On morality
-
Part II
i am actually pretty disappted in your nonchalent response to pagansim in christianity.have u considered that nth in the bible truth,the way that God should be worshipped is totally different in all paganistic way in esscene?
Innocent!! I’m against paganism and if u read properly, I was emphatically stating a point, NOT supporting paganism in Christianity. Just because the Trinity doctrine resembles a pagan belief doesn’t allow a believer to reject it completely. Many other beliefs within Christianity have been alleged to have been derived from pagan doctrines as well (e.g. Horus parallels with Jesus). Should we disbelieve Jesus Christ then?
In fact, I’m so against heretics that I believe that God would not allow ungodly doctrines (as u alleged, Trinitarianism) to thrive for millennia while allowing the supposed Arian “truth” to remain suppressed, only for the JWs to revive it in recent centuries. Here, I would caution against the threat of false teachings nearing the end times WITHIN God’s flock ( Jude, Timothy).
At this point, you might be tempted to cite Jesus as an example and allege that He was misunderstood for His time as well. But pls remember that within 3 years, in the face of secular and religious politics, Jesus’ teachings proved its mettle and it has spread throughout the world since then by the works of the apostles. Arianism has been around for ages, if it is a true doctrine, it would have been recognized by now.i was looking into God's word the bible and dicern that church teachings actualy differ greatly from scriptural truth.hence my standpoint. i m not rejecting churches because they kinda resemble pagans, but because they defiled God's word.think idols,intercessor besides jesus,rosaries beads.are these not banned in bible truth??are these also not the common items found in churches??see my point?
I’ll leave this to the RCC members to clarify.
perharps u can enlighten me in the diff of trinitism and triwateverthatwastism.looks pretty much the same to me actually..3 gods merged into 1 and addressed as a singular being..3 distinct features yet one godhead..would thank you in advance..For example, Hinduism (properly understood, it’s not “triune” as u claim it to be)
“The trinity is interpreted in various forms in Hindu philosophy. A widely accepted belief is that it represents earth, water, and fire. The earth, or Brahma, is seen as the originator of all life and hence is regarded as the Creator. Water is the sustainer of life and hence is the Preserver and is represented as Vishnu. Fire destructs life and hence is the Destroyer and is represented as Shiva”
and
“Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that KÄ�lidÄ�sa's hymn to the TrimÅ«rti is really addressed to BrahmÄ�, here looked on as the high god. The TrimÅ«rti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence”
I don’t want to sound repetitive. Refer to above.im glad at least we agree on worship part.. and u just answered your own qns.when satan asked jesus to worship satan,definitely satan meant the type of worship,be it the outside or heart condition that is to be rendered to God.but, we are after all discussing a rather diff situation here.of those that "worshipped" jesus, jesus did not asked for it like satan. and the people that "worship" jesus knew if jesus was man or God.if they know him to be God, why wasnt there any temple built in jesus' name with jesus's statues inside like mordern churches right after jesus died??instead,it took about 4-5 hundred years later that such buildings were built?
Because the apostles (in Acts) who understood what Jesus (post-resurrection) taught and his mission also understood John 4:21-24 and as John Piper understood it, “The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore Christianity has not geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem.”
Modern churches … well, u know the rest of the story.
And it’s weird, but I think you’ve just indicated your support for the use of “idols” and “statues” in churches – are there statues of God in the church you worship at?to narrow it down,look at luke 17:15-18. the healed samaritian came back praising God (entity 1) in a loud voice 1st. then he threw himself down(ouch) at jesus'(entity 2) feet. and thank him. it is perfectly in harmony with jesus teaching to praise and worship God(entity 1).the samaritian fell at jesus' feet was clearly a profused thanking to a great person.
Think you’ve read too much into these verses and my point.
The healed leper merely “glorified” (KJV) God but no mention of worship. Plus the modern understanding of “praise and worship” as we would understand it now is different from those days.
The point I wanted to make was not to merge the 2 “entities” (as you call it), but to affirm the fact that Jesus was worshipped in this situation. As you said in your earlier post, it’s the “action and heart” that determines the worship. And in these verses, among others, it can easily be seen that the ex-leper fell at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. Can you still argue against the fact that this constituted worship? And if Jesus was worshipped, what does that make Jesus then?later in verse 18, jesus asked if there isnt any other(the 9 lepers) coming back to praise God except the samaritian.now if jesus is God,would he have said is there none other who would come back and praise me????notice always jesus does not claim any credit for the good works he done but always attribute them to the rightful one to be praised,that is Jehovah God.in fact when people say jesus is good, he rebuked them saying no1 is good but the father.if jesus is God, does he not rightly deserve such praises and does he need to direct the praises to some1 else???or maybe its just some mystical trinitarian behaviour being exhibited?
Nah, it’s not some mysterious Trinitarian behaviour, but the attitude of UTMOST humility (aka subordination of Christ) expressed in Phil 2:6-9my question is, who will want us not to know about God despite even God's own son came down and clarify the true identity of God.
Not quite sure what ur asking.
Another thing I would like u to consider is this: if Jesus is a creature, means there was a time when he didn’t exist. We know God is love (1 John). What i want to know is: can love express itself without a subject and a context? If the non-trinitarian God was all alone at one point in time (technically not the right term but heck), no angels, no Jesus Christ, no Holy Spirit… how did that aspect of love demonstrate itself without a receiver?
Also, in the non-trin worldview, if the non-trin God really loved the world so much, why did He not come to save the world personally, but sent another His son on his behalf? Isn’t that cowardly and selfish? -
To all,
I'm very sorry for posting such long replies. But i was trying to make it as neat as possible.
-
is God needed to impose upon men a so-called morality?
so does it mean that people will go around killing, raping and plundering if they knew that there is no God looking over them, watching their every moves?
and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
i.e. the Christian americans against the muslim arabs. The buddhist monks bloody riots in Myanmar, Hindu Tamil separatist civil war in Sri Lanka. Bosian War, with its ethnic genocides by Christians and Muslim in former Yugoslavia. not to mention the world wars,fought mainly by the christian European countries. the atomic bomb drop by the Americans, (on whose dollar notes ironically said "in God we trust"...)
most recently, the attack on Georgia by Russia.
All this already violated the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", and the other seemingly righteous moralities which does not seem to be closely observed by the practicers of the respective faith.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
is God needed to impose upon men a so-called morality?
so does it mean that people will go around killing, raping and plundering if they knew that there is no God looking over them, watching their every moves?
and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
i.e. the Christian americans against the muslim arabs. The buddhist monks bloody riots in Myanmar, Hindu Tamil separatist civil war in Sri Lanka. Bosian War, with its ethnic genocides by Christians and Muslim in former Yugoslavia. not to mention the world wars,fought mainly by the christian European countries. the atomic bomb drop by the Americans, (on whose dollar notes ironically said "in God we trust"...)
most recently, the attack on Georgia by Russia.
All this already violated the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", and the other seemingly righteous moralities which does not seem to be closely observed by the practicers of the respective faith.
The 6th commandment is "thou shall not murder". Some killings were sanctioned by God. Otherwise, the Jews would and Christians would have ceased to exist.
Atheists Mao Tse Tong, Hitler and Stalin murdered more people.
Atheism is a fanatical religion which lead to deaths of 85-110 Million in one century alone.
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
i thank u profusely for your commendations too..as a matter of fact,i do agree with the protestant point of view that the source of truth is the bible,y else give us tat if it aint gonna be useful right?
the authority in qn will be the organization that will adhere strictly to the bible n no i dont mean stoning adulterers in this time a age.u made ur choice with the RCC despite the differences in diff RCC n i commend u in ur faith. and i do hope that u too place more trust in the bible den in humans.
Is the bible really the sole source of truth ? Why give us the bible if it aint gonna be useful ?
The bible is indeed useful, but only if it comes with an Authority to interpret and teach it. By itself, its usefulness is limited. Don't take my word for it; the bible itself says that the pillar and foundation of truth is (surprise, surprise) ... the church ! (1Tim 3:15) Ironically, the idea that one can learn the truth from one own's reading and interpretation of the bible is not supported by the bible.
You advise that I place more trust in the bible than in humans. Sounds great but if you step back and think about it, placing one's trust in the bible means placing one's trust in men! How can this be ?
Consider the following: How do we know what should be included in the bible ? How do we know that the bible has 73 books (or 66 in your case), not one book more or one book less ? Did God give us a contents page for the bible ?
No he did not. It was men, in the form of the church who decided the contents of the Christian bible in the 4th century. But don't worry, Christians (or Catholics at least) believe that God guided their decisions.
Originally posted by domonkassyu:i was looking into God's word the bible and dicern that church teachings actualy differ greatly from scriptural truth.hence my standpoint. i m not rejecting churches because they kinda resemble pagans, but because they defiled God's word.think idols,intercessor besides jesus,rosaries beads.are these not banned in bible truth??are these also not the common items found in churches??see my point?
Nope, church teachings (at least that of the Catholic Church) do not contradict scriptural truth; they do however differ from your interpretation of the bible.
Originally posted by domonkassyu:as for u going to heaven..do hope that in a later part of your life, u will be marked as the 144000 "lucky" ones.otherwise i'll see u in paradise earth if we can get it..
Thanks for the well wishes but the book of Revelations should not be read literally to mean that only 144,000 persons would go to heaven. But if you want to read it literally (which you should not), I would not be one of the 144,000. Why? Because the 144,000 have to be Jewish male virgins (Rev 7:14 & 14:3-4), which I'm not. St.Peter (he was married) and Mother Mary (not a male) would also not qualify.And a final point to add about paganism and Christianity: if pagans wore pants, does that mean that Christians should avoid wearing pants at all cost ? There is always the possibility that pagan religions have some minute elements of truth in them (which have unfortuntely been severely distorted), hence the vague similarities. We will never know for sure but the possibility is there.
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
hi domon
The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a "pie" cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, “the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God.” The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into "parts."
Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.”.That’s exactly what I’m saying. Jesus is not God the Father but He is God the Son. Titus 2:13 and Phil 2:6. Refer to above
The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.
The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally—the Father regards Himself as “I,” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Son and the Holy Spirit as “You.”
Refer to above.pretty well explained in terms of trinity..i applaud u for it.so thus the perfect explanation for a person asking how can father be God, son be God,HS be God yet not 3 but 1 God is that God is too profound to be understood by humans?if this were the true case, only mordern humans understood it n not the faithful of old?
as catholic scholars karl rahner n herbert vorgrimler says in their theological dictionary, trinity is a mystery in the strict sense which cannot be known without rev, and even after rev,cannot be wholly intelligible. if trinity is such confusing mystery den the divine rev of God 1Cor will be bull..God is not a God of confusion. it is so complex that hebrew, greek, latin scholars cannot fully understand. n God wants people to have a r/s with him, how to have a good r/s if you do not fully undertsnad the person? do people have to be theologians to know the only True God and of jesus whom he sent??if so, why did so lil jewish pharisees recognize jesus for who he is?instead, humble fishermen,farmers,tax collectors and housewives know God and jesus far more den the pharisees.even willing to die for it. lastly, dont forget none has ever seen God yet live.how many saw jesus??thousands...
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
Part II
Innocent!! I’m against paganism and if u read properly, I was emphatically stating a point, NOT supporting paganism in Christianity. Just because the Trinity doctrine resembles a pagan belief doesn’t allow a believer to reject it completely. Many other beliefs within Christianity have been alleged to have been derived from pagan doctrines as well (e.g. Horus parallels with Jesus). Should we disbelieve Jesus Christ then?
In fact, I’m so against heretics that I believe that God would not allow ungodly doctrines (as u alleged, Trinitarianism) to thrive for millennia while allowing the supposed Arian “truth” to remain suppressed, only for the JWs to revive it in recent centuries. Here, I would caution against the threat of false teachings nearing the end times WITHIN God’s flock ( Jude, Timothy).
At this point, you might be tempted to cite Jesus as an example and allege that He was misunderstood for His time as well. But pls remember that within 3 years, in the face of secular and religious politics, Jesus’ teachings proved its mettle and it has spread throughout the world since then by the works of the apostles. Arianism has been around for ages, if it is a true doctrine, it would have been recognized by now.
I’ll leave this to the RCC members to clarify.For example, Hinduism (properly understood, it’s not “triune” as u claim it to be)
“The trinity is interpreted in various forms in Hindu philosophy. A widely accepted belief is that it represents earth, water, and fire. The earth, or Brahma, is seen as the originator of all life and hence is regarded as the Creator. Water is the sustainer of life and hence is the Preserver and is represented as Vishnu. Fire destructs life and hence is the Destroyer and is represented as Shiva”
and
“Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that KÄ�lidÄ�sa's hymn to the TrimÅ«rti is really addressed to BrahmÄ�, here looked on as the high god. The TrimÅ«rti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence”
I don’t want to sound repetitive. Refer to above.
Because the apostles (in Acts) who understood what Jesus (post-resurrection) taught and his mission also understood John 4:21-24 and as John Piper understood it, “The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore Christianity has not geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem.”
Modern churches … well, u know the rest of the story.
And it’s weird, but I think you’ve just indicated your support for the use of “idols” and “statues” in churches – are there statues of God in the church you worship at?
Think you’ve read too much into these verses and my point.
The healed leper merely “glorified” (KJV) God but no mention of worship. Plus the modern understanding of “praise and worship” as we would understand it now is different from those days.
The point I wanted to make was not to merge the 2 “entities” (as you call it), but to affirm the fact that Jesus was worshipped in this situation. As you said in your earlier post, it’s the “action and heart” that determines the worship. And in these verses, among others, it can easily be seen that the ex-leper fell at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. Can you still argue against the fact that this constituted worship? And if Jesus was worshipped, what does that make Jesus then?
Nah, it’s not some mysterious Trinitarian behaviour, but the attitude of UTMOST humility (aka subordination of Christ) expressed in Phil 2:6-9
Not quite sure what ur asking.
Another thing I would like u to consider is this: if Jesus is a creature, means there was a time when he didn’t exist. We know God is love (1 John). What i want to know is: can love express itself without a subject and a context? If the non-trinitarian God was all alone at one point in time (technically not the right term but heck), no angels, no Jesus Christ, no Holy Spirit… how did that aspect of love demonstrate itself without a receiver?
Also, in the non-trin worldview, if the non-trin God really loved the world so much, why did He not come to save the world personally, but sent another His son on his behalf? Isn’t that cowardly and selfish?the part about paganism is that as a true christian, one should look out for any signs of paganism that was absorbed and being taught.eg idols, rosaries. when i said i was disappted,it was to mean that it had appeared to me that u didnt really cared..maybe it was jus a miscomm.
as for ur hatred of heretics, did God also not allowed humans and satant ample time to try out all forms of goverment possible?did God put a complete stop yet so far?indeed,false teaching within God's flcok is a danger..those of JW will say its the church and vice versa.in fact only God can clarify when the end comes.
the arianism or sth, i dont actually know about it..but since u mentioned JWs reviving it..last i heard was that there were ard 7 mil worldwide baptised persons in JW..n the JW was mainly suppressed not because of its scriptural teachng but bczu of their refusal to take sides in countries.local LSL had even said that they are the most disciplined and wall mannered denominations of christians if not for their choice against serving NS..(i got tis info during my pns days).it appears they are recognized by governments jus not that popular with them.
perharps the easy way to explain trinity is to use hinduism. to hindus, there is but one God.the different deities are but an aspect of God so people can relate easily to the aspect they choose.so likewise in trinity christiandom,we know father is the true God and only true jesus the God can we ever stand b4 God the father and he will fill us with HS the God.
the idols part i dun get it??i have no affilatations with any church as of now.no place to worship.no idols to worship..av idols counted??
if you are able to provide me a huge amout of money now, i too will fall at your feet,kissing them even and thank u..does that considered as me worshipping u?also just b4 i fall at your feet(hope u wash them =p) i gave a loud praise to God actually to glorify his name for sending me a person that gives me money.
we also know God is self existent.so if God is trinity,he the father love son n hs, yet they are actually himself.does it not make him jus another selfish person that love himself?but when jesus is a creature,it will be in harmony of your love expressing in context n subject. meaning, God is moved to wanna share the joy of being alive.since only he exist,the only way to share was to create.thus came jesus and everything else was through him and for him.tats y jesus is also called the only be gotten son.
last paragrapgh..let the scripture answer u in that God has no beginning nor end.also, humans' death was caused by 1 perfect created human.in absoulute justice, wat should be on the other end of the scale??an uncreated almighty God will be an over kill..however, a creature being born as a perfect human would even the scale wouldnt it?
thus in sending his only begotten son to save dust,we see the demostration of utmost selflessness.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
is God needed to impose upon men a so-called morality?
so does it mean that people will go around killing, raping and plundering if they knew that there is no God looking over them, watching their every moves?
and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
i.e. the Christian americans against the muslim arabs. The buddhist monks bloody riots in Myanmar, Hindu Tamil separatist civil war in Sri Lanka. Bosian War, with its ethnic genocides by Christians and Muslim in former Yugoslavia. not to mention the world wars,fought mainly by the christian European countries. the atomic bomb drop by the Americans, (on whose dollar notes ironically said "in God we trust"...)
most recently, the attack on Georgia by Russia.
All this already violated the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", and the other seemingly righteous moralities which does not seem to be closely observed by the practicers of the respective faith.
think back on noah if your know the story.God has allowed humans to run free then, only to know that every inclination of man was bad.
the few faiths u cited,are they worshipping the true God?there is but 1 true God yet so many lousy imitations.indeed the incidents u cited are against God's moral standard. and the emotions you feel regarding this is just.but let not this make u curse God for there is no trace of unrighteousness in God.
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
Is the bible really the sole source of truth ? Why give us the bible if it aint gonna be useful ?
The bible is indeed useful, but only if it comes with an Authority to interpret and teach it. By itself, its usefulness is limited. Don't take my word for it; the bible itself says that the pillar and foundation of truth is (surprise, surprise) ... the church ! (1Tim 3:15) Ironically, the idea that one can learn the truth from one own's reading and interpretation of the bible is not supported by the bible.
You advise that I place more trust in the bible than in humans. Sounds great but if you step back and think about it, placing one's trust in the bible means placing one's trust in men! How can this be ?
Consider the following: How do we know what should be included in the bible ? How do we know that the bible has 73 books (or 66 in your case), not one book more or one book less ? Did God give us a contents page for the bible ?
No he did not. It was men, in the form of the church who decided the contents of the Christian bible in the 4th century. But don't worry, Christians (or Catholics at least) believe that God guided their decisions.
Nope, church teachings (at least that of the Catholic Church) do not contradict scriptural truth; they do however differ from your interpretation of the bible.
Thanks for the well wishes but the book of Revelations should not be read literally to mean that only 144,000 persons would go to heaven. But if you want to read it literally (which you should not), I would not be one of the 144,000. Why? Because the 144,000 have to be Jewish male virgins (Rev 7:14 & 14:3-4), which I'm not. St.Peter (he was married) and Mother Mary (not a male) would also not qualify.And a final point to add about paganism and Christianity: if pagans wore pants, does that mean that Christians should avoid wearing pants at all cost ? There is always the possibility that pagan religions have some minute elements of truth in them (which have unfortuntely been severely distorted), hence the vague similarities. We will never know for sure but the possibility is there.
yes,the bible is the sole source of truth is it not??since jesus passing back then and so his disciples.next best thing we got is bible aint it?
by itself, the usefulness is limited only becuz of our own inderstanding.and i agree with 1tim.also agreed is that we should not only read the bible on our own and pray for understanding.but nor do i agree with places of worship that is based on traditions rather den truth like wat jesus himself said.
i dont understand how can placing faith in wat is written equates to placing faith in humans?know that though written by humans, the author is God.though some translation are not that wonderful,the esscence remains the same.
yes indeed it was men that decided what to include but like it was written, all scriptural are beneficial and good for teaching ya?
den at least the RCC would like to answer y they use rosaries,multiple intercessor,easter,xmas,confessional to a human,mary was virgin n sinless just to name a few..
is 144000 merely symbolic??the answer is indicated by the fact that after mentioning of 144k, rev 7:9 refers to a great crowd which no man can number.if 144k is not literal,doesnt it then lack meaning to the great crowd?viewing it as literal will agree with jesus' statement at Matt22:14 regarding the kingdom of heavens.many invited,but few chosen.
last paragrapgh..pagans does have a certain truth in them and like u said, twisted. satan might even be considered to be the top few most powerful and wonderful creation of God.he had the truth in him, yet he did not stand fast in the truth.the whole pagan thing started with him too.anything that steer humans from true worship of God is a treasure of satan.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
The 6th commandment is "thou shall not murder". Some killings were sanctioned by God. Otherwise, the Jews would and Christians would have ceased to exist.
Atheists Mao Tse Tong, Hitler and Stalin murdered more people.
Atheism is a fanatical religion which lead to deaths of 85-110 Million in one century alone.
please quote your facts with supporting evidence.Mao, hitler and stalin may be atheists, but is it because of their persecution on religion that "85-110 millions" were killed? I seem to recall that most of the deaths were cause more by the failure of their socio-economic policies.
Hitler may have banned worship in non-state and non-catholic churches, but he did not persecute any other religions other than Judaism (which is debatable, as the issue seems to be against Jews more than the religion, even though the 2 are intertwine.)
the 12 crusades had devastated the entire middle eastern region for centuries. who sanctioned the murder? the clergy themselves.
the crusader campaigns seem to be more motivated by greed then faith themselves. The crusaders fought, to pillage the Holy Land of its riches, more than fighting for faith. Near the end of the Christians' hold on the Holy Land, the Christian factions were fragmented by disunity, with each squabbling over their self-interests, as oppose to resisting arab attacks.
it is because of these unnecessary aggression that sowed the seeds of permanent enemity between the many faiths of the region. i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
to talk about mass killing.
the USA killed 70,000 ordinary civilians, many of them children and women, using a single atomic bomb on Hiroshima in WWII.
80,000 civilians killed using a single atomic bomb in Nagasaki.
also, if the japanese did not surrender, they were prepared to continue dropping atomic bombs. god knows how many people will be killed if that happens.
From Wikipedia
"The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[54] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18.""
in the first crusades: (and that's just the first of the 12)
Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem.[28] Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Jews in their synagogue by the Western wall, the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be an exaggerated account of the massacre which subsequently took place there, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."[29] Other accounts of blood flowing up to the bridles of horses are reminiscent of a passage from the Book of Revelation (14:20). Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".[30]
also, not to mention the many subsequent regional wars fought in Europe, among the rulers of Christiandom (Europe was called that during the middle ages and the dark ages). Christian rulers were also killing other Christian rulers. and i thought that they weren't allowed to kill fellow Christians?
and to note, atheism is not a religion.
refer to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php (its an atheist forum, where they the concept of atheism is discussed)
to summarise the contents of the website, atheism is just the opposite of a "fanatical religion". it is in fact, a "non-religion". that means that atheists has simply rejected the idea that there is a God out there. to them, preachers of any religion are the real fanatics out there.
and please respect the opinions of others. why label atheists as fanatics, when religious believers are the ones who have commited heinuous sins, engaging in fanatical activities?
i.e. Middle Eastern terrorism, Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorism activities (the Irish are devoted catholics, or so they say).
Even the seemingly peaceful Thai and Burmese monks had went out onto the streets and engage in bloody confrontations.
so far, i had not seen any atheist (fanatical or non-fanatical), commits any of that.
Thai
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
Is the bible really the sole source of truth ? Why give us the bible if it aint gonna be useful ?
The bible is indeed useful, but only if it comes with an Authority to interpret and teach it. By itself, its usefulness is limited. Don't take my word for it; the bible itself says that the pillar and foundation of truth is (surprise, surprise) ... the church ! (1Tim 3:15) Ironically, the idea that one can learn the truth from one own's reading and interpretation of the bible is not supported by the bible.
You advise that I place more trust in the bible than in humans. Sounds great but if you step back and think about it, placing one's trust in the bible means placing one's trust in men! How can this be ?
Consider the following: How do we know what should be included in the bible ? How do we know that the bible has 73 books (or 66 in your case), not one book more or one book less ? Did God give us a contents page for the bible ?
No he did not. It was men, in the form of the church who decided the contents of the Christian bible in the 4th century. But don't worry, Christians (or Catholics at least) believe that God guided their decisions.
Nope, church teachings (at least that of the Catholic Church) do not contradict scriptural truth; they do however differ from your interpretation of the bible.
Thanks for the well wishes but the book of Revelations should not be read literally to mean that only 144,000 persons would go to heaven. But if you want to read it literally (which you should not), I would not be one of the 144,000. Why? Because the 144,000 have to be Jewish male virgins (Rev 7:14 & 14:3-4), which I'm not. St.Peter (he was married) and Mother Mary (not a male) would also not qualify.And a final point to add about paganism and Christianity: if pagans wore pants, does that mean that Christians should avoid wearing pants at all cost ? There is always the possibility that pagan religions have some minute elements of truth in them (which have unfortuntely been severely distorted), hence the vague similarities. We will never know for sure but the possibility is there.
well said.
also, in reference to this website www.carm.org, (a Christian website), the arguments put forth to debate the reliability of the Bible as a historical source is simply not credible enough.
it stated that since archaelogical digs have prove the existence of cities such as Jericho, as mentioned in the Bible, the Bible thus must be accurate.
this is as good as saying that the "Da Vinci code" is true, since all the places described in the novel are places which exist in reality. obviously, this is not true.
also, do you trust the words of the "interpreters of the bible", the very same who declared baby bunnies to be plants so they can circumvene their rule of not eating meat on Fridays?
regarding the interpretation of the bible, it appears that even among the Christians themselves, there seem to be many different interpretation of the Bible. I assume that most of you people here are Protestant christians. so, i shall ask you a qsn. what makes you think that the interpretation of the Bible by your Sect (church), is the True interpretation?
and how do you define a religion as "pagan"? Christianity starts out as a pagan religion too, against the popular religion of that time, in the Roman era.
or is it a "majority is right" thing? that the more followers there are in a particular faith, the more "right" it is?
if it is, then Christianity probably has its very roots in paganism, being a pagan religion in the first place.
if it is not, then why can't you accept that maybe the religion of some tiny, obscure pacific island nation is "the one true faith"?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
please quote your facts with supporting evidence.Mao, hitler and stalin may be atheists, but is it because of their persecution on religion that "85-110 millions" were killed? I seem to recall that most of the deaths were cause more by the failure of their socio-economic policies.
Hitler may have banned worship in non-state and non-catholic churches, but he did not persecute any other religions other than Judaism (which is debatable, as the issue seems to be against Jews more than the religion, even though the 2 are intertwine.)
the 12 crusades had devastated the entire middle eastern region for centuries. who sanctioned the murder? the clergy themselves.
the crusader campaigns seem to be more motivated by greed then faith themselves. The crusaders fought, to pillage the Holy Land of its riches, more than fighting for faith. Near the end of the Christians' hold on the Holy Land, the Christian factions were fragmented by disunity, with each squabbling over their self-interests, as oppose to resisting arab attacks.
it is because of these unnecessary aggression that sowed the seeds of permanent enemity between the many faiths of the region. i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
to talk about mass killing.
the USA killed 70,000 ordinary civilians, many of them children and women, using a single atomic bomb on Hiroshima in WWII.
80,000 civilians killed using a single atomic bomb in Nagasaki.
also, if the japanese did not surrender, they were prepared to continue dropping atomic bombs. god knows how many people will be killed if that happens.
in the first crusades: (and that's just the first of the 12)
also, not to mention the many subsequent regional wars fought in Europe, among the rulers of Christiandom (Europe was called that during the middle ages and the dark ages). Christian rulers were also killing other Christian rulers. and i thought that they weren't allowed to kill fellow Christians?
and to note, atheism is not a religion.
refer to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php (its an atheist forum, where they the concept of atheism is discussed)
to summarise the contents of the website, atheism is just the opposite of a "fanatical religion". it is in fact, a "non-religion". that means that atheists has simply rejected the idea that there is a God out there. to them, preachers of any religion are the real fanatics out there.
and please respect the opinions of others. why label atheists as fanatics, when religious believers are the ones who have commited heinuous sins, engaging in fanatical activities?
i.e. Middle Eastern terrorism, Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorism activities (the Irish are devoted catholics, or so they say).
Even the seemingly peaceful Thai and Burmese monks had went out onto the streets and engage in bloody confrontations.
so far, i had not seen any atheist (fanatical or non-fanatical), commits any of that.
Thai
You said this : and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
You are saying that religion is the cause of most conflicts. It's not entirely wrong but when atheists were at the helm, they murdered more people. Their failed policies indirectly killed many people by starvation and diseases. Have you not heard of Gulag, the cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge genocide and many many more?
Did Hitler murdered only Jews? You have left out the Gypsies , the homosexuals and the mentally handicapped.
You must look at the action of the believers in it's context. The Burmese are being oppressed by the military junta. The monks are also victims. Did they engage in bloody confrontations or did the military brutally crushed their peaceful demonstration for freedom?
Atomic Bombs ended WW2 in Asia and it was not a religious war. It had a happy ending. You got it mixed up. You should ask yourself how many more Asian civilians would have been killed had the Japanese won the war.
The fact is atheists killed or murdered many more people then religious wars did.
The atheists don't believe in God. They play God.
-
Hi domon,
Good to know that our discussion hasnt fallen through and we're still having a civil discussion of our differences. Kudos to u for that. =) Just some thoughts on certain issues u raised up.
if this were the true case, only mordern humans understood it n not the faithful of old?
No, of course not. Even believers now cannot fully understand it. I don't know who are those Catholic scholars u quoted, but the scholars that i've read also say that the Trinity remains a mystery, BUT they choose to subscribe to the revelation of Scripture, and teach what it says.
God is certainly not a God of confusion but Deut 29:29 also says that the secret things belong to Him, and Isaiah 55 tells us His ways are higher than ours, and that there is no One like Him, and there is nothing to which He can be compared. Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that there are certain things that God chooses not to reveal to us? Or as some might say, God has revealed it, but its us Man who are just too damn dull to understand / perceive it?
If this is the way He chose to reveal Himself to us, that's what we've to live with and not impose our man-made conceptions on what God should be like.
Certainly, one doesnt need to be a theologian to understand the Trinity, its the duty of the overseers and the older in faith to teach us that doctrine and help us to understand it. But for the Holy Spirit to illuminate our understanding. Indeed, God did want us to have a relationship with Him, thus sending Jesus to us (e.g. His self-knowledge: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father") and Immanuel ("God with us", Matt 1:23). As Exodus 33:20 tells us, nobody can see God and live, but in Genesis 18, we see Abraham survived, so did Jacob in Genesis 32 and even wrestled! This can only make sense in the affirmation of John 1:18, which said, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side has made him known."
That said, I find this diagram quite useful to understand the Trinity.
When theologians refer to the Trinity as a mystery, it's to say that they cannot adequately explain how God can be one, yet co-existing in 3 different persons. It's not a 3 in 1 kind of equation, but more like infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity. Can there be 3(infinity)? And i'm sure someone out there can find a flaw in this illustration, but hey, i tried.
-
Part II,
as for ur hatred of heretics, did God also not allowed humans and satant ample time to try out all forms of goverment possible?
Don't quite understand this part.
indeed,false teaching within God's flcok is a danger..those of JW will say its the church and vice versa.in fact only God can clarify when the end comes.
There will always be false teachings within the flock. BUT what i was saying is, even more so during the end times. And i do commend the JWs for their discipline. But what was suppressed wasn't JWs, it was the Arians. And those who suppressed them were godly men NOT governments (in fact, in some countries, they're flourishing!). However, it has usually been godly men who refute heresies (Arianism) through biblical councils and conventions.
perharps the easy way to explain trinity is to use hinduism. to hindus, there is but one God.the different deities are but an aspect of God so people can relate easily to the aspect they choose.so likewise in trinity christiandom,we know father is the true God and only true jesus the God can we ever stand b4 God the father and he will fill us with HS the God.
Trinity is NOT like hinduism. Even Hindus acknoweldge that the Christian Trinity bears any resemblance at all (refer to my previous post), so i don't think you should compare it like that. In fact, Jesus isnt an "aspect" of God. Jesus is God. Not God the Father but God the Son. I refer back to the diagram above for explanation.
the idols part i dun get it??i have no affilatations with any church as of now.no place to worship.no idols to worship..av idols counted??
was because u asked why didnt those people who worshipped Jesus as God build statues for Him in temples. So i asked u in return, which church would build a statue of God in the first place?
if you are able to provide me a huge amout of money now, i too will fall at your feet,kissing them even and thank u..does that considered as me worshipping u?also just b4 i fall at your feet(hope u wash them =p) i gave a loud praise to God actually to glorify his name for sending me a person that gives me money.
Actually, that would be worshipping me. Think about our modern term "idol worship" and picture crazed fans screaming and jumping at the feet of rock bands and musicians.
How then does worship look like?
U said to determine the act of worship through the "action and heart". So if in this case, it's still not considered worship, then can you tell me how was God worshipped in the Bible? Surely not by just giving "a loud praise" right? If so, i would have "worshipped" a lot of people already. =)
yet they are actually himself.does it not make him jus another selfish person that love himself?
again, each person is fully God but they're not God. Diagram would help.
humans' death was caused by 1 perfect created human.in absoulute justice, wat should be on the other end of the scale??
except that it's not that 1 perfect human's sin Jesus came for, but for multitudes. And anyway, cannot measure it like that. One needs to satisfy God's wrath. Sin is sin. He cannot tolerate any sin at all. Either all or nothing. Don't think there would be an overkill if God the Son was the propitiation for our sins.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
You said this : and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
You are saying that religion is the cause of most conflicts. It's not entirely wrong but when atheists were at the helm, they murdered more people. Their failed policies indirectly killed many people by starvation and diseases. Have you not heard of Gulag, the cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge genocide and many many more?
Did Hitler murdered only Jews? You have left out the Gypsies , the homosexuals and the mentally handicapped.
You must look at the action of the believers in it's context. The Burmese are being oppressed by the military junta. The monks are also victims. Did they engage in bloody confrontations or did the military brutally crushed their peaceful demonstration for freedom?
Atomic Bombs ended WW2 in Asia and it was not a religious war. It had a happy ending. You got it mixed up. You should ask yourself how many more Asian civilians would have been killed had the Japanese won the war.
The fact is atheists killed or murdered many more people then religious wars did.
The atheists don't believe in God. They play God.
You said this : and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
You are saying that religion is the cause of most conflicts. It's not entirely wrong but when atheists were at the helm, they murdered more people. Their failed policies indirectly killed many people by starvation and diseases. Have you not heard of Gulag, the cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge genocide and many many more?
but these crimes can be commited by anyone, atheist or not. look at Indonesia. i recall that their last anti-chinese riots were "sanctioned" by the President himself(the 1997 riots) . the ears of chinese were cut off and string together. Indonesia is a religious nation.
in singapore and Malaysia, there's the ISA to detain any political dissidents.
USA, there's the guantanamo bay detetion camp to detain anyone suspected of terrorism, without trials. many of the detainees have "disappeared".
to quote genocide, the balkans war, the Serbs were the ones who commited genocides against the Muslim Croatians, under the order of dictator Slobodan Miloservic, a Christian. (I'm not against Christianity here, but they happen to be the few recent case of religious intolerance, with exception to the rise of Islamic terrorism over the past 5 yrs.)
and as for the examples you quoted, i notice that most are communist countries.
and well, while Hitler was power hungry, competing for power with the Church, i doubt that he had renounced his faith in Christianity. Did anyone have any record that he had explicitly said that he does not believe in Jesus Christ? no, i don't think so. Mao and Stalin maybe, but not Hitler.
Did Hitler murdered only Jews? You have left out the Gypsies , the homosexuals and the mentally handicapped.
the above group of people are not classified as religious groupings. alot of cultures around the world persecutes the minorities. in the USA, blacks were still lynched on the streets 50 yrs ago.
in Christianity, slaves were still permitted until the time of Abraham Lincoln. The captives of the Crusader wars were simply substituted by innocent African villagers, transported to the rich christian countries of Europe and North America. these people were treated as commodities, and killing them was legal. how moralistic was that. apparently, the barbaric practice of slavery was not banned for some 1800 yrs after the birth of Christ. how could anyone blatently ignore such abuses of human rights?
You must look at the action of the believers in it's context. The Burmese are being oppressed by the military junta. The monks are also victims. Did they engage in bloody confrontations or did the military brutally crushed their peaceful demonstration for freedom?
as i last recalled, Tsarist Russia and Britain did the same thing to their protestors. Bloody Sunday, when the Tsar, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, ordered his cossack troops to open fire into the unarmed crowds who were asking for reforms.
on Black Friday, the UK government, of whom the Queen is the head of the Church of England, permitted the sending in of british troops to open fire on the Irish protestors.
and i shall not add on the list of popes who send their followers to plunder the Holy Land. 12 times.
Atomic Bombs ended WW2 in Asia and it was not a religious war. It had a happy ending. You got it mixed up. You should ask yourself how many more Asian civilians would have been killed had the Japanese won the war.
same with your point about the Gulags, the cultural revolution. maybe i could use you point and say that, believers of faith kill more people when they were at the helm... =-=
how does it feel to hear that?
The fact is atheists killed or murdered many more people then religious wars did.
are you sure? name me any wars fought by atheists. religious wars killed more people over the past 5000 yrs, den your so-called atheist ever did. figure of 5000 yrs, based on the emergence of the concept of religion, from the earliest known religion of the Egyptians, where they wage wars against the non-suscribers of Egyptian faith, the Libyans and the Nubians (modern day sudanese). not to mention the Jews, in which the event is recorded in the bible.
The atheists don't believe in God. They play God.
again, i shall ask if you are sure. So far, i seem to see only religious leaders put God's words into their mouth, proclaiming this and that in the name of God. They are the ones who are playing God.
if God (assuming that God exists), can speak freely to any Tom, Dick and Harry, (Moses, Noah, Abraham were certainly not members of any clergy), why does God "speaks" only to the clergy today? I do not seem to recall any records from the priests of their time, stating that they had divine inspirations with God. all of the records seem to come forth from the commoners, instead of the religious figures of their respective times.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
You said this : and ironically, it is exactly these few faiths which commit most of these killings, raping and plundering over the past century.
You are saying that religion is the cause of most conflicts. It's not entirely wrong but when atheists were at the helm, they murdered more people. Their failed policies indirectly killed many people by starvation and diseases. Have you not heard of Gulag, the cultural revolution, the Khmer Rouge genocide and many many more?
but these crimes can be commited by anyone, atheist or not. look at Indonesia. i recall that their last anti-chinese riots were "sanctioned" by the President himself(the 1997 riots) . the ears of chinese were cut off and string together. Indonesia is a religious nation.
in singapore and Malaysia, there's the ISA to detain any political dissidents.
USA, there's the guantanamo bay detetion camp to detain anyone suspected of terrorism, without trials. many of the detainees have "disappeared".
to quote genocide, the balkans war, the Serbs were the ones who commited genocides against the Muslim Croatians, under the order of dictator Slobodan Miloservic, a Christian. (I'm not against Christianity here, but they happen to be the few recent case of religious intolerance, with exception to the rise of Islamic terrorism over the past 5 yrs.)
and as for the examples you quoted, i notice that most are communist countries.
and well, while Hitler was power hungry, competing for power with the Church, i doubt that he had renounced his faith in Christianity. Did anyone have any record that he had explicitly said that he does not believe in Jesus Christ? no, i don't think so. Mao and Stalin maybe, but not Hitler.
Did Hitler murdered only Jews? You have left out the Gypsies , the homosexuals and the mentally handicapped.
the above group of people are not classified as religious groupings. alot of cultures around the world persecutes the minorities. in the USA, blacks were still lynched on the streets 50 yrs ago.
in Christianity, slaves were still permitted until the time of Abraham Lincoln. The captives of the Crusader wars were simply substituted by innocent African villagers, transported to the rich christian countries of Europe and North America. these people were treated as commodities, and killing them was legal. how moralistic was that. apparently, the barbaric practice of slavery was not banned for some 1800 yrs after the birth of Christ. how could anyone blatently ignore such abuses of human rights?
You must look at the action of the believers in it's context. The Burmese are being oppressed by the military junta. The monks are also victims. Did they engage in bloody confrontations or did the military brutally crushed their peaceful demonstration for freedom?
as i last recalled, Tsarist Russia and Britain did the same thing to their protestors. Bloody Sunday, when the Tsar, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, ordered his cossack troops to open fire into the unarmed crowds who were asking for reforms.
on Black Friday, the UK government, of whom the Queen is the head of the Church of England, permitted the sending in of british troops to open fire on the Irish protestors.
and i shall not add on the list of popes who send their followers to plunder the Holy Land. 12 times.
Atomic Bombs ended WW2 in Asia and it was not a religious war. It had a happy ending. You got it mixed up. You should ask yourself how many more Asian civilians would have been killed had the Japanese won the war.
same with your point about the Gulags, the cultural revolution. maybe i could use you point and say that, believers of faith kill more people when they were at the helm... =-=
how does it feel to hear that?
The fact is atheists killed or murdered many more people then religious wars did.
are you sure? name me any wars fought by atheists. religious wars killed more people over the past 5000 yrs, den your so-called atheist ever did. figure of 5000 yrs, based on the emergence of the concept of religion, from the earliest known religion of the Egyptians, where they wage wars against the non-suscribers of Egyptian faith, the Libyans and the Nubians (modern day sudanese). not to mention the Jews, in which the event is recorded in the bible.
The atheists don't believe in God. They play God.
again, i shall ask if you are sure. So far, i seem to see only religious leaders put God's words into their mouth, proclaiming this and that in the name of God. They are the ones who are playing God.
if God (assuming that God exists), can speak freely to any Tom, Dick and Harry, (Moses, Noah, Abraham were certainly not members of any clergy), why does God "speaks" only to the clergy today? I do not seem to recall any records from the priests of their time, stating that they had divine inspirations with God. all of the records seem to come forth from the commoners, instead of the religious figures of their respective times.
No need such long posts to make your point. I can google.
The facts:
Atheists at the helm killed or murdered over 100 million people in just one century. It's immaterial whether these countries were fighting wars or having peace.
The fact that the number of people murdered by atheists after the war was over is staggering.
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
yes,the bible is the sole source of truth is it not??since jesus passing back then and so his disciples.next best thing we got is bible aint it?
by itself, the usefulness is limited only becuz of our own inderstanding.and i agree with 1tim.also agreed is that we should not only read the bible on our own and pray for understanding.but nor do i agree with places of worship that is based on traditions rather den truth like wat jesus himself said....
I fully agree with you that the bible is the inspired word of God and that all scripture is beneficial and good for teaching. BUT (and this may come as a surprise to a lot of Christians), no where in the bible does it say that the bible is the sole source of truth ! On the contrary, the bible says that it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15). So we need not settle for the "next best thing" of the bible as we also have the church.
You agree that we "should not only read the bible on our own" as we are "limited" by "our own understanding". Yet you do not seem to agree that any person/entity/organisation/church should be the Authority in teaching the bible. So how do we learn the truth ? Or maybe you do know of an Authority which you can share with us ?
Originally posted by domonkassyu:... i dont understand how can placing faith in wat is written equates to placing faith in humans?know that though written by humans, the author is God.though some translation are not that wonderful,the esscence remains the same.
yes indeed it was men that decided what to include but like it was written, all scriptural are beneficial and good for teaching ya?
I fully agree with you that all scripture is beneficial and good for teaching and that although the bible was written by men, they were inspired by God. That wasn't my contention. My point is that the choice of books to be included in the bible affects the teachings we get from the bible.
To illustrate simplistically, assuming there was a book X (currently not in the bible) that teaches that we should kill off anyone of no use to society. If that book had been included in the bible, we might not have that many old, invalid persons today.
So trusting what the bible teaches means that we implicitly trust the selection of books that make up the bible. And who did the selection ? Men - the Church (but whom Catholic Christians believe was guided by God in doing so).
Originally posted by domonkassyu:... den at least the RCC would like to answer y they use rosaries,multiple intercessor,easter,xmas,confessional to a human,mary was virgin n sinless just to name a few..
I have offered my views on the use of statues and intercessory prayer in your other thread on the "Holy Cross". Let's resolve those first before we move on to other Catholic Christian teachings and practices which in no way contradict the bible.
Originally posted by domonkassyu:... is 144000 merely symbolic??the answer is indicated by the fact that after mentioning of 144k, rev 7:9 refers to a great crowd which no man can number.if 144k is not literal,doesnt it then lack meaning to the great crowd?viewing it as literal will agree with jesus' statement at Matt22:14 regarding the kingdom of heavens.many invited,but few chosen.
Precisely. As you've pointed out, Revelations 7:9 talks about (in heaven), "a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue." Yet, the 144,000 persons mentioned just a few verses earlier comprise folks from every tribe of the Israelites. In other words, the 144,000 are Jewish. But how do we then square that with the multitude which comes from every nation, race etc ?
Conclusion ? We are not meant to read the number 144,000 literally as meaning that only that number will make it to heaven. There will be more than 144,000 in heaven, a whole lot more that "no one could count".
Originally posted by domonkassyu:... last paragrapgh..pagans does have a certain truth in them and like u said, twisted. satan might even be considered to be the top few most powerful and wonderful creation of God.he had the truth in him, yet he did not stand fast in the truth.the whole pagan thing started with him too.anything that steer humans from true worship of God is a treasure of satan.
Agreed. May I also add that Satan's evil influences exist not only in 'pagan' religions but also amongst Christians who do not hold fast to their faith and live the kind of lives that they are called to.
I apologise if I sound 'harsh' in my replies. No malice intended.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
well said ...
I'm not sure which part of my post you are referrring to but I want to clarify to readers that I am in no way disparaging the bible. I fully believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God in faith and morals (not in matters of biology, science, geography, what have you). My point to dommonkassyu is that the word of God comes to us through both the bible and the Church.
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
I'm not sure which part of my post you are referrring to but I want to clarify to readers that I am in no way disparaging the bible. I fully believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God in faith and morals (not in matters of biology, science, geography, what have you). My point to dommonkassyu is that the word of God comes to us through both the bible and the Church.
i think even some of the morals preached are warped and out-dated.From Book of Matthew:
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
??? and why have the commandment if people don't follow? It is like having a set of laws and law enforcers, but no one seems to be enforcing the law, which cast doubts on creating the law in the first place.
and if Christians really do follow all the commandments in the bible, there would be no doubt loads of hand-less, feet-less and eyeless people in the world today.
so i think the best moral guidance is Confucius's point of "do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. " (that's is one of the few principles i agree with in his teachings, the rest are like all the other ancient texts, outdated.)
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i think even some of the morals preached are warped and out-dated.??? and why have the commandment if people don't follow? It is like having a set of laws and law enforcers, but no one seems to be enforcing the law, which cast doubts on creating the law in the first place.
and if Christians really do follow all the commandments in the bible, there would be no doubt loads of hand-less, feet-less and eyeless people in the world today...
Which is why we should not read the bible in the most literal of fashion without discerning the message that the bible author is trying to convey.
For instance, writers often use hyperbole (figure of speech which is an exaggeration; we still do it today) to stress certain ideas but is not meant to be understood literally. For instance, he might write, "I nearly died laughing" or "I tried a thousand times". He does not mean that he faced death because of a joke or really made one thousand attempts at something.
Idioms may also be used which a reader in a different era might not understand. If you wrote that "it rained cats and dogs", someone in the year 3500 (without knowledge of 21st century writing styles) reading what you wrote might really think that a miracle happened and animals fell from the sky.
The truths expounded by the bible are valid for all ages. The tricky bit is discerning those truths without being tripped up by amongst other things, the writing style of the bible authors, who by the way, did not even write in English, but in Hebrew and Greek.
It is therefore critical that we have an Authority whom we can trust to guide us in interpreting the teachings of the bible. Otherwise, we might really end up cutting off our limbs because of sin, which would be a shame as that is not the message that God was trying to convey to us through the inspired writers of the bible.
,
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
Which is why we should not read the bible in the most literal of fashion without discerning the message that the bible author is trying to convey.
For instance, writers often use hyperbole (figure of speech which is an exaggeration; we still do it today) to stress certain ideas but is not meant to be understood literally. For instance, he might write, "I nearly died laughing" or "I tried a thousand times". He does not mean that he faced death because of a joke or really made one thousand attempts at something.
Idioms may also be used which a reader in a different era might not understand. If you wrote that "it rained cats and dogs", someone in the year 3500 (without knowledge of 21st century writing styles) reading what you wrote might really think that a miracle happened and animals fell from the sky.
The truths expounded by the bible are valid for all ages. The tricky bit is discerning those truths without being tripped up by amongst other things, the writing style of the bible authors, who by the way, did not even write in English, but in Hebrew and Greek.
It is therefore critical that we have an Authority whom we can trust to guide us in interpreting the teachings of the bible. Otherwise, we might really end up cutting off our limbs because of sin, which would be a shame as that is not the message that God was trying to convey to us through the inspired writers of the bible.
but you must agree that the sad truth nowadays is that quite a few of the followers tend to take the "less extremist" elements of the bible literally. i.e. God created the world in 6 days. the Earth is only 5000++ yrs old. etc. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
but you must agree that the sad truth nowadays is that quite a few of the followers tend to take the "less extremist" elements of the bible literally. i.e. God created the world in 6 days. the Earth is only 5000++ yrs old. etc.Yes, I would fully agree with you on this.
The bible is not the be all and the end all of the truths revealed to us by God.
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
Yes, I would fully agree with you on this.
The bible is not the be all and the end all of the truths revealed to us by God.
i doubt that it is even the word of God. so far, it appears to be composed by a range of authors all claiming divine inspiration from God.So, it is best to take the Bible with a pinch of salt, be be reminded that though "God" was frequently quoted in the text, the Bible is ultimately written by Men.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i doubt that it is even the word of God. so far, it appears to be composed by a range of authors all claiming divine inspiration from God.So, it is best to take the Bible with a pinch of salt, be be reminded that though "God" was frequently quoted in the text, the Bible is ultimately written by Men.
You are at the other end of the scale when compared to domonkassyu
.But seriously, I can understand why it would not be reasonable to expect non-Christians to immediately embrace the bible as the Word of God. Things take time
.For the benefit of readers who might not have read previous posts, the bible was indeed written by men but Christians (or Catholic Christians at least) believe these men to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the third person of God) when they did so. The Church compiled these writings (73 books in all) into the bible which together with the other official teachings of the Church (Sacred Tradition), is still taught to the faithful today in all Catholic churches, more than 1,500 years later.
-
So where is this book the men written?The first copy of the book?