| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:47 |
 Epignosis wrote:
You sure do like making generalizations. Your using "religion" as a catch-all term reveals that you are trying to capture water with a net.
I think the Bible involves ancient people trying to describe phenomenon they observed with their limited words and phrases. The biblical writings aren't the only ancient texts that do this. The Bible isn't a textbook that's purpose is giving us scientific detail on how the natural world works. You seem to keep insisting that it does, and therefore is wrong.
|
Religions based on the bible do that, and therefore they're wrong. You may see it differently, but then you're not a religious person (from the perspective of Christian religions).
Epignosis wrote:
It's like getting bent out of shape over a toaster manual not giving you complete information on the inner workings of the toaster, in what order it was manufactured, or where the materials came from, etc.
|
 Please tell any clergyman that you're a Christian but you also think that the Bible is little more than a toaster manual, and then ask him what he thinks about you.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:44 |
Epignosis wrote:
Briefly, a three dimensional character would be invisible to a two dimensional character, yet could still come close and be perceived as being near. (place your hand a cm from your flat monitor...you are not touching it, but presumably a flat 2D creature could feel your presence (i.e., warmth, etc).
You could even touch the screen, and the flat creature would perceive a small part of you, but not all of you (compare this to Moses seeing only God's backside).
However, you as the 3D creature could perceive the 2D world all at once, including what is inside the flat person's house, and even all of the flat person's inner workings, all at the same time.
So if God exists in a higher spacial dimension, He could still be physical, and interact with His creation without being seen, speak and be heard but not seen, only show part of himself, observe all of our internal organs at the same time as our external bodies, transport people and things from one place to another as if by magic (but not magic- you see, he would merely have to lift the 3D person or object into a higher dimension and place that person or object elsewhere in the 3D world), etc.
To a 2D creature, a 3D creature would have all manner of abilities and powers. I might even be considered a god to the 2D creature.
Yet I have never "violated" physics (or at least what could be theoretically true of dimensional planes).
I hope this makes sense. 
|
I think that you have a somewhat naive way of making an analogy here, at least from the perspective of a physicist. Still, even if it was true that somehow God was just a 4th dimensional creature (or nth dimensional - there are more than 4) who created our world as a 3 dimensional variation of Origami ... even in that case you would have to explain to me how that could in any way be consistent with Christian belief, or with evolution by natural selection. The former sees God as a transcendental entity totally outside or beyond the physical world, the latter explains the formation of life as a process driven almost totally by chance (at least when seen as a whole - the individual steps along the way follow simple rules of cause and effect).
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:41 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
4. Faith is not "blind belief," but something more than that (I can prove this- one need only look at the meaning and cultural context of the Greek word pistis).
|
"Blind belief" is exactly what religion is all about. It is, in essence, about filling gaps in our knowlege with dogmatic explanation that are beyond logic or reasoning. Science on the other hand tries to fill these gaps using falsifiable theories which anyone can question or challenge, for example, by presenting evidence to the contrary. Now what I find particularly annoying about religion - and this again supports my opinion that believing in religion requires blind faith and ignorance of facts - is that even as most of the gaps in our knowledge that used to be explained by religion have today been explained by science, religious people continue as if nothing had happened, using these gaps to "rationalize" their belief.
[QUOTE=Epignosis]
|
You sure do like making generalizations. Your using "religion" as a catch-all term reveals that you are trying to capture water with a net.
I think the Bible involves ancient people trying to describe phenomenon they observed with their limited words and phrases. The biblical writings aren't the only ancient texts that do this. The Bible isn't a textbook that's purpose is giving us scientific detail on how the natural world works. You seem to keep insisting that it does, and therefore is wrong.
It's like getting bent out of shape over a toaster manual not giving you complete information on the inner workings of the toaster, in what order it was manufactured, or where the materials came from, etc.
|
|
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:41 |
^ Yeah... I like that explanation... I don't remember where I put a post in which I explain That I saw someone moving objects with his mind and doing a lot of crazy things... what I suggest is that there's people who understand that other level of reality (in your words, other dimmensions) and could manipulate some "natural rules" which is an empty definition as we are discovering more and more "rules" that change our earlier believings... so, you called superior dimensions to what I called that other side of things that we're not have prooved yet, but that doesn't mean that it do not exists...
it's a logical explanation... science has no explained everything yet...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:36 |
^^ are you really trying to say that atheism is like black and white whereas religion is colorful? I think that a better analogy to the problem we're currently facing with religion is this: Suppose someone came along, saying that the spirit of Red talked to him and gave him some divine instructions. Red told him that people should love their neighbour [and lots of obvious codes of behaviour], but they should also fight people who don't regard "Red" as the only true color, or at the very least convince them to convert to "Red". (Continue this with various other colors). In this case the Atheist would be the one who tries to get followers of "Color" (Any Colour You Like  ) that all the colors are essentially the same, and that the idea that any of them was special *and* that it also has a special supernatural power, there is no evidence that supports all that.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2009 at 11:36
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:28 |
Kestrel wrote:
 Whew... interesting and complex response.
Epignosis wrote:
I believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. I believe God is sovereign over His creation because He set it up and set into the motion from the beginning in such a way that all the atoms and particles and molecules of the universe would operate according to his plan. In this way, it's quite possible to believe that God never "intervenes" because He set things up to happen as they will and according to His own plan (and at the same time, it can be said that God intervened, at least on another level)...if this makes any sense. I'm not completely sure that's where I stand, but it is a serious possibility I am considering (especially since the Bible says God created in six days but rested on the seventh...hmmm....) |
How would you reconcile determinism with omnipotence?
I have a few more questions but your belief that God is physical is really throwing me off. 
Epignosis wrote:
Okay, number two: I believe that anything that has meaningful existence must exist physically.
I do not believe anyone has ever seen ghosts (as they are generally defined) because if something is truly non-physical, it will not be able to displace light or otherwise interact with the physical world. They cannot be seen, make noise, or move objects.
What I believe about God is this: God is a "spiritual" being, but by spiritual, I do not mean non-physical. I think "spiritual" was the ancients' way of saying what we sophisticated folks would call "extra-dimensional." I simply believe God exists on a high dimension (do a Youtube search of "Flatlands," and what I'm saying will probably make a bunch of sense). |
Quite strange, haha. Is your belief in a physical God common at all? I ask since I've never encountered it before.
I watched a video about Flatlands from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Incredibly interesting. How do you apply this to God? What would you say his reflection in our 3-dimensional world is?
In response, I would say that as far as I understand, we don't have any evidence of these higher dimensions. String theory says they exist but that's on iffy scientific grounds (but I believe string theorists are hoping the Large Hadron Collider may lead to some evidence, so we'll have to wait on that). Because of the lack of evidence and our ability to describe many natural phenomena anyway, Occam's Razor says there isn't much use for the explanation for the higher dimensions. This can all change with new evidence though (the beauty of science!).
Of course, I feel like we might as well be speaking different languages at this point, haha.
Epignosis wrote:
As for number four, this is hardly a matter that could be debated. The Greek word pistis (which is translated as "faith") was a Greek word that might better be translated "trust." It was commonly used in patron-client relationships...meaning this |
Damn it. I had a response and a few questions to the parts of your post regarding pistis but I had to leave for a few hours when I was writing it. Now I have no memory of what I was going to say so I'll come back to this later.
|
Briefly, a three dimensional character would be invisible to a two dimensional character, yet could still come close and be perceived as being near. (place your hand a cm from your flat monitor...you are not touching it, but presumably a flat 2D creature could feel your presence (i.e., warmth, etc).
You could even touch the screen, and the flat creature would perceive a small part of you, but not all of you (compare this to Moses seeing only God's backside).
However, you as the 3D creature could perceive the 2D world all at once, including what is inside the flat person's house, and even all of the flat person's inner workings, all at the same time.
So if God exists in a higher spacial dimension, He could still be physical, and interact with His creation without being seen, speak and be heard but not seen, only show part of himself, observe all of our internal organs at the same time as our external bodies, transport people and things from one place to another as if by magic (but not magic- you see, he would merely have to lift the 3D person or object into a higher dimension and place that person or object elsewhere in the 3D world), etc.
To a 2D creature, a 3D creature would have all manner of abilities and powers. I might even be considered a god to the 2D creature.
Yet I have never "violated" physics (or at least what could be theoretically true of dimensional planes).
I hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 11:13 |
This is a little idea I thought up...it will probably be ripped to shred but so be it.
Imagine that most people had very poor ability to perceive color. Some were born with better ability, some almost none (color-blind) but most could be taught to improve their abilities (much as a good ear in music is). Suppose that some families were more inclined to perceive red, and therefore saw a red-tinged world, and taught their children who became more adept as seeing red than other colors. (Everyone sees black and white just fine). Other families blue, purple, cyan, etc.
Now there were times when people from different families would meet up and talking about how they saw the world. Sometimes fights would break out, because what was most vivid and important in one's person's vision was either absent or barely perceptible in another's.
As people became more and more numerous, eventually one family would win the fight, and teach subsequent generations their color. At first lots of conflict would ensure, but eventually most would at least be able to perceive the culturally dominant color. Now, always there would be some who could perceive other colors as well. And because the world itself was actually multiple colored, these people would seem to understand things no one else could. Again lots of unrest.
Sometimes large cultures of one color would come up against a culture of another. Sometimes they would simply co-exist, but inevitable sometimes fights would break out and occasionally full war.
Eventually as the world co-mingled more and more, it became clear that there were two solutions, everyone had to at least accept the existence or validity of all the colors, or all had to agree to simply live in a black and white world.
Since the second option was more straightforward, and actually allowed people to work on common perception, great strides were made. Many decided to forgo worrying about color at all. Many generations went by where many children were never taught to sharpen their ability to perceive color.
Eventually, some people in the new society decided "I'm not sure there is color at all." and further "Anytime color enters into the picture, people start fighting." And then decided to try and put and end to this color business.
The black and white world is a functional one.
But the world of color is much richer, and whether you perceive it or not, it's there.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 05 2009 at 05:15 |
Epignosis wrote:
4. Faith is not "blind belief," but something more than that (I can prove this- one need only look at the meaning and cultural context of the Greek word pistis).
|
"Blind belief" is exactly what religion is all about. It is, in essence, about filling gaps in our knowlege with dogmatic explanation that are beyond logic or reasoning. Science on the other hand tries to fill these gaps using falsifiable theories which anyone can question or challenge, for example, by presenting evidence to the contrary. Now what I find particularly annoying about religion - and this again supports my opinion that believing in religion requires blind faith and ignorance of facts - is that even as most of the gaps in our knowledge that used to be explained by religion have today been explained by science, religious people continue as if nothing had happened, using these gaps to "rationalize" their belief.
Epignosis wrote:
5. I believe in mechanical determinism.
|
What about quantum mechanics?
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 04 2009 at 21:52 |
Whew... interesting and complex response.
Epignosis wrote:
I believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. I believe God is sovereign over His creation because He set it up and set into the motion from the beginning in such a way that all the atoms and particles and molecules of the universe would operate according to his plan. In this way, it's quite possible to believe that God never "intervenes" because He set things up to happen as they will and according to His own plan (and at the same time, it can be said that God intervened, at least on another level)...if this makes any sense. I'm not completely sure that's where I stand, but it is a serious possibility I am considering (especially since the Bible says God created in six days but rested on the seventh...hmmm....) |
How would you reconcile determinism with omnipotence?
I have a few more questions but your belief that God is physical is really throwing me off.
Epignosis wrote:
Okay, number two: I believe that anything that has meaningful existence must exist physically.
I do not believe anyone has ever seen ghosts (as they are generally defined) because if something is truly non-physical, it will not be able to displace light or otherwise interact with the physical world. They cannot be seen, make noise, or move objects.
What I believe about God is this: God is a "spiritual" being, but by spiritual, I do not mean non-physical. I think "spiritual" was the ancients' way of saying what we sophisticated folks would call "extra-dimensional." I simply believe God exists on a high dimension (do a Youtube search of "Flatlands," and what I'm saying will probably make a bunch of sense). |
Quite strange, haha. Is your belief in a physical God common at all? I ask since I've never encountered it before.
I watched a video about Flatlands from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Incredibly interesting. How do you apply this to God? What would you say his reflection in our 3-dimensional world is?
In response, I would say that as far as I understand, we don't have any evidence of these higher dimensions. String theory says they exist but that's on iffy scientific grounds (but I believe string theorists are hoping the Large Hadron Collider may lead to some evidence, so we'll have to wait on that). Because of the lack of evidence and our ability to describe many natural phenomena anyway, Occam's Razor says there isn't much use for the explanation for the higher dimensions. This can all change with new evidence though (the beauty of science!).
Of course, I feel like we might as well be speaking different languages at this point, haha.
Epignosis wrote:
As for number four, this is hardly a matter that could be debated. The Greek word pistis (which is translated as "faith") was a Greek word that might better be translated "trust." It was commonly used in patron-client relationships...meaning this |
Damn it. I had a response and a few questions to the parts of your post regarding pistis but I had to leave for a few hours when I was writing it. Now I have no memory of what I was going to say so I'll come back to this later.
Edited by Kestrel - December 04 2009 at 21:53
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 15:30 |
Kestrel wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
See, this is why arguing about these matters rarely helps, because we all use labels and have a predetermined idea of what each other believes.
For example, I am a Christian yet:
1. I, like Dean, do not believe in "souls" (whatever they are).
2. I believe everything that exists must exist physically, including God.
3. I do not believe in a "hell" that consists of everlasting punishment.
4. Faith is not "blind belief," but something more than that (I can prove this- one need only look at the meaning and cultural context of the Greek word pistis).
5. I believe in mechanical determinism.
And many, many other things that sets me apart from the usual stereotypes about Christian beliefs.
So many times when someone argues against something I believe, it's often not something I believe.
|
Well, that's certainly interesting. Could you go a little more in depth on points 2 and 4?
I also still don't get your view of miracles, but I suppose if you think God exists physically the idea makes a bit more sense to me. Do you believe God is omnipotent/omniscient or do you think that is more lazy thinking on Christianity -in-general's part?
|
I'll work backwards:
I believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. I believe God is sovereign over His creation because He set it up and set into the motion from the beginning in such a way that all the atoms and particles and molecules of the universe would operate according to his plan. In this way, it's quite possible to believe that God never "intervenes" because He set things up to happen as they will and according to His own plan (and at the same time, it can be said that God intervened, at least on another level)...if this makes any sense. I'm not completely sure that's where I stand, but it is a serious possibility I am considering (especially since the Bible says God created in six days but rested on the seventh...hmmm....)
Okay, number two: I believe that anything that has meaningful existence must exist physically.
I do not believe anyone has ever seen ghosts (as they are generally defined) because if something is truly non-physical, it will not be able to displace light or otherwise interact with the physical world. They cannot be seen, make noise, or move objects.
What I believe about God is this: God is a "spiritual" being, but by spiritual, I do not mean non-physical. I think "spiritual" was the ancients' way of saying what we sophisticated folks would call "extra-dimensional." I simply believe God exists on a high dimension (do a Youtube search of "Flatlands," and what I'm saying will probably make a bunch of sense).
As for number four, this is hardly a matter that could be debated. The Greek word pistis (which is translated as "faith") was a Greek word that might better be translated "trust." It was commonly used in patron-client relationships...meaning this:
Suppose you were a farmer with a family in ancient times. Suppose a bad drought kills your crops and your family is about to starve. This is where a benevolent patron could step in and save your family from death by offering you food, a field, shelter, whatever you needed. This is exactly the concept of charis (the Greek word translated "grace").
In response to your benefactor, you show pistis. You can never pay back the benefactor's charis (even if you paid back whatever money he spent on you, you generally cannot pay back his saving your and your family's lives).
So in return, you become the patron to that benefactor. By accepting the "grace" offered by the benefactor to you and your family, you have entered into a relationship with him (called a patron-client relationship). The patron (benefactor) will continue to assist you, and even bless you with extra "goodies." The client (you and you family) will "repay" the patron by increasing the patron's reputation in society and even procuring other clients for the patron (i.e., speaking highly of him and telling others about what a great patron he is).
Let that example sink in...this is how ancient people would have understood grace and faith as talked about in the Bible. God is a patron who saves people from their sin, and in return, people speak highly (glorify) God and tell others (evangelize) about how great God is.
By the way, historical patron-client relationships almost always had a "broker," a mediator who was the go-between...I wonder who that could be to a Christian.
So back to the meaning of "faith," the meaning of faith involves trusting in the one who has shown himself helpful. I think the Bible is an accurate historical record (others will disagree), and when I read of the great things God has done throughout history for His people, and when people today tell me how God is changing their lives, it increases my own faith.
Even the Bible tells us that faith requires evidence:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1, emphasis mine) As a child, I could not prove that my parents would feed me the next day, but I had faith in them that they would based on years of doing so without fail.
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 12:38 |
Epignosis wrote:
See, this is why arguing about these matters rarely helps, because we all use labels and have a predetermined idea of what each other believes.
For example, I am a Christian yet:
1. I, like Dean, do not believe in "souls" (whatever they are).
2. I believe everything that exists must exist physically, including God.
3. I do not believe in a "hell" that consists of everlasting punishment.
4. Faith is not "blind belief," but something more than that (I can prove this- one need only look at the meaning and cultural context of the Greek word pistis).
5. I believe in mechanical determinism.
And many, many other things that sets me apart from the usual stereotypes about Christian beliefs.
So many times when someone argues against something I believe, it's often not something I believe.
|
Well, that's certainly interesting. Could you go a little more in depth on points 2 and 4? I also still don't get your view of miracles, but I suppose if you think God exists physically the idea makes a bit more sense to me. Do you believe God is omnipotent/omniscient or do you think that is more lazy thinking on Christianity -in-general's part?
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:57 |
Epignosis wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion. |
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
|
A couple things to say about it... again, I'll not make an excelent translation since I understand the books in spanish... but where you put an "everlasting life" is translated as "eternal life" which is not the same... you're the teacher here, but is not likely there were a word "eternal" on that time... and remember that John in Apocalipsis put that he saw a new land, and new sky and a new Jerusalem... we don't know if he refers to a physical one or a idealistic...
and yes, Christians has the believe on the resurrection of the flesh... that's why exists graveyards and everything... all that have died will become to life -again, I'm not using the exact words, forgive me that- in the judgement day and God will select the good from the bads... so, as Christians we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.. that is something physical... so, tradition support you on that too...
Of course there's a lot of questions like those who are dust and are no conserved in couphins, what happen to them and some details like that... but your last sentence is a little wrong I think... the bible said very clearly that those who do not care for the goods of the owner were tied and throwed to the punishment place, but those who care and protect the goods of the owner were recieved in the "party", to the heaven that was promised before... so... |
I'm aware that some use that argument- I just don't think it is accurate. Again, the idea of an immortal soul as we know it is relatively new.
Regarding your comments on the parable, note that I never said there wasn't punishment for the unsaved. I said I don't believe in "everlasting" hell. The Bible says God will destroy the wicked. The parable also doesn't say that people go to heaven or hell right after they die.
Also, the Bible says no man but Jesus has ever ascended into Heaven:
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." - John 3:13
|
Yeah... that's why I mention the Judgement day not only the individual dead of persons... but remember that thief crucified aside Jesus, He told him that that night they will be together in paradise so... it's a heavy debate but the point is that tradition is not that missing as you said above... I guess some theories -which are not more than that- are easier to explain, so people choose the easy way and don't analyse deeply the facts, in the case of Christians... the most accurate meaning of bible...
|
That is a classic example of translation bias. Every time I point this out to people, they scoff.
First, no punctuation existed in Koine Greek (the language of the Old Testament).
So translators have to put periods and commas in to arrive at sensible translations to English.
The verse in question is Luke 23:23. It is usually translated this way:
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
A perfectly fair translation of this could be
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."
The Bible uses this Hebrew idiom "I say unto you today" and variations throughout. (compare Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11, Josh. 23:14).
|
Your'e the teacher here... interesting way to put it... again... I've learned in spanish... and if I'm not wrong, spanish translation become before english transaltion right...??? At the end it sounds fine to me anyway... both translations are fine, if I reach paradise, sooner or later...
Edited by jampa17 - December 03 2009 at 09:58
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:54 |
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion. |
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
|
A couple things to say about it... again, I'll not make an excelent translation since I understand the books in spanish... but where you put an "everlasting life" is translated as "eternal life" which is not the same... you're the teacher here, but is not likely there were a word "eternal" on that time... and remember that John in Apocalipsis put that he saw a new land, and new sky and a new Jerusalem... we don't know if he refers to a physical one or a idealistic...
and yes, Christians has the believe on the resurrection of the flesh... that's why exists graveyards and everything... all that have died will become to life -again, I'm not using the exact words, forgive me that- in the judgement day and God will select the good from the bads... so, as Christians we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.. that is something physical... so, tradition support you on that too...
Of course there's a lot of questions like those who are dust and are no conserved in couphins, what happen to them and some details like that... but your last sentence is a little wrong I think... the bible said very clearly that those who do not care for the goods of the owner were tied and throwed to the punishment place, but those who care and protect the goods of the owner were recieved in the "party", to the heaven that was promised before... so... |
I'm aware that some use that argument- I just don't think it is accurate. Again, the idea of an immortal soul as we know it is relatively new.
Regarding your comments on the parable, note that I never said there wasn't punishment for the unsaved. I said I don't believe in "everlasting" hell. The Bible says God will destroy the wicked. The parable also doesn't say that people go to heaven or hell right after they die.
Also, the Bible says no man but Jesus has ever ascended into Heaven:
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." - John 3:13
|
Yeah... that's why I mention the Judgement day not only the individual dead of persons... but remember that thief crucified aside Jesus, He told him that that night they will be together in paradise so... it's a heavy debate but the point is that tradition is not that missing as you said above... I guess some theories -which are not more than that- are easier to explain, so people choose the easy way and don't analyse deeply the facts, in the case of Christians... the most accurate meaning of bible...
|
That is a classic example of translation bias. Every time I point this out to people, they scoff.
First, no punctuation existed in Koine Greek (the language of the Old Testament).
So translators have to put periods and commas in to arrive at sensible translations to English.
The verse in question is Luke 23:23. It is usually translated this way:
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
A perfectly fair translation of this could be
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise." The Bible uses this Hebrew idiom "I say unto you today" and variations throughout. (compare Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11, Josh. 23:14).
|
|
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:44 |
Epignosis wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion. |
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
|
A couple things to say about it... again, I'll not make an excelent translation since I understand the books in spanish... but where you put an "everlasting life" is translated as "eternal life" which is not the same... you're the teacher here, but is not likely there were a word "eternal" on that time... and remember that John in Apocalipsis put that he saw a new land, and new sky and a new Jerusalem... we don't know if he refers to a physical one or a idealistic...
and yes, Christians has the believe on the resurrection of the flesh... that's why exists graveyards and everything... all that have died will become to life -again, I'm not using the exact words, forgive me that- in the judgement day and God will select the good from the bads... so, as Christians we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.. that is something physical... so, tradition support you on that too...
Of course there's a lot of questions like those who are dust and are no conserved in couphins, what happen to them and some details like that... but your last sentence is a little wrong I think... the bible said very clearly that those who do not care for the goods of the owner were tied and throwed to the punishment place, but those who care and protect the goods of the owner were recieved in the "party", to the heaven that was promised before... so... |
I'm aware that some use that argument- I just don't think it is accurate. Again, the idea of an immortal soul as we know it is relatively new.
Regarding your comments on the parable, note that I never said there wasn't punishment for the unsaved. I said I don't believe in "everlasting" hell. The Bible says God will destroy the wicked. The parable also doesn't say that people go to heaven or hell right after they die.
Also, the Bible says no man but Jesus has ever ascended into Heaven:
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." - John 3:13
|
Yeah... that's why I mention the Judgement day not only the individual dead of persons... but remember that thief crucified aside Jesus, He told him that that night they will be together in paradise so... it's a heavy debate but the point is that tradition is not that missing as you said above... I guess some theories -which are not more than that- are easier to explain, so people choose the easy way and don't analyse deeply the facts, in the case of Christians... the most accurate meaning of bible...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:38 |
jampa17 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion. |
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
|
A couple things to say about it... again, I'll not make an excelent translation since I understand the books in spanish... but where you put an "everlasting life" is translated as "eternal life" which is not the same... you're the teacher here, but is not likely there were a word "eternal" on that time... and remember that John in Apocalipsis put that he saw a new land, and new sky and a new Jerusalem... we don't know if he refers to a physical one or a idealistic...
and yes, Christians has the believe on the resurrection of the flesh... that's why exists graveyards and everything... all that have died will become to life -again, I'm not using the exact words, forgive me that- in the judgement day and God will select the good from the bads... so, as Christians we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.. that is something physical... so, tradition support you on that too...
Of course there's a lot of questions like those who are dust and are no conserved in couphins, what happen to them and some details like that... but your last sentence is a little wrong I think... the bible said very clearly that those who do not care for the goods of the owner were tied and throwed to the punishment place, but those who care and protect the goods of the owner were recieved in the "party", to the heaven that was promised before... so... |
I'm aware that some use that argument- I just don't think it is accurate. Again, the idea of an immortal soul as we know it is relatively new.
Regarding your comments on the parable, note that I never said there wasn't punishment for the unsaved. I said I don't believe in "everlasting" hell. The Bible says God will destroy the wicked. The parable also doesn't say that people go to heaven or hell right after they die.
Also, the Bible says no man but Jesus has ever ascended into Heaven:
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." - John 3:13
|
|
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:31 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion. |
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
|
A couple things to say about it... again, I'll not make an excelent translation since I understand the books in spanish... but where you put an "everlasting life" is translated as "eternal life" which is not the same... you're the teacher here, but is not likely there were a word "eternal" on that time... and remember that John in Apocalipsis put that he saw a new land, and new sky and a new Jerusalem... we don't know if he refers to a physical one or a idealistic...
and yes, Christians has the believe on the resurrection of the flesh... that's why exists graveyards and everything... all that have died will become to life -again, I'm not using the exact words, forgive me that- in the judgement day and God will select the good from the bads... so, as Christians we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.. that is something physical... so, tradition support you on that too...
Of course there's a lot of questions like those who are dust and are no conserved in couphins, what happen to them and some details like that... but your last sentence is a little wrong I think... the bible said very clearly that those who do not care for the goods of the owner were tied and throwed to the punishment place, but those who care and protect the goods of the owner were recieved in the "party", to the heaven that was promised before... so...
Edited by jampa17 - December 03 2009 at 09:34
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:18 |
Negoba wrote:
Unless Him refers to God...
And jampa, all Catholics recite "resurrection of the body" as part of the creed.
Atman is Brahman...what you may call your soul is just a manifestation of the God the omnipotential. i.e. We are all avatars.
|
Yes... read my next post please...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:14 |
Unless Him refers to God...
And jampa, all Catholics recite "resurrection of the body" as part of the creed.
Atman is Brahman...what you may call your soul is just a manifestation of the God the omnipotential. i.e. We are all avatars.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:11 |
jampa17 wrote:
Dean wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
[QUOTE=jampa17] I seriously doubt it and go back to my initial idea... Love is part of my soul, so I refuse to believe that feelings and emotions are the same... but again... I believe in that and you cannot be sure that feel pain and feel love or anger has to do with just chemical reactions.. the only way to determinate that is through the synthoms and that could be prooved with whoever who knows about medicine, that synthoms could not determine the illness 100% sure... so... I don't know if I express my idea correctly... jejeje... |
Ah... yes... well... erm... gulp... I don't debate spiritual things I only discuss science, whatever you believe spiritually is what you believe and I respect that. Personnaly I do not believe such a thing as a soul exists, but that's just me. |
Maybe that's the problem here... those who believe in God don't need to see fireworks and incredible miracles to believe in it... in the other hand, those who refuse to believe in he/she/it even if they could see a miracle, they have put it names like "mass hysteria" or "lunatic"... but still both terms do not explain this that have happen...
Yes, I'm talking of believing... you are talking about proof... which is, again, the initial idea of this thread... |
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: December 03 2009 at 09:03 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ I'm not sure that many Christians would agree that you're a Christian. The concept of an (immortal) soul is the heart of that religion.
|
I can't argue with you there, Mike- in fact, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity either, and many churches consider that to be an essential of Christianity.
And they would be wrong.
All that is required to be a Christian is to repent of sin and make Christ Lord and Savior of their lives. It's so simple that uneducated fishermen and children could do it.
When we start making long lists of these arcane concepts a person must accept before they can be considered a Christian, we effectively limit who can be saved by virtue of education! And that's clearly not the case.
Edit: By the way, the concept of the immortal soul is foreign to the Bible (it really is!)...so why would it be the heart of Christianity? Senseless tradition maybe...
Look at John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"
Does that not mean that one must believe in Christ before one lives forever? This living forever comes in the form of a resurrection, not from one dying and automatically going to heaven or hell.
I'm sorry, but that's a nonsensical, unbiblcal belief Christian tradition has held onto for a long time.
Edited by Epignosis - December 03 2009 at 09:07
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
