[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
You answered no to the free will question. Well, now I'm going to ask you to elaborate please. Which of god's creations have free will?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Humans and Angels. This is proven through the fall of both. I am unsure as to any others.
<strong>How is this the same? A politician is not God, thus it is not even the same thing, unless i am misunderstanding your analogy it holds no water at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By saying God can do no wrong without examining the issues surrounding events and making a decision based on your own judgment, you do not have free will. You have chosen to be told what to do, and how to behave. You have chosen to rescind your free will.
If we believe that God gave us free will, you have used that free will to decide you don't want it. Why?
[quote]<strong>BTW, God giving us the Ten Commandments does not force us to follow them. There is no divine hand twisting your arm when you choose to ignore the Adultry Commandment. Is there? You choose not to follow it thus showing that free will exists for you. You choose what to follow or not based on that. However I choose to bend my will towards God. Once gain, a choice I have made, not something forced on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I have free will. You, on the other hand, do not. You can't make an informed, personal decision because to do so would instantly destroy the value in your belief.
[quote]<strong>How so? The only possibility I can see as a interpretation of a mistake is the allowance of free will. And even then there is a purpose in that. I do not know what it is, if I did then these answers would be much simpler for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in your case, he gave you free will so you could choose to give it up.
Humans and Angels. This is proven through the fall of both. I am unsure as to any others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Meh, close enough. It doesn't really affect my argument.
Premise: Operating under the Christian set of rules, God is evil and cruel.
"Fact" - God is all powerful.
"Fact" - There exists a Satan.
"Fact" - Satan is a source of evil and cruelty in this world.
-Since god is all powerful, he decides whether or not satan performs certain acts or even exists.
-God can stop satan any time he wants to because god is all powerful.
-God chooses not to stop satan from performing evil and cruel acts, thus endorsing satan's acts through god's own inaction.
Conclusion: God performs evil and cruel acts upon humanity by allowing satan to perform such acts. God is evil and cruel because he has the power to stop evil and cruel acts from occurring, yet does nothing.
EDIT: Fixed a couple typos...
[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
If you follow the bible to the letter as most christians say they do, then free will has no meaning or purpose. You have elected not to follow any path but the one god has set before you and to question nothing he does. How can you say it is not a contradiction when God does the same thing as man (ie destroying the earth by flood)? This is the do as I say not as I do principle and what god can set an example to man with behavior like that? If a man and wife were to sacrifice a child today for god's glory, they would be brought up on murder one charges. I fail as of yet to see the winning side (if there is one at all) on how Jesus could be sacrificed in such a cruel way and it is ok because it was the will of god. Noahj, I was at one time a saved southern baptist in my younger day, but one day I woke up and decided that I had questions that no theologen(sp) was answering. Hence the attitude of if the bible says it , it is so. The bible says adultery is a sin, yet how did noah and his family repopulate after the big flood if incest were not commited? This is a simple question of propogation of the human race, yet not one person I ever asked would entertain this. It was considered sacrelige and questioning the authority of god. I am not going to be led blindly without question in this life. Just saying the almighty is right in whatever he does is a copout for not questioning the origins of the bible topics. I beleive in free will, I KNOW if I do wrong I blame not one person but myself, it's called taking responsibility for one's own actions, no devil, no mystery here, free will pure and simple. I respect your devotion to your faith, let me say this loud and clear. But at times christian followers can be so blinded by their faith they see nothing else before them. And like it or not there is no excuse, almighty or whatever for the suffering of an innocent child.
If only I were the only disturbed person I know. I've said this before, your statements here, their general tone and content, betray a very naive reading of the Bible, and a general insecurity -- common (yet disguised) in most excessively prosylethizing individuals. If you want to join the literal truth crowd, fine, do that. Overall though, it harms your understanding, and limits the development of your 'faith'.
To answer your original question, where should beliefs be based if not the Bible, I said 'on the fears that caused them in the first place.' The religious question which we can deal with together is a psychological one. Why and how do we write/read scriptures. This is not to say that something spiritual cannot be done with the texts, only that (often) one who does is either a charlatan or a simpleton.
Religion ought to make you very quiet. You do nothing more than shout. I know a lot about you, what you believe and what you fear, from that alone.
Now, if you actually want to learn something about religion, start with the Pagels book. It gives an accessible analysis of the origins of some dogma through history, some apocrypha, the gospels and Paul.
<strong>Religion ought to make you very quiet. You do nothing more than shout. I know a lot about you, what you believe and what you fear, from that alone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Really, am I shouting? Does anyone else feel this way? I felt like I was bringing up a topic in a public forum that interested me. I did not bring up all the other theological questions that came with it, which were I might add off the topic. I however did answer the questions as they came up. When it became detrimental to the thread, I created this one so that the other thread could continue on and stay somewhat close to on topic. In a lot of ways, you and those like you who were shouting me down over there created the need for this thread, and took that thread to where it is now.
And here I am a shouting simpleton. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Meh, close enough. It doesn't really affect my argument.
Premise: Operating under the Christian set of rules, God is evil and cruel.
"Fact" - God is all powerful.
"Fact" - There exists a Satan.
"Fact" - Satan is a source of evil and cruelty in this world.
-Since god is all powerful, he decides whether or not satan performs certain acts or even exists.
-God can stop satan any time he wants to because god is all powerful.
-God chooses not to stop satan from performing evil and cruel acts, thus endorsing satan's acts through god's own inaction.
Conclusion: God performs evil and cruel acts upon humanity by allowing satan to perform such acts. God is evil and cruel because he has the power to stop evil and cruel acts from occurring, yet does nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Part right (first 2 points), mostly wrong (the rest of your premise). It would take a long time to counter all your points as they are all about some very deep issues that are hard to talk through. This is the clearest you have been and I appreciate that you finally decided to come out with it, instead of the sniping you had been doing. I may not be able to answer your post properly but I will do some looking and possibly get back to you in the next few days. As I said, some very important and deep points you brought up. However the premise, from where I am standing looks flawed. I just can't piece it together right this second...
So you are sufficiently enlightened that you are beyond the need for religion and laws. Without either you would still be a good person and if more were just like you there would be much fewer problems in the world today. Did I sum that up right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you got it right. I have absolutely no need for religion. As far as the law is concerned, I live within about 99% of it without having to think about what Im doing is right/wrong. But, as I said, there still needs to be a defined framework, so that if Im unsure about a certain aspect I have a reference. As far as the law is concerned regarding the respect and well being of other individuals Id be well within it, Its just the stupid things like working at a weekend for cash etc.
<strong>If you follow the bible to the letter as most christians say they do, then free will has no meaning or purpose. You have elected not to follow any path but the one god has set before you and to question nothing he does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you follow the bible to the letter, it is by choice, not by coercion. Just like you follow the laws set up by the state you are in by choice for the most part. The one big difference. If you are caught breaking the laws in your state, you will get a ticket, a fine, jail time, etc... God knows when you have broken his law, and I can tell you this, I have not met anyone struck by lightening when he cussed out his neighbor, or slept with a woman that was not his wife. The accountability for that will come after he has died, unless his wife catches him, or the neighbor gets fed up of course. No arm twisting From God. He lets us know the whole story up front. There are no surprises, and it is a choice. I partly agree with Belle when she tongue-in-cheek stated that free will was given to us so that we can use it to choose to give it up. But that would take a whole other post, or even thread to get into.
[quote]<strong>How can you say it is not a contradiction when God does the same thing as man (ie destroying the earth by flood)? This is the do as I say not as I do principle and what god can set an example to man with behavior like that? If a man and wife were to sacrifice a child today for god's glory, they would be brought up on murder one charges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God does the same thing as a man? So you are saying that man has the authority to pass judgment on his fellow men and sentance them accordingly without mistake? The one point you keep missing or passing over, the definition of who God is. You are saying that God has no more power or authority than any normal human being. If that is the case, then the god you were following was not God.
As far as the sacrificing their child to the glory of God. That is so not right and against the will of God that it defies description. Only one time in the bible, was there the possibility that a person would be sacrificed to God in the manner you are speaking. And it was only a test to see how devoted that the man was to God. He passed the test and God stopped it before anything happened. God does not want human sacrifice. This breaks the ten commandments, plus a direct command by God that we shall not cause our children to pass through the fire. (In regards to those who did sacrifice their children to other gods.) It was strictly forbidden and still is.
[quote]<strong>I fail as of yet to see the winning side (if there is one at all) on how Jesus could be sacrificed in such a cruel way and it is ok because it was the will of god. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Man brought sin into the world by succumbing to temptation, therefore only man could pay for that sin in any final way. God tried to find another way for sin to be atoned for, but the only permanent solution was for a perfect human to choose to die for the sins of the world. That way all the sins would be atoned for by the perfect sacrifice that was Jesus. God wanted to have a relationship with us that was more than what was possible before Jesus. So he provided the solution when we could not. Sin is a terrible thing, and it took a terrible thing to pay for all the sin of the world. That tells me that God loves us all very much that he would allow His son to choose to pay for our sins the way he did. It also tells me another thing, human life is very precious to God. You will notice after the cross there are no other recorded instances of God directly punishing sinners. Now they have a chance to have their sins atoned for through a personal choice that is theirs until the day they die and then go on to judgment. This will change when the time of the tribulation comes around. At that time things will be so bad again, like it was in the time of Noah (in the bible, not me ) that He will be unable to stand by and watch as things get worse and it will draw to a close that chapter of human existence and open a new one.
[quote]<strong>Noahj, I was at one time a saved southern baptist in my younger day, but one day I woke up and decided that I had questions that no theologen(sp) was answering. Hence the attitude of if the bible says it , it is so. The bible says adultery is a sin, yet how did noah and his family repopulate after the big flood if incest were not commited? This is a simple question of propogation of the human race, yet not one person I ever asked would entertain this. It was considered sacrelige and questioning the authority of god.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all your terms are a bit mixed up. Adultry and incest are two separate things. Second of all, when Noah went into the ark remember that he took his wife and sons and their wives and children as well. It is not lie 6 people got onto and off of the ark. It actually does not number how many went, there could have been over a hundred or more people there. Also, human life span was much longer back then before God shortened it. There is no telling how many children these people had in their lifetimes. Sure I can see when the children got older how things would get weird in blood lines, and I cannot explain it. The bible is actually silent except for God telling them to be fruitful and multiply. But it is not as bad as you are envisioning it to be.
[quote]<strong>I am not going to be led blindly without question in this life. Just saying the almighty is right in whatever he does is a copout for not questioning the origins of the bible topics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nor should you be. In the bible it says to study to show yourself approved unto God. It doe snot say to swallow what the pastor says hook, line, and sinker. It even warns people to be alert for false teachings and doctrine that will sound good, but when tested will be found to be false. You should question, but you should know where to go to find answers, the bible is there, study it. If you need more than a translation, learn hebrew and greek and get into the primary meanings if needed. (I have been considering this a lot more recently.)
[quote]<strong>I beleive in free will, I KNOW if I do wrong I blame not one person but myself, it's called taking responsibility for one's own actions, no devil, no mystery here, free will pure and simple. I respect your devotion to your faith, let me say this loud and clear. But at times christian followers can be so blinded by their faith they see nothing else before them. And like it or not there is no excuse, almighty or whatever for the suffering of an innocent child.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely here with every part of what you have said. All of this lst part is right. But it is not a reason to abandon God. What people will do in the name of God is horrible. Some of the worst things have been justified this way. And this is the example of why people need to study what the bible really says instead of taking the word of a few trying to control them through their religious beliefs. I doubt God is pleased when He is used as an excuse to kill people because they do not believe in Him. I doubt God is pleased when pro-life activists bomb abortion clinics. I doubt God is pleased when many other things are done in His name that are against what He set forth in the scriptures.
BTW, who ever said that it was ok for an innocent child to suffer?
Please don't bullshit yourself NoahJ. The perponderance of your 'religious' topics and your insistence on one (incredibly flawed) interpretation amount to a passive agressive shouting. Your basically trying to spread 'the word' as you see it under a (badly drawn) guise of discussion. I think there are rules about soliciting, canvasing, and advertising on these boards. If a company came in here trying to hock their wares, we might tolerate 1 or 2 incursions, but thereafter we'd e-boot them outta here. Maybe missionaries should be added to the list of unwanted businesses? They're just as annoying, and offer about the same amount of insight and utility. Yeah, there's a circle of hell reserved for them alongside meter-maids, telemarketers, and tax-collectors. Continue on this path if you want to, you've been warned.
<strong>Please don't bullshit yourself NoahJ. The perponderance of your 'religious' topics and your insistence on one (incredibly flawed) interpretation amount to a passive agressive shouting. Your basically trying to spread 'the word' as you see it under a (badly drawn) guise of discussion. I think there are rules about soliciting, canvasing, and advertising on these boards. If a company came in here trying to hock their wares, we might tolerate 1 or 2 incursions, but thereafter we'd e-boot them outta here. Maybe missionaries should be added to the list of unwanted businesses? They're just as annoying, and offer about the same amount of insight and utility. Yeah, there's a circle of hell reserved for them alongside meter-maids, telemarketers, and tax-collectors. Continue on this path if you want to, you've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Please don't bullshit yourself NoahJ. The perponderance of your 'religious' topics and your insistence on one (incredibly flawed) interpretation amount to a passive agressive shouting. Your basically trying to spread 'the word' as you see it under a (badly drawn) guise of discussion. I think there are rules about soliciting, canvasing, and advertising on these boards. If a company came in here trying to hock their wares, we might tolerate 1 or 2 incursions, but thereafter we'd e-boot them outta here. Maybe missionaries should be added to the list of unwanted businesses? They're just as annoying, and offer about the same amount of insight and utility. Yeah, there's a circle of hell reserved for them alongside meter-maids, telemarketers, and tax-collectors. Continue on this path if you want to, you've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In response to the post by Belle, I hope I have not offended anyone or have been disrespectful to anyone on this topic. I think open , mature debate is a healthy way of communication and exchanging of ideas and ideals. My sincere apology to any that I may have offended during this post.
<strong>Hoepfully you are not addressing that to me. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, NoahJ, not meant for you. I just detected this discussion was going in a certain direction that'll end up making everyone look a little foolish.
I don't think it's possible to offend me, Robertp, unless you mock the strappy shoes I just bought for the summer, of course.
I just felt the discussion was moving into the same old slanging match these discussions always lapse into. I disagree with NoahJ on many, many issues, and will argue vociferously against many of his beliefs, but if I ever lower myself to mocking him for them I'll be truly ashamed.
<strong>a Congregationalist is a person who belongs to a church called a congregation. Mine is part of the United Church of Christ. I've heard of several other Congregationalist churches near me (I lie in CT) but I doubt that my brand of faith lives outside New England.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since our particular church was one of the first and most active voices in favor of the abolition of slavery, there are a whole lot of Congregationalist churchs out here in what used to be the frontier. Many of them were stops along the underground railroad. Also, Congregationalists founded seminaries in Chicago, among other places, and also several colleges (Calvin College, Grinnell College, and Oberlin, among many others) essentially as breeding grounds for abolitionists (and as presses to churn out the huge volumes of abolitionist literature that were mailed South).
There is a significant Congregationalist presence in Portland, Oregon, too. Not too surprising, since the town was settled by homesick New Englanders and named after the town in Maine.
(For those who haven't heard of the Congregationalist church, it's a branch from the same trunk of Christianity that yielded the Presbyterian church, the Church of Friends, and the Dutch and German Reform churches.)
<strong>Don't feel too ashamed Belle. Some people need mocking. Helps them feel righteous. You'd actually be doing them a favor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Glad we cleared that up. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> And here I thought it was frustrating and detrimental to the forward motion and flow of the given thread.
Comments
<strong>
You answered no to the free will question. Well, now I'm going to ask you to elaborate please. Which of god's creations have free will?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Humans and Angels. This is proven through the fall of both. I am unsure as to any others.
<strong>How is this the same? A politician is not God, thus it is not even the same thing, unless i am misunderstanding your analogy it holds no water at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By saying God can do no wrong without examining the issues surrounding events and making a decision based on your own judgment, you do not have free will. You have chosen to be told what to do, and how to behave. You have chosen to rescind your free will.
If we believe that God gave us free will, you have used that free will to decide you don't want it. Why?
[quote]<strong>BTW, God giving us the Ten Commandments does not force us to follow them. There is no divine hand twisting your arm when you choose to ignore the Adultry Commandment. Is there? You choose not to follow it thus showing that free will exists for you. You choose what to follow or not based on that. However I choose to bend my will towards God. Once gain, a choice I have made, not something forced on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I have free will. You, on the other hand, do not. You can't make an informed, personal decision because to do so would instantly destroy the value in your belief.
[quote]<strong>How so? The only possibility I can see as a interpretation of a mistake is the allowance of free will. And even then there is a purpose in that. I do not know what it is, if I did then these answers would be much simpler for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in your case, he gave you free will so you could choose to give it up.
<strong>
Humans and Angels. This is proven through the fall of both. I am unsure as to any others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Meh, close enough. It doesn't really affect my argument.
Premise: Operating under the Christian set of rules, God is evil and cruel.
"Fact" - God is all powerful.
"Fact" - There exists a Satan.
"Fact" - Satan is a source of evil and cruelty in this world.
-Since god is all powerful, he decides whether or not satan performs certain acts or even exists.
-God can stop satan any time he wants to because god is all powerful.
-God chooses not to stop satan from performing evil and cruel acts, thus endorsing satan's acts through god's own inaction.
Conclusion: God performs evil and cruel acts upon humanity by allowing satan to perform such acts. God is evil and cruel because he has the power to stop evil and cruel acts from occurring, yet does nothing.
EDIT: Fixed a couple typos...
[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
If only I were the only disturbed person I know. I've said this before, your statements here, their general tone and content, betray a very naive reading of the Bible, and a general insecurity -- common (yet disguised) in most excessively prosylethizing individuals. If you want to join the literal truth crowd, fine, do that. Overall though, it harms your understanding, and limits the development of your 'faith'.
To answer your original question, where should beliefs be based if not the Bible, I said 'on the fears that caused them in the first place.' The religious question which we can deal with together is a psychological one. Why and how do we write/read scriptures. This is not to say that something spiritual cannot be done with the texts, only that (often) one who does is either a charlatan or a simpleton.
Religion ought to make you very quiet. You do nothing more than shout. I know a lot about you, what you believe and what you fear, from that alone.
Now, if you actually want to learn something about religion, start with the Pagels book. It gives an accessible analysis of the origins of some dogma through history, some apocrypha, the gospels and Paul.
<strong>Religion ought to make you very quiet. You do nothing more than shout. I know a lot about you, what you believe and what you fear, from that alone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Really, am I shouting? Does anyone else feel this way? I felt like I was bringing up a topic in a public forum that interested me. I did not bring up all the other theological questions that came with it, which were I might add off the topic. I however did answer the questions as they came up. When it became detrimental to the thread, I created this one so that the other thread could continue on and stay somewhat close to on topic. In a lot of ways, you and those like you who were shouting me down over there created the need for this thread, and took that thread to where it is now.
And here I am a shouting simpleton. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
Meh, close enough. It doesn't really affect my argument.
Premise: Operating under the Christian set of rules, God is evil and cruel.
"Fact" - God is all powerful.
"Fact" - There exists a Satan.
"Fact" - Satan is a source of evil and cruelty in this world.
-Since god is all powerful, he decides whether or not satan performs certain acts or even exists.
-God can stop satan any time he wants to because god is all powerful.
-God chooses not to stop satan from performing evil and cruel acts, thus endorsing satan's acts through god's own inaction.
Conclusion: God performs evil and cruel acts upon humanity by allowing satan to perform such acts. God is evil and cruel because he has the power to stop evil and cruel acts from occurring, yet does nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Part right (first 2 points), mostly wrong (the rest of your premise). It would take a long time to counter all your points as they are all about some very deep issues that are hard to talk through. This is the clearest you have been and I appreciate that you finally decided to come out with it, instead of the sniping you had been doing. I may not be able to answer your post properly but I will do some looking and possibly get back to you in the next few days. As I said, some very important and deep points you brought up. However the premise, from where I am standing looks flawed. I just can't piece it together right this second...
<strong>
So you are sufficiently enlightened that you are beyond the need for religion and laws. Without either you would still be a good person and if more were just like you there would be much fewer problems in the world today. Did I sum that up right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you got it right. I have absolutely no need for religion. As far as the law is concerned, I live within about 99% of it without having to think about what Im doing is right/wrong. But, as I said, there still needs to be a defined framework, so that if Im unsure about a certain aspect I have a reference. As far as the law is concerned regarding the respect and well being of other individuals Id be well within it, Its just the stupid things like working at a weekend for cash etc.
<strong>If you follow the bible to the letter as most christians say they do, then free will has no meaning or purpose. You have elected not to follow any path but the one god has set before you and to question nothing he does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you follow the bible to the letter, it is by choice, not by coercion. Just like you follow the laws set up by the state you are in by choice for the most part. The one big difference. If you are caught breaking the laws in your state, you will get a ticket, a fine, jail time, etc... God knows when you have broken his law, and I can tell you this, I have not met anyone struck by lightening when he cussed out his neighbor, or slept with a woman that was not his wife. The accountability for that will come after he has died, unless his wife catches him, or the neighbor gets fed up of course. No arm twisting From God. He lets us know the whole story up front. There are no surprises, and it is a choice. I partly agree with Belle when she tongue-in-cheek stated that free will was given to us so that we can use it to choose to give it up. But that would take a whole other post, or even thread to get into.
[quote]<strong>How can you say it is not a contradiction when God does the same thing as man (ie destroying the earth by flood)? This is the do as I say not as I do principle and what god can set an example to man with behavior like that? If a man and wife were to sacrifice a child today for god's glory, they would be brought up on murder one charges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God does the same thing as a man? So you are saying that man has the authority to pass judgment on his fellow men and sentance them accordingly without mistake? The one point you keep missing or passing over, the definition of who God is. You are saying that God has no more power or authority than any normal human being. If that is the case, then the god you were following was not God.
As far as the sacrificing their child to the glory of God. That is so not right and against the will of God that it defies description. Only one time in the bible, was there the possibility that a person would be sacrificed to God in the manner you are speaking. And it was only a test to see how devoted that the man was to God. He passed the test and God stopped it before anything happened. God does not want human sacrifice. This breaks the ten commandments, plus a direct command by God that we shall not cause our children to pass through the fire. (In regards to those who did sacrifice their children to other gods.) It was strictly forbidden and still is.
[quote]<strong>I fail as of yet to see the winning side (if there is one at all) on how Jesus could be sacrificed in such a cruel way and it is ok because it was the will of god. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Man brought sin into the world by succumbing to temptation, therefore only man could pay for that sin in any final way. God tried to find another way for sin to be atoned for, but the only permanent solution was for a perfect human to choose to die for the sins of the world. That way all the sins would be atoned for by the perfect sacrifice that was Jesus. God wanted to have a relationship with us that was more than what was possible before Jesus. So he provided the solution when we could not. Sin is a terrible thing, and it took a terrible thing to pay for all the sin of the world. That tells me that God loves us all very much that he would allow His son to choose to pay for our sins the way he did. It also tells me another thing, human life is very precious to God. You will notice after the cross there are no other recorded instances of God directly punishing sinners. Now they have a chance to have their sins atoned for through a personal choice that is theirs until the day they die and then go on to judgment. This will change when the time of the tribulation comes around. At that time things will be so bad again, like it was in the time of Noah (in the bible, not me
[quote]<strong>Noahj, I was at one time a saved southern baptist in my younger day, but one day I woke up and decided that I had questions that no theologen(sp) was answering. Hence the attitude of if the bible says it , it is so. The bible says adultery is a sin, yet how did noah and his family repopulate after the big flood if incest were not commited? This is a simple question of propogation of the human race, yet not one person I ever asked would entertain this. It was considered sacrelige and questioning the authority of god.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all your terms are a bit mixed up. Adultry and incest are two separate things. Second of all, when Noah went into the ark remember that he took his wife and sons and their wives and children as well. It is not lie 6 people got onto and off of the ark. It actually does not number how many went, there could have been over a hundred or more people there. Also, human life span was much longer back then before God shortened it. There is no telling how many children these people had in their lifetimes. Sure I can see when the children got older how things would get weird in blood lines, and I cannot explain it. The bible is actually silent except for God telling them to be fruitful and multiply. But it is not as bad as you are envisioning it to be.
[quote]<strong>I am not going to be led blindly without question in this life. Just saying the almighty is right in whatever he does is a copout for not questioning the origins of the bible topics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nor should you be. In the bible it says to study to show yourself approved unto God. It doe snot say to swallow what the pastor says hook, line, and sinker. It even warns people to be alert for false teachings and doctrine that will sound good, but when tested will be found to be false. You should question, but you should know where to go to find answers, the bible is there, study it. If you need more than a translation, learn hebrew and greek and get into the primary meanings if needed. (I have been considering this a lot more recently.)
[quote]<strong>I beleive in free will, I KNOW if I do wrong I blame not one person but myself, it's called taking responsibility for one's own actions, no devil, no mystery here, free will pure and simple. I respect your devotion to your faith, let me say this loud and clear. But at times christian followers can be so blinded by their faith they see nothing else before them. And like it or not there is no excuse, almighty or whatever for the suffering of an innocent child.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely here with every part of what you have said. All of this lst part is right. But it is not a reason to abandon God. What people will do in the name of God is horrible. Some of the worst things have been justified this way. And this is the example of why people need to study what the bible really says instead of taking the word of a few trying to control them through their religious beliefs. I doubt God is pleased when He is used as an excuse to kill people because they do not believe in Him. I doubt God is pleased when pro-life activists bomb abortion clinics. I doubt God is pleased when many other things are done in His name that are against what He set forth in the scriptures.
BTW, who ever said that it was ok for an innocent child to suffer?
Not speaking as a moderator.
<strong>Please don't bullshit yourself NoahJ. The perponderance of your 'religious' topics and your insistence on one (incredibly flawed) interpretation amount to a passive agressive shouting. Your basically trying to spread 'the word' as you see it under a (badly drawn) guise of discussion. I think there are rules about soliciting, canvasing, and advertising on these boards. If a company came in here trying to hock their wares, we might tolerate 1 or 2 incursions, but thereafter we'd e-boot them outta here. Maybe missionaries should be added to the list of unwanted businesses? They're just as annoying, and offer about the same amount of insight and utility. Yeah, there's a circle of hell reserved for them alongside meter-maids, telemarketers, and tax-collectors. Continue on this path if you want to, you've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Warned?
<strong>Just one thing, please try not to mock people for their beliefs. Question their beliefs, ask why, deride ideas, but don't mock.
Not speaking as a moderator.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hoepfully you are not addressing that to me.
If you are, please let me know where I am mocking someones beliefs, If I am I will adjust it immediately.
<strong>Please don't bullshit yourself NoahJ. The perponderance of your 'religious' topics and your insistence on one (incredibly flawed) interpretation amount to a passive agressive shouting. Your basically trying to spread 'the word' as you see it under a (badly drawn) guise of discussion. I think there are rules about soliciting, canvasing, and advertising on these boards. If a company came in here trying to hock their wares, we might tolerate 1 or 2 incursions, but thereafter we'd e-boot them outta here. Maybe missionaries should be added to the list of unwanted businesses? They're just as annoying, and offer about the same amount of insight and utility. Yeah, there's a circle of hell reserved for them alongside meter-maids, telemarketers, and tax-collectors. Continue on this path if you want to, you've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
<strong>
Agreed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am so suprised...
<strong>Hoepfully you are not addressing that to me.
No, NoahJ, not meant for you. I just detected this discussion was going in a certain direction that'll end up making everyone look a little foolish.
I don't think it's possible to offend me, Robertp, unless you mock the strappy shoes I just bought for the summer, of course.
I just felt the discussion was moving into the same old slanging match these discussions always lapse into. I disagree with NoahJ on many, many issues, and will argue vociferously against many of his beliefs, but if I ever lower myself to mocking him for them I'll be truly ashamed.
[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>a Congregationalist is a person who belongs to a church called a congregation. Mine is part of the United Church of Christ. I've heard of several other Congregationalist churches near me (I lie in CT) but I doubt that my brand of faith lives outside New England.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since our particular church was one of the first and most active voices in favor of the abolition of slavery, there are a whole lot of Congregationalist churchs out here in what used to be the frontier. Many of them were stops along the underground railroad. Also, Congregationalists founded seminaries in Chicago, among other places, and also several colleges (Calvin College, Grinnell College, and Oberlin, among many others) essentially as breeding grounds for abolitionists (and as presses to churn out the huge volumes of abolitionist literature that were mailed South).
There is a significant Congregationalist presence in Portland, Oregon, too. Not too surprising, since the town was settled by homesick New Englanders and named after the town in Maine.
(For those who haven't heard of the Congregationalist church, it's a branch from the same trunk of Christianity that yielded the Presbyterian church, the Church of Friends, and the Dutch and German Reform churches.)
<strong>Don't feel too ashamed Belle. Some people need mocking. Helps them feel righteous. You'd actually be doing them a favor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Glad we cleared that up. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> And here I thought it was frustrating and detrimental to the forward motion and flow of the given thread.