Acceptance/rejection God/man

[pokemasterat]

Originally Posted by dpmartin

Pokemasterat

I can see how one might look at coincidence as an explanation of such things. But if there is a Living God then surly He can speak to His creation and make it happen. Thus if one hears the Word of God then it happens then there is verification of God’s Word. For example, Moses was told by God that He would part the sea and the Israelites would walk on dry land. Then He told Moses to raise his staff against the sea to part it. Thus is the verification that it was not a coincidence, and the relationship between God and His people. The old testament is all about God speaks to someone and then He makes it happen.

On "You're going to Hell!"
On one hand I agree that it sucks. On the other hand as Aristoddler pointed out, there are many that see no need for God unless they die. And they would only seek salvation for fear of hell. So there seems to be only one point to get across to many, and it works. And it is said that some will cling to one and fear the other. It is also said that many will love one and hate the other.

If one loves after the things of the Living God. Then it is the Living God he seeks. If it pleases God to give this life to man no matter what the result of men’s lives will be. Why would He with hold anything of Himself that man could have, if he loved after it? Jesus is the Word of God given in the flesh. The witnessed resurrection of the flesh is the verification.

Who witnessed this, again? Was it not his best buddies? I'm not so sure that it's as factually reliable as something like him going into town, or something. Not to be crude, but if all of the apostles were in the same house when they 'saw' Jesus, it could've simply been a mass drug party that they were having, and the special apostle (forget his specific name) who missed the first party only 'witnessed' his resurrection once he went to the second major OD. I'm simply mentioning this because it's a very possible and simple explanation, not that I think it's likely. Besides, if he didn't come back to life, their best friend was just exposed as a liar, which would totally suck for his postmortem reputation and honor. They probably wouldn't have been too thrilled to accept that, and most likely would have lied first. Just another possibility which may discredit the actuality, not that I think it's the most likely.

And, of course, personal epiphanies are personal, and are perfectly jim dandy for individuals, but not for bibbling (babbling off with Bible quotes to cover up incompetence - not a real term, I just coined it). That happens, sadly, but you're not doing it, which is quite thankable!

[dpmartin]

Well I won’t dispute that there is a trust required in the in the witnesses. And as the general public witnesses the churches, or the individual members there in. It seems the trust is not there, as it once was.

[TwilightEyes]

Originally Posted by pokemasterat

bibbling (babbling off with Bible quotes to cover up incompetence - not a real term, I just coined it).

Ok, i just freakin love that... i may have to start using it

As far as your statements about the potential for fraud in the bible and miracles etc etc... i agree. I do believe that it is very likely that many things in the bible are fraud for the reason of "the ends justify the means" justification. However, i do not believe that these things take away from so many of the deeper messages in the bible. They may be tests of one sort or another. Do you have enough courage to challenge "gods word" when all things indicate to do so will condemn you? Remember, god hates cowards according to the bible.

I am an advocate that there is a god or something as i have experienced far too many coincidences in rapid sucsession to be mere coincidence. I have experienced other very bizzare things which i will not go intyo at this time. This form of "proof" is personal and can never be used effectively to "prove" to another person anything.

Also, i often use this to explain the basic problem of relating personal experiences and revelations... "it is difficult to try and explain the inexplicable". Words fall far short as it is not just trying to explain something as concrete as the floor beneath your feet.

Honest scientists will be the first to admit that we know hardly anything of the entirety of reality. Hell, we have barely gotten to sequence the human dna let alone all the potentials that exist in the vastness of the universe and the smallness of the quantum.

I find it funny that so many then use this to say "god does not exist and man knows this through science"... roflmao... ignorant arrogance. In the end, we choose to believe in a world of only scientific explainations and have faith in science to answer all the questions that are and ever will be. Or we choose to believe that science is merely the study of the mechanations of god through his creation.

Btw, i do not trust anyone or anything when it comes to relaying the truth. You know how easy it is for someone including yourself to be deceived. Even seeing is not believing. Google "hollow face" to see an illusion that your mind cannot see through even knowing that what you are seeing is an illusion. This applies to science, religion and witnesses of anything.

[boagie]

Interesting entertaining even

david in manhattan. » Blog Archive » Politics And Religious Views: Ayn Rand, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X.

[Didymos Thomas]

Regarding Jesus and miracles, and the Biblical record thereof, and the notion that these things are fraud, or a test, I must ask: why?

If the Bible is talking about people touching the hem of His robe and being healed what should we take from this?
Which of the following is more likely:
1. The Biblical authors were boldface liars
2. God uses deception to seperate his followers, for some reason or another
3. Jesus and his following were using alot of drugs
or, finally, and I think the most likely:
4. The Bible is literature

If the Bible is literature, we would be silly to think that miraculous events literally happened. We would understand that such recorded events are supposed to convey a message. In the example of Jesus healing, the message seems pretty clear: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, the wisdom of Christ, whatever you want to call it, can heal your soul.
The blind who Jesus cures - they are not literally blind, cured by some miraculous stroke. The teachings of Jesus will open your eyes to the truth.

We should not run around thinking any possible explaination is a good explaination. We need to ask ourselves: what makes the most sense? Which theory best solves the problem. Removing fundamentalism from the way we approach Biblical literature, realizing that these books were never supposed to be an historical account of the life of Jesus seems to be the best solution.

[de Silentio]

[quote=Didymos Thomas;7378]
If the Bible is talking about people touching the hem of His robe and being healed what should we take from this?
Which of the following is more likely:
1. The Biblical authors were boldface liars
2. God uses deception to seperate his followers, for some reason or another
3. Jesus and his following were using alot of drugs
or, finally, and I think the most likely:
4. The Bible is literature
[quote]

You missed one: the Bible is historically accurate and the people were indeed healed.

If one is to believe that God exists, why is it far fetched to think that he could heal people by them touching his robe?

I think a literature reading of the Bible renders it inert. You say: "The teachings of Jesus will open your eyes to the truth." Well, what do you suppose the truth is? If I am not mistaken, the teachings of Jesus rest on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

When you take the New Testament as merely a literature reading that is supposed to aide us in living the good life, you are only looking at a small portion of what that portion of the Bible teaches, and that is the ethical side. If the Bible is to be used as a means to living a fulfilled life, one must take into account the purpose for Jesus' life, to save mankind from their sins. The purpose of Jesus' life was not to show us how to live, but to give us the means to live completely.

[Didymos Thomas]

You missed one: the Bible is historically accurate and the people were indeed healed.

If one is to believe that God exists, why is it far fetched to think that he could heal people by them touching his robe?

Well, that depends on what your conception of God is. Depending, one might encounter some metaphysical problems with God performing miracles.

I cannot rule out miracles. It is possible for there to be an omnipotent being, so miracles are possible. But possibility is not necessity, or even probability.

I think a literature reading of the Bible renders it inert. You say: "The teachings of Jesus will open your eyes to the truth." Well, what do you suppose the truth is? If I am not mistaken, the teachings of Jesus rest on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

Why does the value of the teachings of Jesus depend upon the historical accuracy of the Old Testament?

When you take the New Testament as merely a literature reading that is supposed to aide us in living the good life, you are only looking at a small portion of what that portion of the Bible teaches, and that is the ethical side. If the Bible is to be used as a means to living a fulfilled life, one must take into account the purpose for Jesus' life, to save mankind from their sins. The purpose of Jesus' life was not to show us how to live, but to give us the means to live completely.

The Chinese have an ancient children's book, one that has been adopted and changed by other cultures. "Monkey" is entirely fantasy. The book is allegory. It is literature that gives more than ethical instruction, it conveys a religious message. Obviously, literature can do more than give ethical education.

The NT is about the good life - the truly good life. You say Jesus was not supposed to "show us how to live" but instead to "give us means to live completely". What's the difference? Is there a better way to live than what you call 'living completely'?

I agree, Jesus gives us the means to live completely. The NT gives us an account of a man's life, an account that is supposed to instruct us on how to live fully. Jesus is a healer, healing is more than physical, it is also emotional and spiritual. Jesus teaches peace, but living peacefully is more than just not hitting someone.

[de Silentio]

d.t. - Well, that depends on what your conception of God is. Depending, one might encounter some metaphysical problems with God performing miracles.

I cannot rule out miracles. It is possible for there to be an omnipotent being, so miracles are possible. But possibility is not necessity, or even probability.

It all boils down to faith. And, personally, I think if a person doesn't have faith that Jesus could perform miracles in the flesh, they are only fooling themselves when it comes to the other aspects of his existence.

Why does the value of the teachings of Jesus depend upon the historical accuracy of the Old Testament?

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The NT is about the good life - the truly good life. You say Jesus was not supposed to "show us how to live" but instead to "give us means to live completely". What's the difference? Is there a better way to live than what you call 'living completely'?

You misquoted me, I said:

"… one must take into account the purpose for Jesus' life, to save mankind from their sins. The purpose of Jesus' life was not to show us how to live, but to give us the means to live completely."

I didn’t say ‘he was not supposed to show us how to live’, I just said the purpose of his life was not to show us how to live, it was to die for our sins. The means to living completely is to be with God, one cannot be with God without Jesus, and especially without the sacrifice that He made. Sin alienates us from God, Jesus brings us close to God, not by us following his acts (ethical living in the manner of Jesus) but by faith:

Romans 9:30-32 “… the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtain it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.”

Righteousness means “Right with God”.

Another passage: John 17:25 “Righteousness is an attribute of moral and ethical purity belonging to God alone”

Since one can only be righteous through faith, they can only become ethically and morally pure through Faith.

I agree, Jesus gives us the means to live completely. The NT gives us an account of a man's life, an account that is supposed to instruct us on how to live fully. Jesus is a healer, healing is more than physical, it is also emotional and spiritual. Jesus teaches peace, but living peacefully is more than just not hitting someone.

I think we can equate living completely and living righteously, and these can only be obtained by faith in Jesus (as shown above).

[Didymos Thomas]

It all boils down to faith. And, personally, I think if a person doesn't have faith that Jesus could perform miracles in the flesh, they are only fooling themselves when it comes to the other aspects of his existence.

I wont argue with your faith.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So? If the OT has historical inaccuracies, why are the Laws any less valuable? Would possible inaccuracies change the fact that the Jews have been using those laws and those teachings for thousands of years?

Sin alienates us from God, Jesus brings us close to God, not by us following his acts (ethical living in the manner of Jesus) but by faith:

You mean to argue that faith alone brings you to God? If Hitler had faith, despite his horrible acts, his faith would be enough?

As for your quote from Romans, did Jesus say that? Or is it commentary?

I think we can equate living completely and living righteously, and these can only be obtained by faith in Jesus (as shown above).

If actions were irrelevant, Jesus would have never needed to give us instruction on how to act.

[de Silentio]

I wont argue with your faith.

Anyway you could have responded would not have been an argument against my faith. My faith was in no way involved with what I said. I plainly said: believing in miracles takes faith. Rather I have it or not is another question.

Additinoally, I think if a person doesn't have faith that Jesus could perform miracles in the flesh, they are only fooling themselves when it comes to the other aspects of his existence. This is not a statement of my faith either, it is just a thought.

You mean to argue that faith alone brings you to God? If Hitler had faith, despite his horrible acts, his faith would be enough?

As for your quote from Romans, did Jesus say that? Or is it commentary?

Yes, faith brings you to God, then you must work to stay close to God. Having sincere faith in God means one will work to keep that faith. Faith involves being with God and God being with you. It is a two way enterprise. Faith is much more than just believing, it involves work. I do not think Hitler wanted to be with God, if he had truly seeked God, he would not have done the horrible things he did. If Hitler truly and scincerely came to love God and repented for his transgretions, yes, he would have been saved.

As for your quote from Romans, did Jesus say that? Or is it commentary?

Paul wrote that, so I suppose you would classify it as commentary.

This came from Jesus: John 17:1-3 "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ."

If actions were irrelevant, Jesus would have never needed to give us instruction on how to act.

I never said they were irrelevant. Jesus' instructions for life help aide us in retaining our faith, he shows us how to live faithfully.

I thought about this more, and I see it this way: Jesus had one purpose in life, to save man by sacraficing himself. However, there were also benefits to his life, a major one is being a role model for the good life and another is to bring the Word in the flesh.