| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
 Posted: December 04 2006 at 11:11 |
 JrKASperov wrote:
You lack the faith to believe He can do everything?
|
By the contrary, being than he's omnipotent he could prepare things for his chosen ones instead of asking us to ne instruments of destruction.
YOU SHALL NOT KILL is even in the Ten Commandments.
Iván
|
|
|
 |
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:03 |
|
This gets into the "Free Will" territory. He could, yes, but he doesn't. He wants us to obey, so he gives us instructions and free will. We can follow the instructions or not. it's up to us. But sort of like being at work, if we don't do what we're told, we don't get the payoff, which in this case is Salvation.
on the othher hand, I'm not sure how I would handle it, if he told me tomorrow to go slaughter everyone on my street, kill their dogs and cats and burn the houses to the ground, "AND DON"T TOUCH THAT IPOD!". It's a pretty strange thing to ask, I agree.
Edited by Trademark - December 04 2006 at 12:04
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:24 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
progismylife wrote:
I asked my dad about that contradictory statement you bring up. He is a reverend/pastor. First off in the Leviticus part, the Israelites were God's people. So enemies of the Israelites, in the Old Testament, were enemies of God and God used that nation as a judgement against other nations that rejected God. He told Abraham that God would bless those who bless Abraham (and his descendants) and curse those who curse Abraham. The second part is that the context changed. Jesus is talking to the people as individuals, not as a nation. He says that He will carry out God's judgement not the israleites. |
So it's OK to kill those nations who don't believe in our God?
I stay with the New Testament and Jesus message of love and sacrifice and still find this contradictory.
The Old Testament is mainly written by people who claim having heard this from people who probably misunderstood God's message, while the Ne Testament contains the words of Jesus who we believe is God.
Iván |
The Old Testament was written by people who conversed with God and wrote what he told them to write.
You misunderstood me.
Human instrumentality that is God uses people to carry out his judgement and in the old testament used the israelites to execute his judgment on nations that for 400 hundred years had not accepted God's mercy but rather rejected it.
Jesus is the point where people come to receive God's mercy, as in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,f that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
But in John 3:18, the same chapter, it says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
Jesus is the Saviour and the Judge. He will carry out the judgement of God's wrath. In Luke, the verse you mentioned, Jesus is saying that God is not using Christians as human instruments for His judgement, partly because christians aren't one nation of people. And second because he is using Chrisitans to have people come to Christ and be saved from eternal damnation. He is waiting until all His work on earth is finished.
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:32 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Not an heretic, I have my doubts about the Old Testament being that it's a collection of books passed mouth to mouth from generation to generation until it was taken into the Bible.
Even the Pope John Paul II has clearlystated that the Evolution is a fact and for that reason the Book of Genesis is not accurate when talking about Adam and Eve.
On the other hand the New Testament is the direct word of thjose who lived with Jesus and there are many other apocriphal Gopspels that corroborate most facts.
I may have faith but I'm not blind.
Iván |
The Old testament wasn't passed from mouth to mouth. It was written by the prophets who received it directly from God. The israelites did not change one thing. The scribes had to recopy a page if the number of spaces was off. They maintained it in perfect form. No changes over the years.
As for Pope John Paul II, he is wrong about evolution if it makes Genesis to be wrong. Scripture is God's word and therefore perfect. I also believe that the Pope shouldn't exist because Jesus is the mediator between God and man, not the Pope.
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:39 |
Trademark wrote:
"I just hope this is only the result of a nationalist doctrine from a radical faction of Joshua that missunderstood the word of God, because I don't think that God wants us to kill the ones who don't believe in him."
I'm not a theologist either, but from what I gather they (the theologists) will tell you that God did want you to then, but doesn't want us to anymore.
By all accounts Joshua, who took over when Moses died, made a pretty good effort at the task, but in the end fell short of the "final solution". The Old Testament is bloodier than a Mel Gibson movie.
|
If you know the chronology of the Bible, for 400 years God did not judge the earth but presented them with mercy. But they rejected God and so those who did not accept God were punished, God using the israelites to send forth his wrath. God does not want people to kill those who don't believe in Him. But he will judge those who utterly reject Him. Joshua was God's choice for leadership after Moses. He did what God told him and sometimes he and/or the israelites sinned and God had to punish them for their wrongdoing. That was why Israel was taken over so many times by foreign nations.
The Old Testament also shows the world trying to fulfill the law by themselves. But being sinful, the world couldn't. That's where Jesus comes in. He took the punishment for the sins of the world and made it possible for people to go to heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 13:00 |
|
I know the drill here quite well, prog, Just trying to give the concise version.
Thanks for making it even easier to understand.
Edited by Trademark - December 04 2006 at 13:05
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 14:24 |
progismylife wrote:
The Old testament wasn't passed from mouth to mouth. It was written by the prophets who received it directly from God. The israelites did not change one thing. The scribes had to recopy a page if the number of spaces was off. They maintained it in perfect form. No changes over the years.
I doubt written language existed in the times of Adam or even before Noahs time, written language was invented 3,000 BC, it was pictographic and ABSOLUTELY AMBIGUOUS being that the ideograms represented ideas that depending on the style and the reader could have many different meanings.
So hardly could any prophet or scribe could had taken written infotrmation before those days, ergo it MUST have gone from mouth to mouth at least until the year 1,500 BC when the first semi-alphabetic piece of writtng exists.
This leaves everything previous to Joshua's death (Appx 1500 BC) without writting
As for Pope John Paul II, he is wrong about evolution if it makes Genesis to be wrong.
This is a point I didn't wanted to reach in which the direct representative of God according to the huge majority of Christians (2 or 3 times all the other Christian non-Apostolic confessions) is judged, but no problem.
The usual criticism to Catholic Church was that they ignored the science, that they wen't against the knowledge to preserve the satus quo and that was quite correct.
The Church changes and has to surrender to scientific evidence, the Pope Paul VI retired the excomunication of Galileo and accepted that the scientists checked some issues that were taken as a fact now that it's proved that EVOLUTION IS A FACT, some radical sectors start to criticize the Catholic Chuch because the Pope embraces science as a complement to faith.
Of course some sectors that can't deny the evolutoion start creating alternative theories and try to sell them as a fact like Intelligent Design, but lets face it science can prove some Biblical facts and denies other happened exactly as the Bible tells, for example where did Cain found Mrs Cain?
If the Bible doesn't mention other Adam and Eve sons and daughters is in effect not perfect.
Wouldn't it be possible that some ambiguos texts written in pictographic language could had been misunderstood by the scribes?
Scripture is God's word and therefore perfect. I also believe that the Pope shouldn't exist because Jesus is the mediator between God and man, not the Pope.
So all Catholics (1.3 billion) are wrong, the Catholic Church is evil because some small groups pretend to understand the Bible better than us?
There are Biblical quotes in the New Testament that justify directly the existence of the Pope, of course some groups will find always alternative theories to conraduict them.
That's fanatism, I'm a religious person but not a fanatic.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 04 2006 at 15:01
|
|
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 15:04 |
|
The cathoilics say it was Peter who started the Catholic church, but Paul said he is to the Gentiles as Peter was to the Jews. There is no evidence, that I have seen so far, that Peter even went to Rome. I will refrain from further Catholic criticism and I am sorry if it was out of place. It is just that a man who says the Bible can wrong but believes it to be God's word contradicts himself.
Also the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. And the Ten Commandments were written on stone, so there must have been some form of written language. Also the scribes could not have misinterpreted because God was with the Israelites for a long time and would have made sure they understood His words.
|
|
JrKASperov
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 16:46 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
..it's proved that EVOLUTION IS A FACT... |
No it isn't. David Hume.
|
|
Epic.
|
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 17:14 |
JrKASperov wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
..it's proved that EVOLUTION IS A FACT...
|
No it isn't. David Hume.
|
Given that David Hume died roughly 80 years before the publication of 'On The Origin Of Species' I'm not quite sure what your point is. True, he did engage in an extensive critique of the Argument From Design (what would now be called Intelligent Design), but his reasoning was flawed and depended on a circular argument.
True, Hume was an arch empiricist, so if you mean that the empirical evidence tends to support evolution but that as we cannot step outside the process to observe it objectively Evolution cannot be proved to be a fact then you've got a good point. On the other hand, the same logic can be applied to Intelligent Design, Creationism and Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory.
|
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
|
|
JrKASperov
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 17:25 |
Syzygy wrote:
True, Hume was an arch empiricist, so if you mean that the empirical evidence tends to support evolution but that as we cannot step outside the process to observe it objectively Evolution cannot be proved to be a fact then you've got a good point. On the other hand, the same logic can be applied to Intelligent Design, Creationism and Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory.
|
Exactly. So science just like the above is a belief.
|
|
Epic.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 17:37 |
|
I'm sorry, this is a good discussion, but completely off-topic.
|
|
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 17:50 |
stonebeard wrote:
I'm sorry, this is a good discussion, but completely off-topic. |
So tell me, Mr Beard when was the last time the VR thread discussed velvet or indeed security....  ?
However my good friend has a point,what the heck has this current discussion got to do with America? 
Edited by Tony R - December 04 2006 at 17:50
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 18:22 |
|
Just for the record, Progismylife, the Old Testament is thought to have been written only several hundred years before the time of Jesus. The material may have been composed and even written down long before, but it wasn't compiled until much later. And what makes you so sure that everything in the Bible is the word of God? You know, it was written down by humans, who's to say it's all exactly what God said? Besides, hundreds of years ago there was a committee to decide what would go in the Bible. Who knows, maybe they actually changed some passages? The Bible is not as uncensored as you would like to believe. One last thing. The last thing you want to do is take the Bible literally. I am Catholic, but I don't believe the book of Genesis is true, I think it was one just one of the many creation stories of long ago. Also, I don't take the Book of Revelations literally (do many?). I don't think four horsemen of the apocalypse will ever appear, I don't think there will be a huge battle of Jesus vs. Antichrist in some canyon in Israel. I believe it was a metaphor used be John to get messages slamming Rome and its emperors out to churches without getting himself killed. Does that make me sinful?
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 18:24 |
|
and this has what to do with America?
Hmmmm?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 19:02 |
|
Tony & Stoney: You guys have 13 pages of back reading to do. This surely isn't where it started, It's just where it went.
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 19:18 |
|
What Tony means is, your off topic.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 19:22 |
Trademark wrote:
Tony & Stoney: You guys have 13 pages of back reading to do. This surely isn't where it started, It's just where it went. |
I dont need to do any back-reading.
This thread is hopelessly off-topic and if it doesnt return it WILL be closed.
Thank you for your co-operation. 
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 20:01 |
progismylife wrote:
The cathoilics say it was Peter who started the Catholic church, but Paul said he is to the Gentiles as Peter was to the Jews. There is no evidence, that I have seen so far, that Peter even went to Rome.
In first place, there's evidence that Peter went to Rome:
|
Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."
Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.
The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."
Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes says, "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome…To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c.180), it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."
Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, "According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself."
|
The historical evidence is overwealming (Lactantius was not a Christian when he wrote this) and even if he wasn't in Rome, the fact that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion justifies that the boiggest part of christrians moved to Rome and formed the Holy See.
The important fact is that Peter formed the Christian Church and that Church formed by him elected his successors with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Second, Peter was not against the acceptance of gentiles, he had a position in the center between James and Paul:
| In Acts, Peter is a leader in the Jerusalem church and engages in missionary activity in Samaria, Galilee, Lydda, Sharon, and Joppa. He favors admission of Gentiles into the church but occupies a middle position between James (the "brother" of Jesus), who wants to keep Christianity very Jewish in practice, and Paul, who wishes to minimize requirements for Gentile converts. |
So Peter is both the first among the Jews anf Gentles.
I will refrain from further Catholic criticism and I am sorry if it was out of place. It is just that a man who says the Bible can wrong but believes it to be God's word contradicts himself.
Don't worry, I understand why your doubts not being a Catholic.
He doesn't say the Bible is wromng, most surely is incomplete, as I asked where did Mrs Cain was found, and daughter of who she was? Surely there is an answer but it's not written in the Bible, the mission of the Pope is to analyze and fill this holes by the power invested by Jesus to him and his followers.:
|
The Gospel of St. Matthew 16:17-19 says, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
|
As you know Peter's name was Simon and Jesus changed it to Petrus = rock
Also the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
Moses didn't lived in the Genesis Book, and if he received this information from God, Moses was not capable of understanding evolution facts, much less scientific facts from the formation of the Universe, so God had to explain him in terms that he was able to understand.
And the Ten Commandments were written on stone, so there must have been some form of written language. Also the scribes could not have misinterpreted because God was with the Israelites for a long time and would have made sure they understood His words.
There was no writting, that's a scientific fact at least before the Sumerian Empuire and yet then it was in pictograms and for that reason not accurate.
Yes God was with the Israelits but men has misunderstood God message for ever, if not, then why are there so many churches with opposite dogmas based in the same Bible?
Were the Israeliteds more intelligent than the people who created the different churches?
We need to have faith but accept things that are explained buy science, if not we would still be living with slaves and having sex with the wife of our brothers if they died.
I believe God created the Universe, but I am also sure that a man from Moses era wasn't able to understand complex scientific evidence, so he had to be explained in a language he could understand, even Jesus used parables to talk with people that weren't able to understand his message.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 04 2006 at 20:07 |
Just read your warning after replying (Couldn't do it before but my reply was ready to be posted).
The thread evolved so interestring that we all got carried.
Will keep on topic from now on, lawyer's word 
Iván
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
America
