Does god give every human embryo a soul?

Akrasia · 22-01-2008 2:16pm

I think it would depend on whether one or both of them have a pinneal gland :P

Soul Winner · 22-01-2008 3:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

God can't die.
God is supposed to be immortal.

That's right.

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." Acts 2:23-24 (emph. added)

John in the opening verses of his Gospel describes Jesus as the Logos. Before Christianity came along the “Logos” (or the Word) was what was used to describe a mediator between man and God. Job (one of the oldest books in the world) refers to Him: "Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. My intercessor is my friend," Job 16:19-20. In John He is described as the speaking agent through which God created the universe. He is the "doxa" the out-raying of God's glory. He was the Word that was facing the God and was of the same essence as the God and was God, He was the Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us. He stepped forth as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth and volunteered to be kinned (became near of kin to us i.e. took on flesh and blood) with us in order that we might have salvation through Him. We have no choice, we are born flesh and blood but He voluntarily took on flesh and blood and became kinned to us and became our kinsman redeemer. He suffered death in our stead and preached to departed spirits while His body lay in the tomb. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." I Peter 3:18-19. After three days and three nights God the Father being faithful to His promise to Him raised Him up again and seated Him at His right hand. He is there forever in His immortalised earthly body, (a new thing in Heaven) the firstborn of many brethren. His propitiation has been accepted and is forever adequate as a propitiatory before God. All you need to do to avail of this Grace in Christ is to trust Him with your life. Act on His promises in His Word and God will view you as just like Christ in the same way He viewed Christ as just like you when He poured out His wrath on Him on the cross. Without His voluntary vicarious sacrifice there would be no means of salvation for mankind.

Pompey Magnus · 22-01-2008 3:52pm

Bisar wrote:

And, since twins have been mentioned, what about conjoined and parasitic twins? Presumably conjoined twins would have separate souls in a single body (though the fact that some conjoined twins share brain matter throws up some interesting questions) but parasitic twinning is a bit of a head scratcher, for me at least.

It gets even more complicated, because every single cell of an eight-celled embryo is capable of splitting off from the other 7 cells and forming a full person, so that would mean that after conception eight souls are created, and the embryo loses all but one. What happens to these souls? It also can happen that two eggs can be fertilised at the same time, normally this would produce non-identical twins. However these fertilised eggs with two distict souls could fuse together to form a genetic chimera from which just one embryo develops, so presumably this person has two souls? What about when scientists created a sheep with 15% human cells and 85% sheep cells, did this sheep have 15% of a soul?

Also when does the soul begin? Is it immediately after the sperm cell penetrates the egg? Their genes don't even start to mingle for at least 24 hours after this event and another day for the new genome to start controlling the embryo. Conception is not a single moment, it takes about 48 hours. Where in this 48 hours does the soul make its appearance?

Plus we have the fact that up to half of all fertilised eggs do not implant into the uterus. This should be an outrage to the religious everywhere, a 50% mortality rate of soul-bearing children prior to birth.

Isn't it wierd how none of the Holy Books go into much detail on the question of genetic chimeras or prolonged conception.

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:02am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Isn't it wierd how none of the Holy Books go into much detail on the question of genetic chimeras or prolonged conception.

No, it isn't weird at all. The point of the Bible is to give us the information we need in order to know God, discover how to be saved, and to live a life that is morally good and beneficial to ourselves and to others.

The Bible therefore gives us broad principles that allow us to use our God-given rationality and reason to figure out how to deal with an infinite number of possible scenarios.

Some posters see this need for interpretation as an argument against Christianity, but for me the opposite is true. I find religious systems that attempt to regulate and legislate for every conceivable situation (eg fundamentalist Islam, strict Catholicism, and legalistic versions of Protestantism that insist on uniformity in every detail) to be stifling and repressive. I am happy that God is prepared to treat me like an intelligent adult and give me the freedom to reason and debate. This characteristic of Christianity is what produced modern scientific thought and the values that we associate with the Enlightenment.

Akrasia · 23-01-2008 12:25am

PDN wrote: »

I am happy that God is prepared to treat me like an intelligent adult and give me the freedom to reason and debate.

Why? treating you like an 'intelligent adult' would be the equivelent of a teacher saying 'clever boy' to a child who gets his 2+2 sums right. Treating people like an intelligent human being is not exactly a gesture of respect coming from an entity that says that we're too stupid to understand most of the things that God does and we should just accept most things on 'faith'
It's also very unfair, because clearly, not all adults are intelligent. There are some very very gullible and slow witted people out there. (and being their creator, thats gods fault) who would misinterpret gods will even on matters that you, an intelligent adult, would consider to be elementary.

Do stupid people not get a fair chance to get to heaven? Would it not be more fair if God made is wishes clear instead of making us follow a kind of cryptic treasure hunt.

If Cork County council gave the directions on their road signs in complex mathematical formulae, it would be treating the road users as 'intelligent adults' but it would lead to an awful lot of people getting lost.

This characteristic of Christianity is what produced modern scientific thought and the values that we associate with the Enlightenment.

The spirit of human enquiry was alive and well long long before christ was around. And if anything, the christian monopoly on education during the 'dark ages' did more to stifle scientific and intellectual advancement than anything else. (it wasn't like there just weren't many clever or artistic people born during those centuries)

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:39am

Akrasia wrote: »

Why? treating you like an 'intelligent adult' would be the equivelent of a teacher saying 'clever boy' to a child who gets his 2+2 sums right. Treating people like an intelligent human being is not exactly a gesture of respect coming from an entity that says that we're too stupid to understand most of the things that God does and we should just accept most things on 'faith'
It's also very unfair, because clearly, not all adults are intelligent. There are some very very gullible and slow witted people out there. (and being their creator, thats gods fault) who would misinterpret gods will even on matters that you, an intelligent adult, would consider to be elementary.

Do stupid people not get a fair chance to get to heaven? Would it not be more fair if God made is wishes clear instead of making us follow a kind of cryptic treasure hunt.

If Cork County council gave the directions on their road signs in complex mathematical formulae, it would be treating the road users as 'intelligent adults' but it would lead to an awful lot of people getting lost.

That would be a fair argument if we were discussing issues that are essential to salvation - but we are not. I don't think that anyone really believes that having the correct interpretation as to whether an embryo has a soul or not is going to determine whether someone makes it to heaven or not.

The way to salvation is clearly outlined in the Bible - so clearly that anyone that wishes to can understand it. As for all the other stuff, it's interesting and fun to discuss and debate for anyone with a reasonably open mind.

The spirit of human enquiry was alive and well long long before christ was around. And if anything, the christian monopoly on education during the 'dark ages' did more to stifle scientific and intellectual advancement than anything else. (it wasn't like there just weren't many clever or artistic people born during those centuries)

Of course the spirit of human enquiry was around before Christ. But it is an undeniable historical fact that it developed more fully under Christianity than under any other ideology or system. The same is true of values of tolerance that allow us to have these debates without being afraid that authorities might imprison us (as in Islamic Iran or in atheistic China or North Korea). Of course we are all tolerant enough to allow you to believe that it is all a massive coincidence that such tolerance has developed, for the most part, in the very same countries that have had the longest exposure to the preaching of the Christian Gospel.

Pompey Magnus · 23-01-2008 3:03am

PDN wrote: »

The way to salvation is clearly outlined in the Bible - so clearly that anyone that wishes to can understand it.

I really don't think the Bible is clear on anything like that, it is so open to interpretation it is almost worthless in that regard. I mean the amount of debate that goes on deciding what was really meant by Biblical instructions proves this.

Take for example "Thou shalt not kill", as clear an instruction as you can get, there is seemingly no room for manoeuver in it, yet there has been Christian armies all across the world since Constantine whose sole intention is to kill the enemy and who quite often have the support of some faction of Christianity behind them.

Similarly it teaches suicide and euthanasia is a sin, our bodies are temples to God and it is up to him when our lives end, but after Perpetua committed suicide in Carthage she was made a saint. How does that work exactly?

Can a soul attain salvation without baptism in Christ? Some interpretations of the Bible say yes, others say that to claim this is a heresy.

You mentioned a few posts back that due to the difficulties that twins soul allocation raises it would be logical to assume that embryos get their souls at some later stage in development, but when? This is a very important question because this would suggest that at some stage an abortion does not take a human life and then it suddenly does, at what moment does a doctor go from terminating a cluster of cells to murdering a soul-bearing human? Again the Bible does not tell us and this, to my mind, is a massive omission as it leaves the question of life and death wide open.

So in my opinion the Bible is not at all clear on the way to salvatio and this is because of the disjointed and often contradictory way in which is written. If you want to find out why killing an abortion doctor is right then go to the Bible. If you want to find why killing an abortion doctor is wrong then go to another part of the Bible. Ditto for numerous other moral questions that the Bible both answers and doesn't really answer at the same time.

Why could God not just give us a clear cut set of laws like any modern state has today? "Thou shalt not kill, except in the following circumstances..."

Where is the benefit to anyone in leaving things open to interpretation by fallible humans? Think of all the needless blood that has been spilt if it could have been clear, why didn't Jesus just say "This is my body, which will be given up for you, but it isn't REALLY my body by the way, its just a representation of it."?

PDN · 23-01-2008 12:41pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Where is the benefit to anyone in leaving things open to interpretation by fallible humans? Think of all the needless blood that has been spilt if it could have been clear, why didn't Jesus just say "This is my body, which will be given up for you, but it isn't REALLY my body by the way, its just a representation of it."?

Maybe you could expand on this. I know that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been an interesting topic of debate, but are you saying that people have been killed solely over this issue? Maybe you would cite some examples.

Pompey Magnus · 23-01-2008 2:51pm

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you could expand on this. I know that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been an interesting topic of debate, but are you saying that people have been killed solely over this issue? Maybe you would cite some examples.

I assume you know what I meant, but just in case I will clarify. Within a few hundred years of the birth of Christianity there were people being killed and punished because they interpreted the teachings of Jesus in different ways to the mainstream church. Sometimes they were going on Gospels which were not recognised by the church but quite often they were seeing very different meanings in what is now the accepted New Testament.

There has been varying degrees of animosity between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches since the split, I'm sure I don't have to point out all the instances of slaughter that occured in Europe during this time and the source of this slaughter was different interpretations of the New Testament.

My claim about transubstantiation was intended to be a fothy example of the wider issue of how the Gospels are not clear-cut and how you can justify plenty of immoral acts by referring to the Bible. I mean you can even justify abortion if you refer to the Mosaic law which says that the punishment of killing an unborn child should be just a fine to the father whose property has been damaged.

I repeat my original point, the Bible does not give a clear path to salvation, and to take the path analogy one step further, the path has indeed got plenty of signposts to get you to salvation, but they all point in different directions meaning they are all essentially worthless.

Soul Winner · 23-01-2008 10:41pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I repeat my original point, the Bible does not give a clear path to salvation

How so? From start to finish all references pertaining to salvation in the Bible both in the Old and New Testament point to The LORD as either having salvation, bringing salvation, and being salvation. So it would appear that the Bible does in fact actually give a clear path to salvation. So you are wrong there aren't you?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

and to take the path analogy one step further, the path has indeed got plenty of signposts to get you to salvation, but they all point in different directions

Examples?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

meaning they are all essentially worthless.

If they do in fact point in different directions.

So all we need now are your examples to see how worthless these signposts really are.

Akrasia · 23-01-2008 11:55pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

How so? From start to finish all references pertaining to salvation in the Bible both in the Old and New Testament point to The LORD as either having salvation, bringing salvation, and being salvation. So it would appear that the Bible does in fact actually give a clear path to salvation. So you are wrong there aren't you?

The Lord isn't a path. Are we supposed to follow the example of the lord, or just believe in him? Because following the example would be salvation through deeds and works, (deeds and works that are impossible to live up to, considering that jesus was apparently without sin)

Jesus never renounced the 10 commandments (and as a Jew, would have held them sacred), but I doubt there are even 1% of Christians who follow those commandments to the letter. (or anywhere close) And I don't think there is any logical justification why someone should even try to follow them 100% (other than fear of punishment).

Honour your father and your mother. What? even if your father is a child molesting alcoholic wife beater?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods? What you can go to hell for being jealous? Even if your neighbour is an asshole who flaunts his excesses in your face while you're living in poverty? You're supposed to suppress an innate human emotion on penalty of eternal damnation?

Keep the Sabbath holy? Don't work, even if you're a farmer or a nurse or a doctor or a professional footballer? Don't even cook your own meal or milk your own cow? What are you supposed to do every saturday (or sunday) spend all day long feeling holy and thinking about how great god is? (for making you waste 1/7th of your life on pain of eternal damnation?)

Pompey Magnus · 24-01-2008 12:19am

Soul Winner wrote: »

So all we need now are your examples to see how worthless these signposts really are.

Q. Should humans strive to become wise?

Ans 1: Yes PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ans 2: No ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ans 3: No For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Q. Does the sin of the father pass onto the son?

Ans 1: Yes ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

Ans 2: No DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Q. Should I abide by the laws of the land?

Ans 1: Yes ROM 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Ans 2: No ROM 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Ans 3: No ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Ans 4: No ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Q. When I do a good deed should I do it in secret or in public?

Ans 1: Public Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

Ans 2: Secret Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

Q. Should I love my family?

Ans 1: No Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Ans 2: Yes John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Q. If I blaspheme against the Holy Spirit can I be forgiven?

Ans 1: No Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Ans 2: Yes John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

Q. Is it a sin to call someone a fool?

Ans 1: Yes MATT 5:22 ...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Ans 2: No (because here Jesus called some people fools and Jesus is without sin) MATT 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

Q. Should I plan for the future?

Ans 1: Yes PROV 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

Ans 2: No Matt 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

This is only a small sample of contradictions in the Bible, however it is getting tedious checking up Bible verses online so I will leave it there, but I could go on with plenty more inaccuracies and inconsistent passages.

Fanny Cradock · 24-01-2008 1:41am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This is only a small sample of contradictions in the Bible, however it is getting tedious checking up Bible verses online so I will leave it there, but I could go on with plenty more inaccuracies and inconsistent passages.

Yeah, I could imagine that it is tedious scanning through the Bible for contradictions. You could have saved yourself the trouble and gone to this site which has almost the exact same quotes (including spelling mistakes!) as yourself but under slightly different headings. Funny that!

Anyway, lets nip this in the bud now. Despite your thorough research on the matter *cough*, I suggest that you actually read the entire Chapter relating to each verse before making such claims. This gives the CONTEXT of the verse. Yeah?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. When I do a good deed should I do it in secret or in public?

Ans 1: Public Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

To use a business term - Jesus is saying that the Disciples should lead by example. It would be contradictory if they were wilfully not living what they preached.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Ans 2: Secret Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

If you look at verses 1 and 2 everything is put in context. Again with that troublesome word! It's all quite self explanatory, really. Indeed, what Jesus is saying here ties back nicely with Chapter 5 where he says that those with a meek heart are blessed.

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I'm sure you will find a way to rubbish my explanation. I think you are happy in making claims without doing any research. Your position leads you to do this.

Pompey Magnus · 24-01-2008 2:44am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I could imagine that it is tedious scanning through the Bible for contradictions. You could have saved yourself the trouble and gone to this site which has almost the exact same quotes (including spelling mistakes!) as yourself but under slightly different headings. Funny that!

As it happens I used the similar site http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html which unfortunately didn't have the relevant quotes, and what I was referring to when I said it was tedious was getting the passages mentioned there from the Bible reference source http://www.biblegateway.com, made especially tedious as I am using Irish Broadband which is unimaginably slow and keeps disconnecting, so much so that the post took over 25 minutes to complete, after alot of perserverance and page refreshing, but thanks for worrying all the same. If you took my original post as implying that I knew the entire Bible verbatim then I apologise profusely as this is most certainly not true.

Edit: It is funny though how one sentence can be percieved so differently, it was intented to be an unimportant close to a long post, but you took it as being an attempt by me to falsely claim Biblical knowledge that the Pope would be proud of. Just goes to show how easy it is to take what you want from vague statements, it kind of supports my original point in a way.

P.S. This editing of this post proved quite tedious also

.

Fanny Cradock · 28-01-2008 11:31pm

John is the happiest man I know. I've never known him to be unhappy.

He was laughing so much

when I saw him last he was crying and doubled over in pain.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Just goes to show how easy it is to take what you want from vague statements, it kind of supports my original point in a way.

Indeed. And you provide a marvellous example of how someone can project their prejudice in order for them to twist the meaning of a thing so it will better fit the shape of their claims. The above example is cumbersome, I'll admit, but I see little difference between that and when a verse is wilfully taken out of context. In both cases vital information is omitted in such a way that the truth is distorted.

Pompey Magnus · 29-01-2008 2:24pm

Ok, I took the one example you used, the question of whether to do good deeds in public or private, and I read the relevant chapters of Matthew, 5 & 6, and my prejudice must really be blinding me because I still can't see how they are mutually compatible. How can Jesus say in Matt 6 to do good deeds so secretly that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing (and yes, I do know he didn't literally mean this), to pray secretly behind closed doors so no-one knows that you are praying, and to let no one know you are fasting, yet in the very chapter before this he explains that a lamp isn't lit just so it can be put under a bucket.

Now I am no theologian but if I were to read Mattew 5 I would interpret it as telling me to set an example to my neighbours, and to do this by intentionally letting them see my good deeds, by being a shining light for others. If I was then to read Matthew 6 I would read this as telling me that how others see me is not important, the only thing I should be worried about is my relationship with God.

Zombrex · 29-01-2008 3:01pm

Depeche_Mode come on!

Have you not learnt by now there are no contradictions in the Bible. What appear to be contradictions are just misinterpretations.

Its very simple. Anything that you find that appears to all the world to be a blantant contradiction just re-interpret it completely different and bang! No contradiction.

And the great thing about this is that because it is interpretation no one can tell you that you are wrong. If they tell you that you are wrong they are also misinterpreting the passage.

Pompey Magnus · 29-01-2008 3:25pm

Wicknight wrote: »

And the great thing about this is that because it is interpretation no one can tell you that you are wrong. If they tell you that you are wrong they are also misinterpreting the passage.

Hmm, so let me get this straight, no-one can tell you that you have it wrong, because you (and the people who agree with you) are the only people who have the correct interpretation and you know this, and anyone else who claims to have the one true interpretation which differs from your actual one true interpretation must, by definition, be lying heretics because it claims that your one true interpretation is not really true which cannot be because you know that it is true because you know what Jesus really meant to say. So you are right and they are wrong, and even though they say the same thing you know that you are really right.

The veil has been lifted. It makes perfect sense.

Zombrex · 29-01-2008 3:52pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Hmm, so let me get this straight, no-one can tell you that you have it wrong, because you (and the people who agree with you) are the only people who have the correct interpretation and you know this, and anyone else who claims to have the one true interpretation which differs from your actual one true interpretation must, by definition, be lying heretics because it claims that your one true interpretation is not really true which cannot be because you know that it is true because you know what Jesus really meant to say. So you are right and they are wrong, and even though they say the same thing you know that you are really right.

The veil has been lifted. It makes perfect sense.

Now you are getting it.

J C · 30-01-2008 12:13am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Should humans strive to become wise?

Ans 1: Yes PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ans 2: No ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ans 3: No For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Ans 1 refers to the wisdom of God and His Word......and Ans 2 & 3 refer to the wisdom of Men!!!:D

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Does the sin of the father pass onto the son?

Ans 1: Yes ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

Ans 2: No DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ans 1 refers to workers of iniquity.....and Ans 2 refers to people who behave virtuously. !!!:D

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Should I abide by the laws of the land?

Ans 1: Yes ROM 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Ans 2: No ROM 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Ans 3: No ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Ans 4: No ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Ans 1 states that unsaved people believe that they will be judged under the Law according to their deeds…..and so they will.!!!:D

Ans 2 states that the Law can only condemn....and is there to expose sin…..so the very law that the unsaved believe will save them….actually condemns them because of their sin.!!!:D

Ans 4 asks Christians to obey the Civil Law…..unless (as in Ans 3) any of the laws are in conflict with the Law of God.!!!:D

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. When I do a good deed should I do it in secret or in public?

Ans 1: Public Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

Ans 2: Secret Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

Ans 1 Christians should be an example of TRULY virtuous living…….but….
Ans 2 Christians shouldn’t make an outward show of their sacrifices……like hypocrites do.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Should I love my family?

Ans 1: No Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Ans 2: Yes John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Ans 1 Christians should count nothing (even close family members) as more important than being saved and serving Jesus.
Ans 2 A person can sin in both his thoughts and his actions.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. If I blaspheme against the Holy Spirit can I be forgiven?

Ans 1: No Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Ans 2: Yes John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

All sin between men will be forgiven (Ans 2)…..but direct wilful blasphemy against God will never be forgiven (Ans 1).

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Is it a sin to call someone a fool?

Ans 1: Yes MATT 5:22 ...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Ans 2: No (because here Jesus called some people fools and Jesus is without sin) MATT 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

It is sinful to gratuitously and unfoundedly insult somebody (Ans 1)……..but the use of a parable isn’t sinful (Ans 2).

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Q. Should I plan for the future?

Ans 1: Yes PROV 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

Ans 2: No Matt 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

It is wise to honestly assess your current state (Ans 1)…..but worrying about the future is a waste of time (Ans 2). !!!:D
....good advice for anybody with significant money invested in the Stock Market at present!!!:D

Pompey Magnus · 30-01-2008 1:00am

A very knowledgable post there, isn't it a pity that, through your first interpretation, your wisdom will see you destroyed by God Almighty and has no doubt brought you much grief and sorrow

.

-As for the explanation about setting an example by living viruously by being a shining light to your community whilst also not letting people know about it, could you give an everyday example of how this could be done. It seems paradoxical to me.

-As for the "All sin between men will be forgiven" explanation, that's all well and good, except for one tiny problem: You are putting words in Jesus' mouth. He doesn't say this applies only to sins between men, he say he will purify us from ALL unrighteousness. All = 100%.

-With the fools quote, yes it was only a parable, but Jesus wasn't setting a very good example there now was he? One minute he says it is a terrible sin to call someone stupid, then he goes and describes people in his story as being stupid. I mean come on...

-As for Jesus saying that worrying about the future is a waste of time, well, it is so stupid I don't think I need to waste time criticising it.

- But I have saved my favorite until last. Where you say that we should be most concerned about salvation and serving Jesus as being the most important thing, again you put words into Jesus' mouth. If this is what he meant why not say this? Why does he mention hate? Surely you can still love your family and be concerned about getting into Heaven?

I want to stick with this for a second. Let us assume that this message that Jesus gave is moral and good:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

then presumably the exact opposite is immoral and evil:

"If any man come to me, and loves not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Please justify how the second statement, which is the exact opposite of the first is immoral. I would bet that if you showed the two quotes to a group of Christians who didn't know which was authentic I am certain that virtually all would say the second one, about loving your family, is the real quote. Little would they know that Jesus said the complete reverse of this.

Pompey Magnus · 30-01-2008 1:18am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Please justify how the second statement, which is the exact opposite of the first is immoral. I would bet that if you showed the two quotes to a group of Christians who didn't know which was authentic I am certain that virtually all would say the second one, about loving your family, is the real quote. Little would they know that Jesus said the complete reverse of this.

I just did a little test, I texted the second quote to a Christian friend of mine who replied that it is a lovely message and how I can give out about Jesus when he says stuff like that. I informed him that Jesus said the exact opposite, he doesn't believe me.

Fanny Cradock · 30-01-2008 1:24am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Ok, I took the one example you used, the question of whether to do good deeds in public or private, and I read the relevant chapters of Matthew, 5 & 6, and my prejudice must really be blinding me because I still can't see how they are mutually compatible. How can Jesus say in Matt 6 to do good deeds so secretly that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing (and yes, I do know he didn't literally mean this), to pray secretly behind closed doors so no-one knows that you are praying, and to let no one know you are fasting, yet in the very chapter before this he explains that a lamp isn't lit just so it can be put under a bucket.

Now I am no theologian but if I were to read Mattew 5 I would interpret it as telling me to set an example to my neighbours, and to do this by intentionally letting them see my good deeds, by being a shining light for others. If I was then to read Matthew 6 I would read this as telling me that how others see me is not important, the only thing I should be worried about is my relationship with God.

A fair enough point - one made all the more credible because you took the effort to research what you are arguing. Now I may be repeating myself here, but there is a marked difference between the verses in question. In short, it the motivation for good deeds that Jesus distinguishes between.

Chapter 5 - the message is to do good deeds, but only as an example towards others as the 'right' thing to do as a Christian. This is illustrated by Jesus using the image of a guiding light or a city on top of a hill.

Chapter 6 - Jesus warns against doing good deeds in the hope of garnering praise. The good deed is only secondary to the main motivation of getting a pat on the back from your peers.

In my mind this is the difference between somebody going about their good deeds in a quiet manner, and another person making a grand display for all to see when they ostentatiously whip out their check book at a charity gig for the endangered Mountain Vole. I'm sure you can think of examples of people you have encountered in your life that would fit into either of these categories.

If you are interested there is a brief expansion on what I've mentioned here

Zombrex · 30-01-2008 12:33pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In my mind this is the difference between somebody going about their good deeds in a quiet manner, and another person making a grand display for all to see when they ostentatiously whip out their check book at a charity gig for the endangered Mountain Vole. I'm sure you can think of examples of people you have encountered in your life that would fit into either of these categories.

The problem is that Jesus specifically says "in secret", rather than quietly or without fanfare.

Matt 6:4
so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

According to Matt 6 no one should see your good deeds, your "acts of righteousness" You are specifically supposed to do them so only God, who sees all, can observe them, no one else. You are also supposed to pray alone in your room so only God can see you.

That directly contradicts

Matt 5:16
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

On the one hand your good deeds are supposed to be hidden from everyone, so only God himself sees them. On the other hand your good deeds are supposed to be inspiration for those around you, a testament to God.

Like it or not that is a contradiction.

Pompey Magnus · 30-01-2008 1:05pm

This could all be cleared up with an example being given of how someone can do deeds which set a good example to their community, but do so secretly. We will ignore the situation where someone makes a big deal about their charity giving, nobody likes people who do that and we can take that as given.

Could we take an example of a person giving money to help famine sufferers. The person can either (a) set up a Direct Debit on the internet to give to the charity or (b) attend a church sponsered fund-raising event and donate there. Which would be the action advocated by Jesus? The first option is done entirely in secret, but is not setting a good example because their community will never know about it, is this not like the lighting of a lamp and putting it under a bucket? The second option seems to me to be the one that fits closest with Jesus' teaching, you won't personally be seen as showing off too much because you are one of many and as a group you set an example, however it isn't secret.

Neither seem to fit perfectly with Jesus' sayings, the second seems to be closest, but saying that it also feels to me to be the wrong option. I myself would prefer to take option (a).

Akrasia · 30-01-2008 2:07pm

J C wrote: »

Ans 1 refers to the wisdom of God and His Word......and Ans 2 & 3 refer to the wisdom of Men!!!:D

Is it not a little dsconserting to you that your god commands people not to pursue wisdom?

stevejazzx · 30-01-2008 2:16pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Depeche_Mode come on!

Have you not learnt by now there are no contradictions in the Bible. What appear to be contradictions are just misinterpretations.

Its very simple. Anything that you find that appears to all the world to be a blantant contradiction just re-interpret it completely different and bang! No contradiction.

And the great thing about this is that because it is interpretation no one can tell you that you are wrong. If they tell you that you are wrong they are also misinterpreting the passage.

Don't forget metaphors...that's the ultimate Chrsitian get out of jail card.

robindch · 30-01-2008 2:28pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Is it not a little dsconserting to you that your god
commands people not to pursue wisdom?

Presumably not, to judge from JC's boisterous observance of this particular commandment...

Zombrex · 30-01-2008 4:02pm

robindch wrote: »

Presumably not, to judge from JC's boisterous observance of this particular commandment...

Zing!

Fanny Cradock · 30-01-2008 9:53pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that Jesus specifically says "in secret", rather than quietly or without fanfare.

Matt 6:4
so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

According to Matt 6 no one should see your good deeds, your "acts of righteousness" You are specifically supposed to do them so only God, who sees all, can observe them, no one else. You are also supposed to pray alone in your room so only God can see you.

That directly contradicts

Matt 5:16
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

On the one hand your good deeds are supposed to be hidden from everyone, so only God himself sees them. On the other hand your good deeds are supposed to be inspiration for those around you, a testament to God.

Like it or not that is a contradiction.

It would be a fair point if both verses equated good deeds only with giving money to those less fortunate or going to the synagogue. This isn't the case, however.

Chapter 6 specifically warns against making a public display when giving out money. Even as a non-Christian I would imagine that you could see the sense in this. After all would you not find it distasteful if somebody was to suddenly volunteer to you how much they donate every month to Goal and Concern? In fact, I believe that it was not unheard of for rich people to arrange for trumpets to be blown before they handed out money. Jesus wasn't speaking figuratively then! Now, one could argue that this was simply a matter of practicality - something to better facilitate their charitable acts. But others, myself included, would argue that their motivation for this exhibitionism was something considerably more selfish. As a parallel I would look towards big corporations and their 'Corporate Giving Departments'. Even though their charity does good work, I don't for one moment believe that this is anything but a PR exercise on their part. Similarly, a warning is given against praying in public to be seen to do it. A warning that is better understood in the context of the time and culture where the synagogue was a hub to the community.

Both examples are used as a warning by Jesus against doing acts of righteousness for a persons own gain. It is not the acts that are questioned, rather the motivation for doing them them and consequently the manner in how they are done.

The opening verse says it all, really.

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them."

I wonder what the significance of the quotation marks are here. Could it be that Jesus was suggesting that these weren't truly righteous acts after all? MAybe someone could answer that for me?

Chapter 5 doesn't mention any specific acts of righteousness. Unlike the later chapter these verses talk about setting a good example for others to see through your actions. By extension this example will be a testament to God's goodness. To borrow form the link I provided - it's for the benefit of those looking in (as much as anyone else).

"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven"

Pompey Magnus · 31-01-2008 12:37am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder what the significance of the quotation marks are here. Could it be that Jesus was suggesting that these weren't truly righteous acts after all? MAybe someone could answer that for me?

I would say that they are of no significance because I don't believe that quotation marks existed in ancient Aramaic or Greek when the original phrase was written down, I would guess that the quotation marks were added much later by translators.

Fanny Cradock · 31-01-2008 1:16am

Possibly. But I would think it highly unlikely that these languages didn't have some punctuation method to distinguish when a person is being directly quoted.

PDN may be able to clear this up.

Zombrex · 31-01-2008 12:02pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Chapter 6 specifically warns against making a public display when giving out money. Even as a non-Christian I would imagine that you could see the sense in this.

I had a feeling you would say that

But if you read the passage carefully you will see that it isn't simply giving of charity that Jesus says should be done in secret.

Matt 6
1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

Jesus then uses the example of giving to the needy to highlight his point

Matt 6
2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

But Matt 6.2 is simply an example of the general instruction found in Matt 6.1, and that instruction includes all good deeds.

Zombrex · 31-01-2008 12:07pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly. But I would think it highly unlikely that these languages didn't have some punctuation method to distinguish when a person is being directly quoted.

PDN may be able to clear this up.

The "acts of righteousness" were Jewish traditions that demonstrated to God that a Jew was righteous. This includes prayer, fasting, giving etc.

Ignoring the skeptics questions of why God would need physical demonstrations of this, in Matt 6 Jesus is saying that these acts are to be shown to God alone, and it is only God's opinion that matters and a true righteous person shouldn't publicly demonstrate these acts.

Which is a good idea.

But of course it runs into trouble with Matt 5, when Jesus says that through good deeds a person should demonstrate to others the glory of God

PDN · 31-01-2008 9:38pm

When Jesus says we are to let our 'good works' shine before men (Matthew 5:16), He is using the common words that apply to everyday acts - kala erga.

However, in Matthew 6:1 the term translated as 'righteous acts' is literally 'the righteousnesses' - dikaiosunen. Jews used this term in a specific sense to refer to almsgiving as religiously mandated actions, therefore some translations translate it as 'alms' while others put 'acts of righteousness' in inverted commas to indicate that it is a technical term. For more on this phrase see http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/isbe/ID/412/Alms-Almsgiving.htm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alms

The point is, I think, that our religious observances should be motivated by love for God and not in order to show people how holy we are. However, our general lifestyle should be such that it will lead those who know us to glorify God, not to bring shame or disgrace to His name. That would certainly be consistent with other teaching elsewhere in the New Testament.

That's my 2 cents worth. Any way, I'm in Moscow at the moment & this Russian keyboard is driving me crazy. So that's enough posting from me for one night.

J C · 31-01-2008 11:46pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Is it not a little dsconserting to you that your god commands people not to pursue wisdom?

Pursuing the Wisdom of God present no problems......it is the pursuit of the vain imaginings of Men......that causes problems for both God and Man!!!!:eek:

Akrasia · 01-02-2008 12:11am

J C wrote: »

Pursuing the Wisdom of God present no problems......it is the pursuit of the vain imaginings of Men......that causes problems for both God and Man!!!!:eek:

vain imaginings of man?

Like astronomy, agriculture, engineering, mathematics, logic?

I can see how logic does cause a problem for god, but didn't 'the baby Jesus' get a visit from 3 'wise men'? Astronomers who were apparently guided by a star?

PDN · 01-02-2008 12:24pm

Akrasia wrote: »

but didn't 'the baby Jesus' get a visit from 3 'wise men'?

He was visited by wise men, but we are not told how many of them there were.

J C · 05-02-2008 11:29pm

Originally Posted by J C
Pursuing the Wisdom of God present no problems......it is the pursuit of the vain imaginings of Men......that causes problems for both God and Man!!!!

Akrasia wrote: »

vain imaginings of man?

Like astronomy, agriculture, engineering, mathematics, logic?

I can see how logic does cause a problem for god, but didn't 'the baby Jesus' get a visit from 3 'wise men'? Astronomers who were apparently guided by a star?

You are confusing the important distinction between wisdom and knowledge.

.......astronomy, agriculture, engineering, mathematics.....are knowledge (which can be discerned by Man)......while true wisdom ONLY comes from God.....

......and ditto for the 'Wise Men'......who saw HIS star in the East .....and came to adore HIM!!!!!:D:)

.....wouldn't it be great, if some of the Evolutionists on this thread followed their 'wise' example and believed on Jesus Christ ....as well!!:D

Pompey Magnus · 06-02-2008 12:48am

J C wrote: »

......and ditto for the 'Wise Men'......who saw HIS star in the East .....and came to adore HIM!!!!!:D:)

.....wouldn't it be great, if some of the Evolutionists on this thread followed their 'wise' example and believed on Jesus Christ ....as well!!:D

Actually the "Wise Men" or Magi were Persian Zoroastrian priests who believed in and followed the teachings of Zarathustra, they certainly didn't believe in Jesus Christ.

PDN · 06-02-2008 8:08am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Actually the "Wise Men" or Magi were Persian Zoroastrian priests who believed in and followed the teachings of Zarathustra, they certainly didn't believe in Jesus Christ.

So they came thousands of miles to see someone they didn't believe existed? Wow! That is impressive.

Pompey Magnus · 06-02-2008 9:44am

PDN wrote: »

So they came thousands of miles to see someone they didn't believe existed? Wow! That is impressive.

I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

PDN · 06-02-2008 11:41am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

You don't believe that Jesus was the reincarnation of Saoshyant, or you don't believe that wise men came to visit a child called Jesus in Bethlehem?

Pompey Magnus · 06-02-2008 12:23pm

I don't believe any of it to be honest, reincarnation, Magi following a star or virgin births. The Nativity makes a nice story but that's about it.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2008 4:39pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

But that is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Pompey Magnus · 06-02-2008 5:07pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But that is unsubstantiated conjecture.

I apologise, how silly of me to bring up unsubstantiated conjecture when discussing how a number of astronomers 2000 years ago followed a star to a small town in Judea to see a child born to a virgin mother

.

J C · 06-02-2008 10:57pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

We all obviously believe that David Koresh once existed......but neither you nor I would believe on Him ......and go half way around the World to see him.....like the Wise Men did with Jesus.

The visit by the Wise Men to Jesus was a pre-cursor of the subsequent availablilty of salvation to all Gentiles.....and indeed it's acceptance by many Gentiles

The Wise Men didn't just believe that Jesus existed......they believed that He WAS the Saviour of the World.......and they were CORRECT!!!!

As Jn 1:11-12 so eloquently put it "He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

Our God can take the idolater and save him.....if he believes on Jesus Christ......like the Wise Men did!!!!

Pompey Magnus · 07-02-2008 12:12am

If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.

PDN · 07-02-2008 11:41am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.

So you believe it was a fabrication, yet you want to argue with a Christian about who fictional characters in a 'fabrication' really were? :rolleyes:

J C · 08-02-2008 12:39am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.

When it comes to the Word of God EVERY word is important.

The account of the visit of the Wise Men to Jesus in Mt 2:1-12 is therefore important .......and true !!!:D:)

Does god give every human embryo a soul?

Comments