tommy2bad wrote: » Tacitly excluded??? I give up. Whats the answer?
Wh1stler wrote: » And are consigned to hell because no man can keep the law of God. i.e., Jews who reject Jesus must go to hell.
But the son is the father is He not? And didn't Jesus Himself say that those who deny Him will be denied by Him? What could that mean?
And to deny that Jesus is the son of God means a trip to eternal damnation. Jews and Muslims are going to hell according to Jesus.
Wh1stler wrote: » So when Jesus said, 'no-one comes to my father but through me' He meant, 'no-one comes to my father but through me, except everyone who does'?
He went even further, even calling Jesus 'Lord!' (having faith) is not enough. 'The gate is narrow' and all that.
Also, according to Jesus' words, if you deny Him, He will deny you.
Where did the ambiguity of Jesus' words come from?
And when Jesus instructed that the gospel be taken to all nations, which nations were tacitly exempted?
According to the words of Jesus, if you don't recognise Him as God, or the son of God, then you go to hell.
Wh1stler wrote: » You should have let Jesus finish. He goes on to say: 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-24053d"][COLOR=#0000ff]d[/COLOR][/URL saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” So almost everyone is going to hell since almost everyone will be on the left hand.
Faith in Jesus is not enough but according to Jesus it is absolutely necessary for salvation.
Wh1stler wrote: » I see, Paul should be heard over Jesus.
Abraham and Mary must feel awfully lonely.
Wh1stler wrote: » According to the Pope, Israel!
Zombrex wrote: » This forum (repeatably) demonstrates that ain't the case. You do not say that cannot be God, if you did you would be an atheist by now. Instead you either find convoluted and illogical reasons why it still is God, or simply throw your hands up and say you don't know why but it is.
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.
Christian faith is no more reason based than Muslim faith. Simply declaring that your god is follows reason and theirs doesn't is pointless posturing.
In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "λογικη λατρεία", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1)
Where to start. Oh yes, how about the thing we were just discussing, the conflict between the idea that God does not wish us to suffer yet created us to suffer if he was not present, something he knew would affect a great deal of humans.
Therefore the statement "God does not wish us to suffer" and "God is omnipotent and created humans" cannot both be true while retaining reason. As far as I can see, and so far you have provide nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
I think many a Christian theologist has claimed God created humans.
You are not claiming that Christian theology is based on reason (its not but that is a different matter),
you are claiming God himself is reasonable. You have nothing to support that other than your own assertion, which is in itself circular since you simply define reason not as we judge it but by what God decided anyway.
ISAW wrote: » I think you are a bit misinformed. 1. Your interpretation of the Bible above is a fundamentalist one and is more suitred to the koran for reasons given earlier e.g. islam believed the Koran was dictated by god and corrections made to ensure the Kàoran was perfect.
ISAW wrote: » 2. the bible isnt a core it is only a book. It reflects part of a "core" for mainstream christianity ther is also the Magisterium , apostolic succession, and oral tradition. One could say for example the anglicans move more to the Word Romans to the Body and Orthodox to the Spirit. And that is leaving out the emphasis of the centre of the church in terms of pôwer knowledge and numbers for 1000 years -Asia (who had the same but a smaller edited versin of the bible) and the African church.
ISAW wrote: » the act of believing?
ISAW wrote: » In the sence of salvation through faith as distinct from faith and good works. The issue here is not that christians think good works by non christians or by christians are not necessary. the point is that they view pride as a sin and saying you dont need god and you can save yourself is pride and running away from god. that is why faith becomes essential. And christianity would agree with you on that. People can have some of the message and all people can be saved.
ISAW wrote: » An alcoholic who says "i am not an alcoholic and can cure myself of addiction to alcohol" is only fooling themselves. similarly for sin; If you reject god then you cant absolve yourself and declare you are with God or on gods side. You especially cant say it if you dont believe god exists. thats the theology as i view it anyway.
ISAW wrote: » Yes and christian theology accepts exactly what you say here. There isnt an argument about that.
ISAW wrote: » not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature
ISAW wrote: » i pointed out all this to you before and as usual you resorted to shallow satirical comments you were even aware of the link between logos and christian philosophy
ISAW wrote: » That was you invention! you want to believe it but no christian theology supports it.
ISAW wrote: » Guess what? The tide came in.
ISAW wrote: » But your argument is that creation itself means that they are crated to suffer. the point is they are created with a potential to chose to suffer. they dont have to do that . and it is quite clear if one removes the ability for people to suffer then the coiise does not exist. simple.
ISAW wrote: » It is and it is not a different matter! You have been shown the basis for it.
ISAW wrote: » It is the Logos of the greeks. If you think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.
lmaopml wrote: » It seems that there is a claim being made that God is 'unjust' in creating humans and allowing free will and knowledge of good and evil to exist?
lmaopml wrote: » Or what exactly is 'unjust' about the concept that one chooses their own destiny?
lmaopml wrote: » 1 + 1 = 2 is very fine indeed - but numbers spread backwards and forwards into infinity-we know this; do we 'understand' it? Numerical logic is lovely - I'd go so far as to say 'beautiful' - A Christian doesn't claim to know precisely 'who' in their heart is incompatible with being in God's presense, who is 'Holy' - they don't claim that judgement - but it seems the arguement here is that they 'should' know ALL things - which quite frankly is ridiculous and an assumption of the highest order...
lmaopml wrote: » The question isn't so much about what 'Christians' believe about God, and how they describe God - which in fact we don't claim to even be able to come near describing other than saying what he is not.
lmaopml wrote: » It seems you are saying, no that's not just? So on what basis do you make that claim?
lmaopml wrote: » Without God Zombrex there wouldn't be any Atheists -
lmaopml wrote: » I think you are quite entitled to see this world how you see fit. I just don't think you describe it quite to my satisfaction; I'm sorry, but you don't.
Zombrex wrote: » Without God there wouldn't be anything I would have thought (if we assume that he exists, which your statement seems to).
Ok... Going slightly off topic, but can you describe what would satisfy you (eg scientific evidence?) What are you standards for assessing descriptions about the world around us?
lmaopml wrote: » Well, with respect, I am not satisfied entirely by 'scientific evidence' as the means to describe human persons in totality and their inherent value that we seem to often fight over- I don't think it even 'should' do this. I am perfectly happy to love science for what it is, a means to better understanding, and a reaching out of the human mind to establish just how fascinating and exciting learning about reality is, especially when science is by it's very nature self correcting and certainly not about facts, but about debunking the old to bring in the new.... I don't believe that science has a 'creed' - I don't think it does either, do you?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Abraham and Moses never encountered Christianity, right? So what does Christianity say about them? I'm sorry but you seem misunderstood me. I didn't say, nor did I suggest, that you should not post here. I also did not say, nor did I suggest, that atheists, by the simple fact that they reject the existence of God (lack belief in the existence of God or whatever), are unwelcome to post on a forum I visit occasionally. What are you suggesting the consequences of my belief are? That potentially Hitler could go to heaven and others that we think of as better individuals wont? If that is what you are saying then, yes, I accept that this is a possibility. I also think it unlikely that he was in any way repentant. But that is really besides my point. Is it not? Again, the notion that God is interested in talking out the cosmic weighing scales to see if you are more good than bad is not something supported by classical theology. What Christianity teaches is that each and every one of us has already failed the standard and that is why we need salvation. Mary Poplin shares the content of a dream she had (and she says that this was more than a dream) that is very pertinent to what I've said above. (About 12 minutes in.) You don't have to believe a word of to understand what she is getting at. Let me be clear. What I have never claimed is that I have special knowledge about either the deepest thoughts of individuals or the result of God's judgement - who is saved and who is lost. I'm not a mind reader (of either man or God) and I can't know the result of a judgement that hasn't yet happened. In fact, I readily admitted that I don't have access to such knowledge. So I am therefore unsure what your point is.
lmaopml wrote: » No that's wrong; you are very misinformed methinks. The Jewish people are Gods chosen people. The law of Moses predates the incarnation and New Covenant. Jews who reject Christ still operate under the Old Covenant. Well, one would want to know him first woudn't one? It means what it says. Jesus certainly did not say that 'Jews and Muslims' are going to Hell - He was far more eloquent. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the light. Well everybody that does, er 'does', yes. He wouldn't have said this if it wasn't so- The Gate is narrow and the path is hard that walks in the light. There are people who claim to be Christian but (you may know some) don't live in the light of Christ. These are the people that cry out 'Lord, Lord..' - when they never knew him. Correct. You deny truth, love, justice, mercy, peace - even though you have been offered it, instead choose to hate Christ. So, correct. There is no ambiguity. You pick and choose pieces of Scripture and try to understand the Love of Christ, and it's like picking and choosing a couple of photos and telling a persons life story - can't do it. Absolutley none. Christians are given the task of spreading the Gospel to all nations. Oh, simplicity. No. You don't know that, you are not God. In fact there are very many people who love God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind, and their neighbour as themselves. There are good people. Yes faith is necessary for salvation, faith in God and a sincere heart that seeks him out and loves their neighbour too. Rubbish. More rubbish. Absolute steaming pile of rubbish. Wistler, you don't know a thing about Christianity, just some sarky comments you picked up from God knows where all strung together into some incoherent muddle that no more describes the Christian God or what Christianity is; God who is all knowledge, all wisdom, all powerful, all mercy and all justice. You want to know who is 'saved' and isn't and claim to already.....More rubbish.
lmaopml wrote: » Correct. You deny truth, love, justice, mercy, peace - even though you have been offered it, instead choose to hate Christ. So, correct.
lmaopml wrote: » I submit to the concept that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'evil', a real 'right' and 'wrong', something I barely grasp, but acknowlede is true - that there is such a thing as 'truth' moreso than 'facts', facts only lend themselves to it - speaking from personal perception of the world and my own understanding, I couldn't but describe my own personal behaviour in any other way.
lmaopml wrote: » Chesterton once wrote.The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do not fit in to the world. I tried to be happy telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought it's meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse, and better than all things. The optimist's pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christians pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything......
marienbad wrote: » At this rate Heaven would appear to be more exclusive than the Groucho Club:)
Andrewf20 wrote: » Some people consider the bible as the word of God, an objective (and fundamentalist on certain things it seems) source of morality and a book that no man could possibly write without divine inspiration. As the main reference for Christians world wide, its interesting for me to examine the detail in the bible closely considering how big the claims are. For sure, I am not an expert on the Koran, but I was using it as an example - it could be any religon not related to the stories and teaching of Christ.
The magisterium and the apostolic succession from what Ive read on Wiki, would they not use the bible as their reference for their religion? After growing up in a Christian background for decades, Christian teachings always seems come back to the bible.
You say faith is essential, yet Philogos would say other wise it seems from a post a while back.
I dont understand the pride bit. I for example may be internally proud I worked hard in college and did well etc, but I dont see why this is an issue. It seems to be me to be a natural internal emotion, I cant see how this is a sin. Boasting about it, well fair enough, you wont be popular for long.
Alot of people keep their non belief to themselves unless asked about it.
I have yet to hear an answer to my question, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?
I think al ot of people feel they dont need to believe in a deity to live good lives.
So what do you believe is their faith after they die?
Zombrex wrote: » ... is a baseless and meaningless statement, just Christian chest pumping. God, as described by Christianity, acts no more reasonable than any other religion's god.
I'm well aware of the claim ISAW. You seem to be ignoring that the claim has no substance. Anyone can claim anything, doesn't make it true, even if it is a Pope making the claim.
Can you point out specifically what no Christian theology teaches, given that Christian theology teaches God does not want us to suffer and that God made humans.
What would stop God from adding "Choosing to be in my absence" to the set of things that we can choose to do but that do not cause us to suffer?
You seem to genuinely not understand the difference between demonstrating something and merely claim it.
It is utterly absent from Christian theology. Simply claiming otherwise is not demonstrating otherwise. Right now we are discussing a conclusion of Christian theology that demonstrates the illogical nature of its under pinnings.
A feature of reason and logic is that claims must be justifiable based on the axioms of the system. 1+1=2 can be said to be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics. 1+1=3 isn't.
Based on the axioms of the system it is an irrational claim. You can change the axioms of the system in order to make it logical based on the new axioms, but that doesn't mean it is logical based on the original ones.
This is where theology falls utterly utterly appart, since because it is a religion there is an under riding assumption that both the axioms and the claims must be true, even if the later claims cannot actually be supported by appeals back to the initial axioms.
The case we are discussing now is a clear example. The theological claim of the existence of hell cannot be supported by the axioms "God does not want us to suffer" and "God made humans". It is in conflict, as much as 1+1=3 cannot be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics.
Simply proclaiming that it is all reasonable has nothing to do with demonstrating it is reasonable. And if you could have demonstrated the concept of hell is reasonable based on the axioms of Christianity you would have done so pages ago.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Are you asking or are you telling? Because when you sign off with lines like this I don't see the point in responding. You back to asking if I still beat my wife.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW has already answered that some don't go to hell , he has yet to say where they go.
ISAW wrote: » i think that i have outlined that Hell is a state of mind rather than a physical place. It was an atheist who said "Hell is other people"
deano86 wrote: » www.jesusneverexisted.com Everything is there to prove Christianity is all one big scam.
marienbad wrote: » Firstly ISAW I did'nt claim it , others did , I joined in an ongoing conversation,
1-And to come back to the rape issue - that is my reading of the bible - yes, and I am prepared to stand over it
Secondly I did'nt re-state it, you did. But all that is of no matter , I just mention it in the interests of accuraccy.
My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.
You have this habit of when a conversation runs its course of assuming that you have won the day- not so, There is usually nothing more to be said on the issue on either side and people move on .
You are correct though that I do believe the bible consents to rape .Now if that was rape by ancient or modern standards ( as raised by Morbert)is a good question that it might be interesting to pursue.
I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.
But for now I read the bible and I come to one conclusion and you come to a different conclusion. That has been the way since time immemorial.
For instance you say all those heathens don't go to hell, philologos is'nt sure and retreats befind the ''mysterious ways'' defence.And fundamentalist christians chuck them into hell in the blink of an eye. All from reading the one book ! Get over it ISAW yours is obviously not the only interpretation.
This is a bit like the assertion that Shakespeare was a catholic, I believe so, the evidence is in the plays and in his life, circumstantial though it is says so. But I have seen the most reasonable of men foam at the mouth at that assertion. A bit like this rape issue- it all comes down to one reading over another.
tommy2bad wrote: » Good you have an open mind though, just dont keep it so open your brain falls out
himnextdoor wrote: » It is the same reasoning that led to the Nurenburg trials too.
