Why religion at all? [Archive] - Theology Forum

Leo Volont

March 5th, 2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS

Hi

To Christians and others of a faith that believes in the existence of a God which I assume is the majority given the nature of this forum:

Why are you Christian?
What is your motivation?

I’ve been haunting the forum for a while prior to joining and I expect that at least part of it is to serve Christ, WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?

Is heaven the ultimate goal?
Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?
Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?

If this has been asked before then please point me in the right direction.

Thanks for your insight.

It has been said that 'fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom'. It is better to come to Religion from Fear of Divine Chastisement then to come for some personal Reward. The hope for Personal Reward is inherently selfish, and so fundementally satanic. Fear of God, though, is at least the start of 'other-directed' thinking. Fear of God only occurs to people who arrive at it through guilt and remorse, which show that the Soul has Moral Perceptions. A Person who sakes only Reward -- where is any evidence of Moral Perception?

The True Disciple must serve purely out of Duty and Obligation. The Truist Service is Service that we render because we don't feel that we have any choice -- that we do it because we KNOW that God would expect it of us. Such action is Consecrated Action. One who Serves Divinity out of Duty has no Personal Sin in his actions. God assumes the responsibility for His Servants. If you act in your own Name then you have personal sin -- but if you act in the interests of Divinity, then God will assume responsibility for you. Ofcourse, there are matters of Good Servants vs. Bad Servants. God would wish everyone a good servant, but people are people. That is why God numbers His Servants. I had a dream in which I saw that I was number 231 in the Entourage of Our Lady Queen of Heaven the Blessed Virgin. Then another dream in which I was Number 23 at a Table of 23 Saints. But, it is better to be last in Heaven then not in Heaven.

In the next 8 years the Roman Catholic Church will dissolve into a New Universal Ecumenical Church. Yes, a Church is a good thing because the Sacraments are Good Things. One needs an Institution in order to support institutionalized Sacraments. Also, in order to support a Culture with engrained Moral Assumptions, Religion must be Institutionalized -- Religious Teachings must be passed from Generation to Generation in an organized and efficient manner.

I myself, as Number 231 and 23, will lobby the New Universal Church to provide the Holy Sacraments without the restrictions that the Roman Catholic Church now exercises (mostly from the influence of Paul who will be finally recognized as the Antichrist, and whose influence will be rejected ... a necessary step before the other Higher Religions can meld into Christianity without feeling that they are being soiled.

Lighthouse

March 6th, 2004, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Leo Volont

It has been said that 'fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom'. It is better to come to Religion from Fear of Divine Chastisement then to come for some personal Reward. The hope for Personal Reward is inherently selfish, and so fundementally satanic. Fear of God, though, is at least the start of 'other-directed' thinking. Fear of God only occurs to people who arrive at it through guilt and remorse, which show that the Soul has Moral Perceptions. A Person who sakes only Reward -- where is any evidence of Moral Perception?

I have no reason to fear Divine chastisement, nor is it a reason to come to God. The fear of God, is not being afraid of Him, rather it is being in awe of Him. I love Him, because He first loved me. That is the bottom line. My only reward is His love, and I had it before I was born.

The True Disciple must serve purely out of Duty and Obligation. The Truist Service is Service that we render because we don't feel that we have any choice -- that we do it because we KNOW that God would expect it of us. Such action is Consecrated Action. One who Serves Divinity out of Duty has no Personal Sin in his actions. God assumes the responsibility for His Servants. If you act in your own Name then you have personal sin -- but if you act in the interests of Divinity, then God will assume responsibility for you. Of course, there are matters of Good Servants vs. Bad Servants. God would wish everyone a good servant, but people are people. That is why God numbers His Servants. I had a dream in which I saw that I was number 231 in the Entourage of Our Lady Queen of Heaven the Blessed Virgin. Then another dream in which I was Number 23 at a Table of 23 Saints. But, it is better to be last in Heaven then not in Heaven.

I obey, because I love Him [for the reason I love Him, see above]. I do not obey out of obligation. I am not obligated to obey Him, nor am I obligated to love Him. But i do. My obedience is not for my own personal gain, because His love is not dependent upon it. I already have His love.

In the next 8 years the Roman Catholic Church will dissolve into a New Universal Ecumenical Church. Yes, a Church is a good thing because the Sacraments are Good Things. One needs an Institution in order to support institutionalized Sacraments. Also, in order to support a Culture with engrained Moral Assumptions, Religion must be Institutionalized -- Religious Teachings must be passed from Generation to Generation in an organized and efficient manner.

God does not need an institution, or an orginization for His creation to love Him. All He needs is His love for them. Actions themselves are not sacraments, the relationship between God and a believer is what's sacred. That relationship is what makes the actions sacred.

I myself, as Number 231 and 23, will lobby the New Universal Church to provide the Holy Sacraments without the restrictions that the Roman Catholic Church now exercises (mostly from the influence of Paul who will be finally recognized as the Antichrist, and whose influence will be rejected ... a necessary step before the other Higher Religions can meld into Christianity without feeling that they are being soiled.

:kookoo:

Leo Volont

March 6th, 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

I have no reason to fear Divine chastisement

I am not obligated to obey Him

If you sin then you deserve and should fear Divine Chastisement. Besides, the Avenging Angels are not particular. The Avenging Angels assail complete Societies. They slaughtered the First Sons of Egypt -- good, bad and indifferent. They destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah completely. Do you suppose the Black Plague only took those who were evil. Few people know this but before the Black Plague, the Priests were also the Medical Doctors of Society, but since they were so dedicated to their jobs, practically every single Medical Priest died. They were obviously the Best of Christianity -- but the Avenging Angels did not flinch or hesitate but took all that came into their sights. But you are not afraid. It is what they used to say in the Army -- 'stupid' is not the same as 'fearless'... it just looks like it.

About you rejecting any obligation to serve God --very satanic, very protestant. Why don't you take out a billboard to advertise your contempt for all that is Holy.

PureX

March 6th, 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS Why religion at all? One of the most fundimantal drives in human nature is the need to ascribe meaning and purpose to an existence that is too complex for us to easily see meaning and purpose in. I don't know why we are the way we are, but all humans in all times have expended a lot of energy creating and defending the meaning of their own existence.

One of the other most fundimantal drives in human nature is fear. We humans survive and thrive by our intellect, rather than by our size, strength, speed, etc., so our ability to control our environment by understanding how it works is essential to our well-being and survival. Naturally, we fear what we can't understand, and there are a lot of things that we just can't understabnd. Like chance. Like death. Like injustice. And like love. We use religion to create for ourselves the illusion of understanding those aspects of our existence that we can't really understand. And through that illusion, we are relieved of the fear of not understanding them.

Religion is one of the ways that we deal with these fundimental drives in our human nature. We use religion to give us a meaning and purpose for our lives. We use religion to free ourselves from the fear of our own ignorance. We use religion to control ourselves and each other. We use religion to explore our own inner natures. We also use religion to hide from reality, and to protect ourselves from change, from love, and from life.

Religion is a multi-functional tool, and like any tool, we can use it well, or we can destroy ourselves with it. That's just how it is.

smaller

March 6th, 2004, 10:53 AM

Peace L (love the name btw)

I’ve been haunting the forum for a while prior to joining and I expect that at least part of it is to serve Christ, WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?

I don't. He serves me. In the process I became His slave. And a very happy slave at that.

Is heaven the ultimate goal?

It has not entered my mind what awaits, so I do not presume upon the "surprise."

I also know the "ultimate" conclusion, and this also has no encompassing description.

Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?

I do not differentiate "heaven" from God. My acknowledgment of God would probably not affect God all that much, if at all.

Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?

What you are really saying here is WOULD I STILL BELIEVE WITHOUT THE THREAT of eternal damnation.

I would say that WITH THE THREAT of eternal damnation I WOULD NOT partake. A bit of a turnabout perhaps eh?

Perfect love CASTS OUT fear. No one is PERFECTED under the "fear" of eternal torment.

enjoy!

smaller

temple2006

March 6th, 2004, 11:08 AM

Love is it's own excuse for being and we all are satisfied if we are loved.

Cyrus of Persia

March 6th, 2004, 05:24 PM

Why are you Christian?
I experienced God when i first time got close contact with Church. Since then i got something i lacked within me (like the peace of mind, etc) and im more happy with it than being without it.

What is your motivation?
Way to perfection. To be like Jesus.

WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?
Why shouldnt i serve someone who died for me?

Is heaven the ultimate goal?
Nope. But it's very nice addition in "the packet" :D

Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?
I think so. Being Christian i ruin my life less than being non-Christian. I.e. i do have higher life quality.

Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?
Yes. I want to be immortal!

philosophizer

March 17th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS

Hi

To Christians and others of a faith that believes in the existence of a God which I assume is the majority given the nature of this forum:

Why are you Christian?To have the kind of personal relationship with God that only Christ can offer.

What is your motivation?See above.

I’ve been haunting the forum for a while prior to joining and I expect that at least part of it is to serve Christ, WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?Because God, more than anyone, deserves my love.

Is heaven the ultimate goal?It's part of the ultimate goal. Chopping the goal into pieces does it a disservice.

Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?I believe so. Christianity is not only purposeful for the next life, it is practical for this life. The things Jesus said aren't for earning you points with God, they are lessons to live by for a good life on earth. Life's easier when we live as Christ suggests.

Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?No. Because if there was no Christ, then how could I be a Christian? I imagine, in that case, I would be Jewish.

Nietzschean

March 18th, 2004, 01:59 PM

My theory is that religion is a need to be accepted by something other than the dominant alpha male in the society.

philosophizer

March 18th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Nietzschean

My theory is that religion is a need to be accepted by something other than the dominant alpha male in the society.

Why might someone have such a need?

cur_deus_homo

March 18th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Welcome to TOL!

"Why religion at all?"

That assumes the possibility that one can be without religion. To me, your question could be restated, "Why make meaning at all?" (Purex) or "Why be human at all?" or "Why believe in anything at all?"

These restatements of your question, I think, demonstrate how "totalizing" religion is to humanity, and thus your question presents a false dilemma.

Why am I a Christian? Mostly because I grew up in a Christian family in a country that originated predominantly within Christian plausibility structures.

Why do I worship God in Christ? Because he provides the hope of resurrection.

Greywolf

March 18th, 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Nietzschean
My theory is that religion is a need to be accepted by something other than the dominant alpha male in the society.

:think:

I think that religion started as a sort of pseudoscience.

Aimiel

March 18th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS
Why are you Christian?Because I was foreordained and predestinated to be.What is your motivation?The faith that someone has in The Lord cannot be shared, except by word, until the new believer believes for himself. After that, The Lord will manifest Himself to them, and they will then understand. Until then, all that they have may be shielded from their knowledge by the enemy (Satan), because he doesn't want anyone to be saved....WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?He is The Lord. We are designed to serve Him, but once you see Him (by faith) you long to serve Him, and begin to count it a privilege.Is heaven the ultimate goal?Yes, the Christian faith teaches that Heaven is our home, and that we are aliens to the ways of this world.Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?I would, and believe that most anyone who comes to know The Lord would, because being in His Presence for just a moment is worth more than all the world has to offer.Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?It wouldn't be Heaven without The Lord. There is no light required in Heaven, because He is The Light. There is no darkness in Heaven, because He is there. There is nothing that defiles allowed into Heaven, because He is The Lord.

PureX

March 18th, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo That assumes the possibility that one can be without religion.One can be without religion. Unless you begin redefining religion to include philosophy, and science, and all human thought and experience, as religionists sometimes do.
Originally posted by cur_deus_homo To me, your question could be restated, "Why make meaning at all?" (Purex) or "Why be human at all?" or "Why believe in anything at all?"We have the capacity to ask questions that we don't have the capacity to answer. Because we as a species basically survive and thrive by our intellect: our "answers", we become very nerveous when we find questions that we can't answer. And this is what we use religion for, I think. We use it to provide us with answers for those questions that we don't really have any answers for, so that we won't feel frightened by our not having any answers.

cur_deus_homo

March 18th, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Greywolf

I think that religion started as a sort of pseudoscience.

That's interesting.

I think that science started as a sort of pseudo-religion.

Cyrus of Persia

March 18th, 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

That's interesting.

I think that science started as a sort of pseudo-religion.

Hmm, i think both are right.

If you mean by religion as pseudo-science to fact that human wanted to control his environment?

And if you mean by early science as mixed up with ideas of gods, etc?

Greywolf

March 18th, 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia
Hmm, i think both are right.

If you mean by religion as pseudo-science to fact that human wanted to control his environment?

And if you mean by early science as mixed up with ideas of gods, etc?

I think that religion started as an attempt to explain things like where everything came from, the cause of human nature, etc...

cur_deus_homo

March 19th, 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

And if you mean by early science as mixed up with ideas of gods, etc?

No, I am thinking of people like Newton who firmly believed God created the universe with fixed laws that can be rationally understood. This view still predominates in science today, except chop off the God part.

Apollo

March 19th, 2004, 10:05 AM

The “savior-god” myth is the only story there is, but most Christians make the mistake of thinking the savior-god story is unique to Christianity.

All religions are attempts to cheat death by ritualizing the cycles of the natural world, in particular the cycles of celestial events. Sunrise, birth. Sunset, death. Sunrise, rebirth, the resurrection, life after death. If the oldest religion is the truest religion, sun worship is the “true” religion.

“Christianity” is modified sun worship. The hope of the “resurrection” is the (vain) hope of life after death. The “type” or analogy for that hope is drawn from the natural world. Death gives way to new life and is, in Christian jargon, “born again.”

Christianity as an organized religion is a menace to society. The Jesus myth is relatively harmless, and many bear witness to the positive and beneficial affects of “following Jesus.” In the end, though, "Christianity" is wishful thinking.

Sol Invictus

philosophizer

March 19th, 2004, 10:14 AM

Jefferson

March 19th, 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Apollo
The “savior-god” myth is the only story there is, but most Christians make the mistake of thinking the savior-god story is unique to Christianity. It is unique. Since Christianity is the only religion whereby one gets to heaven without good works That makes God the savior. As Romans 3:28 says "we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law." All other religions require good works to get to heaven. Christianity is unique.

Aimiel

March 19th, 2004, 12:07 PM

Christianity is unique in many ways, one of which is the fact that its Leader arose from the dead, and then ascended into heaven in front of witnesses, the evidence of whose honesty is hard to refute. What group of people trying to show that their writings are true would attest to the fact that they (themselves) are not true, in the relation of the events that they wrote of themselves. Each of them abandonded The Lord, and yet they attest to Him being faithful. The most unique thing about Christianity cannot be found out by study, but only by the surrendering of one's own denial of faith, and placing faith in the existence of The Lord, and accepting His 'Peace Offering,' of His Son, as propitiation of their death for His Life. The unique Presence of The Lord in witnessing His Word in the heart of those who believe in Him is the Greatest Gift of all. He longs to dwell in a house not built with hands (our bodies). This uniqueness only takes place after surrender and invitation on the part of the believer. Those who refuse cannot understand that we follow Something more real than what we see with our eyes and handle with our hands: The Holy Ghost.

LightSon

March 19th, 2004, 02:07 PM

Christianity is unique. It is the only God-provided means whereby we can know Him. God seeks for us to worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

Our Master Jesus, while praying to His Father, said,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 17:3

cur_deus_homo

March 19th, 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Apollo

“Christianity” is modified sun worship. The hope of the “resurrection” is the (vain) hope of life after death. The “type” or analogy for that hope is drawn from the natural world. Death gives way to new life and is, in Christian jargon, “born again.”

Amen! It's a good thing, then, that Jesus came to fulfill millenia of human longing for rebirth!

Thanks for pointing that out.

billwald

March 19th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Maybe religion is necessary because after Homo sap became self-aware "nature" selected for people who worried about such things.

Religion is a unifying activity that strengthens the social contract.

Nietzschean

March 19th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer

Why might someone have such a need?
There's various reasons why. Christianity for example taught that everyone who accepted Christ would have a great mansion in the sky when he died. This would appeal to the working poor, since it makes them equal with the King. One could go on and on.

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

No, I am thinking of people like Newton who firmly believed God created the universe with fixed laws that can be rationally understood. This view still predominates in science today, except chop off the God part.

Your quote: "I think that science started as a sort of pseudo-religion."

Science didnt started with Newton, but lot earlier.

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Apollo

The “savior-god” myth is the only story there is, but most Christians make the mistake of thinking the savior-god story is unique to Christianity.

All religions are attempts to cheat death by ritualizing the cycles of the natural world, in particular the cycles of celestial events. Sunrise, birth. Sunset, death. Sunrise, rebirth, the resurrection, life after death. If the oldest religion is the truest religion, sun worship is the “true” religion.

“Christianity” is modified sun worship. The hope of the “resurrection” is the (vain) hope of life after death. The “type” or analogy for that hope is drawn from the natural world. Death gives way to new life and is, in Christian jargon, “born again.”

Christianity as an organized religion is a menace to society. The Jesus myth is relatively harmless, and many bear witness to the positive and beneficial affects of “following Jesus.” In the end, though, "Christianity" is wishful thinking.

Sol Invictus

Are you Soulman?

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson

It is unique. Since Christianity is the only religion whereby one gets to heaven without good works That makes God the savior. As Romans 3:28 says "we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law." All other religions require good works to get to heaven. Christianity is unique.

What works requires Buddhism to achieve Nirvana?

cur_deus_homo

March 19th, 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Science didnt started with Newton, but lot earlier.

What, 50 years or so earlier with Bacon?

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

Christianity is unique. It is the only God-provided means whereby we can know Him.

Allah didnt provided the means by whom we could know him?

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

What, 50 years or so earlier with Bacon?

If you can call astronomy, mathematics, biology, etc as science, then you should forget those people at the end of middle-ages and focus on those who founded the science in ancient Egypt, Greek, etc.

cur_deus_homo

March 19th, 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

If you can call astronomy, mathematics, biology, etc as science, then you should forget those people at the end of middle-ages and focus on those who founded the science in ancient Egypt, Greek, etc.

Those "folks" were at least 200 years after the end of the Middle Ages and stand at the beginning of the Enlightenment.

Observing, categorizing, calculating, measuring, and otherwise quantifying "stuff" is hardly science.

Cyrus of Persia

March 19th, 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Those "folks" were at least 200 years after the end of the Middle Ages and stand at the beginning of the Enlightenment.

Observing, categorizing, calculating, measuring, and otherwise quantifying "stuff" is hardly science.

Yea, too bad that i articulated it wrong, when i meant "after" middle-ages, when wrongly writing "end of middle-ages". I think i should not post in that late anymore to avoid such mistakes. Especially in friday nights :chuckle:

I can't help that you get such definition of "science" as you described. I bear the different one what i have learned from history books, and philosophical books. So i think it's beneficial that before you say "science", you define what this word means for you, because there are many people outside who have different definition.

cur_deus_homo

March 19th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

So i think it's beneficial that before you say "science", you define what this word means for you, because there are many people outside who have different definition.

"Science" is a slippery word in trying to define what it means, especially since there are lots and lots of scientists who do "stuff" that doesn't necessarily employ the "scientific method," namely step #4.

"Science" is the set of disciplines that uses the follwing method to study the "natural" (eh) world:

taken from http://www.answersinscience.org/FrankWolfs.html

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Apollo

March 20th, 2004, 07:56 AM

Are you Soulman?

Soulman's dead. Long live Apollo.

Cyrus of Persia

March 20th, 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Apollo

Soulman's dead. Long live Apollo.

:D

lost anomaly

March 20th, 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS

Why are you Christian?

I am Christian because I feel it in my bones that it is the right way to live. I know that is is the truth.

What is your motivation?

My motivation is truth.

Is heaven the ultimate goal?
Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?

Heaven is just a perk. And yes I would be christian without the promise of heaven. My goal is to help people find the same joyous peace in the Christian faith as Ii do.

Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?

I am not sure what you are asking. Could you explain this?

Ya'nar#1

March 20th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS

Hi

To Christians and others of a faith that believes in the existence of a God which I assume is the majority given the nature of this forum:

Why are you Christian?
What is your motivation?

For me, the primary answer to both these questions is love for Christ.

I’ve been haunting the forum for a while prior to joining and I expect that at least part of it is to serve Christ, WHY do you feel the need to serve Christ?

Is heaven the ultimate goal?

No, heaven is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to come as spiritually close to Christ and His righteousness as He will allow me in this world.

Would you be Christian without the promise of heaven?

It is not possible to answer this question, because where Christ is, that is heaven to me. Thus, because I have Christ in my heart, heaven begins here on earth. When Christ comes the second time and we are raised to meet Him in the clouds of heaven, we will take with us the characters which we have begun to form here on earth. Our bodies will be changed to put on immortality--but those characters we have when He comes will not be changed and perfected, unless we have first made the effort to cooperate with Christ and the Holy Spirit. What I mean is, if we have not exercised the kind of faith that works Christ-like perfection, then a mere "belief" will not save us. Our "faith" must be proven by deeds. James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

Would you be Christian if it were only heaven, if there were no Christ but if you behaved yourself in this life then you got to spend eternity in paradise or whatever your version of heaven happens to be (I’ll leave that question for another thread)?

In this you are asking philosophical questions that have no basis in reality for the Christian. These questions you might put to a Moslim, for example, because they don't believe in Christ as Savior and Restorer to God. But for the Christian this kind of question doesn't exist. Sorry!

May God Bless!

--Ya'nar :Princess:

LightSon

March 20th, 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Allah didnt provided the means by whom we could know him?
I do not recognize Allah. I do know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think Allah is a false god, in which case the answer to your question must be "no".

Cyrus of Persia

March 20th, 2004, 04:41 PM

LightSon,

Your logic is faulty.

You said: "Christianity is unique. It is the only God-provided means whereby we can know Him."

I asked: "Allah didnt provided the means by whom we could know him?"

You replied:

Originally posted by LightSon

I do not recognize Allah. I do know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think Allah is a false god, in which case the answer to your question must be "no".

There can be 2 possibilities:
1) i misunderstood you, i.e. i thought that you said: christianity is unique, because only by it we can know God.

If so, then disregard my query about Allah;

2) you said: christianity is unique, because only in it God gave means for us to know Him.

That leaves my question open, but makes your reply non-logical. If you dont believe to any god besides of Christian God, you cannot compare other religions the way you did.

LightSon

March 21st, 2004, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

LightSon,

Your logic is faulty.

You said: "Christianity is unique. It is the only God-provided means whereby we can know Him."

I asked: "Allah didnt provided the means by whom we could know him?"

You replied:

There can be 2 possibilities:
1) i misunderstood you, i.e. i thought that you said: christianity is unique, because only by it we can know God.

If so, then disregard my query about Allah;

2) you said: christianity is unique, because only in it God gave means for us to know Him.

That leaves my question open, but makes your reply non-logical. If you dont believe to any god besides of Christian God, you cannot compare other religions the way you did.
I'm not following your objection Cyrus. I can compare any proposed religion to the truth. That is, anything which conflicts with God's revealed truth is a falsehood.

The God of Abraham is The God of the Bible.
Only the God of the Bible is true.

Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Therefore Allah is not the true God.
Therefore Allah is a false god.

Now. How is my logic faulty?

Pick any god you like. If that god is not the God of Abraham, then that god is false.

Back to my original statement:
"Christianity is unique. It is the only God-provided means whereby we can know Him."

If God is Allah, then my assumption is wrong.
If God approved an extra-Biblical system whereby we can know Him, my reasoning fails.

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 09:41 AM

If God has not called a person to The Word, then that person can not understand, and it it irrelevant and unprofitable to dispute with that person.

We are commanded to love one another and to love our enemies. This is the sign of the believer and the ONLY THING THAT COUNTS.

Is there another God Who Is Love?

Apollo

March 21st, 2004, 05:40 PM

If God has not called a person to The Word, then that person can not understand, and it irrelevant and unprofitable to dispute with that person.

Smaller, arguing as a Christian you are, of course, correct. However, only if free will has been subordinated to theology. Secret “understanding” in possession of only “the called” violates man’s free will. If a man is offered a dollar for a correct answer, but only if spoken in secret code, can the man be “blamed” for not “knowing” or “understanding” the code? Withholding information is not the violation. The violation of the will comes when the man is punished for his ignorance. He discovers – too late – that his will is not as free as he supposed.

If we are not free to reject the gospel, the gospel is not free. If man doesn’t have the freedom to reject god’s “limitations” without fear of reprisal, the innocent offer to “accept Jesus” becomes an ultimatum. “Heaven, or else,” is not a legitimate “offer.”

If the Christian god is absolute, free will must be absolute, otherwise the jury is rigged in god’s favor (an unjust balance). Truly free wills being (theoretically) equally free, and absolute, sooner or later will “disagree” (making a distinction between “group think” and individualism). Was Adam staring god in the eye when he ate the forbidden fruit? If so, God blinked, and sent Adam packing. If the Christian god was so sure of himself, threats wouldn’t be necessary.

Adam chose. He acted like a free man. If man was intended to have a “free will,” how would that free will be manifest, if not through an honest “difference of opinion” between man’s will and god’s will? If every will is “wrong” that is not “god’s” will, what remains of “man’s” will? So long as man is tethered to the will of god, man is god’s volleyball. In the Christian scheme of things, man is guilty -- of exercising free will. “Wrong” choices are “punished.” But, if there is already a “wrong” answer from which man is not free to choose, how is man’s will “free”?

The one and only law separating Adam from the tree of life was one law too many for a free man. The law was a loyalty test, and the first man could only have passed by surrendering his free will. Free wills are not free if non-conformity is punished. The first man chose freely, his eyes were “opened,” and for his “thought crime” he was killed. The Christian god is, apparently, a poor loser.

If man’s will is not free to reject god without fear of reprisal, free will is a myth. If free will is a myth, man cannot be held responsible for his actions.

If man’s will is free, man’s will cannot be limited, not even by god. If man’s will is unlimited, he is equal with god, and Christianity is superfluous.

LightSon

March 23rd, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Apollo

Smaller, arguing as a Christian you are, of course, correct. However, only if free will has been subordinated to theology. Secret “understanding” in possession of only “the called” violates man’s free will. If a man is offered a dollar for a correct answer, but only if spoken in secret code, can the man be “blamed” for not “knowing” or “understanding” the code? Withholding information is not the violation. The violation of the will comes when the man is punished for his ignorance. He discovers – too late – that his will is not as free as he supposed.

If we are not free to reject the gospel, the gospel is not free. If man doesn’t have the freedom to reject god’s “limitations” without fear of reprisal, the innocent offer to “accept Jesus” becomes an ultimatum. “Heaven, or else,” is not a legitimate “offer.”

If the Christian god is absolute, free will must be absolute, otherwise the jury is rigged in god’s favor (an unjust balance). Truly free wills being (theoretically) equally free, and absolute, sooner or later will “disagree” (making a distinction between “group think” and individualism). Was Adam staring god in the eye when he ate the forbidden fruit? If so, God blinked, and sent Adam packing. If the Christian god was so sure of himself, threats wouldn’t be necessary.

Adam chose. He acted like a free man. If man was intended to have a “free will,” how would that free will be manifest, if not through an honest “difference of opinion” between man’s will and god’s will? If every will is “wrong” that is not “god’s” will, what remains of “man’s” will? So long as man is tethered to the will of god, man is god’s volleyball. In the Christian scheme of things, man is guilty -- of exercising free will. “Wrong” choices are “punished.” But, if there is already a “wrong” answer from which man is not free to choose, how is man’s will “free”?

The one and only law separating Adam from the tree of life was one law too many for a free man. The law was a loyalty test, and the first man could only have passed by surrendering his free will. Free wills are not free if non-conformity is punished. The first man chose freely, his eyes were “opened,” and for his “thought crime” he was killed. The Christian god is, apparently, a poor loser.

If man’s will is not free to reject god without fear of reprisal, free will is a myth. If free will is a myth, man cannot be held responsible for his actions.

If man’s will is free, man’s will cannot be limited, not even by god. If man’s will is unlimited, he is equal with god, and Christianity is superfluous.
Apollo,
I'm enjoying your posts so far. They are a clever collection of sophisms. How long have you been trying to develop this line of reasoning?

The end of your reasoning is that we won't be held responsible for anything. Very clever. I wonder if you really believe that.

I get muddled on a number of theological points, but on the principle of God's justice, I do not. I know that God will be compelled by His inexorable Holy character to judge all sin. There is no where to run; no where to hide.

So since we will be held accountable, there can only be 2 possible conclusions: a. your assumptions are flawed, or b. your logic is flawed.

I'm not exactly sure where your error lies. It might be found in the assumption that absolute free will is a prerequisite to accountability. I'll continue to think on this.

I'm curious: you refer to "the Christian scheme..". What is your preferred "scheme" of things?

PureX

March 23rd, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by LightSon The end of your reasoning is that we won't be held responsible for anything. Very clever. I wonder if you really believe that.I don't believe that God will, is, or has ever been holding us responsible for anything. I don't believe that anyone is going to be held accountable by God for who they are or what they've done in life. I believe that we are only loved. There is no divine judgment or vengeance. That's just the fantasy of resentful men.

It may be possible, however, that we will hold ourselves accountable for who we have been in life, and how we have behaved toward others. Perhaps when we reach that next state of existence, and we can finally see the truth of who we are and why we exist and how we may have fallen short of our own purpose, we will then suffer from the awareness of those shortcomings. I could see this as a possibility: "With the judgement you judge others, so shall you in turn be judged", and implied by this statement: "With the forgiveness you forgive others, so shall you in turn be forgiven". I doubt that judgment and forgiveness is the business of a God who loves us unconditionally, but it may well be our own internal business. Perhaps it's we who will condemn ourselves at the and of this life, if we have not learned how to forgive, while still living in it.

Lovejoy

March 23rd, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Apollo

Smaller, arguing as a Christian you are, of course, correct. However, only if free will has been subordinated to theology. Secret “understanding” in possession of only “the called” violates man’s free will. If a man is offered a dollar for a correct answer, but only if spoken in secret code, can the man be “blamed” for not “knowing” or “understanding” the code? Withholding information is not the violation. The violation of the will comes when the man is punished for his ignorance. He discovers – too late – that his will is not as free as he supposed.

If we are not free to reject the gospel, the gospel is not free. If man doesn’t have the freedom to reject god’s “limitations” without fear of reprisal, the innocent offer to “accept Jesus” becomes an ultimatum. “Heaven, or else,” is not a legitimate “offer.”

If the Christian god is absolute, free will must be absolute, otherwise the jury is rigged in god’s favor (an unjust balance). Truly free wills being (theoretically) equally free, and absolute, sooner or later will “disagree” (making a distinction between “group think” and individualism). Was Adam staring god in the eye when he ate the forbidden fruit? If so, God blinked, and sent Adam packing. If the Christian god was so sure of himself, threats wouldn’t be necessary.

Adam chose. He acted like a free man. If man was intended to have a “free will,” how would that free will be manifest, if not through an honest “difference of opinion” between man’s will and god’s will? If every will is “wrong” that is not “god’s” will, what remains of “man’s” will? So long as man is tethered to the will of god, man is god’s volleyball. In the Christian scheme of things, man is guilty -- of exercising free will. “Wrong” choices are “punished.” But, if there is already a “wrong” answer from which man is not free to choose, how is man’s will “free”?

The one and only law separating Adam from the tree of life was one law too many for a free man. The law was a loyalty test, and the first man could only have passed by surrendering his free will. Free wills are not free if non-conformity is punished. The first man chose freely, his eyes were “opened,” and for his “thought crime” he was killed. The Christian god is, apparently, a poor loser.

If man’s will is not free to reject god without fear of reprisal, free will is a myth. If free will is a myth, man cannot be held responsible for his actions.

If man’s will is free, man’s will cannot be limited, not even by god. If man’s will is unlimited, he is equal with god, and Christianity is superfluous.

Nice house of cards. Careful no one opens a window on you. We are not as free as some would make. In fact, we are slave to whatever masters us, including sophistry. Freedom is a place and a time: in Christ and in the next life.

Apollo

March 23rd, 2004, 04:33 PM

Hello, Lightson.

I'm enjoying your posts so far. They are a clever collection of sophisms. How long have you been trying to develop this line of reasoning?

A work in progress.

The end of your reasoning is that we won't be held responsible for anything. Very clever. I wonder if you really believe that.

I believe we are responsible here, and now, because this is where we live. Punishment in the life to come, representing the “dark side” of the life to come, is still based on the hope (in Christian terms) of the resurrection, or life after death, an impossible to prove proposition held by virtually every religion on the planet. All religion is looking for a loophole, a way out of this “alive,” in spite of evidence to the contrary. Every life form that’s ever turned its face to the sun or slithered under a rock is either dead or dying, one heck of an object lesson.

I’ve mentioned it elsewhere, and I don’t want to be a boor, but in my opinion all religion is the ritualization of the cycles of the natural world in an attempt to cheat death. What is the “inspiration,” or analog, for the hope of a life after death? The cycles of the natural world. Spring and life to winter and death to the rebirth of Spring. Sunrise, life. Sunset , death. Sunrise, rebirth. Sun and nature worship are the oldest (and truest) religions. Christianity is not the exception to this rule; it is the exemplar of this rule.

I get muddled on a number of theological points, but on the principle of God's justice, I do not. I know that God will be compelled by His inexorable Holy character to judge all sin. There is no where to run; no where to hide.

Used to feel the same way, so I know there’s no point arguing with you on that point. We all want justice – or do we? IF the holy god you’re describing exists, it stands to reason that this holy god must be mollified.

So since we will be held accountable, there can only be 2 possible conclusions: a. your assumptions are flawed, or b. your logic is flawed.

Easy, big fella. You are “assuming” we will be held accountable for our actions after we’re dead. My assumptions are only flawed if your assumptions are correct. I’m willing to concede that if your god exists, we will be held accountable. My “logic” is not flawless.

I'm not exactly sure where your error lies. It might be found in the assumption that absolute free will is a prerequisite to accountability. I'll continue to think on this.

My “error,” from your point of view as a Christian, is my dismissal of the Christian god, which leads me to my conclusions. I am only “wrong” if you are “right.” I am saying that if man’s will is not absolute, it’s not free. It is, at best, a “limited” will, a reasonable limitation as a trade-off in the real world of stop signs and private property, but totalitarian and unjust when used to punish non-conformists. As I said elsewhere, we are free only if we are free to say “no” without fear of reprisal. An invitation accompanied by a threat lacks “sincerity.”

I'm curious: you refer to "the Christian scheme..". What is your preferred "scheme" of things?

Live and let live.

Thanks for engaging.

Cyrus of Persia

March 23rd, 2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by PureX

It may be possible, however, that we will hold ourselves accountable for who we have been in life, and how we have behaved toward others. Perhaps when we reach that next state of existence, and we can finally see the truth of who we are and why we exist and how we may have fallen short of our own purpose, we will then suffer from the awareness of those shortcomings. I could see this as a possibility: "With the judgement you judge others, so shall you in turn be judged", and implied by this statement: "With the forgiveness you forgive others, so shall you in turn be forgiven". I doubt that judgment and forgiveness is the business of a God who loves us unconditionally, but it may well be our own internal business. Perhaps it's we who will condemn ourselves at the and of this life, if we have not learned how to forgive, while still living in it.

It's very closely related what people who have been temporarly dead and reached the other side have experienced. It also relates to the witness of some people who have had drowning experience: their life runs quickly before their "eyes". And so far as near death witnesses tell us is that this quick "movie" they see about every detail in their life is the one what either makes them feel happy, or quilty depending to the content.

LightSon

March 27th, 2004, 09:34 PM

Hi Apollo,

Originally posted by Apollo
Thanks for engaging..
Sure. That’s why we’re here. :)

Originally posted by Apollo
I believe we are responsible here, and now, because this is where we live. Punishment in the life to come, representing the “dark side” of the life to come, is still based on the hope (in Christian terms) of the resurrection, or life after death, an impossible to prove proposition held by virtually every religion on the planet. All religion is looking for a loophole, a way out of this “alive,” in spite of evidence to the contrary. Every life form that’s ever turned its face to the sun or slithered under a rock is either dead or dying, one heck of an object lesson.

I’ve mentioned it elsewhere, and I don’t want to be a boor, but in my opinion all religion is the ritualization of the cycles of the natural world in an attempt to cheat death. What is the “inspiration,” or analog, for the hope of a life after death? The cycles of the natural world. Spring and life to winter and death to the rebirth of Spring. Sunrise, life. Sunset , death. Sunrise, rebirth. Sun and nature worship are the oldest (and truest) religions. Christianity is not the exception to this rule; it is the exemplar of this rule.

I don’t doubt that Christianity has some normative aspects. As I want to be true to my worldview, I prefer to think that we (Christians)are not looking for “loopholes,” but are rather aligning to a God given system. You won’t begrudge me that, I hope.

You are spot on in identifying the resurrection as key. Christianity turns on the veracity of the resurrection. I would assert that the after life is provable, just not within the confines of any lab you have in mind. If I am right, you will get ample proof. If you are right, we’ll never know it.

Lightson wrote: I know that God will be compelled by His inexorable Holy character to judge all sin. There is no where to run; no where to hide.

Apollo wrote: Used to feel the same way, so I know there’s no point arguing with you on that point.

Lightson: Okay. But what changed your mind?

Apollo wrote:
Easy, big fella. You are “assuming” we will be held accountable for our actions after we’re dead. My assumptions are only flawed if your assumptions are correct. I’m willing to concede that if your god exists, we will be held accountable.

Lightson: Well said.

Apollo wrote:
My “error,” from your point of view as a Christian, is my dismissal of the Christian god, which leads me to my conclusions. I am only “wrong” if you are “right.” I am saying that if man’s will is not absolute, it’s not free. It is, at best, a “limited” will, a reasonable limitation as a trade-off in the real world of stop signs and private property, but totalitarian and unjust when used to punish non-conformists. As I said elsewhere, we are free only if we are free to say “no” without fear of reprisal. An invitation accompanied by a threat lacks “sincerity.”

Lightson: Then let’s move past the absolute free will idea. My kids have limited freedom in our home. And there are “reasonable limitations”. They know that to pick up a ball and to willfully launch it through the living room window is an infraction, which will have consequences. You have argued that it is “totalitarian and unjust when used to punish non-conformists”. IF they do not conform their limited wills on this point, I will punish them. How am I being unjust?

God gave Adam the rules; Adam had the requisite will to comply or not comply. Adam made a conscious choice to be a non-conformist. Adam picks up a ball and hurls it, so to speak, through the living room window. How is God unfair or unjust for implementing the consequences as laid out? I don’t see your problem.

Apollo

March 28th, 2004, 08:57 AM

I don’t doubt that Christianity has some normative aspects. As I want to be true to my worldview, I prefer to think that we (Christians) are not looking for “loopholes,” but are rather aligning to a God given system. You won’t begrudge me that, I hope.

Not begrudge, but will simply point out that the major themes of “Christianity” pre-date Christianity, in some cases by thousands of years (savior-god myths, “trinities,” death and resurrection stories, communion meals, ascensions and returns of the savior-gods to defeat evil, the incorporation of pagan deities into the Christian pantheon of saints, most notably goddess cult-Mary substitutions, etc.) Since there is really nothing “new” or “unique” about Christianity, it’s difficult to accept the exclusive “truth claims” of Christianity, given that these “truth claims” are in some cases identical to previously existing religious traditions.

It is natural that you would “prefer” to see Christianity as an “alignment” to a god-given system, which previous traditions merely “foreshadowed” in some way, but this, to my mind, is an attempt to force history into a theological construct, rather than letting history speak for itself. Only a “Christian” would conclude that previous non-Christian “pagan” traditions, in spite of their startling resemblances to Christianity, were “false” religions, whereas Christianity is the “true” religion.

But what changed your mind [about Christianity]?

Do yourself a favor. If your faith means anything to you, do not approach the history of Christianity objectively, but close your eyes and continue to believe. Do not read dangerous books. Do not ask questions. Do not investigate the spurious manner in which the books of the Bible were selected, or the questionable method of their transmission. Once objective reasoning has undermined the integrity of the Bible, a loss of “faith” is sure to follow. If faith is believing in the unbelievable (as church father Ireneus put it), don’t allow yourself to be confused by the facts.

Adam had the requisite will to comply or not comply. Adam made a conscious choice to be a non-conformist. Adam picks up a ball and hurls it, so to speak, through the living room window. How is God unfair or unjust for implementing the consequences as laid out? I don’t see your problem.

I don’t object to the biblical account, per se, seen as myth. I object to the manner in which the myth portrays man, not as a man, but as an overdeveloped child. Even if the analogy holds true, one day our children will not be children, and we will have no authority over them. The object lesson of the Adam-child analogy seems to be, “You can’t do whatever you want without consequences,” but surely Adam, as the sinless superman, was smart enough to have figured that out for himself. Adam, after all, was not a child. Every action has “consequences,” some good, some bad. Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for starters, had consequences. Eating poison mushrooms has consequences. Overeating has consequences. Starving yourself has consequences. Jumping off a building has consequences. It is a stretch to imagine that Adam couldn’t have learned the lessons of causality on his own, over time. Even lab rats can be “taught” to avoid pain and punishment, and no one is arguing that rats have free wills.

God, however, is not as innocent as he appears, at least not in the Garden myth. He gave Adam a test he knew Adam would fail. That is the traditional understanding, although Open Theism is correct, at least in the sense that an open view of God challenges the conventional wisdom of the “all knowing” God. Tangential to the myth of free will, there is no reason to believe that Adam was aware that one of the “consequences” of his actions would be to plunge all humanity into sin. He was told that “he” would die, not the entire human race. Would this pertinent detail have made a difference to Adam? Probably not. It would appear that Adam didn’t take God’s threat seriously. Still, in my opinion, vital information was withheld.

The object lesson of the myth of the Fall is that man doesn’t have a free will, otherwise god would not have imposed restrictions. Free will ends where the law begins. The Adam-child is perpetually bound to obey the rules of his father. In other words, the child never grows up. I don’t have a problem with the myth, I have a problem with the way this myth plays out in the real world. Augustine perfected the dogma of original sin, teaching that man (especially “fallen” man) is incapable of self-government. In other words, in the Christian worldview, man is a perpetual child, perpetually dependent, and perpetually obligated to submit to a will not his own.

Very interesting. Thanks for engaging.

Aimiel

April 6th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Apollo
Do yourself a favor. If your faith means anything to you, do not approach the history of Christianity objectively, but close your eyes and continue to believe. Do not read dangerous books. Do not ask questions. Do not investigate the spurious manner in which the books of the Bible were selected, or the questionable method of their transmission. Once objective reasoning has undermined the integrity of the Bible, a loss of “faith” is sure to follow. If faith is believing in the unbelievable (as church father Ireneus put it), don’t allow yourself to be confused by the facts.The facts speak for themselves. Someone who comes into a relationship with The Lord comes to know from experience of Who God Is and what He does that those with 'knowledge' that (they believe) dis-proves Him soon display their lack of investigation of The Truth. Everyone that I know who is Christian has had their doubts, and investigated them, and found God to be True. Men lie. The Lord does not.

LOGIKOS

April 6th, 2004, 09:00 PM

Thanks for the welcomes and the many replies, I was looking for food for thought and have been provided with plenty.

Lighthouse wrote:

For me, it's about being with my Creator. Paradise is defined as the presence of God, so I'm already in paradise.

I can accept that is your definition of Paradise but it isn’t mine. I imagine that Paradise is different for each individual and the concept seems therefore implausible.
If you are already in Paradise then you must believe that it doesn’t get any better than this?

To Leo Volont:
I am not at all surprised that fear is a motivator for some but I question whether fear is a satisfactory reason from your God’s point of view. I don’t find fear an enjoyable experience.
How do you prevent yourself from despising a being that demands your subservience and enforces it through fear?

Philosophizer wrote:

To have the kind of personal relationship with God that only Christ can offer.

I am trying very hard to understand this statement as I have heard it many times, most often when people try to deny that their religion is a religion a la “Christianity is not a religion it’s a relationship with Christ”.
How can you have a relationship with someone/ thing that doesn’t respond or acknowledge your existence?
Without being facetious here’s an example;
The Queen of England exists.
I have seen pictures of her and, if I was so inclined, I could buy a plane ticket, travel to England and hang out in a side street as she went past and verify her existence for myself.
Being completely confident of her existence, if I begin proclaiming that I am having a relationship with her I can be sure of at least two things:
1. My friends will (quite rightly) think I am insane.
2. The subject of my infatuation probably won’t deign to dignify my claims with a response.

How does this differ from claims of a relationship with Christ?
If in fact this perfectly describes the relationship then why would you want to devote your life to serving someone that doesn't know or care that you exist?

The free will thing is an interesting tangent.
If God is everywhere (throughout the universe) then should he also not be everytime i.e. he can see the future as well as the past? This shouldn’t be too difficult for an omnipotent being and there are numerous passages in the bible where he has foretold what will come to pass.
If this is correct then he should already know which side of “his” fence each individual will be sitting on come Judgment day, so why all this farce about our having the free will to decide during our lifetime. When and why we actually make the decision to follow Christ (or not) is irrelevant if he already knows what our position will be at the end of our time and will reward or punish us accordingly.

Melody

April 6th, 2004, 11:36 PM

Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

What does Christ offer me personally?

A friend that sticks closer than a brother.

Power to overcome this world and a promise of a better world of the future.

Healing for my body, spirit and soul.

A new life in him, free from the burdens of my old life.

Wisdom and the ability to live a more abundant life in this present world.

Peace that passeth all understanding.

Joy unspeakable and full of glory.

With a benefit package like this I would be a real fool to pass it up.

Aimiel

April 7th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by LOGIKOS
I can accept that is your definition of Paradise but it isn’t mine. I imagine that Paradise is different for each individual and the concept seems therefore implausible. Not really, since there are facets of it that we see in this earth, or at least a 'form' of it. The fact that The Lord has prepared mansions for those that respond to His Invitation is amazing. It means that you will have your own, incredibly large, home, and that it will always be yours. That is better than owning real estate on this earth, where rust and termites steadily depreciate your house, and the threat of weather, earthquake, etc. always loom. There are many facets of Paradise which are revealed to us (spiritually) which cannot be explained, simply because the flesh (mind) doesn't comprehend them.If you are already in Paradise then you must believe that it doesn’t get any better than this?But, it does. Once this pagent (time) is finished, The Lord will remove the old heaven and the old earth, and reveal Earth, Mark II, and Heaven, Mark II. They're being prepared, right now.I am trying very hard to understand this statement as I have heard it many times, most often when people try to deny that their religion is a religion a la “Christianity is not a religion it’s a relationship with Christ”.
How can you have a relationship with someone/ thing that doesn’t respond or acknowledge your existence?That is a good question, and you should look closely at Leo's response, if he does respond, regarding his 'relationship' with the, "Our Lady," apparition; who does not exist, unless he is relating to demons.How does this differ from claims of a relationship with Christ?With The Lord, when you do come into a relationship with Him, you do so by hearing His Voice. You come to know Him from reading His Word, meditating in it, and listening to His Voice. He does not merely exist in the imagination of believers, though I am sure that many have only that occurring in their life; He is available and will come into your heart, if you ask Him to, by faith in His Son, and they (The Father and The Son) will relate with you, personally. This is the most liberating thing that can happen in a person's life: to come to know their Creator, personally. It is what drives Christians to share the truth of The Gospel, in spite of risk of persecution, or even death. If in fact this perfectly describes the relationship then why would you want to devote your life to serving someone that doesn't know or care that you exist?If that were the case, I would have given up Christianity as a false religion long, long ago. It is not. He is real, but He requires that we believe that He is, and that He is A Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him and that we then diligently seek Him, in order to ever obtain anything (including a relationship) from Him. Think for just a minute. What if you were God, and wanted people to take you at your word (call you: honest); and you told them to believe in you. Would you come down and visit someone who prayed, "God, I don't think you exist, but if you do, then hit me over the head, and then I'll believe," or the one who says, "Lord, I know that You have told us to believe in You. I do. I believe that You exist. I believe that You loved me so much that You sent Your Son to die, in my place, so I could have eternal life. Please forgive my sin, and come into my heart and let me get to know you even better than Your Word shows me." Those who wish to meet with The Lord need to come to Him on His Terms, since He is The Greater One. Remember that the lesser is always blessed by the greater, and you will lose your 'trembling' fear of God, and begin to have the 'respect' fear of those who have come to love Him.The free will thing is an interesting tangent.
If God is everywhere (throughout the universe) then should he also not be everytime i.e. he can see the future as well as the past? This shouldn’t be too difficult for an omnipotent being and there are numerous passages in the bible where he has foretold what will come to pass.I believe that when The Bible said that The Lord sits on the circle of the earth that it means that He sits on the 'bubble' that is called by us: "time." I believe that time does not effect The One Who created time. I believe that He knows the end of everything, from its beginning.
If this is correct then he should already know which side of “his” fence each individual will be sitting on come Judgment day, so why all this farce about our having the free will to decide during our lifetime. Why, simply because He knows what every single soul who will ever live will ever do, do you believe that has any effect on freewill? He did predestine and foreknow everything, but if we weren't created to have freewill, and live outside of His Presence, why not just use angels to do what He has decided to use men for? I believe that our purpose is to repair the things which Satan polluted during the fall, and to be able to accomplish that using bodies of flesh, which is lower than angels. If He merely fixed the things destroyed by 1/3 of the angels who rebelled using angels, where would be the pride in that? He wants to do so by giving men the power and the authority (we already have these things, if we are in relationship with Him, but fail to recognize them and walk in them) to do just that.When and why we actually make the decision to follow Christ (or not) is irrelevant if he already knows what our position will be at the end of our time and will reward or punish us accordingly. Knowing our decision doesn't negate that decision being made by us, since He doesn't reveal that knowledge to anyone else. He knows everything, but that doesn't mean that He shares everything that He knows. When we stand in His Presence (in Heaven) we will know Him, and all His Thoughts, because He will reveal them to us; but, in this life, we are limited, being temporal beings, made of dust.

King David

April 10th, 2004, 03:28 PM

God was originally instituted among men by God. When men rejected God's truth and his duly appointed servants, they then created their own religion and own churches. In fact, ALL MANKIND WORSHIPS SOME KIND OF GOD, even those who do not believe in traditional forms of religion whatsoever.

Whatever one believes brings "salvation" or "solutions" to one's problems, whether it be money, status, pleasure, or what have, THAT is their God.

I know that I seek for that which is good, such as God's love and approbation of my behavior; as well as doing all that I can to avoid his disdain and rebuke.

Humans are complex creatures. We ALL seek after rewards (whether doled out by our fellow men, or whether they are the result of complying with the laws of God's nature, as evidenced throughout His creations), and we ALL likewise assiduously avoid pain and trouble (or, we should). But MANY turn to false gods -- not just in traditional religion, but in ALL of their pursuits.

Originally posted by PureX

I don't believe that God will, is, or has ever been holding us responsible for anything. I don't believe that anyone is going to be held accountable by God for who they are or what they've done in life. I believe that we are only loved. There is no divine judgment or vengeance. That's just the fantasy of resentful men.

It may be possible, however, that we will hold ourselves accountable for who we have been in life, and how we have behaved toward others. Perhaps when we reach that next state of existence, and we can finally see the truth of who we are and why we exist and how we may have fallen short of our own purpose, we will then suffer from the awareness of those shortcomings. I could see this as a possibility: "With the judgement you judge others, so shall you in turn be judged", and implied by this statement: "With the forgiveness you forgive others, so shall you in turn be forgiven". I doubt that judgment and forgiveness is the business of a God who loves us unconditionally, but it may well be our own internal business. Perhaps it's we who will condemn ourselves at the and of this life, if we have not learned how to forgive, while still living in it.

I do NOT disagree with PureX's assessment that we may (and I believe we WILL ALSO judge ourselves). Here is part of my (scriptural) evidence on this--

31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all–searching eye.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 27:31)

I agree with LightSon that we cannot and will not be able to hide our acts, or even our thoughts, from the "all-searching eye" of an omniscient and just God.

However, I have seen many a person who would feign that they have done nothing wrong (when they have), and would try to go on their merry way, and make others think that they are okay.

Hence, if PureX believes in the Bible (and do not know that he does), but if he did, he would be at variance with all of the scriptures that indicate that not only will God the Father judge each and every soul of all of mankind individually, as well as collectively, but also that Jesus Christ himself will, as well as will the twelve apostles, as will the saints, and even those who are not among the believers (such as the people in the days of Noah, those of Sodom and Gomorrah, those of Ninevah, the Queen of Sheba, and many others) will "rise up" and judge those of other generations.

If we are never held accountable for what we do, then there is no sin. And, if there is no sin, then there is no God. But God lives. He has given his law. There are rewards and punishments affixed to these laws. And we will all be duly judged according to what we do (or do not do). This concept permeates ALL of scripture, including the Old (or First) and New Testaments.

--KING DAVID

PureX

April 10th, 2004, 05:09 PM

I believe that the bible was written by men who were for the most part inspired by the spirit of God within them. But it's important to remember that even inspired men are still men, and are still limited by their intellect and their experiences and their perceptions and their ability to communicate these to others. The bible IS inspired, but it is NOT inerrant and it does not reflect God's mind, but rather reflects our own ideas about God.

Duder

April 10th, 2004, 05:25 PM

God told them to write, but He didn't tell them what to say.

King David

April 10th, 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by PureX

I believe that the bible was written by men who were for the most part inspired by the spirit of God within them. But it's important to remember that even inspired men are still men, and are still limited by their intellect and their experiences and their perceptions and their ability to communicate these to others. The bible IS inspired, but it is NOT inerrant and it does not reflect God's mind, but rather reflects our own ideas about God.

I respect your opinion. But I must express that I believe that what they wrote was, by and large, what God literally inspired them to say, which is the truth of things.

The Bible, I believe, does not hold the opinion of good men -- but that it contains, largely, the word of God given to men. If God were here, He would say many of the same things. In fact, the words spoken by Jesus Christ were in fact, I affirm, the very words that God the Father would have spoken--because, as Jesus explained, he (Jesus) said nothing except that given to him (Jesus) by God the Father.

Hence, we have the word of God as if it had been spoken to mankind directly. And He is a God of (absolute) truth. He lieth not.

=================

You mentioned (PureX) a subject I addressed some months ago on this forum -- that of God having "unconditional love". Truly, God is merciful. For he causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on BOTH the just and the unjust.

But, He (God) has said that his Spirit shall not always "strive with man," meaning, as I understand it, that once He (God) withdraws from man, they are left to their own devices, which means their own destruction. And, they typically (on this earth) end up literally killing each other.

But outside of our Heavenly Father's extended and longsuffering mercy, I do not find scriptural evidence really that backs this modern phrase of "unconditional love" -- not in the extreme way that it is viewed.

As a matter of fact, from what I read and understand, God loves (ultimately) those who love Him, and MANIFEST THEIR LOVE BY THEIR COMPLIANCE TO HIS DESIRES, AS INDICATED IN HIS DIRECTIVES TO MANKIND.

Interestingly, in most every manifestation of God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, the expression that is typically given by God the Father is, "...this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

Having the moniker of "King David", I know that "David" itself means "Beloved". Why, I ask, is Jesus "beloved" of the Father? Well, to me, it is quite apparent from what else He (God the Father) says-- "...in whom I am well pleased." And, why is God "well pleased" by Jesus?

Jesus' own account tells us...

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

(New Testament | John 5:17 - 20)

--AND--

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

(New Testament | John 8:25 - 31)

Oh, I know, you or someone will come and say explicitly or implicityly, essentially, "Well, my God is nicer than your God." So I will be "trumped" (supposedly) by someone else. However, we can all say things to "one up" each other. But saying something is so never MAKES it so. "Truth is independent in that sphere that God has placed it." It always has been so, and will always be so.

I tell you that the Bible has more than merely the opinons of men. For it was indeed written by holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God, and they spoke and wrote as it was given to them of God. Therefore, it is of no one's private interpretation.

And, to answer "Duder's" response, "God told them to write, but He didn't tell them what to say," I disagree. It would be assenine for God to move them to speak or write, and not give them what to say or put down.

The Bible IS of God.

--KING DAVID

PureX

April 10th, 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by King David Oh, I know, you or someone will come and say explicitly or implicityly, essentially, "Well, my God is nicer than your God." So I will be "trumped" (supposedly) by someone else. However, we can all say things to "one up" each other. But saying something is so never MAKES it so. "Truth is independent in that sphere that God has placed it." It always has been so, and will always be so.This is why I think it's so important that we understand and remember that our individual ideas about God are NOT ACTUALLY GOD. They are just our ideas of God. And we can be WRONG. God may not be anything like what we think God is. Understanding this will help us behave with respect toward other people and toward their ideas about God. And it will help them to respect our beliefs in turn. We don't have to agree, but there is nothing to lose and everything to gain from being humble enough to allow for the possibility of our be wrong, and of other people being right.
Originally posted by King David I tell you that the Bible has more than merely the opinons of men. For it was indeed written by holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God, and they spoke and wrote as it was given to them of God. Therefore, it is of no one's private interpretation.Yet it IS your private (personal) interpretation that it was written by holy men and reflects God's will ...etc. *smile*

King David

April 10th, 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by PureX

This is why I think it's so important that we understand and remember that our individual ideas about God are NOT ACTUALLY GOD. They are just our ideas of God. And we can be WRONG. God may not be anything like what we think God is. Understanding this will help us behave with respect toward other people and toward their ideas about God. And it will help them to respect our beliefs in turn. We don't have to agree, but there is nothing to lose and everything to gain from being humble enough to allow for the possibility of our be wrong, and of other people being right.

Yet it IS your private (personal) interpretation that it was written by holy men and reflects God's will ...etc. *smile*

PureX,

Respectfully I reply, quoting what the scripture says, but as if it were my own words, in this case--

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, (I) speak that (I) do know, and testify that (I) have seen; and ye receive not (my) witness.

When Paul gave his witness before Agrippa, he did not say, "I think I know these things...". And with the same certitude Paul had then, I tell you regarding this, "I know these things, I do not merely believe them to be so."

You, as well as all men, will do with such testimony as you will. But it makes the truth represented by what I have tried to convey to you any less real, because you claim that it is merely my own "private interpretation".

I am, indeed, humble enough to accept truth, even if it is contrary to what I believe. But when someone has a knowledge on a matter, they no longer need to merely believe or express an opinion on it--they KNOW it.

--KING DAVID

(New Testament | John 3:11)

PureX

April 10th, 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by King David I am, indeed, humble enough to accept truth, even if it is contrary to what I believe. But when someone has a knowledge on a matter, they no longer need to merely believe or express an opinion on it--they KNOW it. Well, I can tell you what you don't know ... you don't know what other men know about God.

LightSon

April 17th, 2004, 05:39 PM

PureX

April 17th, 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

PureX,
If you were convinced in your own mind that God was communicating a specific course of action or prohibition directly to you, would you feel obligated to comply? How could God convince me of such a thing? Seems to me that no matter what "God" did, I would still have reasonable doubt.

So whatever this "God" was asking of me would still be subject to my own idea of what's right and what's not. For example, if some phenomena that purported to be "God" asked me to kill my child, I would not consider myself obliged to do it.

Why do you ask?

LightSon

April 17th, 2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by King David

I agree with LightSon that we cannot and will not be able to hide our acts, or even our thoughts, from the "all-searching eye" of an omniscient and just God.

Hey KD,
Thanks for agreeing with me. Are you trying to get me banned?

;)

You've been gone for awhile. Did you feel a need to take a hiatus? Now that you are back, I hope you feel welcome. :)

What kind of evidence would it take for you to conclude that Mormonism is a falsehood?

King David

April 17th, 2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

Hey KD,
Thanks for agreeing with me. Are you trying to get me banned?

;)

I find it most interesting that a site like this bans people, and would people of a particular religion, opinion, conscience. TOL is, in this, so diametrically opposed to what Christ taught as to be heretical. Be that as it may. If getting you to join Christ's Church would get you banned, then come, join, and "...Be exceedingly glad..." for so persecuted they the prophets (including Joseph Smith) before you!

You've been gone for awhile. Did you feel a need to take a hiatus? Now that you are back, I hope you feel welcome. :)

I feel no more or less welcome than others make me feel. I read, see, feel or sense no more "welcomeness" than there was before.

What kind of evidence would it take for you to conclude that Mormonism is a falsehood?

What did it take for Judas Iscariot to turn against Jesus Christ? No evidence. Only evil inside of him. That is the ONLY THING that could turn me to lift my heel to the Savior of the World (Jesus Christ), and his servants he has called from heaven, including, but not limited to, Joseph Smith Jr.

Lightson, what "would it take" to convince YOU that God lives and works today as He did in the days of the Bible? In other words, that He "...is not dead, nor doth He sleep...", but that his voice has uttered anew from the heavens to man, and his marvelous work and wonder has begun-- i.e., that he has restored truth, light, priesthood authority and keys to and through Joseph Smith Jr, and re-established his kingdom, which is his church, upon the earth again-- i.e., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

--KING DAVID

LightSon

April 17th, 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by PureX

How could God convince me of such a thing? Seems to me that no matter what "God" did, I would still have reasonable doubt.

We've had this conversation before, but I thought I'd try again to make a point. I trust you won't begrudge me that. ;)

You believe in a form of "god", but apparently your god does not look and act like mine. Your god seems to lack one of the following: power, self-awareness, self-confidence, a desire or ability to enforce his will.

I tend to read your diatribes against fundimentalists, and they usually pique me. Congrats.

We have this inexorable idea that God has communicated clearly with us on a number of salient points. Hence, we comply. It is really that simple.

So I wanted to know if you would comply IFF you would be convinced of His authenticity as your Creator. You adeptly skirted the question by reinforcing your philosophy of we-can't-really-no-anything-for-sure, or if we could know anything for certain, it won't be about God.

As I read the scriptures, the one thing God wants from us is obedience, to do as He asks. Period. You have carefully constructed a belief system which excuses you from this.

Originally posted by PureX
So whatever this "God" was asking of me would still be subject to my own idea of what's right and what's not. For example, if some phenomena that purported to be "God" asked me to kill my child, I would not consider myself obliged to do it.

Good job at picking an extreme example. Nevertheless, I am focusing on the phrase, "my own idea of what's right and what's not". Scripture decries those who do that "which is right in their own eyes." So in your view, if there is a God, there is no obligation whatever to do what He asks, and we can all run around and do what we judge to be right according to our own internal standard. This is a recipe for moral anarchy.

I realize that you don't think God will hold men accountable in the afterlife, but can you allow that you might be wrong? You said, "The bible IS inspired, but it is NOT inerrant and it does not reflect God's mind, but rather reflects our own ideas about God." Again, can you allow that you might be wrong, and that the Bible really DOES reflect God's mind?

Logic would suggest that you might at least allow for the fact that you are wrong on this point. You have put your spiritual life at great risk ALL on the premise that the Bible "does not reflect God's mind." I honestly do not understand that as a rationale; it's like a 5 year old walking a tight rope without a net. Risky business to say the least.

You have invested such a huge part of yourself decrying fundamentalism, that if (by Providence) there were any part of fundamentalism that were true, you would not allow yourself to see it on principle. For starters, I believe God can authenticate Himself to us. But if you refuse to allow for that possibility, then you have dismissed God before He speaks.

LightSon

April 17th, 2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by King David

I find it most interesting that a site like this bans people, and would people of a particular religion, opinion, conscience.
Putting my tongue-in-cheek remark to oneside, I have not seen anyone banned for the reasons you cite. Otherwise, you would probably have been gone long ago. The primary reason I've seen folks banned is for maintaining a recalcitrant attitude towards a moderator.

Originally posted by King David
Lightson, what "would it take" to convince YOU that God lives and works today as He did in the days of the Bible? In other words, that He "...is not dead, nor doth He sleep...", but that his voice has uttered anew from the heavens to man, and his marvelous work and wonder has begun-- i.e., that he has restored truth, light, priesthood authority and keys to and through Joseph Smith Jr, and re-established his kingdom, which is his church, upon the earth again-- i.e., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Well... :think: .....as I just told Mr. PureX, "I believe God can authenticate Himself to us."

So to be consistent, when God authenticates the LDS paradigm to me, I will come on over. Is that fair?

King David

April 17th, 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

Putting my tongue-in-cheek remark to oneside, I have not seen anyone banned for the reasons you cite. Otherwise, you would probably have been gone long ago. The primary reason I've seen folks banned is for maintaining a recalcitrant attitude towards a moderator.

You (tongue-in-cheek) suggested the possibility of getting you "banned" by me agreeing with your point of view.

Well... :think: .....as I just told Mr. PureX, "I believe God can authenticate Himself to us."

So to be consistent, when God authenticates the LDS paradigm to me, I will come on over. Is that fair?

Well, I am not sure of exactly what you mean by "God authenticates Himself to us." That evidence envelopes each and all of us that he lives, that he has created us, the world, and all that therein is, is to people like you and me quite "self-evident".

Actually, the call isn't for God to "authenticate Himself" to you (regarding the "LDS paradigm", as you refer to it), but rather it is, as it has been, is now, and always will be, that we "show ourselves worthy" to submit ourselves to him, and his will, in the manner shown by his Son.

But, yes, as far as you "com(ing) on over" once you feel that God has "authenticate(d) the LDS paradigm to (you)" is all that we ask of anyone. Of course, if one never really tests the paradigm (for reason alone cannot and will not do it), then yes, you may be convinced.

However, as Jesus pointed out, behavior, or 'action' are required to "know the truth". He declared--

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

(New Testament | John 8:31 - 32)

One cannot "continue in (His) word" without "doing".

To find out if "Mormonism" (so-called) is the veritable Gospel of Jesus Christ, you must do much more than dabble in it here and there now and then, and do so without any genuine application of faith. No doubter will have it "proved" to them. For God will only give you knowledge AFTER the trial of your faith, whether in "Mormonism" or anything else.

--KING DAVID

PureX

April 17th, 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by LightSon We have this inexorable idea that God has communicated clearly with us on a number of salient points. Hence, we comply. It is really that simple.And rather arrogant, too, if you think about it. You make these assumptions about God, and the bible, and your interpretations of what you read, and you never bother to doubt them. You treat your assumptions as if they were divine knowledge, that could not possibly be wrong. Findamentalists call this "faith", but I don't think this is faith at all. I think it's just the blind hubris of religion, and it's the ignorant pretense of human ego. It has little to do with faith.
Originally posted by LightSon So I wanted to know if you would comply IF you would be convinced of His authenticity as your Creator.Even God doesn't get to make me do what I believe is wrong - at least not without first convincing me that it's I who has erred in seeing it as wrong. What kind of god would want it otherwise?
Originally posted by LightSon You adeptly skirted the question by reinforcing your philosophy of we-can't-really-no-anything-for-sure, or if we could know anything for certain, it won't be about God.You asked me a question and I answered it honestly. I wasn't playing clever games. I was telling the truth as I understand it.
Originally posted by LightSon As I read the scriptures, the one thing God wants from us is obedience, to do as He asks. Period. You have carefully constructed a belief system which excuses you from this. Men wrote the scriptures. Men think God wants our "obedience" because that's what men would want if they were gods. But of course they aren't. And I see no evidence at all that would suggest to me that the true creator of all that exists wants our "obedience".
Originally posted by LightSon Good job at picking an extreme example. I wasn't looking for an "extreme" example. I was choosing the traditional Christian religious example. Don't you take this bible story literally? If so, then to you this is not extreme at all. In fact, it happened and is supposed to be your exemplification of obedience to God. Isn't it?
Originally posted by LightSon Nevertheless, I am focusing on the phrase, "my own idea of what's right and what's not". Scripture decries those who do that "which is right in their own eyes." So in your view, if there is a God, there is no obligation whatever to do what He asks, and we can all run around and do what we judge to be right according to our own internal standard. This is a recipe for moral anarchy. I don't know if you've noticed, but we CAN and ARE all doing what we judge to be right - including YOU. You seem to think that because you choose to follow a religious doctrine regarding your behavior that this somehow means that you didn't choose to do so. But you ARE choosing it just like everyone else is choosing whatever moral codes they are living by. You're no different than anyone else in this, yet you seem to really want to look down your nose at other people for choosing what they believe to be right and wrong exactly the same as you've done. Why is this?
Originally posted by LightSon I realize that you don't think God will hold men accountable in the afterlife, but can you allow that you might be wrong?Of course I could be wrong. In fact it is very likely that I am wrong about a great many things. But that doesn't really change anything, does it? I mean wrong or not I have to go with the truth as best I can determine what it is, just like everyone else.
Originally posted by LightSon You said, "The bible IS inspired, but it is NOT inerrant and it does not reflect God's mind, but rather reflects our own ideas about God." Again, can you allow that you might be wrong, and that the Bible really DOES reflect God's mind?Again, yes, I can be wrong about this. So what?
Originally posted by LightSon Logic would suggest that you might at least allow for the fact that you are wrong on this point. You have put your spiritual life at great risk ALL on the premise that the Bible "does not reflect God's mind." I honestly do not understand that as a rationale; it's like a 5 year old walking a tight rope without a net. Risky business to say the least. By this same reasoning, we could both be wrong, and the "real" God will condemn us both for an eternity for it. You seem to be under the erroneous impression that there are only two alternatives, here. But in fact the possible errors that either one of us could be committing are infinite. And the likelihood of being horribly condemned for those errors is just strong for you as for me.

The universe of "what ifs" is endless, and therefor pretty much useless to us as a point of reason.
Originally posted by LightSon You have invested such a huge part of yourself decrying fundamentalism, that if (by Providence) there were any part of fundamentalism that were true, you would not allow yourself to see it on principle.You make a mistake in thinking that my argument with fundamentalism is with what fundamentalists "believe". I don't really care what fundamentalists believe. Lots of people believe all sorts of things that they can't prove, including me. That's just how it is with we humans. What bothers me about fundamentalists is that they refuse to accept the fact that their beliefs might be wrong. And because they refuse to do so, they actually assume that they are somehow superior to other people and particularly that their beliefs are superior to other people's beliefs. Even this I wouldn't care about except that they then want to ACT on this blind hubris. They want everyone else to bow to it. And that's when they cross a line that gets my attention.
Originally posted by LightSon For starters, I believe God can authenticate Himself to us. But if you refuse to allow for that possibility, then you have dismissed God before He speaks. You are certainly free to believe this if you wish. But so far I have no awareness of any such authentication that isn't completely full of holes when viewed with even the most reasonable amount of skepticism. You should understand that the problem isn't with God, it's with us. We simply don't have the capacity to "authenticate" a claim of Godhood. We never did. And that's why I won't accept any fundamentalists claim that they possess the "truth" about God. It's isn't that they might not be right. It's that I know they're lying when they make that claim, right off the bat. And from there the dishonesty just multiplies.

King David

April 17th, 2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

PureX,
If you were convinced in your own mind that God was communicating a specific course of action or prohibition directly to you, would you feel obligated to comply?

But, PureX, don't worry about that if you are (or plan to be) a 'tradtional Christian'. God has not spoken to men in a clear revelatory manner (at least, according to them) for nearly two millennia (at least not anything we can canonize as scripture).

Of course, on our side (as members of The Church of Jesus Christ), we believe fully that God lives and speaks today every bit as much as He did anciently. Examine "The Book of Mormon", "Doctrine & Covenants", or "Pearl of Great Price", and see if they do not contain the "word of God" every bit as much (if not more so) than the Bible (only "more so", because much of it is addressed to people of and in "our day" and time.

--KING DAVID

P.S. NOTE: Joseph Smith received literal visitations from God the Father, and also from Jesus Christ, as well as from angels from heaven. They gave him very specific instructions. He obeyed. And 'traditional Christians' considered him a heretic, and murdered him in cold blood.

So, if you follow LightSon's advice, and something actually happens, be aware of what the Pharisees and Sadducees of our day will likely do to YOU !!!

King David

April 17th, 2004, 08:13 PM

[/quote]Originally posted by LightSon

PureX,
If you were convinced in your own mind that God was communicating a specific course of action or prohibition directly to you, would you feel obligated to comply? [/quote]

Better yet, go to--

http://www.lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-439,00.html

--there you can either read or listen to talks given by prophets and apostles of God.

Jesus gave this test, "By their fruits ye shall know them, ..." Judge for yourself after reading or listening to a number of them, whether these men are not speaking the words that Christ has inspired them to speak.

--KING DAVID

PureX

April 17th, 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by King David Of course, on our side (as members of The Church of Jesus Christ), we believe fully that God lives and speaks today every bit as much as He did anciently. Examine "The Book of Mormon", "Doctrine & Covenants", or "Pearl of Great Price", and see if they do not contain the "word of God" every bit as much (if not more so) than the Bible (only "more so", because much of it is addressed to people of and in "our day" and time.The "truth of God" if it exists, is not in any book. It's in our hearts. All the books do is help us recognize it within ourselves, and ANY book can do that for us at any time. And not just books - but things people say and do as well. The whole universe is an expression of God, and can serve as "God's spokesman" for our own hearts and minds at any time.

I don't have anything against Joseph Smith's spiritual writings, but I don't consider him a prophet or saint, either. Lots of men have written about God, and some of what they write can help me find the true spirit of God within myself, and some of them can't. That's all.

King David

April 19th, 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by PureX

The "truth of God" if it exists, is not in any book. It's in our hearts.

It is impossible to convince someone contrary to their desires. However, I will state that the "truth of God" does exist, and it does exist in books. Of course, the ultimate "book" that God has said he would have his law (or "truth") written in is the "fleshy tablets" of our hearts. But this "truth of God" is written in a book -- which is the Bible.

All the books do is help us recognize it within ourselves, and ANY book can do that for us at any time. And not just books - but things people say and do as well. The whole universe is an expression of God, and can serve as "God's spokesman" for our own hearts and minds at any time.

One of the "truths of God" is that "...truth is independent in that sphere that God has placed it" (Doctrine & Covenants or 'D&C' 93:30).

And the best definition of "truth" I know of is found in scripture. One of these is this-- "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;..."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:24)

Another "truth of God" is this--

Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.

(Old Testament | Psalms 85:11)

And the "truth" that has "(sprung) out of the earth" is The Book of Mormon. And the "righteousness shall look down from heaven" was and is God, who spoke to Joseph Smith "face to face, as one man speaketh to his friend", as Moses witnessed also happened to him.

I don't have anything against Joseph Smith's spiritual writings, but I don't consider him a prophet or saint, either. Lots of men have written about God, and some of what they write can help me find the true spirit of God within myself, and some of them can't. That's all.

And you or anyone will ever know whether or not Joseph Smith was or is a prophet or saint except by studying what he did. Again, Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them". I don't know how old you are (I am 50 myself, and have accomplished a fair amount in those years). But what miniscule amount I have done in comparison to what Joseph Smith accomplished in a short 38 years on this earth is hardly "spit in the wind".

And not only "how much" or quantity is important to consider, but "what" or the value of what that Prophet of God accomplished makes what others have accomplished, even the greatest of them, pale in comparison. For, as John Taylor eulogized Joseph Smith after he (Joseph) was murdered, he said--

Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord's anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood..."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 135:3)

I tell you these things PureX, because if anything, Joseph Smith tends to be "undersold", and seldom "oversold".

Pilate, when examining Jesus, said, "What is truth?"

Of all things that Joseph Smith did, he both brought forth from prophets past, as well as bore personal direct testimony himself that Jesus is the Christ. And man, by Adam and Eve's proxy actions for all caused the fall. And Jesus, by proxy actions, has redeemed man from the fall. But there is more than one type of salvation Christ offers. Some is free to all men -- that is resurrection from death. But other aspects of salvation must be merited to some extent--and to the extent it can't be, the atonement made by Christ makes up the difference. Here is one of the most important truths that Joseph Smith gave witness of--

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:22 - 24)

This is a most important "truth of God" one should not ignore, or minimize both its import and its implications.

Sure, truth can be found most everywhere. But the most important "truths", salvational truths, come from God. And they are not discerned only by the mind. One cannot know the whole truth who does not keep the commandments of God. For he that lies, cheats, steals, commits fornication of any kind, commits murder--these cannot know the truth. When we "abide in (Christ's word", meaning, that we keep God's commandments, THEN and ONLY THEN do and will we know the truth -- and indeed, the "truth shall make you free".

You will never know that Joseph Smith was a prophet (or a saint) without both closely examining his works AND without living the commandments of God.

--KING DAVID