Thank you Bisqwit for that thoughtful reply. I'll stick with my original complaint that it seems many Christians by me do in fact put money ahead of God. I understand you can be wealthy (it could be useful to them to try to spread the message even), but the opulent and unnecessary shows of riches I see make it seem like these people are not putting faith first... Again, maybe I should move to Finland :P
Thank you Bisqwit for that thoughtful reply. I'll stick with my original complaint that it seems many Christians by me do in fact put money ahead of God. I understand you can be wealthy (it could be useful to them to try to spread the message even), but the opulent and unnecessary shows of riches I see make it seem like these people are not putting faith first...
That is well possible. It is a considerably small portion of people calling themselves "Christians" that actually do listen to God and for whom "Christianity" is not just as a hobby that gains them some imagined upper ground against non-believers.
But then again, the Bible does also show us a few examples of extravagant use of money -- the temple of Salomo being the most striking example. It is considered acceptable to spent significant money into exalting God. In Jewish especially, there are many artifacts where it is considered that the amount of material cost put into it is a tantamount of one's appreciation of God himself. In the case of the car you observed, the owners must have considered that the money spent for those custom license plates is practically a sacrifice to God, since it aims to spread His word rather than to glorify the owner of those plates; and that for that purpose, no cost is too high.
It can be difficult to find the middle ground that does not offend anyone in a way that brings shame to God.
God-fearing people should always strive to follow God's will and act out of his instructions rather than what we humanly think that is good; we tend to have troubles seeing the big picture, and if we pump all our possessions and/or effort into some task in particular, it just might not be how God intended us to use the resources he gave to us -- and we might not achieve a very good result either. This mirrors the "being a good person" talk of my previous post, too.
why is it *always* christianity? have you ever seen such an atheist video which would attack buddhism, hare krishna or islam?
Because Christianity lends itself open for criticism, much like science does. (Though the means of validation are quite different.)
I don't really think this works. It's not as if Christianity was based on a scientific method.
It depends on who you discuss it with. A fundamentalist may be opposed against any critical discussion of his or hers religion, whereas a more "open" person can share opinions with another. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case with all religions.
Bisqwit wrote:
Criticise Islam publicly, and you will receive death threats.
By the fundamentalists, maybe. But remember that they're extremists, and they have that name for a purpose. It means that their opinions don't reflect the opinions of an average Islamic. Don't judge the book by its cover.
And it's *always* Christianity because USA is very Christian, and most of these videos come from the USA. It's the religion the movie makers encounter the most, simple as that.
Bisqwit: Did you intend for a "ask me questions" thread to be nothing but tiresome religious discussion?
Not particularly, but I don't mind.
I like answering any questions that aren't loaded with aggression towards any party when I can.
(But computer helpdesking questions are still excluded.)
Because Christianity lends itself open for criticism, much like science does. (Though the means of validation are quite different.)
I don't really think this works. It's not as if Christianity was based on a scientific method.
It depends on who you discuss it with. A fundamentalist may be opposed against any critical discussion of his or hers religion, whereas a more "open" person can share opinions with another. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case with all religions.
Still, Christianity is based on the principle of open information; you can ask anything, and there are christians who can give an answer. In many other religions, questioning the core beliefs (islam), or even revealing them to the outsiders (especially the initiates) (mormonism, scientology), is a taboo.
Christianity invites people to talk about it, and that fuels the wider spreading of the most difficult questions.
Swedishmartin wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Criticise Islam publicly, and you will receive death threats.
It means that their opinions don't reflect the opinions of an average Islamic. Don't judge the book by its cover.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, those extremists are following the book's teachings by doing what they do. The calmer "average" is ignoring those parts.
(But this is hear-say; I haven't read Quran and cannot vouch for this opinion.)
Nevertheless, as far as I know, those extremists are following the book's teachings by doing what they do
Is this not also the case for 'hard line' christians who are against things like homosexuality? There's a lot of stuff in the old testament particularly about god destroying entire cities, etc. It seems hypocritical to me that a christian would follow only one half of the bible, or whatever.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, those extremists are following the book's teachings by doing what they do
Is this not also the case for 'hard line' christians who are against things like homosexuality? There's a lot of stuff in the old testament particularly about god destroying entire cities, etc. It seems hypocritical to me that a christian would follow only one half of the bible, or whatever.
Hey, I'm a Christian and I only follow the new testament! ò_o
Is this not also the case for 'hard line' christians who are against things like homosexuality? There's a lot of stuff in the old testament particularly about god destroying entire cities, etc. It seems hypocritical to me that a christian would follow only one half of the bible, or whatever.
Many christians seem to only live the new testament and discard the old testament entirely. It is true that the new union in the Messiah obsoletes _some_ practices in the old testament, but not nearly all.
However, what comes to destroying and killing, God's followers should leave that stuff to God, and only act if he tells us to.
Sin-doers will drown in their sins, and they will draw the doom upon themselves.[Isaiah 1:28]
Christians do not really need to exact punishments, and they should not, without God's explicit instruction.
And what comes to homosexuality -- it is okay to be attached to people and love them, but there are certain activities that God explicitly forbids. Sex among the humans of the same gender is one of those. Same goes for homosexual marriages. The marriage is an union and pact meant to provide safe and balanced grounds for the children's growth, as well as towards the husband and wife themselves. A church should never bless relationships that contradict with that goal -- relationships that are in opposition to God's law.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Bisqwit wrote:
In many other religions, questioning the core beliefs (islam), or even revealing them to the outsiders (especially the initiates) (mormonism, scientology), is a taboo.
I think you may be confused as to what is "core" in our religion. Either that or we're operating on different definitions, which I can't argue.
What a vast majority of people in my faith consider to be the essentials is the restoration of lost priesthood authority and the availability of the Book of Mormon. I know you can argue this point until you are blue in the face, but personally I wouldn't want the Bible without the Book of Mormon.
If you're thinking our temples, which, while important, is *hardly* a core essential, then you'd be right. Discussions of the particulars of the ceremonies therein is limited to inside the structures themselves. It's not that we're scared the general public will get a hold of information they shouldn't have and thus should be kept under tight wraps, but rather that what goes on inside is considered very sacred and needs to be administered in proper context.
The reason why I say it's hardly essential: without the Book of Mormon, there would be no Mormon temples. To argue that temples are "core" would be like saying calculus is an essential foundation of mathematics when it's clearly built on those foundations.
That being said, I agree with pretty much everything you've been saying lately.
(and yes, I know that mentioning being a Mormon on the internet is bound to get people riled up; I can already see the questions I can't effectively answer!)
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Bisqwit,
1) What aspects of humans do you find the most amazing*? What surprises you about the human race?
2)**Out of curiosity, is Finland (or any other country in Europe) as centered on Education/College? In order to have a good job, good income ect. in the US, overall, you needed to go to college. I was wondering if that was the same in other countries.
*Used amazing for lack of a better word.
**Yes, I am an American who probably came off as inept and closed minded about the world around me. However, I don't live in Europe, so I don't know what the job market is like, and what said job market looks for in employees.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
I'll reply to FerretWarlord's comment once the Sabbath is over.
stickyman05 wrote:
1) What aspects of humans do you find the most amazing*? What surprises you about the human race?
2)**Out of curiosity, is Finland (or any other country in Europe) as centered on Education/College? In order to have a good job, good income ect. in the US, overall, you needed to go to college. I was wondering if that was the same in other countries.
*Used amazing for lack of a better word.
**Yes, I am an American who probably came off as inept and closed minded about the world around me. However, I don't live in Europe, so I don't know what the job market is like, and what said job market looks for in employees.
1) The mind-defying amalgam of material instincts and of the thinking that surpasses the scope of one's life.
2) It depends on the job you are looking for. At our company, we don't generally look at the education background at all; we emphasize significantly more on the person's work experience and enthusiasism towards the practicing and honing the skills required for the job.
Hell was created as a punishment for fallen angels, before the creation of humans. (It's somewhere in the book of Isaiah, too tired to look up where.)
but why do they (or anyone) need or deserve eternal punishment? i know punishment can be useful to make people change their ways, but in hell they can't change anything anymore, so eternal punishment seems pointless. i think it would be better to just make them 'not exist'. but maybe that's what you think hell is, because you once said that hell might be non-existence. i've met people who say that they would rather go to hell than to stop existing.
Spiritual beings are permanent and unchanging in nature. They don't age. Their hair, nails won't grow. Their memories will not fade. They do not emit grease and do not become in need of a shower. They do not require a cycle of sleep and awakeness. In general, things that remind you of the passage of time, are non-existent. "Time" becomes meaningless. How long should such a punishment be, when time is meaningless? A week is like a hour. 100000 years is like 3 months.
And as for making something not exist -- I don't know if/why God does never uncreates a spirit. Some could imagine that being permanently separated from God is practically the same as not existing at all; in the same manner as one could think that a life that exists in a parallel universe / alternate reality does not really exist at all. But that's really a subjective question after all.
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/mat26:36-44.php?hl=39,42 Presumably*, God[the Father]'s will was done like Jesus prayed. So God's will was that some dudes murder an innocent man. Murdering an innocent man is a sin. God's will was that some dudes sin.
I have to admit that's the most ingenuous and obnoxious distortion of the Bible I have seen in a long time. You probably broke a record here. (Although I would bet that was actually not your invention but you copied that idea from somewhere.)
I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying here. Things can happen that are contrary to the will of God?
What do you think sin is then?
God's will.
Let's see -- you quoted many places from the Bible. I must compliment you, you took great consideration in choosing them.
I think the general line behind all of these is that nothing happens in the world without God explicitly permitting it.
It may not be God's will, but he is tolerating it. In a similar manner as I could say that not all discussions that happen on these forums are my will, but I'm tolerating them (even though due to the virtue of being the forum admin, I could easily delete all discussions that I don't like) -- and this forum still exists because I want it to exist.
Some say it's called "patience" -- God is giving the humanity lots of time, and all the while, he is saying through prophecies that the time is nearing its end, and the "wicked" will receive their price.[1]
> http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/eph1:11-12.php
> And here, "who worketh _all_ things after the counsel of his own will".
> Not "who worketh _all things except for your sins_ after the counsel of his own will".
The verses you quoted are from Paul's letter to the Ephesians, and as such, they are not legal text, but human communication. The word "all" in that context is not to be interpreted as if it meant every single thing in the existence -- that would contradict the rest of the message of the Bible, including the thing about free will, for instance.
Rather, it tells us that whatever happens in the world, behind all of it is God's scheme. Indeed, nothing can stop God's plans. He sometimes uses the actions of non-believers as parts of his plans, even though those individual actions do not agree with his will. How is that possible? Read here.
> http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/act2:22-24.php?hl=23
> Reinforcing my conclusion from the Matthew passage.
It's like playing Chess or Go with a much superior player.
When you play the game, would you say that you don't have free will, to choose where you will play?
Of course you have: you play the game according to your your desires, your own ideas. Yet, the superior player will lead you around the board and beat you with ease, and you will fall into traps you dug yourself.
The same is with God's will. Your actions may not follow God's will, but when God has set up a plan, his will always happens.
That does not make your individual actions any more God's will, but in the bigger picture, nothing can stop God's will from happening.
> http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/mat26:36-44.php?hl=39,42
> Presumably*, God[the Father]'s will was done like Jesus prayed.
> So God's will was that some dudes murder an innocent man. Murdering
> an innocent man is a sin. God's will was that some dudes sin.
>
> * http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/dan4:35.php
> No one can stop him from doing his will. Plus, Jesus asked the Father
> to do his will, so Jesus wasn't even trying to stop the Father.
The whole reason Jesus was born in the world was that his sinless life would be sacrificed for the sins of the mankind[2]. So yes, it was God's will that he died a criminal death while being completely innocent. However, was it because God wanted it to be so, that people would murder an innocent man, or was it that God used those men as part of his plan because they would just do that under their own will, like a skillful Go player would utilize their opponent's actions for their own advantage? We will never know. We only know that God knew that centuries ahead [3].
> http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/psa33:13-15.php?hl=15
> The LORD is fashioning our hearts.
That is actually the same thing as what I was talking about in my earlier posts. When one chooses to repent their sins, he will give them a new heart [4].
> http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/exo10:27.php
> The LORD is taking action here.
This is by far the most vexing of your quotes, and I had to search for explanations.
I found this page:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Exodus/exodus_10.htm wrote:
"And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt" (v. 3). This verse brings before us one of the most solemn truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures—the Divine hardening of human hearts. At no point, perhaps, has the slowness of man to believe all that the prophets have spoken been more lamentably manifested than here. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart by God has been eagerly seized by His enemies to make an attack upon the citadel of truth. Infidels have argued that if Pharaoh’s subsequent crimes were the result of his heart being hardened by Jehovah, then that makes God the author of his sins; and, furthermore, God must be very unrighteous in punishing him for them. The sad thing is that so many of the profess servants of God have, instead of faithfully maintaining the integrity of God’s Word, attempted to blunt its keen edge in order to make it more acceptable to the carnal mind. Instead of acknowledging with fear and trembling that God’s Word does teach that the Lord actually hardened the heart of Pharaoh, most of the commentators have really argued that He did nothing of the kind, that He simply permitted the Egyptian monarch to harden his own heart.
That Pharaoh did harden his own heart the Scriptures expressly affirm, but they also declare that THE LORD hardened his heart too, and clearly this is not one and the same thing, or the two different expressions would not have been employed. In Psalm 105:25 it is said, "He turned their hearts to hate His people, to deal subtlety with His servants". Nothing could be stronger or plainer than this. Are we to deny it because we cannot explain the way in which God did it?
<...>
It should be pointed out that the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians does not by any means stand alone in the Holy Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 2:30 Moses records the fact that "Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into thy hand".
Reading further, it becomes clear that the author thinks that this is such a difficult question that it should not even be discussed.
I disagree, so I do some more searching.
http://members.aol.com/twarren13/pharaoh.html wrote:
Some have even stated that this action means that God made Pharaoh sin, implying that God did evil. While we may understand the confusion, we certainly cannot condone such an unrighteous conclusion. God makes no man sin, but the episode does pose some interesting questions.
<...>
But the truth is, the Lord was not making Pharaoh do evil, the Lord was "allowing" him to do evil. That's an important distinction that changes the whole picture. Pharaoh (as is all of mankind) was by nature desperately wicked.
Could pharaoh have repented during these plagues and been saved?
Absolutely, as the book of Exodus clearly indicates that those plagues had an impact on the people of Egypt as when the Exodus occurred, Ex 12:38 “Many other people went up with them.” Even pharaoh’s magicians confessed: Ex 8:19 "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the LORD had said. But pharaoh is the one who resisted the Lord!
Now from plague 6 and on, the Bible always attributes the hardening of pharaoh’s heart to God. Why?
Pharaoh had plenty of opportunities to repent and give his heart to the Lord. But there is a point where one crosses the road to perdition and no return seems possible, as one refuses to listen to the Lord. At that moment, God leaves you to your own devices and you suffer the consequences. If only one would listen to God’s voice, He would welcome one back, not as a stranger, but as a son of His.
This is confirmed in Ps 81:8 “Hear, O my people, and I will warn you--if you would but listen to me, O Israel!” The Lord longs for a relationship with you. He desires your happiness! But how can you be blessed if you have turned your back to God and go forward in your evil desires?
What happens when you don’t listen to your loving Heavenly Father?
Ps 81:11-12 "But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.”
He gives you over to your stubborn heart to follow your own evil devices. He takes full responsibility. He wants you to turn away from your path of self-destruction, but He won’t force you. The choice is really yours. This is what is meant by hardening pharaoh’s heart.
At least this article answers the question. In the light of this answer, it can be seen how all three interpretations are correct. God does not force a man either way, and in this situation, Pharaoh rejected God's will that he has already got on his heart to follow, so God gave back the Pharaoh's own heart, and with that heart, the Pharaoh did his bad things again.
The word "heart" here of course refers to the mind and feelings, not the blood pumping organ...
1) Of course comparing God's wisdom to my maintaining of this forum is not a perfect allegory in all aspects :)
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Christianity
3) http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html
4) Ezek. 11:19-21, 36:26-27
"Time" becomes meaningless. How long should such a punishment be, when time is meaningless? A week is like a hour. 100000 years is like 3 months.
the better we feel the faster time goes (ie. it becomes more meaningless) and the worse we feel the slower it seems to go. so i don't think time is entirely meaningless in "hell", but it seems to go much slower.
if time is meaningless in hell, it means that time does not exist, and if time does not exist, nothing can exist.
Some could imagine that being permanently separated from God is practically the same as not existing at all; in the same manner as one could think that a life that exists in a parallel universe / alternate reality does not really exist at all. But that's really a subjective question after all.
if hell is basically the same thing as non-existence, buddhists and hindus will at least be happy to get there because that's the very goal of those religions.
eastern and western worlds are like each others opposites. west is materialistic and east is spiritual. that's why there is material poverty in the east and spiritual poverty in the west. some day the east and west will unite.
It's like playing Chess or Go with a much superior player.
When you play the game, would you say that you don't have free will, to choose where you will play?
Of course you have: you play the game according to your your desires, your own ideas. Yet, the superior player will lead you around the board and beat you with ease, and you will fall into traps you dug yourself.
The same is with God's will. Your actions may not follow God's will, but when God has set up a plan, his will always happens.
That does not make your individual actions any more God's will, but in the bigger picture, nothing can stop God's will from happening.
On this point, I'm just wondering...
Does God use his "divine power" to make sure that our actions contribute to whatever his plans are on the whole, or does he, to put it simply, predict everything we do perfectly?
Essentially, do we just live in an illusion of free will, but God will make damn sure that you follow his plan he spent probably all of one godly second to make, or is he just winging it with style?
I think the general line behind all of these is that nothing happens in the world without God explicitly permitting it.
And of course, God also has the ability to deny it from happening in advance (as in, not permit it). So God can choose to allow it or not, and sometimes chooses to allow it.
Bisqwit wrote:
The verses you quoted are from Paul's letter to the Ephesians, and as such, they are not legal text, but human communication. The word "all" in that context is not to be interpreted as if it meant every single thing in the existence -- that would contradict the rest of the message of the Bible, including the thing about free will, for instance.
We can choose to do whatever we wish. Outside of communion with God, no man would choose to do what is Godly because of our sin nature. Once we are saved by grace, sanctification can occur. Since salvation comes only from God by grace~, we can have both free will (within the context of our nature), and God['s will] deciding who does sin, and who has the ability to not sin.
Bisqwit wrote:
He sometimes uses the actions of non-believers as parts of his plans
And he used a donkey :D
Bisqwit wrote:
It's like playing Chess [etc...]
It seems our explanations of how free will works are very similar. Do you agree? (mine is right up there ^^^). If you do, then I don't see how all above is contradicting free will.
Bisqwit wrote:
That is actually the same thing as what I was talking about in my earlier posts. When one chooses to repent their sins, he will give them a new heart [4].
It seems to me you are saying we must take action before God does.
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/eph2:8-10.php [blue ~ above]
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/rom3:10-13.php?hl=11 There is none that seeketh after God
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/phi1:29.phphttp://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/joh6:44-45http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/eze11:13-21.php Yes, you were talking about this earlier. The new spirit comes from God. The instruction to repent also comes from God (in this case, tearing down alters to heathen gods).
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/eze36:16-32.php The people of Israel do not choose to repent until after The LORD has given them a new heart (and land and etc).
>>This is by far the most vexing of your quotes, and I had to search for explanations.
Which is interesting, because it was also the shortest :)
>>so God gave back the Pharaoh's own heart, and with that heart, the Pharaoh did his bad things again.
It is still God's choice which heart to give Pharaoh. y/n? If y, then I don't really see how obey or disobey was Pharaoh's choice. If n, then the conclusion that God gave back the Pharaoh's own heart is meaningless.
I have to admit that's the most ingenuous and obnoxious distortion of the Bible I have seen in a long time. You probably broke a record here. (Although I would bet that was actually not your invention but you copied that idea from somewhere.)
To me, it does not look like a distortion. It can be helpful to point out to people where their theology is wrong, unfortunately it is meaningless if you do not correct it. And I'm not so dumb as to need to copy someone else's answers. Some very young brats can think for themselves. Shocker!
Could pharaoh have repented during these plagues and been saved?
Absolutely, [...]
At least this article answers the question. In the light of this answer, it can be seen how all three interpretations are correct. God does not force a man either way, and in this situation, Pharaoh rejected God's will that he has already got on his heart to follow, so God gave back the Pharaoh's own heart, and with that heart, the Pharaoh did his bad things again.
I would like you (and the author of this apologist site you quoted) to reread Romans especially 11-14 because seriously.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
