I've been away for a bit, and came back to some interesting discussions, including some very thought out and detailed responses to my thought experiment.

This is probably the time that I would need to say "I appreciate your input, and respectfully disagree."

I don't know what's beyond, but I'm confident that, if there is a positive outcome to be had after death, it is best achieved through a life well lived, improving the world for those around him/her. I can't support the idea of belief in one specific person/tenet/entity/idea as being a prerequisite, because it invariably requires that those who die ignorant of that idea are doomed.

It also invalidates all other religious ideas, and too many other people believe or acknowledge those for me to dismiss it outright. Diversity is our world's strength.

I very rarely watched South Park (only when I was visiting my sister, who loved it), but I will never forget an episode with a gentlemen with a clipboard saying "I see there are 1,800 of you today. Well, welcome to Hell. Before we begin, are there any questions?" And a number of people say something like "I'm a X, shouldn't I be in heaven?" The last one was "Well who does get in?" And the clipboard-wielding man replies "I'm sorry it was Mormons. Mormons was the correct answer." The idea of there being a "correct answer" gave me a laugh.
_________________
http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:04 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Skywalker2B
Knight
Knight

Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 373

Here's a logic thought...

God created everything...to include Heaven (where He dwells) and Hell (which He created for Lucifer/Satan)(aka, Torments, Sheol, etc.). Wouldn't it be logical that the creator of the places determines how anyone would be able to enter either location...and NOT the people that will eventually go to either place. Meaning WE don't make the rules, He (God) does.

And so He does. He tells us that Jesus is THE way ("the" meaning one, not many). Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7) "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

However, God saw fit to create us with free will. So you (a general "you", not a specific person) have the free will to believe Him or not to believe Him. You have the free will to choose your own destination. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it. How narrow is the gate and how constricted is the road that leads to life, and there aren’t many people who find it!”


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:22 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 2028
Location: Ontario, Canada

Skywalker2B wrote:
Here's a logic thought...

God created everything...to include Heaven (where He dwells) and Hell (which He created for Lucifer/Satan)(aka, Torments, Sheol, etc.). Wouldn't it be logical that the creator of the places determines how anyone would be able to enter either location...and NOT the people that will eventually go to either place. Meaning WE don't make the rules, He (God) does.

And so He does. He tells us that Jesus is THE way ("the" meaning one, not many). Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7) "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

However, God saw fit to create us with free will. So you (a general "you", not a specific person) have the free will to believe Him or not to believe Him. You have the free will to choose your own destination. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it. How narrow is the gate and how constricted is the road that leads to life, and there aren’t many people who find it!”


Right. And I appreciate that you hold the above as true and self-evident. And it's a very good argument for the importance of evangalism (my main counter-argument -- that it's rather mean to create such circumstances and condemn all who are ignorant of your rules -- is undermined by well-meaning efforts to bring others into your Faith).

What it comes down to now is that we fundamentally disagree on a core point of Christianity/spirituality/how to live. And that's ok. I think we all need to find our own faith (upper or lower case f), and I admit that the route I took is a strange one. You know firmly what you believe and I respect that greatly. But we are permitted to both live and express ourselves in our societies (noting that we live in different places; oddly enough, you're the one living in the place with separation of church and state, where my Head of State is also the figurehead of my church, imbued with divine right by God Himself).

EDIT: I want to warn you real quick, by the way, that as I've been reviewing my posts, there's a chance that I might be guilty of moving goalposts. I apologize if I do that. It's a debate fallacy I don't like, but since this is a discussion and not a debate, I'm hoping that, if it does happen, it doesn't offend or bother anyone.
_________________
http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:16 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 7857
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Just a couple things about the idea of the divinity of Christ in the Gospels.

1) It is true that Jesus never explicitly says, "I am God" in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but there are things He says and does in them that make little sense otherwise.

I think the best example is when Jesus forgives people's sins. If someone does something against me, I can forgive him. But if someone does something against someone else or against God, I can't forgive him. That would be nonsensical.

Another example is when Jesus calms the storm (Mark 4:35-41). After seeing this, the disciples respond in awe, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him?" Who else could calm the waves, but God? It even appears to be a reference to an attribute given to God in some of the Psalms (e.g. in Psalm 89: "You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.")

After Jesus walks on the water, the author of Matthew writes that "those who were in the boat worshiped him" (14:33). If Jesus didn't think of Himself as God, this would be a good time to rebuke His disciples for committing idolatry, but He doesn't say anything.

Also, when Jesus approaches Jerusalem, He laments over its blindness and says that Israel "didn't know the moment God was visiting you" (Luke 19:44).

2) Apart from whether or not Jesus claimed to be God, the Gospel writers evidently believed He was.

For example, at the beginning of Mark, the author applies prophecies about a messenger preceding the coming of the LORD in Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1) to John the Baptist preceding Jesus.

Near the beginning of Matthew the author names Jesus "Emmanuel" which means "God with us" and is a reference to Isaiah. This is mirrored at the end of Matthew when Jesus assures His followers, "I am with you always".

And then there's this in Luke (8:38-39): The man from whom the demons had gone out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, “Return home and tell how much God has done for you.” So the man went away and told all over town how much Jesus had done for him.

Luke appears to be equating Jesus with God.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:00 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Skywalker2B
Knight
Knight

Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 373

Taral-DLOS wrote:
Skywalker2B wrote:
Here's a logic thought...

God created everything...to include Heaven (where He dwells) and Hell (which He created for Lucifer/Satan)(aka, Torments, Sheol, etc.). Wouldn't it be logical that the creator of the places determines how anyone would be able to enter either location...and NOT the people that will eventually go to either place. Meaning WE don't make the rules, He (God) does.

And so He does. He tells us that Jesus is THE way ("the" meaning one, not many). Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7) "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

However, God saw fit to create us with free will. So you (a general "you", not a specific person) have the free will to believe Him or not to believe Him. You have the free will to choose your own destination. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it. How narrow is the gate and how constricted is the road that leads to life, and there aren’t many people who find it!”


Right. And I appreciate that you hold the above as true and self-evident. And it's a very good argument for the importance of evangalism (my main counter-argument -- that it's rather mean to create such circumstances and condemn all who are ignorant of your rules -- is undermined by well-meaning efforts to bring others into your Faith).

What it comes down to now is that we fundamentally disagree on a core point of Christianity/spirituality/how to live. And that's ok. I think we all need to find our own faith (upper or lower case f), and I admit that the route I took is a strange one. You know firmly what you believe and I respect that greatly.


It sounds like your comments are the age old question: How can a loving God send people to Hell (or some variation thereof). I thought earlier today about how I thought I'd respond, but I think these links best answer your basic premise here:

First: https://www.gotquestions.org/why-does-God-send-people-to-hell.html

Then: https://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html

And God is also a loving God. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) and the most well known verse...For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life...John 3:16.

Taral-DLOS wrote:
But we are permitted to both live and express ourselves in our societies (noting that we live in different places; oddly enough, you're the one living in the place with separation of church and state, where my Head of State is also the figurehead of my church, imbued with divine right by God Himself).


There's a bit of "fake news" for ya. The U.S. does not have a "separation of church and state". It's not in our founding documents (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.) That phrase comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and it was talking about keeping the government out of churches, not keeping churches out of government. What we do have is freedom of religion, freedom from religion. And our government is not allowed to establish a "state" religion. I just wanted to clear that up. Too many people have come to believe otherwise. You know the old adage...repeat a lie enough and people will start to believe it.

Taral-DLOS wrote:
EDIT: I want to warn you real quick, by the way, that as I've been reviewing my posts, there's a chance that I might be guilty of moving goalposts. I apologize if I do that. It's a debate fallacy I don't like, but since this is a discussion and not a debate, I'm hoping that, if it does happen, it doesn't offend or bother anyone.


Ummm....errrr....wellll...I sort of forgot the original idea of this thread. Sorry. I've just been going with the flow. Wink


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:28 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 2028
Location: Ontario, Canada

Skywalker2B wrote:


Taral-DLOS wrote:
But we are permitted to both live and express ourselves in our societies (noting that we live in different places; oddly enough, you're the one living in the place with separation of church and state, where my Head of State is also the figurehead of my church, imbued with divine right by God Himself).


There's a bit of "fake news" for ya. The U.S. does not have a "separation of church and state". It's not in our founding documents (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.) That phrase comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and it was talking about keeping the government out of churches, not keeping churches out of government. What we do have is freedom of religion, freedom from religion. And our government is not allowed to establish a "state" religion. I just wanted to clear that up. Too many people have come to believe otherwise. You know the old adage...repeat a lie enough and people will start to believe it.



I greatly appreciate the clarification. It seems to me though that the phrase "separation of church and state" has become a shorthand for exactly what you described. But it's good to know the historical origins.

And the main point I was going for was the second part, that our Head of State up here in Canada is also the head of the Church of England and thus all branches of Anglican faith (including the Anglican Church of Canada). I remember in church praying not only for members of the congregation and the community, but also for the Queen, and on Remembrance Sunday singing God Save the Queen and a variety of country-based religious hymns.
_________________
http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 29 of 30
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield