ForumsWEPRHeart Issue

63 13511
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

-----Original Topic-----

Is following Christ (or lack of following Christ) a heart issue rather than an intellectual issue? Do you reject Christ because of evidence or do you reject Christ because you are satisfied with things of this world rather than God? I'm bringing this topic up because I have found a new love and appreciation for God, but also because I kinda miss debating if I'm going to be honest. I wanted to see how my new knowledge of God will fare against your arguments. I hope to only speak the truth and I pray that God will speak into your hearts. I'm not sure if these are good questions tho, so feel free to change the subject.

-----Revised Topic-----
4/29/20
When I wrote this, it was impulsive. I just wanted to debate because I wanted a sense of purpose. I didn't put any thought into the questions.

Now this topic is just Christianity in general, I think. To guide the conversation, I want to answer these questions: What is the true essence of Christianity and why is it different from other religions?

  • 63 Replies
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

I realized that I haven't really been taking a more biblical approach like I have been advocating for. I'm going to take more time to formulate my responses with this in mind so I don't become a hypocrite and so it doesn't turn into the Religion Debate Thread again.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

Huh? I just gave you the solution to your problem and you just brush it aside and say “nope, I’m interpreting what you’re saying correctly.” You won’t be able to understand anything I’m saying if you don’t try. Please just at least try to understand.

im not brushing aside a solution, im brushing aside an excuse. in the very end, if you dont believe you go to hell right? no amount of "yes but..." will change that.

And you’re right that Jesus has to save us from God. He is the villain if you don’t accept Christ. But Jesus Christ is also God, so if you accept Him, God becomes the hero. It just depends on perspective. A glass half full/half empty type thing. If you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you have to at least understand that God sent Jesus to pay for our sins. But that shouldn’t be a problem because He is God.

then there is no point to sending us a hero to save us from the villain who is the same person. sounds like some bipolar/multiple personality disorder.

a villain is a villain because of what he is and does, not because of him only being evil depending on your own life.

Okay but how would I do that in terms of converting someone? Strap them to a chair and tell them to believe? That’s absurd and no one would believe if that’s the case.

thats your problem to figure out, not mine. but if you are just going to stop after telling people about what you think is true and accepting that they dont believe in it because you have really weak arguments, then you arent trying hard enough, especially when you take into consideration they will suffer forever.

you dont seem to be as dramatic when someone doesnt believe in your religion as youd probably feel if for example, someone was about to jump off a roof. i wonder why.

I said it’s his work not his job. He is not obligated to save anyone, except for those who He promises to save.

he created us this way, and we can only be saved if he feels like it. it is his responsbility and creating people like this only to doom them for eternal pain ever since they were born is evil. he is obligated to save everyone since he is the one who caused this twisted mess.

You’re the one who won’t even bother trying to learn about the religion. I already heard all the objections from atheists. And I heard plenty of objections from other religions. It’s not blind if I have already logically countered all these arguments.

you havnt countered those arguments. you just accepted that you cant counter them and continued believing. i dont have to learn more about your religion when its very basic rules are evil.

you on the other hand wont bother going as deep into other religions as their followers because you already think you have the truth.
you saying you are willing to study islam to the level where you possess knowledge of it that is equal in size and quality to that of your knowledge in christianity? youre gonna give islam a chance to be your new religion?

i think my reason to not bother studying your religion more is much more valid than yours.

And I’m willing to accept other sects as valid as long as they preach the same gospel that I do: Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, died as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and resurrected on the 3rd day. If you put Christ as the center of your life, you are saved. They might differ entirely on how they worship, but they at least know that truth.

again, that is not challenging your views or having critical thought. also, ill correct your last part, "they at least believe in that myth".

You’re creating a bubble around your own beliefs. It doesn’t seem like you’re critically thinking about any of your beliefs based on your definition.

i have and i do. just because your religion is already doomed in my mind because it suffers from a heavy flaw doesnt mean i dont. as i said before, im rejecting your religion because i think it is evil, not because im comfortable in my views. i would go much further into the discussion if the religion wasnt so fundamentally wrong.

i have changed my mind and opinion on these matters a lot, and did not see christianity in a bad light until i learned how it sees non believers.

and the fact i already think i could be wrong, already proves that i have more self criticism than you and anyone who "knows" they are right.

But if we are his children, He has every right to?

no, but if we arent his children, its even more obvious that he shouldnt harm us.

No I’m saying He doesn’t consider privilege.

And some Christians are only nominal Christians. Just because they were born into a Christian family does not mean they are saved.

a kid who was born into a christian family has much better chances of being christian than a kid who was born in a tribe that never knew there are humans outside of their island. that is definitely a privilege that grants you gods favor.

if you mean this in the way where he doesnt consider privilege because he would throw both to hell if they werent christian, then that is even more deranged and terrible.

its like putting a starving child on the street and throw him to hell for stealing bread. except stealing is actually wrong in some cases, while not believing in a religion isnt. so its even worse than my example.

No He can’t be different. It is a limitation, but not a limit on his power. It is a limit based on his character. He can’t act contrary to his character, which is complex and unchanging just like your definition of morality.

if you claim he can do anything and everything, then no limitation for him should exist. it doesnt matter what "kind" of limitation you will try to portray this as.

I’m confused. Where are you getting this from?

you dont know of a single story where killing someone was justified or even encouraged in the name of god/religion?

It’s not vague if you read your Bible.

you have countless interpretations and many sectors. it most definitely is vague.

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

Sorry. I don’t mean to leave you hanging. I got so much school work to catch up on. Next week is finals so I’ll prolly be able to respond then. Thanks

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

This is new to me. I know that He acts out of judgment, but would you care to explain what rules He never mentioned to his people?
Well, let's see ...
In Exodus 32, when only Moses could have been aware of the commandment against graven images and worship of things that aren't God, all of the people who prayed to the golden figurine are condemned, first by Moses and his chums who go on a horrible murder spree, then by God who casts a plague upon the survivors.
Leviticus 10 tells the story of two priests who lit their censers or an offering fire with incense and were set ablaze because the fire from the incense was strange in some unspecified way. Then Moses got around to setting down rules for priestly conduct.
Numbers 11 involves people complaining about not having any meat to eat, and God burning more people alive until calmed by Moses. Then He gives them a supply of meat and immediately follows it up with a terrible plague. Why? I have no idea. It's never explained.
Pretty much all of Numbers 16 is God killing people for complaining about His favoritism of Moses and Aaron, and then killing more people for complaining about Him killing so many people.
In 1 Samuel 6, 50000 people get massacred for looking into the ark of the covenant, which was never even in the rules, as far as I know.
Psalms and the book of Isaiah are filled with gruesome atrocities that God will supposedly inflict upon those who violate any laws of the covenant.
Need I go on?

By living out those rules perfectly, He was able to take away the need for us to live them out.
Sure, if you exclude the rules against necromancy, communing with spirits, astral divination, disobeying the priesthood, and probably something else I'm forgetting.

But I have already mentioned before that Jesus has already fulfilled all the commandments because we have not been able to. Now we through Christ meaning we take on righteousness before God.
Commandments aren't made to be fulfilled; they're made to be held. Having somebody else follow all the rules doesn't mean they cease to apply to you.

His name is Immanuel in the sense that we call Him that now.
1 Calling him Immanuel doesn't make his name Immanuel. You could call literally anyone Immanuel, and it would have the same evidential backing.
2 Who even calls him that? The only occasion where anyone would have a reason to is when they're specifically referencing that prophecy for apologetic reasons. In other words, your belief that he surely must fulfill the prophecy is your only grounds for believing that he fulfills this part of the prophecy.

Him being born into the house of David, doesn't that just mean that he is a descendent of David? He was a descendent of David.
No, Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David. What's more, we have it on no less authority than Jesus himself (at least according to both Matthew and Mark) that Christ is not a son [i.e. descendant] of David.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "even within the lifetime of the people who were supposed to receive this sign from above". Lastly, do you mind providing where in the Bible that last prophecy comes from?
All of this is from Isaiah 7, where Isaiah tells Ahaz (of the House of David) that he will behold this prophecy, in all it's weirdness, as a sign from God. This would necessitate that Ahaz is alive to behold it when it happens.

God is impartial because He doesn’t consider unnecessary factors like race, wealth, status, popularity, gender, or any of that.
Not according to
Genesis 3:16
Exodus 19:5-6
Exodus 20:17
Leviticus 27:1-8
Numbers 12
Deuteronomy 7
Deuteronomy 23:2-3
1 Samuel 15:3
2 Samuel 5:19
2 Samuel 12:11
Ezekiel 9:6
Matthew 10:5
Matthew 15:24
Luke 2:23
Romans 9:10-3
and Romans 11:8-10

Not revealing Himself to people of a different religion might be part of that impartial electing process.
In what sense? Can you think of any possible way for religious discrimination to result in impartiality?

If something is good because it is good, then it is up to anyone and everyone to decide what is good. That’s subjective. If something is good because God says it good, then there is only one right answer. It’s objective because God is.
No. If you define good as "whatever God says is good", then the term ceases to be useful. It's like defining yummy as "whatever your 3 year old child says is yummy" and using this to determine what you consider to be food. Dirt? Yummy. Soup? Not yummy. It doesn't work.

God is good and good is God. If I am loyal to God then I am loyal to good and vice versa.
That's nothing more than an excuse to not think about the immorality of the biblical God, and you know it.

So how should I interpret the bad things? Should I say that God is bad?
The only rational alternative is that He's entirely misrepresented in the bible and did not actually commit or justify any of the atrocities it describes.

So how do we know what is good and what is bad? How do we know whose morals are right and whose are wrong?
We don't. That's why we have to think about our actions and their consequences before deciding what we should do, instead of blindly accepting that whatever is decreed by the highest authority is always a moral imperative.

Alright that makes sense. But would you agree that you can go the other way around and use your beliefs to explain why something happens?
Not really, no. You have to understand something to explain it. Otherwise, all you can give is a nonanswer.

I believe that good is objective too. But I believe that we are able to discern what is truly good in our present day by looking to the Bible.
Genocides have resulted from people doing just that.

My point is, the Bible has been misinterpreted either purposefully or through ignorance because people want to satisfy their own desires of conquest and power rather than live a God honoring life.
The problem is that it is extremely easy to interpret in a variety of ways, most of which are horrible due to the nature of the old testament and the extremely antisemetic views of the early popes.

This is all good, but again, my beliefs and knowledge of God comes from the Bible.
Then they cannot be deductive. Deductive reasoning is all about taking a general idea and considering what can be predicted from it. It is not about drawing conclusions from preexisting conclusions.

You are seeking an objective answer through subjective means. If you use the world to determine what is right and wrong, you will be severely misled.
Only according to your own beliefs, which are most certainly subjective.

You are comparing it to someone pointing a gun at your head "suggesting" that you give them your wallet, when it's more like a father laying out the rules of the house. A father can tell you what to do for your benefit and safety. So God does does tell you what to do, but it's in your best interest to obey.
It is very much a threat in the bible. It's "do whatever I want you to, whenever I decide, no matter if it's possible or not, and if I happen to like you enough and don't change my mind for any reason, I won't send you off to suffer unimaginable torture without reason or reprieve", not "if you don't do as you're told, I'll have to ground you for a week so that you'll learn to behave".

What is an out of jail card? Why is it wrong?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Get_out_of_jail_free.jpg
Basically, it's getting to do whatever you want without having to deal with the consequences.

Are you kidding me? Most abolitionists used Christian teachings to support their cause.
Leviticus is very clear on the old testament's acceptance of slavery.

The Roman Catholics back then made it so that only a priest can interpret the Word because it was written in Latin or something. I hope you see the cause and effect of that.
Yeah, the thing about that; in the mediaeval period, the Vatican was concerned that average people with no formal education would misconstrue the words of the bible if they read it themselves. They were right, although I wouldn't say their interpretation was a whole lot better. Anyway, that's why they kept it in Latin for so long.

I will add on to this by saying, if morality is not tied to a "natural law, physical constant or deity" then everything you come up with will be subjective.
As an epicurian hedonist, I'd have to disagree.

Anyway, I'd contribute more to this discussion, but I really don't have the time right now. I haven't even gotten to reading the last 9 days worth of comments.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

Sorry. I don’t mean to leave you hanging. I got so much school work to catch up on. Next week is finals so I’ll prolly be able to respond then. Thanks

thats fine. im mostly the same.

got some awful courses that only became less clear thanks to online meetings, and a huge thesis to write.

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@thebluerabbit

I'm back! Hope your classes are going well. I know how tough it is with the online meetings.

With regards to our discussion, do you think we can start over? I find it hard to jump back into it after a long time. Hopefully this second time around, it will be a more transparent and less heated debate. I understand that when one party is more close-minded to other beliefs, it can get frustrating. I admit that I am stubborn with my beliefs, but at the same time I think that almost nothing will change my mind at this point. I want to put that out there as a disclaimer because I don't want you to waste your time and energy if your goal is to change my mind. But if you decide to try, please keep this in mind and please be patient with me.

More specifically, I most likely will not change my mind that:

  1. God is real
  2. The Bible is the living word of God
  3. Jesus Christ is God
  4. The Holy Spirit is God
  5. The Father is God
  6. Jesus/The Son is not the Holy Spirit, and both of them are not the Father
  7. God is the source of true joy
  8. Humans are a fallen race; if given to our own desires, we will seek worldly things for joy rather than God
  9. The wages of sin is death
  10. By choosing the world over God we are sinning
  11. Therefore, we deserve to die if given to our own desires
  12. God sent Jesus Christ as a human to live a sinless life, to be the perfect sacrifice
  13. Jesus Christ resurrected himself after 3 days of dying
  14. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, our debts before God are paid for
  15. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, the Holy Spirit dwells in us to make us more like Christ in terms of holiness, sinlessness
  16. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, we can be rightfully called Christians and God's people
  17. God saves people before they can accept Christ

I can go on and on, but the rest would only be conclusions drawn from these premises. Granted that these premises do not guarantee that some of my other beliefs are true, I might change my mind on those topics and others I won't. Otherwise, the above statements are written on my heart (figuratively).

I hope this helps somehow.

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@FishPreferred

In Exodus 32, when only Moses could have been aware of the commandment against graven images and worship of things that aren't God, all of the people who prayed to the golden figurine are condemned, first by Moses and his chums who go on a horrible murder spree, then by God who casts a plague upon the survivors.

I believe that preferring worldly or material things over God is a sin. Actually, it's probably the root of all sin. By worshipping those images, they were actively telling God that they don't need or want Him. You don't need a commandment to understand that God deserved their upmost worship.

Leviticus 10 tells the story of two priests who lit their censers or an offering fire with incense and were set ablaze because the fire from the incense was strange in some unspecified way. Then Moses got around to setting down rules for priestly conduct.

Leviticus 10:1 ESV - "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them."

They were told how to offer up sacrifices as priests or else that part of the verse would not have been added. Even if that part wasn't added, all you have to do is read the previous chapter. They had a whole ceremony that was led by Moses who was led by God. It is obvious that Nadab and Abihu acted out of turn based on how the story is written.

Numbers 11 involves people complaining about not having any meat to eat, and God burning more people alive until calmed by Moses. Then He gives them a supply of meat and immediately follows it up with a terrible plague. Why? I have no idea. It's never explained.

I'm curious about where you are getting your information from. Your answer is explicitly given in the exact same chapter. The Bible says that this is how God responded to his people's complaining:

Numbers 11:18-20 ESV - "...Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall not just eat one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the Lord who is among you and have wept before him, saying, 'Why did we come out of Egypt?'"

The problem was not that they asked for meat to eat. The problem was that they were complaining about God's plan for them. They wanted to be back in Egypt where God didn't want them. Again, they were not seeking God for joy, but instead seeking worldly pleasures.

Side note: Eating and enjoying meat is not inherently evil. You can eat meat and not sin as long as it is part of God's plan for you. I think that goes for anything that gives pleasure.

Pretty much all of Numbers 16 is God killing people for complaining about His favoritism of Moses and Aaron, and then killing more people for complaining about Him killing so many people.

I'm pretty sure that all the signs that Moses and Aaron performed were evidence that God appointed them at those position. The people who complained wanted favor from God, but they disregarded God's sovereignty. They didn't act out of faith and previous knowledge of Moses and Aaron's works, but rather sought to carry out their own plans.

In 1 Samuel 6, 50000 people get massacred for looking into the ark of the covenant, which was never even in the rules, as far as I know.

Numbers 4:15 ESV - "...but they must not touch the holy things, lest they die..."

Like how are they gonna look into it without touching it. It's the same reason why no one but the high priest was able to enter the Most Holy Place in the temple.

Psalms and the book of Isaiah are filled with gruesome atrocities that God will supposedly inflict upon those who violate any laws of the covenant.

Those are rules that He does mention to his people.

Sure, if you exclude the rules against necromancy, communing with spirits, astral divination, disobeying the priesthood, and probably something else I'm forgetting.

Necromancy is the practice of communicating with the dead for answers of the future. Jesus used resurrection in order to give life to those who were dead.

When did Jesus commune with spirits, practice astral divination, or disobey the priesthood?

Commandments aren't made to be fulfilled; they're made to be held. Having somebody else follow all the rules doesn't mean they cease to apply to you.

I agree. I'm just saying that Jesus held the commandments perfectly making him the perfect sacrifice. The propitiation for our sins would not be true if Jesus wasn't offered up as a sacrifice.

1. Calling him Immanuel doesn't make his name Immanuel. You could call literally anyone Immanuel, and it would have the same evidential backing.
2. Who even calls him that? The only occasion where anyone would have a reason to is when they're specifically referencing that prophecy for apologetic reasons. In other words, your belief that he surely must fulfill the prophecy is your only grounds for believing that he fulfills this part of the prophecy.

You're right. What I said didn't really make sense. I think it's the meaning of the name that holds true today. It's not that people actually called Jesus Immanuel, but that Jesus is literally God with us.

No, Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David.

And Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, just like how Christians are adopted sons and daughters of God.

What's more, we have it on no less authority than Jesus himself (at least according to both Matthew and Mark) that Christ is not a son [i.e. descendant] of David.

Matthew 1:1 ESV - "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The Bible claims that Jesus is the son of David in the very first verse of one of the books you mentioned. Also Jesus himself never denied that he is a son of David.

Here are times Jesus interacted with people who called him that or asked him if he is (from what I could find at least):
Matthew 9:27-28
Matthew 12:23-32
Matthew 15:21-28
Matthew 20:29-34
Matthew 21:14-16
Mark 10:46-52

Jesus allowed them to call him the Son of David because it was true. He never scolded them or anything.

The passage in question is probably Matthew 22:41-45 (also Mark 12:35-37). You can tell that Jesus is setting up the Pharisees for a lesson when he says in verse 42, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" The Pharisees say David. He responds to the Pharisees, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" He is not denying that he is the Son of David, but rather letting them know that he is more than a descendent of David. He is David's Lord. At the end of this passage, the Pharisees shut up because they understand and agree with Jesus that when David is referring to his Lord, he is referring to Christ. The only thing that the Pharisees disagreed with is that Jesus was Christ.

His arrival wasn't heralded by swarms of insects covering the lands of Egypt and Assyria or any sudden proliferation of thorny plants.

I suppose you can take this as an interpretation to fit the prophecy, but I think Isaiah was using figurative language to describe the downfall of Judah.

All of this is from Isaiah 7, where Isaiah tells Ahaz (of the House of David) that he will behold this prophecy, in all it's weirdness, as a sign from God. This would necessitate that Ahaz is alive to behold it when it happens.

I don't think so. I think Isaiah was just telling Ahaz to behold the prophecy, not the events that were prophesied.

Not according to...

You're taking what I said out of context. I meant that God doesn't consider unnecessary factors like those things when He chooses to save someone. He obviously takes into account those factors when applying discipline, giving gifts, or anything like that.

In what sense? Can you think of any possible way for religious discrimination to result in impartiality?

I didn't say that that's the case all the time. I said that maybe putting someone in that family of a different religion or culture might be his way of electing them. If that makes sense? My point is that God may or may not save that person of a different religion. And by saving, I mean converting to Christianity.

No. If you define good as "whatever God says is good", then the term ceases to be useful. It's like defining yummy as "whatever your 3 year old child says is yummy" and using this to determine what you consider to be food. Dirt? Yummy. Soup? Not yummy. It doesn't work.

Not unless God is unchanging, is the creator of the world, and is the source of true happiness.

That's nothing more than an excuse to not think about the immorality of the biblical God, and you know it.

I disagree. "Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you?" Psalm 71:5. I'm basing what I said off what the Bible says.

You can't call a judge immoral for punishing a criminal according to the crimes they commit. You would call them just and fair.

We don't. That's why we have to think about our actions and their consequences before deciding what we should do, instead of blindly accepting that whatever is decreed by the highest authority is always a moral imperative.

What if the highest authority knows all consequences? What if God gives us these commands in order for us to have love, peace, and joy? All good things come from God. Bad things come from our worldly desires.

"Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have forgotten me and cast me behind your back, you yourself must bear the consequences of your lewdness and whoring" - Ezekiel 23:35.

"Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart" - Proverbs 29:17.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness," - Galatians 5:22.

In fact, read all of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes and Job are good books too, if you want to know how to live a good life.

Not really, no. You have to understand something to explain it. Otherwise, all you can give is a nonanswer.

Or you can experience something and build an understanding about that thing through that experience.

Genocides have resulted from people doing just that.

I didn't mean look to the Bible for verses that justify your actions or ideologies. You have to understand the Bible holistically.

The problem is that it is extremely easy to interpret in a variety of ways, most of which are horrible due to the nature of the old testament and the extremely antisemetic views of the early popes.

I don't believe in popes. It is up to individuals to read the Bible and consider all of it. Not just the Old Testament.

Then they cannot be deductive. Deductive reasoning is all about taking a general idea and considering what can be predicted from it. It is not about drawing conclusions from preexisting conclusions.

Agreed. My beliefs and knowledge of God do not come deductive reasoning.

Only according to your own beliefs, which are most certainly subjective.

Agreed.

Basically, it's getting to do whatever you want without having to deal with the consequences.

Oh, then I disagree that the gospel is a get out of jail card. Like you said, commandments are meant to be held.

Leviticus is very clear on the old testament's acceptance of slavery.

Leviticus 25:39-40 ESV - "If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of jubilee."

Basically don't make slaves of God's people. Then in the same paragraph,

Leviticus 25:44-45 ESV - "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property."

God's people are allowed to make slaves of people of other nations. If God is good, then He will command his people to do good and will not command them to do evil. By allowing them to have slaves, it must mean that slavery is not inherently evil. I don't think it means that slavery is good. God doesn't command them to have slaves, He simply allows them. The Bible also outlines how to treat slaves. See Exodus 21. It's not like the slavery of the world.

Yeah, the thing about that; in the mediaeval period, the Vatican was concerned that average people with no formal education would misconstrue the words of the bible if they read it themselves. They were right, although I wouldn't say their interpretation was a whole lot better. Anyway, that's why they kept it in Latin for so long.

But there's no accountability if the common people can't read it. They might have had good intentions, but they had a huge misunderstanding of the word of God. It was meant for people to read and have a relationship with God.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

after reading yout two last posts, ive decided to just leave this conversation.

if you have already decided you wont change your mind on practically everything regarding your beliefs, regardless of what one would say or show you, there is no point in talking to you anymore.

i also dont see why you are bothering talking to us either. you arent looking for a conversation about your religion with everyone, you are looking for a conversation about interpretations of your religion with people who already accept the things you wont change your mind on as fact. you should look for a religious circle of friends to have this conversation with, not people who have a wider point of view.

there is no point to this conversation if you already decided that you are right and i am wrong.

bye

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

That’s understandable. I just wanted to say that I am continuing to talk to you guys because of two reasons. 1. I believe that these truths/beliefs whatever you want to call them, are too important not to share. 2. When I talk about this with my Christian friends, I don’t get the same criticisms. These conversations help build my faith because I get to see things that my friends would never point out.

Anyways, thank you for sticking around for the past couple of weeks. I appreciate the time you took to share your ideas and helping me guide the discussion. Even though I have made my mind up about my faith, your input is always welcome. I hope to see you around! If not here, then maybe on some other thread.

Peace

SectionUnreal
offline
SectionUnreal
9 posts
Nomad

Every person connect witch God with different ways.
For me - it is the music, if you understand language of music, you understand God !
God is energy, inside us, around us, love, light, music...
God has a different shape for every person around the world - may be a beautiful photo of a girl (angel), may be a doctor who saved your life (angel) !
It depends...you see
Have a nice day !!!

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,211 posts
Regent

@lozerfac3 I wanted to come back to a statement you made a while ago, namely this:

If someone doesn't know God, how can they worship Him? God has so much character and personality (three times as much as most people haha idk if that's true theologically) and I believe that if you are going to worship the true God, you should be worshipping his character. Worship Him for his character. I might elaborate on that statement later.

Here's your chance to elaborate But first two comments on my end.

- I may assess someone else's character because I can understand that person, because we're both human. Your God, on the other hand, is afaik fundamentally not human, so perfect and incomprehensible to us that it would seem impossible for us to comprehend His character or apply our notions of character to His acts. Assuming this, how would you as a believer be able to 'understand' His character, and how would you expect me as a non-believer to do that?

- Assuming (for now) that I may actually use, at least in part, human notions of character to God's act, I suppose the place to start would be the Bible, correct? So if I ask whether God's actions and decisions, as portrayed in the various stories related in the Bible, are an accurate representation of God's character, would you concur or disagree?
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

I had something in mind when I said that, but I can’t remember :/

I may assess someone else's character because I can understand that person, because we're both human. Your God, on the other hand, is afaik fundamentally not human, so perfect and incomprehensible to us that it would seem impossible for us to comprehend His character or apply our notions of character to His acts. Assuming this, how would you as a believer be able to 'understand' His character, and how would you expect me as a non-believer to do that?

God’s character has a certain degree of comprehensibility to us humans because we were made in his image (Genesis 1:27). We were created with the capacity to reflect God’s character and holiness (Romans 8:29). To be human is to be able to know God.

Assuming (for now) that I may actually use, at least in part, human notions of character to God's act, I suppose the place to start would be the Bible, correct? So if I ask whether God's actions and decisions, as portrayed in the various stories related in the Bible, are an accurate representation of God's character, would you concur or disagree?

I would agree.

SectionUnreal
offline
SectionUnreal
9 posts
Nomad

This community sucks... Only 5 people argue and may be 5 people are in the forums...
BYE !

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

You just caught us when not many of us are active. But its definitely not as active before. If you want to join this discussion, you can try to respond to one our points. Otherwise we don’t know if you’re expecting a response from us or if you’re just stating your opinion.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,211 posts
Regent

God’s character has a certain degree of comprehensibility to us humans because we were made in his image (Genesis 1:27). We were created with the capacity to reflect God’s character and holiness (Romans 8:29). To be human is to be able to know God.

Which is interesting when considering that you also said humans are fundamentally flawed, a "fallen race", and that our own desires earn us nothing but sin and death.

I would agree.

In that case I'm afraid I will never be able to worship your God for His character. While there are passages where He may appear just and kind, there are some where He... doesn't. Overall, judged by human standards, I would consider Him a horrible person.
Showing 46-60 of 63

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More