Which first requires obedience.

A slave that gets rewarded is still a slave.



And what? You think "Be my friend or suffer forever" is better, do you? If a mugger tells you to hand over all your money or die, do you think it's acceptable because they're giving you the "choice" to just die?

Just because we have "free will" doesn't mean we aren't being coerced.



Who are you to assert that God is perfect? Can you prove that to me?



That is of no relevance to the point that I was not given the choice in the first place. Would you force a gift upon someone and then expect them to repay you even though they didn't have a choice but to accept? And would you see them punished for not repaying you?



You're very quick to presume to know my stance. What makes you think I wouldn't devote myself to God if I was indeed convinced that he exists and is all he claims to be?



Or so he would like me to think, at least.

As I point out in another thread, however, I have no reason to believe that this is the case.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Aug 1 2009, 05:00 PM

Since God is perfect sin is revolting to Him, and God cannot have that in His presence. If we did not sin there would be no need for judgment, mercy, or repentance. To sin is to break God's law and is punished with eternal damnation, apart from God. God is willing that none should perish so He provided a way out with His own son.

Since you do not believe in God and are obviously not going to concede the fact without great coercion which would take alot of time on my part, I'll refer you to an excellent book on the existence of God, which if I remeber correctly also goes into why He would have to be perfect. You can read a bit here, but I would recommend buying the book from Amazon or somewhere cheap

EDIT: Also, this is not a debate forum, so you should probably make a new topic there if you would like to continue debating people.

This post has been edited by MrSugar: Aug 1 2009, 07:04 PM

Except I can't do that, because topics directly debating the veracity of the Christian faith are forbidden here.

As for this not being a debate forum, I personally don't see how anyone can consistently draw a line between "debating" with someone and merely pressing them on their answers, so I just have to keep asking questions here and hope nobody decides that I'm crossing the line.

Sure. On the other hand, there are quite a few things we might not have known to figure out until the answer was revealed, i.e. the Oneness of God. We can reason it out (so I believe, anyway), but it still wasn't a belief in the world until God revealed Himself as being One. Even the early Jews were polytheistic, simply devoted to the one God of Israel. The ideal monotheism we see now was developed in later centuries.



There are many things people have been thinking about for a long time that we still don't have definite answers to. The composition of substance, for instance, has only recently been more or less systematically studied, but even then we have no definite answer about the most basic (i.e. smallest, most fundamental) workings of matter.

And also, seeing as we are talking about matters of revelation, there simply can't be a definite answer. "God's favorite flavor of ice cream is rocky road" could be a matter of speculation, but we would really only know if God revealed it to us. C.S. Lewis said something to the effect of "Christ came to save, not reveal the answers to all the questions we have."

So, iffyness on the matter of eschatology (the last things) is practically a definitional part of Christian theology; no good theologian will pretend that they could describe Heaven or Hell outside of metaphor or shadows of illusion to their realities.



I'm sure He knows that. The idea of Hell being fire (even though its described as dark) and torment (even though its described as lonely) is certainly a good metaphor. In the 1st c. AD, fire and brimstone worked to convey the pain of Hell. Nowadays, if it were now revealed to the world, it might be described differently except for this perennial image of it existing. Other descriptions people have given (such as those who claim to have been given visions of Hell to fictional narratives such as Dante's Inferno) have ranged from prisons of rock to suffocating in a void to being repeatedly destroyed and re-assembled.



Yes, very much... Just go look at the evolution debate.

And do they go to hell? Or do you also not know the answer to that?



The word of God in its meaning is absolute. However, the word of God is (and this is what most people fail to grasp) literature that requires the explanation of the Church. They are poems and letters and stories and archives, most of which the authors probably didn't even know was going to be considered inspired by God.

The Bible states that those who refuse to believe will be sent away from God. Further than that, the Bible even says belief isn't enough ("for even the demons believe, and shudder"); we must have works to demonstrate this belief, for if one really did believe that what they did mattered, they would certainly behave accordingly.

The Bible also states that "God knows the hearts of men." This is, I believe, the most crucial statement on the matter of salvation. While the path of salvation is revealed, this isn't to mean that the revealed path is the only path. The sacraments are bound to God, but God is not bound to the sacraments. He can work outside of what He has revealed.

The literal interpretation simply isn't "Believe or be damned." Fundamentalist Christians would like to believe so, but this simply has never been the teaching of the (Catholic, aka historical) Church. Fundies often like to point to where it says "All are saved in Christ," as if that proves you must believe in Christ to be saved, but this is a fallacious conclusion, because the text doesn't say that. The meaning is simply "All are saved in Christ;" this saving can be done regardless of one's witting knowledge of Christ in this life (for God is beyond our ways by definition).

The Bible as portrayed by Fundamentalists is the minority view, more or less, and has never been taught by the historical Church.



I don't think it's the Bible that misleads people as much as people who mislead other people using the Bible.



Maybe they could've, and probably would've if they had known that what they were writing were going to be considered inerrant texts. Hence why the Scriptures should be considered in context; as the Church (by which I mean Catholic Church, based on historicity) teaches them.

It's foolish to believe that because there is no eternity in hell that one should murder and steal.... Faith is not a logistics game and it's most certainly not about personal gain (though with the right choices you will gain much in the end). It's about goodness and love. I don't choose to do the right thing because of divine consequence. I do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. I do it because of what's in my heart.

As for your first question: am I expected to know everything? I know what I've been shown and that's it. The rest I take on faith alone.



Well for one, the Bible can be proven extremely fallacious. I'm not silly. I've been an atheist. I remember the truth of that statement.

But I'm also very quaker-ish. I believe in the Light Within, that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth, regardless of scripture and church tradition. I mean, if we know Jesus, the Truth... we must only ask.

Of course I was very scared to believe again. Because understanding and faith are inside things. You must believe before you can understand-- you have to be part of the secret club before you know what it's all about. And so in essence, it is always a leap of faith. You just jump and trust that when you land you'll be somewhere better. That's all you can do.

There are websites out there that talk a lot about the meaning of the lake of fire. A good one for starters is "The Merciful Truth". And a great book to look at is If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person. I only remember the first names of the authors: Philip and James. A couple of Quaker ministers. I don't know if I believe every word they say, but I think a lot of it makes a good deal of sense.

Returning to our discussion on the beauty of the world, I'd like to submit that I've found a lot of the most awe-inspiring corners of the universe are the more mysterious. It's less the things we know that capture our attention and more the things we don't know.

Yes, but the composition of substance doesn't really have much bearing on salvation, does it? We can still go to heaven without knowing exactly how an atom works.



Which becomes very problematic indeed when a person needs such questions to be answered in order to believe.



And given how fractured the Christian church has been for some time, if the meaning is absolute, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people must be getting it wrong somewhere. No?



So why did God not make it known, then? Why not stress just how important the task was and thereby spare people the subsequent confusion, misinterpretation and potential damnation? Or better yet, why not just tell them what to write and make sure that everyone who reads the Bible would comprehend it right away? It's not especially difficult to read the Bible as it is and come away with the impression that God is a horrible, hypocritical, petty tyrant in spite of what he says.



That's all well and good, but you didn't actually answer my question. Just because it's in your heart doesn't mean it's in everyone's heart. There have, I would think, been plenty of people who thought that they were doing the right thing by murdering someone. So why should a killer not kill?



No, but there are some things I would have thought you'd need to know in order to formulate such a theory and consider it consistent and sensible.



Really? And yet presumably there are some parts of it that you have chosen to believe regardless. Why?



I think you make a mistake in assuming that "the world" referred to "this planet" in that context.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Aug 2 2009, 12:29 PM

No one will stop a killer from killing but himself. I remind you that it's not likely a killer will refrain from killing because he might spend eternity in hell. Strangely enough, fear of earthly imprisonment is more likely to stop them... I haven't figured that one out yet.

But the existence or non-existence of eternal condemnation and torment is completely irrelevant when it comes to why you should not do wrong. There are consequences regardless-- the injury it does to your psyche and soul. Of course, telling someone this won't stop them from killing. The only way they will understand if they allow themselves to see the consequences and the powerful wonder in doing the right thing. Which comes with spiritual maturation and healing. (I mean this in a moral way, not a religious, hence aspiritual people who are good, upstanding citizens. I believe in the inner goodness of humanity and that it's what declares a true "Christ-one"-- Christian.)

I suppose there is no right way of explaining why one shouldn't kill other than that it's wrong. Which hardly satisfies. I think that knowledge of right and wrong must be learned on one's own. The only thing to stop a killer is for him to see goodness and reason.



Hm, maybe you can say I'm a little silly, despite my declaration that I'm not. I rely on faith here. I don't need, or for that matter, want things to make sense all the time. It leaves me to my curious pondering. What I "know" (believe in a very confident manner) is that my Father could not punish finite crimes with infinite punishment because he is good and holy. And for me, that's it. That's all I need. The rest is just guessing games.



So sue me, I'm a heretic. I believe in what I see (and sometimes I see with my inner eye) and if anyone says something that is true, including a sometimes fallacious, put-together-by-fallible-men, antiquated love story, I will recognize it's validity. If a liar tells the truth just once in his entire life, does that make it any less true?

The honest story of my life is that God found me and he loves me. I grew up in the Bible Belt, so of course I've come to associate him with the Christian God, but in all honesty, he's just God to me. He's not god of the Christians or god of the Muslims or god of the Whoevers. He's God of the universe. If truth requires me to relate him to a singularity in the center of the universe that started it all or for there to have been a garden of eden and a fall of humanity and what-have-you, then that's the simple truth.



I apologize, but I was attempting to make sense of my thoughts by writing a bit of rudimentary poetry myself. I used the term universe to generate thoughts of something beyond the sight of the original poet. The mysterious and complex corners of the universe are found even here, as near as the inner workings of our brains.

But it is most definitely my fault. I have a habit of miscommunicating to make myself sound very literal. The cause of endless arguments.

There is a lot of Philosophy going on in this thread. I wish I had time to read it all (I will try to come back when I am not so busy) but the prevailing thought that is sitting in my mind right now is...

I'm really glad to have a King, Father and Friend who loves me perfectly. =) People can make accusations against God, but He is good; every heart that knows Him declares He is good; every word He speaks is good; and every perfect gift is made by Him!

May the rest of you trust in and experience His goodness as well -- and also find genuine satisfaction for your mind, because God is the God of reason and order.

Oops, I added a reply before I was finished writing.

I also wanted to say that this whole topic is a really good question and one that I have asked myself and asked God about a lot of times before.

Reading "Surprised by Joy" (C.S. Lewis's autobiography) helped quite a bit, but I don't remember what else was involved.

And we can get to Heaven without knowing how God works.



Some questions do require answering before belief; but not all. For instance, as you pointed out, the composition of substance doesn't have much bearing on salvation. In the same way, the precise workings of God as regards Hell, aside from the fact that He offers it as a choice by giving us free will, doesn't seem to have much bearing on salvation either. Of course, there are certain conceptions of the operation of Hell in soteriology which are plainly wrong, but since those conceptions are not what Scripture says (except according to those who say it does), they don't need to be regarded as the essence of Christianity.



Yes, a lot of people are getting it wrong.



I believe He does by making a gift of the Church. Some Christians (i.e. Protestants) simply shirk this in favor of their own interpretation of Scripture or whatever other arbitrary source or teaching they would rather have.



No, it isn't that difficult to come away with that impression. But oftentimes, the correct answer is more difficult to reach than the wrong, right (for instance, my math final *shivers*). That is why I believe God makes a gift of the Church, which has theologians who figure out what Scripture means and so explains, and bishops (the authority in the Church) who define the beliefs of Christianity.

It's actually a simple and complex thing. I could describe Christianity by saying "What the Catholic Church teaches," but at the same time, "What the Catholic Church teaches" is more than that. She teaches that there was a man who was God called Jesus whom the people recognized as the Christ who died for our sins so that we could be saved from sin, and yada yada yada. The theologians of the Church figured this out (like Athanasuis), and the bishops defined this for the Church. The beliefs were there (its not as if the bishops just make things up).

As to Scripture, the Church usually leaves it alone and, like most matters of doctrine, leaves it to the theologians to figure out. If a theologian comes up with an interpretation contradictory to the Catholic Church's teaching, then they have a wrong interpretation, since the bishops are infallible by God.

It's really hard to sketch all this out, and I wish I could suggest a book to make this all clear, because the relationship between Church and Scripture and doctrine can really be understood by understanding the history of Christianity and the claims she makes.

I appreciate your questions, they are really very good.

My apologies for responding so late Secundus, I've been quite busy the past few days.



God is glorified in whatever happens, as He caused all that is. He created life, this universe, and sustains it. Without God, nothing exists, but with God, there is existence. As such, all glory goes to God, and in everything there is glory. He doesn't "need" it, He just gets it.





If you read Genesis 1 and 2, you'll see what type of relationship God wants with us. He created a beautiful place for us, and wanted to be in communion with us. We "worship" (better translated in many places as serve, service) Him because of His love and wonderfulness in creating us. It explains it nicely to me.





To decide you must exist. Once you exist, you can't not exist. It makes no sense for God to create you into existence, then ask you if you want to exist or not. However, I would also add that there is a theory that God has already created all of us into existence, and we then come down to earth as we are born into it. The book of Enoch speaks of this idea, although it is disputed in Christian circles as accurate and true. But it is a possibility.





This goes back to my previous post about a soft and hard heart. There are those who refuse to believe, even if direct evidence is presented to them, and there are those who readily accept the message with no direct evidence, and many in between. Paul argues that the world around us is enough to convict us of a God when he wrote to the romans, and yet so many people deny God even due to that. It is a sad and unfortunate thing that people would remain unconvinced of their creator, and I don't know why God hides Himself from us as He does at times, why there isn't evidence that can't be disputed that proves a loving God is among us. But Christ said that unless we become like Children, we wouldn't enter the kingdom, and I admire the truth of those words, with sadness too. In the end, I can only preach the message, pray that the Spirit softens the hearts of men, and that we may all become children to Christ, that He may save us. But if there are some who aren't convinced, I must lift them up to God and His mercy, and pray that Christ may intercede on their behalf before the Father, that in some way, they may be spared.

I would also like to address that if someone dies while in the process of coming to Christ, we don't know what will happen. God is merciful and loving, and we don't know to what depths He will go to save people. Some even contend that all will eventually be saved, such as Atlantis, and with good reason.

Now to answer your question, no I can't switch off my belief in Christ. I have before, but that is because I lacked the key to Christ. Faith in the Spirit. Without that faith, no amount of evidence, reason, or smooth talking will sustain us, but the faith in the Spirit, the trust in His word (I do not speak of the word as scripture, but the living word).

Really? How do you know that? There could be plenty of would-be murderers out there who only stay their hand because of their fear of hell. It's not exactly the sort of thing people talk freely about, so you wouldn't know, would you?



What injury? If I truly, honestly believed that I was doing the right thing by murdering someone, the simple act of doing it wouldn't damage my psyche. As for "injury to the soul", that's a very vague statement with little meaning. What exactly does having one's soul injured entail?



And those consequences are?



And why do you believe that he is good and holy?



I think you're missing my point. No, knowing exactly how hell works is not a direct requirement for salvation. However, if a person thinks that "hell" refers to "eternal punishment" (and those are the words used) and does not hold to this concept of multiple hells that you are proposing, there's a good chance that they'll come to the conclusion that God is not as just as he claims, and therefore not worship him, and therefore not get into heaven.



So how is anyone supposed to trust in "The Church" when it's so very fractured?



What makes you so convinced, then, that the Catholic interpretation is correct and everyone else's is wrong? Is it not entirely possible that God will send unbelievers to hell indiscriminately and you're just barking up the wrong tree? There is, after all, no real way to prove God's true nature.

Had he written the Bible in the manner that I suggested, however, there wouldn't be any need for these complications. Everyone would be able to read the Bible and understand it without having to go to an external source (which could very well be incorrect) to have all their questions answered. If God wants people to understand his word and come to him through it, how is that not preferable to what we have now?



I appreciate you taking the time to answer.



You were the one who said that God created humans "for His glory". This implies that he either needs or wants glory in some way. If neither of those were true then there would have been no point, because "glory" would be completely immaterial to him.



A beautiful place with a tree that would ruin this "communion" and result in all the madness that followed, which he knew would happen if he put the tree there to begin with.

Questionable.



Why not?

Perhaps it would be better phrased as asking if you want to continue to exist, but still. Are you saying that God is powerless to undo his creations?



We should. This is an important issue.



And this is what I say when I mean belief is not a choice. In order for you to stop believing, you would first have to be convinced that you should not believe. You can't just stop on a whim. Likewise, an unbeliever can't just believe on a whim. They need to be convinced. If they are not convinced, it is not necessarily their fault; but according to the Bible, that's just too bad and they're going to hell.

If that's not the case, it does not make sense for the Bible to say it is. If it is the case, we have this "locked room" scenario, and God is not as just as he claims.

Neither are true because everything He does or creates He gets glory from it.




Wait, I thought you wanted free will? Whats the purpose of creating beings incapable of having both good or evil to choose from?





You can't go from being, to not being. If you create something, you can't uncreate it.




But we really don't know the hearts of man, only God. We don't have to know everything, and ought not to.




And as I've said before, there is enough to convict anyone that God exists, but not all will be convicted. And according to the Bible, all may very well be saved in the end.



So from your understanding, which is very limited, you judge God concerning this? I pray God reveals Himself to you, as to Job.

What's the point of creating us at all?

That aside, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. Do you mean that Adam and Eve could not "choose" evil until they ate from the tree?



So God isn't omnipotent?



I think you'll find that the exact opposite is true.

Humans, when you get right down to it, aren't really that difficult to figure out. Ultimately, everyone just wants to benefit themselves; it's just that what one considers a "benefit" tends to vary from person to person.

God, on the other hand...who can say? God is a being beyond our comprehension. He's not human. We cannot assume that he follows the same patterns as us. We don't know if he has any desires. We don't know how he thinks or why he behaves the way he does. We don't know if he cares about humanity. We don't know if Jesus' sacrifice meant anything to him. We know nothing of him. At all. It's all just hopes and gut feelings. I think we really just go along with the idea that he cares about us because many of the alternatives don't bear thinking about.



And why is that?



That he exists? Perhaps. That he is benevolent? Not so much.



You say that like the issue of eternal suffering is some trivial matter that is easily overlooked.

This post has been edited by Secundus: Aug 5 2009, 12:04 PM

This is probably true to an extent, but might also be a practical belief when one thinks about it... what other alternative would there be to God than death and destruction?

I wouldn't consider a relationship slavery when your master is willing to, and did, suffer and die for you

Yes, as pure beings they were not created with the ability to know evil. Whether literal or metephorical, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not to be taken of. And I think we already have been down the road of why we were created.



What does that have to do with not being able to uncreate what He has created? If that be the case, God wouldn't need to destory the world, just uncreate it.



Humans are in deed impossible to figure out, for even a person who performs great deeds can have an evil heart.

Concerning God, true. But I believe that God has inspired men to write concerning Him in the scriptures, that when it is written "for God so loved the world that He gave His only son" that it is so.



There are some things we are not to know, and ought not try to know. For example, we do not know the hour Christ will return, and are warned not to try to figure it out, for only God the father knows.



I think that applies as well.



For one, I don't believe there is eternal suffering, and while its not a trivial matter, I don't need to understand what happens to those who aren't saved, because my work isn't to warn others of what happens if they don't accept Christ, but preach the gospel to those who will hear, and show the love of Christ to all. My prayer is that all will be saved, and if so, then there is nothing to fear because in Christ, there is peace, and assurance of salvation from all the sins I will ever commit. And there is for you, too, as well as everyone else.

Supposedly.

Besides, I fail to see how that is relevant. If I am living with someone, give them orders and punish them for not following those orders, and they cannot voluntarily remove themselves from this arrangement at any time, they are a slave. It doesn't matter how well I otherwise treat them.



And so God could simply have not put said tree there at all. Unless you're implying that it was God's plan that the tree be eaten from, in which case...why not just create us with the ability to choose evil right from the start, instead of creating this tree, waiting for Adam and Eve to eat from it, then acting like he had nothing to do with it?



Not really, no. You said it was "to glorify God", but according to you, every facet of existence was already glorifying God, and also God neither needs nor wants glory anyway, so creating the Earth to glorify himself makes no sense at all.



Everything. Omnipotence means having unlimited power. The ability to do anything and everything. If there is something that God cannot do, his power is limited, and therefore he is not omnipotent.



And? That just means you can't necessarily tell what a person is like just by looking at what they do. It doesn't mean humans are impossible to figure out. Like I said, at the core of the matter, humans just want to benefit themselves.



Even if that is the case, it doesn't follow that what he inspired them to write was all true. Especially not the parts concerning his nature.

If God exists, it is entirely possible that nothing in the Bible ever really happened, that the whole thing was written by God himself rather than inspired humans, and that all evidence we see that suggests the truth of the Bible is a fabrication.

I've always found that rather ironic. Ultimately, we'd actually be more certain about Jesus' life and subsequent crucifixion if God doesn't exist, because that would remove the (distinct) possibility of God having made the whole thing up.



That doesn't answer my question. All you've done is repeat yourself.

Why are there some things we should not know? Why is it important that we don't know certain things?



Alright then. You claim that there is enough evidence to convince anyone that God is benevolent. I would like you to substantiate that claim for me.




So what God does to unbelievers, regardless of what it may be, is of no consequence to you, then? As long as believers get saved, God is OK in your book?

This post has been edited by Secundus: Aug 5 2009, 01:52 PM

Well, Hell does refer to an eternal punishment. However, I don't believe it is a punishment in the positive sense (like a parent spanking a child), but in a negative sense (like a parent taking away video game privileges). The punishment comes in the fact that they are cut off from God.

I think this concept is coherent with a God who is perfectly just; He is allowing humans their choice, and respecting their choices, even if they are choices apart from what He desires for them.



Well you have to understand, when I say "the Church," I'm referring to the Catholic Church.



I am convinced by Catholicism by its ability to claim historical authority; for instance, who define the Christian canon of Scripture? The Catholic Church. Who defined the orthodox Christology? The Catholic Church; so on and so forth.

Its more or less impossible to come up with a coherent set of Christian beliefs without there being an authoritative organization to define what is and isn't orthodox Christian belief. Protestants would like to think so, but just ask a Protestant to defend Sola Scriptura, and you'll see how their reasoning is either without basis or circular.

Of course, I recognize that it could appear that my reasoning of the Church's claim to authority being true is circular, but allow me to show why I don't think it is.

In history, there was a man called Jesus, who claimed to be God. He gathered around Him a set of men who believed this, who we call the Apostles.

Jesus, because of His claim to divinity, was killed. However, according to the Apostles, He rose again, and entrusted them with His kingdom, aka the Church.

The Apostles can be trusted, because they all went to their deaths teaching that this Jesus rose again, without any single man repenting of this belief. It is my belief that the reason this happened is because Jesus really did rise again, and so the Apostles were fine with losing this life because they knew there was the promise of the a life to come. Otherwise, their behavior is irrational and impossible to explain.

These same Apostles claimed authority through Christ. All other witnesses of Christ concurred (see the Synoptic Gospels) that this was the case, and their claim was unchallenged by witnesses (as in, no one challenged that Christ did give them His authority, although there were challenges to the validity of this authority).

The early Church believed it had succeeded the Apostles in this authority, and defended this assertion by the historical doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

This Apostolic Succession can be traced back to the Apostles from the present Catholic Church. (Allow us to consider the Orthodox Church later.)

Hence, I believe the Catholic Church's claim, and not any (random) Protestant church's claim.



I think this is unlikely, and granting that Catholicism is true, not possible, since God said otherwise.



But that's the thing; the Bible was never intended to be a book of "Okay everybody, this is what we believe as Christians." Such a book is called a catechism, and the Bible definitely isn't that. Yes, some of the books of the Bible were intended to be letters of instruction, but hardly in the way a catechism is, which is meant to clear ambiguities (esp. considering the letters have such ambiguities, probably because they were meant to be read in the context of the already present teachings which we can't get at just from the letters).

To help illustrate, quick history lesson on the New Testament.

~50-150 AD - The New Testament books and letters are written.

100 AD - Some of the earlier written books/letters are quoted in early Christian writings (e.g. the Didache).

180 AD - Marcion composes a canon of Scripture. This canon is not similar to the one Christians now recognize, and was not recognized by the Catholic Church on the basis that the books/letters it was based off of were heavily edited. (Marcion was a bona fide heretic, believing that the God of the OT was actually an evil demiurge who created matter, and the God of Jesus was the real God who came to save mankind from this evil demiurge.)

200-350 AD - Many other canons are created in attempts to define what is and isn't inspired Scripture in Christianity.

393 AD - The Synod of Hippo defines what is today the current canon as Scripture for reading during Mass.

1563 AD - The Council of Trent dogmatically defines what is today the current canon of Scripture.



It just simply appears that's not how God wanted it to be done; He chose to establish an infallible Church instead. This Church simply happens to have a canon of Scripture, but the Church could exist without Scripture.



I don't mind at all. I love having discussions on the finer points of what I believe and why. You are a person I can sincerely respect as a fellow truth-seeker.

No, I dont believe baby would go to hell, and yes, God can prevent people going to hell, He is God after all. But you said it yourself, the whole reason is for people to choose to love Him, not be forced to. What would be the point of it all if He wanted robots to say "I worship you, I worship you, I worship you."


So, you are saying that hell, like evolution doesnt need the bible to be explained?


You made me choke on my sandwich.


One of my favourite verses, I love God because He first loved me. Its impossible for someone to search for God and not find Him scripture says He is knocking at your door waiting for you to open it. So, the fact that it talk about a failed attempt is because we arent the ones attempting at a relationship.


I dont understand what you have trouble deciphering. What is Hell to you?


Give up my friend, I have tried.


Two things. One, God already knows. Two, your argument "worship or die" is wrong. We dont worship God out of fear, we worhip Him in love. We WANT to worship Him, but this goes against our natural desire to be selfish, and seek ourselves first. We cannot fasion ouselves into anything worthy.


Ok, If God asked you.."Do you want to be?" would you say no? (Obviously you wouldnt not be able to answer without existing first, but please ignore that part )

Now that you exist after saying yes, you are now in the room. So, it was YOUR will that you are, because you wouldnt actually say no even if somehow you existed before being, and were able to.


Actually, I was an athiest before coming to God.


Why does God do anything? Maybe you can ask Him when you die?


We dont repay God for His gift, your view is skewed so I understand you dont fully understand. But BECAUSE we have this gift, we Love and Honour God because He gave it to us. We dont have to work for it, we simple accept if. We dont have to, and accepting it as fire insurance isnt really the point.


Im sure you have heard the saying "Salvation by Faith"...you wouldnt need faith if you were 100% convinced.


this person is doomed We are saved by faith, and this person has none.


Considering that the bible says "feed yourself" and check everything that is taught to you, it doesnt matter what church you go to, no one is stopping you from reading up yourself.


Why doesnt God come down, stop all the evil, show Himself to everyone and fix everything?


I like your post above, there are things that are not important when it comes to our salvation. Im sure we agree the without the belief that Jesus is the living son Of God, and God, died and rose again...(and the rest of it) we are lost. The rest is fun debate, but it doesnt matter. LOVE matters.


Maybe you could answer his questions with a little bit less hate? I see you deleted it, but I hope you see how skewed you have shown your answers to be, bias is an ugly thing.


Which is why we should read for ourselves, pray, read, pray, read, pray In that order. the Holy SPirit will reveal the secrets (meaning things you dont understand).

Ill stop there

AquinasD, Im picking on your personally because you are so wise. LOVE, without it we have nothing. So why dont you show a bit of it. Take your church off the pedestal where GOD is supposed to be.

Perhaps. I have made a few goes at devising a philosophical understanding of the idea of Hell.



Au contraire, these things are important, but we've gone over this before.

But for the benefit of Secundus, I will illustrate why latitudinarianism is an unconscionable practice.

Take the belief of real presence. It is the belief that the host (aka the communion wafer/cracker/bread) contains the real presence of Christ. In Catholicism, the official doctrine is transubstantiation, that the host changes substance from bread to become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Now, considering this, the host then is the actual presence of God. And what is one obliged to do in the presence of God? Bow down and worship. To act imprudently is sacrilege; for instance, to treat the host as nothing more than dust that can be swept up and thrown away is sacrilege, equivocal to spitting on the face of Jesus.

But, on the other hand, what if Catholics are wrong, and the host is nothing more than a symbol? Then Catholics are committing idolatry by worshipping something that is not God.

Latitudinarianism would say that people with conflicting beliefs could both practice their beliefs in the same setting; one Catholic worships the host, the other thinks its just a symbol. To the worshipping-Catholic, to them sacrilege would be committed by the other when they go to throw away the extra hosts. To the symbol-Catholic, to them idolatry is committed by the other when they worship the host.

To allow what you believe is wrong is morally repugnant, right? So, latitudinarianism is impractical and unconscionable.



So I'm supposed to pretend that Protestantism is logical, when I am unable to defend it because I can't find the logic to it? I'm sorry DCYPL, I'm trying to answer Secundus' questions; if he agrees with me that Protestantism is impractical and arbitrarily rooted, then it will be because Protestantism can't demonstrate how it isn't. By all means, you are free to offer your flavor of Christianity.



I am trying my best to love Secundus by not lying to him. I am not going to pretend Protestantism is true when I can't find any reason to believe it is, and I don't think Secundus should go down that road as well because its false. It is not my fault that Protestantism has such glaring faults that can be easily illustrated and refuted.

So you do think that "Hell" entails a state of complete oblivion rather than the classic "getting tortured forever" scenario? I'm finding it hard to determine exactly what your stance is here.

Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that one's chance at salvation should be contained within a completely arbitrary time limit? I mean, if I can continue to exist after death, why should the loss of my physical body preclude me from ever changing my mind? There's no reason why I couldn't accept God at any given time, so why does it only "count" if I happen to do it while I'm stuck in a flesh receptacle?



I would make the distinction that they all believed they witnessed Jesus rising again.



Certainly irrational, but not impossible to explain. After all, religious martyrs do exist in this day and age, and not all of them have necessarily seen something miraculous. Just look at a Muslim suicide bomber.



Ah, but facts and teachings can become embellished, fractured and corrupted over time, especially in the earlier days of man. That's not to say that your position isn't more likely to be the correct one, but I would hesitate to view it as a certainty.



But my question is "Why should it not be?"



This seems an awful lot less efficient to me, particularly given that he (presumably) would have known about the massive schisms that would occur if it was done this way.

In fact, when you think about it, it shouldn't even have been necessary to take either approach. Every human being could simply be imbued with the knowledge they need to make an informed decision right from the beginning, thereby bypassing all the mysteries and the confusion and rendering it a simple matter of choice; accept God or reject him?




I'm not sure how this is relevant to the particular paragraph you were referencing here.



I reiterate my question of "What was the point of creating us at all?" It's not like he doesn't already know who's going to worship him and who isn't anyway, right?



No it isn't.

Right now, I'm searching for the truth, and if the truth happens to be God then I am searching for him. Tomorrow, I get hit by a car and die. Search is inconclusive.



I don't know. That's why I'm asking. Is it oblivion? Eternal torment? Fire and brimstone? What?



Already knows what?



Irrelevant. Whatever your motivations for making the choice may be, they do not alter what the choice IS.



Would I? If I were making an informed decision? I've no idea. Maybe I would say no. You seem to be making this argument under the assumption that I would definitely say yes, but I cannot say if that is true or not.



I didn't say beliefs cannot change. I said that belief is not a matter of choice. You didn't just snap your fingers and say "I'm going to be a Christian now." You first had to be convinced that God was real, one way or another. You can't just switch your beliefs on and off at will.




If he doesn't want to give me a straight answer now, I don't see why he'd want to do so at some random point in the future.



Let's not get into semantics here. Whether or not you call it "repayment", the point stands; you don't just force someone to take a gift and then punish them for not showing gratitude.



I've yet to see a single convincing argument as to why believing in God without some element of blindness is a bad thing, other than "Because God doesn't want it that way for some strange reason."



Through no fault of their own.



...which doesn't make a difference if I get it wrong anyway.

Besides, keep the context in mind. I was responding to AquinasD there, not you.



You tell me. Sounds like a good idea from my point of view.



Uh, OK, so why is any of it even mentioned in the Bible if it doesn't matter?



I'm not sure you realise this, but I actually was a Christian at one point. I did this. All the time. And now I'm an atheist/agnostic. So preusmably the Holy Spirit wants me to be an atheist?

And that says nothing of the (many) people who make exactly the same claim as you do (that as long as you read the Bible and trust in God you'll come to the right conclusions), and yet have a completely different viewpoint than yourself, so the effectiveness of this approach is far from concrete.

To explain myself more fully than I can here, I recommend reading my journal entry on "Shadowfruit", my entry titled "The Axon of Creation and the Holiness of Existence" and my completed works on purpose and freedom. It sounds like a lot, but it's really not, I promise.



I'm sure this is a cop-out of some sort, but anyone who's really afraid of hell would understand that wanting to murder someone (really wanting to, not just saying you do like desensitized maniacs today) is just as bad as actually doing it as far as souls and divine judgment go.

But I would think that anyone capable of honest murder is so far gone spiritually that hell is the last thing on their mind.



Once you come to see Truth (and you will come to see it whether in this life or the next) you will see the hideous disfigurement murder can do to the soul...

Let me try to explain.... Racism is disgusting to me. I hope it's disgusting to everyone, but I know it's not. I've been around it my whole life and it's never made a shred of sense. When that psycho let loose on the holocaust museum, I sorta wanted to vomit. When I think of people like him, all I can think is how messed up they must be. After years and years of hating others, their hearts have been hardened. They're blind to goodness.

Maybe they've spent their whole lives thinking they are living in the right, thinking that hatred because of skin tone is justice.... But at some point (as I said, in this life or the next) they will see the Truth and know how wrong they were. The good news, the gospel if you will, is that God can break the hardest heart-- in fact he already has in converting Saul the chief of sinners to Paul the apostle to the gentiles-- there is forgiveness in the end.

I hope I've explained this well enough... haven't you ever looked at someone so broken by hate? Or by anything for that matter. We are all broken and imperfect in our own unique ways, my sister reminds me.

I have a question for you, though: you obviously think killing and probably a few other things are wrong. Why? What determines good and evil, right and wrong for you? It's a good question, I spent a year on it and I still haven't figured it out. Maybe in an intellectual way, but not in a practical way. Not really.



Because I have a personal relationship with him. And not in a "step-up-to-the-altar-and-accept-Jesus-Christ-as-your-personal-savior" sort of way, but in a more abstract "talking-to-angels", "free-falling", "breath-of-life" way that one only comes by through radical faith. True belief in God should change your life in every way.

Anyway, this was probably a bunch of nonsense rambling, but maybe I said something that made my understanding of God clearer.

This post has been edited by Atlantis: Aug 6 2009, 11:17 AM

Satan was allowed a chance to tempt Adam and Eve and lure them into his fallen state, where if they didn't submit to such temptation, he would have been destroyed, having nowhere to go. Yet man fell into Satan's lie, and here we are today. It seems quite fair to me, honestly.



Companionship, God wants to have a relationship with us.



God can't create anything equal to Him, God can't destory Himself, God can't put a circle in a square...You take Omnipotence to far. Having unlimited power does not mean having the ability to do literally anything, but having no one equal to you, or able to prevent you from doing your will. That doesn't mean God must have the ability to go contrary to His own nature, against Himself, being able to uncreate what He has created. If God could uncreate, then why didn't He just uncreate satan? Uncreate sinners? Because it is not possible for one to be, and then to have never been.



There are people, such as mother teresa, that would suggest otherwise. You truly can't know the heart of any man, just like I can't know your heart, nor you mine.



If God inspired man to write about Him, I would assume He would want an accurate portrayal of Him. While I agree we don't know if the Bible is inspired, we do know that there are things in there that have happened. We know that there was a king david, a moses, the israelites, Abraham, a city called Sodom, ect. While we can reject the divinity suggested in the Bible, there are at least historical accuracy within it, so no, its not entirely impossible for the while bible to be made up.

The man Jesus is known to have existed by secular sources, whether He was God or not can be disputed, but there was an actual man named Jesus during the timeframe claimed.



I already gave an example, so no I'm not repeating myself. We shouldn't know certain things that don't concern us, such as the history of satan, when the world would end, and how certain evil will befall others. It could overwhelm us. Have you ever watched the movie Butterfly Effect? It is a good movie in that it shows how even if we know something will happen, trying to prevent it could lead to worse results.



No, I believe there is enough evidence to convict, not convince. Many people are convicted, not everyone is convinced by the gospel message. There is a big difference between the two. But unless God softens the heart of the person to the message, no amount of convicting will bring them to Christ.

If Christ existed, performed wonderous signs, and was killed, fulfilled prophecies concerning Him from long ago, then it suggests we can trust what He says, and whom He trusted. If He trusted and validated the Jewish scriptures, then we can trust what those scriptures speak of. If those scriptures claim God created us, then we have a God who unlike the rest of creation, carefully thought about us and how He created us in His likeness. It also follows then, that God loved us to spare us absolute destruction, but instead sent His son to pay our penalty, and be reunited with Him. "For God so loved the world".



Yes, because it is my hope that all will be saved, and if not, those who aren't would receive the due penalty for their actions. Being created by Him, our lives are indebted to Him, for without Him, we don't exist, nor do we have any cause to insist we must if we reject Him.

I don't think that's true. There are many who subscribe to the belief that merely wanting to do something wrong is not wrong in and of itself; it's only when you act on those desires that it becomes a problem. I mean, let's be honest, almost everyone is tempted to do wrong at some point or another. Are you suggesting that even in successfully resisting that temptation, you'd be going to hell?



I would argue that someone saying "I really want to do this bad thing, but I also don't want to go to hell" is a perfectly likely scenario. Doesn't even have to be murder.



At which point it no longer matters because I've seen the truth and am saved.



I don't exactly see how this relates to the concept of "injury to the soul".



Logic. I do have what might be referred to as a "conscience", but those are unreliable things, driven by visceral feelings, and so I do not rely on it and nor would I advise anyone else to. In the end, it all comes down to logic.



I'm not entirely sure what any of that is supposed to mean.

I also don't see how it answers my question. You've explained why you think God is good and holy, not how you know.



Doesn't seem fair to me that I should be held responsible for the actions of my extremely distant ancestors. Nor does the original situation of Adam and Eve seem fair to me. I mean, if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, it logically follows that they didn't know that eating from the tree would be "evil", nor would they have known that this serpent was evil. "This serpent, after all, must be another creation of our father, and why would such a creation do anything but speak truth, just as we would do? What is a lie? We have no concept of lies because we don't know what evil is."

Also, God presumably knowingly created Adam and Eve in such a way that they would succumb to temptation.

Also, it's not as if God went to any great lengths to explain why the tree shouldn't be eaten from. Having been directly responsible for man's sense of curiosity, you'd think he'd have the foresight to do that.

I could go on, but I won't.



So we're back to "Be my friend or suffer", then?



Why not and how do you know that?



Why not and how do you know that?



What, like [url=http://i321.photobucket.com/albums/nn375/ravali214/fg6-3.jpg]this?[/i]



Why would he have created Satan in the first place, knowing what he would do?



Why would he have created sinners in the first place, knowing what they would do?



According to your limited, human view of the world. Are you suggesting that God's power conforms to your comprehension?



I'm still waiting to hear how "Humans ultimately just want to benefit themselves" is flawed.



Oh come now, use your imagination. If God has faults, it makes perfect sense that he wouldn't want people to know about them and thereby inspire the writers to create an inaccurate portrayal. If God is a power-hungry tyrant, it makes sense that he'd want people to think he is good and just so that he will be worshipped. There are other possibilities too, but I think those are enough to go towards explaining why God might want his writers to "embellish".



And how do we "know" all of that? Because of the evidence we have uncovered. And if there is a God, he could simply have created that evidence himself. See what I mean?



Um.

Explain to me how the end of the world doesn't concern us.



Not if we were given the capacity to not be overwhelmed. But we weren't. So does God just not want us to know certain things? What's he got to hide?



Since when does knowing about something mean trying to prevent it? Are you suggesting that if we knew the history of Satan, we'd try to prevent it? How does that work?



Whats's the difference?



No, it doesn't. He could easily have been misled. He may have believed it, but that doesn't mean it was true. Also, I reiterate that the evidence we see for Jesus' existence today could be a fabrication.

Everything you've said here is conjecture.



So you don't actually care if God is a tyrant as long as you're safe?



Ah. But that's more conjecture, isn't it? Could have been that an entirely different creator is responsible for our existence, and the one we call "God" later came up with the Bible and its teachings to take the credit for it. No?

I'm sorry. I am pretty sure I know what Hell isn't more than I do know what it is. I would describe it as "the state of eternal separation from God." Anything more than that is speculation, and any positive punishment in addition is more or less unnecessary, since there couldn't possibly be any greater pain than separation from the source of joy.



I don't think one's mind is necessarily made up here; I believe that there is time for choices to be made afterward. However, I would point out that most importantly, God knows our hearts.



Fair enough. But I don't find a mass hallucination very likely.



To me, that indicates that people do find things worth living for, even to the point they die for it. And, the type of martyr that a Muslim suicide bomber thinks they are and the type that the Apostles were are certainly different; the Apostles actually believed they witnessed something.



Two reasons I can think of;

1) When Christianity was begun, the process of writing, printing, and copying was incredibly difficult, and especially where copying happens, unreliable. It was essentially impossible for Sola Scriptura to be a rule of Christianity until the invention of the printing press, which came 1500 years later.

2) Christianity has always been a religion based on God's people, aka the Church. To interpret a facet of the Church's beliefs apart from the Church is impossible, or at least prone to error, and is an incorrect hermeneutic. It is and always has been (despite newer views) a religion of an organization, not a religion of a book. There happens to be a book that the organization uses, but the organization could exist without the book.



There were already sects in Christianity before the canonization of the Bible. Schisms happen, Bible or no Bible.



I think that's an oversimplification. Yes, our choices come down to accepting or rejecting God; there is an additional deposit of knowledge that is also necessary to understand the reason why it comes down to accepting or rejecting God, and the person of Christ makes this picture complete. That would be my stance.

I would love to explain more, but I have to go now.