If Christianity does turn out to be the right religion...

reply to post by Hydroman

Didn't Noturtypical say that it was Jesus who wrestled Jacob? If so, how did Jacob wrestle a spirit being? I thought spirits were not tangible.

Biblically speaking angels could materialize in a touchable entity. That's why demons are the spirits or the Rephaim, Amelakites, et cetra. The spirits of the Nephilim demi-gods of Genesis 6. The fallen angels are in chains in the Abyss and reserved unto "that day".

Originally posted by Hydroman

How would that kid know that this man isn't going to bring him home, lock him in a dungeon, and rape him for years? And/or does this man also let the child know that if he doesn't accept this free gift he will be punished forever in a place that he created for such people who don't accept his gift?

If we want to go into details with that analogy, I guess we could also say that the man sacrificed his only begotten Son so that he could offer up this gift, and again you're ignoring the simple truths here, that the punishment comes in the form of an absence of God - think of Hell like eternal suffocation, we're cut off from our life source, that is God. It's not like he's choking us forever, we just can't live without Him.

Also, it's called faith for a reason.

There's only one place left to go after the earth is destroyed? Where is hell? Where is heaven? There are no inhabitable planets out there that this being can put us on once our own planet is destroyed, if that ever happens?

You're asking how I came to that conclusion? Indirectly, I'll admit, but think of it this way - assuming all things in the Bible are true and that God is real - God, with his all-knowing and all-powerful abilities, has the ability to see the past, present and future. He lives in Eternity, and when one does that, they are not bound by the laws of our Universe - since our Universe has to follow rules and laws everywhere you look, testimony to that is simply jumping, you fall because of Gravity.

The dwelling place of God therefor must be separate from our known universe, another Dimension if you will.

Who would not believe in this guy if he was standing in front of their face? If this god is omnipotent, omniscient, and loving, he would know exactly what everyone needs to see and know in order to believe in him and would be able to provide this information. Hmm, I guess you're one of the lucky ones whom he knew would believe in him? Well praise the lord for you.

Heh. I guess "believe" wouldn't be the appropriate word, then. What really matters here, and I think what God's plan would entail (I don't wanna say I know His plan for sure), would be to ensure that there would be no one willing to disobey, or rebel against Him. Satan took 1/3 of the Angels with Him, as clever as he is, whose to say He couldn't convince a few souls to go with Him, given the opportunity? Hell, he's doing it now.

reply to post by Hydroman

Didn't Noturtypical say that it was Jesus who wrestled Jacob? If so, how did Jacob wrestle a spirit being? I thought spirits were not tangible.

You could touch what appears to be them, and you would think that you feel them (I know that from personal experience), but what they appear to be is not what they really are.
Noturtypical comes from a different tradition with their own belief set, where I would be more sceptical about most of these assumptions which he makes statements about.
Jesus had a specific role with specific duties that he performed and would not have been doing so much gallivanting about, and would have stayed in a centralized arrangement in order to be the oracle of God. Being an ordinary angel would have been a real demotion. The meaning of what an angel is refers to their being intermediaries, to convey messages from one place to another, while the source of those messages would have been the throne of God, which is where the future Jesus would have been found.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by BlackStar99

 

Not quite, I don't know of any other religion that offers guaranteed salvation or a personal relationship with God.

Take Islam for example, you aren't guaranteed access into Heaven unless you die a martyr, otherwise, it's still a 50/50 shot.

UUUHHM... Hinduism? specifically Hare Krishna sect. They believe, that The Almighty Creator of all things incarnated as a human, so that all who believe in him would have eternal life with The Almighty Creator. And that all other paths lead to destruction.

Originally posted by 547000
No, you're completely missing the point. There's nothing to discuss if it is proven. You're in a forum for religion asking for proof for each assumption. The best that can be done is discuss what we can deduce from statements we have to accept as postulates to understand the reasoning. All you're doing is saying prove it, even when people are discussing things that can't be proven. It's really irritating, because you're assuming it's people's goal to prove what they're saying 100%.

edit on 25-6-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

Apparantly you let the philosophical end of it go. Probably just as well, as you can find my opinions expressed elsewhere, if you're interested, and we were getting close to derailing the thread.

But as to stop asking for proof in general, that's another thing. Even if this forum is about religion etc., it's not called 'preacher's corner' and does not function as a church or a pulpit. Opposing opinions are as legitimate as the initial postulates, claims and doctrine-references.

Quote: ["All you're doing is saying prove it, even when people are discussing things that can't be proven."]

That's where the difference between subjectivity and objectivity comes in at a practical level. The simple acknowledgement, that "this is my subjective faith" means, that whatever is said is 'offered', not pushed.

(Ofcourse unless it still IS pushed. Theists often have problems with seeing the difference).

Quote: ["It's really irritating, because you're assuming it's people's goal to prove what they're saying 100%."]

I take such irritation as an expression of, that you want to be able to preach and propagandize un-opposed. In other words you are claiming elitist privileges.

Already amongst the first posts answering OP there was ONE of the christian optional 'doctrinal' answers, based on 'original sin'. Did you expect me to sit back (on a public forum) and passively let christians quibble doctrinally amongst themselves on 'hell or not-hell' (as the issue was here), because it's irritating, if I ask for 'proof'.

Christianity makes ripples in the waters of society. So it's a question for everybody, not the select few.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["Mary was also from the house of David. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus created the known universe. Jesus spoke to Moses from the burning bush. Jesus spoke to Joshua outside the city walls of Jericho (Joshua 5). Jesus told Abraham and Sarah that they would conceive a son. Jesus stood with Shadrach and Mishach in the fiery furnace. Jesus wrestled with Jacob all night on Mt. Moriah. He's the great I AM, the Alpha and Omega, the Aleph and the Tau."]

Considering that this statement contains both mundane and non-mundane claims, a certain amount of objective perspective on it is justified.

As e.g. "Jesus created the known universe". This is described in genesis 1 (where I for the duration can go along with your premise, that 'Jesus' was the creator). And genesis 1 is contrary to contemporary objective knowledge.

As to your referring to the bible, it would be of value, if your border between presenting subjective or objective information was more clear.

There are e.g. asian (specifically buddhist and jain) doctrines, which is considerably closer to contemporary objective knowledge than abrahamic doctrines are. But I would personally not dream of presenting them as 'absolutes' without further validation.

So should I eventually be confronted with the christian 'god', my answer would be: "You exist allright. But you are not, what you pretend to be. Buddhist (and gnosticism) cosmogony and cosmology which I was familiar with, when I existed in cosmos, give you quite another role than the one you give yourself. And I can validate this position".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 547000

 

No, you're completely missing the point. There's nothing to discuss if it is proven. You're in a forum for religion asking for proof for each assumption.

Not to mention in a thread who's topic is under the assumption that Christianity is "proved right" et cetra.

Your self-imposed role as pointing to 'correct' topic direction should be left to the real moderators.

Concerning the assumption that christianity is proved right, that doesn't imply only black/white positions. Christianity could in some respects be a retelling of cosmic history (there could have been a 'war in heaven'), but that doesn't mean, that the rest automatically is correct.

For non-believers the purely ideological message manifests strongly as plain propaganda from one part in a conflict.

reply to post by BlackStar99


I understand what you are saying.

First , lets get one thing clear , God isnt sending you to hell. There is a Law to follow , Hell was created for the Angels that denied Jesus even though they knew him.

However , if YOU deny him your no better than the Angels that denied him so you join them. You deny Jesus or you accept him.

However , there are different levels of Torment in hell , greater is the torment that knew him (Jesus) yet denied him. So your works are judged it seems and maybe will vary your pain or type of hell your in maybe. However , the bible isnt clear on this as hell is no place to be no matter how lenient it may be for those that didnt know him. Hell is bad and you dont want to go there. Period.

Here is an Anology - you murder a human being , you kill him. That human being you killed doesnt send you to jail , but the law sends you to jail because you broke it of your own free will and the Judge will tell you if your criminally insane if you plea it (mentally disabled) , however , most of the time you are proven guilty.

As for people of another religion , if they never truly heard of Jesus in any way, good chance he may still go to heaven because of God's grace. However , if you have heard Jesus's name and you havnt seeked him , well you still chose your religion over Jesus. Most peope have heard of Jesus / Christianity and have accepted of denied it.So the argument what if some one hasnt heard of Jesus ... is becoming invalid as it is nearly impossible to not have excluding the last uncontacted tribe in the Amazon.

Also , the holy spirit works on people that are brought up a different religion and tugs on their heart harder for them to question their religion and what God they call God. However , they can deny it and continue to believe their faith. Which is there choice.

I understand what your saying , but the Bible tells us , we spread the word and the holy spirit deal with the person. You can easily shrug the holy spirit off.

Again , it comes down to faith. If you dont have faith , nothing i just said will seem valid

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Are you reffering to ALL fallen angels , because i can assure you , most ALL fallen angels are free except a view VERY POWERFUL demons reach are reserved the Tribulation for great works and pain to be shown to the masses.

reply to post by Lionhearte


You wrote:

["If we want to go into details with that analogy,"]

It would be better altogether, if theists in general had some understanding of the uses of allegories. An allegory is ONLY an illustration of a point. Not an intrinsic part of a reasoning chain, which can be included as evidence or validation later.

Quote: ["I guess we could also say that the man sacrificed his only begotten Son so that he could offer up this gift,"]

as here, where you put up an allegory against an assumption.

Quote: ["and again you're ignoring the simple truths here, that the punishment comes in the form of an absence of God"]

This is not a "simple truth". This is a claim YOU promote to 'truth'.

Quote: [" that the punishment comes in the form of an absence of God"]

For SOME people this will be a punishment. For some it will be beneficial. Personally I hope to avoid any contact with the entity called 'god' by christians.

Quote: ["Also, it's called faith for a reason."]

I am in complete agreement on the emphasis of calling it 'faith'. Though I would propose an adaption of language changing the impression of a presentation of universal 'absolutes' to that of an individual optional position.

Quote: ["You're asking how I came to that conclusion? Indirectly, I'll admit, but think of it this way - assuming all things in the Bible are true and that God is real - God, with his all-knowing and all-powerful abilities, has the ability to see the past, present and future. He lives in Eternity, and when one does that, they are not bound by the laws of our Universe - since our Universe has to follow rules and laws everywhere you look, testimony to that is simply jumping, you fall because of Gravity."]

Considering cosmos (order) and chaos (non-order) as existential options isn't in disagreement with contemporary objective knowledge. Rather ther opposite. But to fill the knowledge-gap (concerning what chaos really is) with myths, is not justified. The god-of-the-gap approach.

Quote: ["The dwelling place of God therefor must be separate from our known universe, another Dimension if you will."]

Just for the record: 'Trans-cosmic' is useful, as it describes existence 'outside' the observed order of cosmos.

Quote: [" Heh. I guess "believe" wouldn't be the appropriate word, then. What really matters here, and I think what God's plan would entail (I don't wanna say I know His plan for sure), would be to ensure that there would be no one willing to disobey, or rebel against Him."]

That obedience/authority is at the center of christianity has been obvious from square one. You'll get into some problems with the 'free will' concept in that direction (christians don't even agree on 'free will amongst themselves).

Quote: ["Satan took 1/3 of the Angels with Him, as clever as he is, whose to say He couldn't convince a few souls to go with Him, given the opportunity? Hell, he's doing it now."]

Like in all other similar conflicts, YOUR side call dissidents for rebels or terrorists. THEY call themselves for 'freedom fighters'. The human being wanting to form an opinion on this needs to be able to see through the propaganda and indoctrination.

reply to post by milkyway12


You wrote:

["Here is an Anology - you murder a human being , you kill him. That human being you killed doesnt send you to jail , but the law sends you to jail because you broke it of your own free will and the Judge will tell you if your criminally insane if you plea it (mentally disabled) , however , most of the time you are proven guilty."]

I can only repeat my proposal: Be careful about allegories.

Secular law in democracy is a result of a consensus process amongst human beings. It's comprehensible and observable, and you can have direct contact with the various instances involved. It's based on egalitarian principles.

This has nothing to do with an assumed divine set of rules, vaguely formulated and vaguely justified. Rules with the seemingly main-purpose of keeping up the self-proclaimed totalitarian authority of an alleged 'god'.

Quote: ["As for people of another religion , if they never truly heard of Jesus in any way, good chance he may still go to heaven because of God's grace."]

Imposing the values of your own religion..."god's grace' .... on people not sharing your religion, but having their own, is an expression of exclusive elitism.

Quote: [" Also , the holy spirit works on people that are brought up a different religion and tugs on their heart harder for them to question their religion and what God they call God."]

As above.

Quote: ["I understand what your saying , but the Bible tells us , we spread the word and the holy spirit deal with the person. You can easily shrug the holy spirit off."]

Nobody except yourself and your alleged divine authorities has asked you to 'spread the word'. You have actually repeatedly been asked to turn down the volume of this self-justified missioning.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Lynda101

 

. . .combining old themes and putting new twists to old ideas.

Compaired to what? Babylon itself was something new in its time, so things are relative. There were older cultures the Babylonians borrowed from and the people of Palestine were on the fringe of a sea-going Phoenician empire that would have transferred lots of old stories from here and there, some that would have been absorbed into the Hebrew lore. There is probably little or none original material in the Old Testament, and it could be the result of a lot of re-branding of borrowed material that sounded pretty good and would fit into what would amount to an impressive past worthy of a great nation which they aspired to be, though contemporaries do not even differentiate them from Canaanites.

You claim new twists to old themes make things relative. I disagree with you completely, once you start perverting those themes they no longer relate so can never be relative. They also relate to Pantheism not to a Monotheisic super being.

The issue I wrote about is that what Christianity teaches is founded on fraud. It demands we must believe in a single eternal Judgemental God whom we must serve. But this God was not actually created himself until 535 BC when out of desperation to stop two Hebrew groups from killing each other, Ezra cobbled El with YHWH to make the father of all creation.

What is tragic is that had Ezra (and Hezekiah) had some original ideas and implemented them instead of pinching other nations myths he might have got away with his twisted plagiarism. Had people been told the truth about the bible and its origins how many would have followed the Abramhic religions? People are only now becoming aware of who wrote the first part of the bible, when and why, I doubt they will be particularly impressed.

I will never detract from Christ's teachings which will stay with me all my life but I do think the fact that he was virtually erased from historical record is particularly interesting and illuminating. If you go back to Mat. 2.2 you see the often ignorred question, "Where is he born the king of the Jews". I think you have the root the truth stems from. Pontius Pilot also asked if he was the King of the Jews? Looking at the man these questions were asked about, Christ was obviously a highly educated man, no carpenter him, nor did a carpenter pay for his education.

He was the first fighter against the money changers. He also moved with all classes of Jew, and although he obviously struggled with his own teachings he helped the Gentile. His ideology started causing fractures within the teachings of Judaism. I suspect all these things helped make him a King the Jews at that time certainly disdained probably enough to erase all of his memory. Christianity was probably actually saved by Paul, especially as more of the bible is focused on him and his views than on Christ.

reply to post by Lynda101

You claim new twists to old themes make things relative.

That's not what I meant.
I have to admit that my post in this area was a little hard to follow because I was not directly addressing what you were saying but adding some other commentary to go along with your thesis.
I hear people making the comment, "Well that was just borrowed from the Babylonians. . ." when the Babylonians got their material from cultures older than them.
The "relative" was just about; what is old?
As for Jesus being King of the Jews, I think he was, but that may just be my opinion.
Herod was an Idumean usurper king and not technically a Jew. His father was Antipater, who was the general for the Jewish King, John Hyracanus of the Hasmonean Dynasty, descended from the Maccabee priest family. The son of the military general was not content with filling his father's position and manipulated events to take the throne for himself. The process involved killing off any rightful claimant to the throne. That there would be a living person who could claim the throne in a rightful way would have been astonishing news to the world. The Gospel of Luke gives the clues in that it describes the family of Mary as being of the high priestly order of the Levites. Josephus gives further clues by saying that for one year, there was a break in the succession of the position of High Priest from the Caiaphas dynasty (also usurpers) around the time that Pilate came to Judea. Also Josephus claims that the Brother of Jesus served the functions of High Priest, though he did not have that title officially, because the usurper high priests knew better than to attempt to enter the most holy place in the Temple. Josephus later tells of a former High Priest by the name of Jesus who warned the people of Jerusalem that opposition to the Roman Army would end in their defeat.
My postulation would be that Jesus was the Messiah after the type of John Hyracanus, the Hasmonean king of the Maccabees, by serving as High Priest for one year, though rightfully and lawfully it should have been a lifelong appointment.

reply to post by bogomil


If you always look between the lines you will find something regardless if it is correct or wrong.

When i gave the Anology you werent suppose to look at the entire human history of law.


You simply look at the anology as it is intended.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by bogomil

 

If you always look between the lines you will find something regardless if it is correct or wrong.

When i gave the Anology you werent suppose to look at the entire human history of law.


You simply look at the anology as it is intended.

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

The allegory was the least of the problems I saw, in the post I answered to.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Fascinating, I hadn't researched the High Priests, so the idea of Jesus and his Brother, presumably James as having that role is food for thought. Was it Christ the Messiah, The King or The High Priest? I have at the back of my mind that the King could also do the role of High Priest, but its a long time since I did any reading on Christianit now I had worked out that Mary was obviously very highly connected simply because she went into Caiphus's house which, were she poor or a prostitute, she would never have been able to gained entry.

reply to post by Lynda101
There was the beginnings of the concept of a priestly type king with David and Solomon.
It became a reality through the Maccabees who were the Messiah/High Priest/Kings.
That continued through John Hyracanus who was of that lineage and was the sole King of the Jews throughout most of his life, untill his eventual death. He was a true Messiah and it is recorded that he had the power to heal and to foretell the future and to see things from afar off.
Jesus started his career in replicating King John's most commonly known supernatural ability when he saw his future disciple praying under the fig tree.

Originally posted by BlackStar99
Why would you want to worship and spend eternity in heaven with a god who's sending billions of good people to be tortured for all eternity on the sole basis that they didn't pick the right religion? Does god not understand the basic human psychology that a child will follow the religion of their parents almost all the time? When god's distributing out souls, how exactly does he decide which soul to give an edge to by putting them in a Christian family or Christain predominant country?

ETA: If a mod could fix the title, it would be much appreciated.

edit on 23-6-2011 by BlackStar99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2011 by BlackStar99 because: (no reason given)

Hello my friend,

Who said there was a right religion other than the religious? God himself has never presented himself to all mankind and said "This is the religion to follow!". It is said that he presented himself to Moses and gave commandments to follow, commandments which make sense to a particular society at a particular time. Never once were those commandments bound to anyone other than those who followed Moses out of the desert.

It is said that God came to earth in the form of Christ, who gave the truest teachings of the way in which man can save themselves, only by loving each other. To anyone who would take the time to seriously evaluate our world and it's current state of affairs, if honest, it is quite obvious our system of iniquities are what is destroying us. In a world of plenty we create a world of competition for survival. Pity... This isn't love, and it will be our demise.

It is said that Mohamed had divine visions, angels coming bearing messages from God. The message? Love and Brotherhood. Under the banner of Love and Brotherhood Mohamed united the Arab tribes which made them strong enough to resist the exploitation of European powers who came ironically in the name of Christ, not for love, but subservience. In the beginning of Islam Mohamed taught the teachings of Christ in a way in which the Arabs would understand it. He taught to regard Jews and Christians as Brothers and to always provide safety for them. It was later after many abuses that the doctrine became hegemonic and fanatical.

Buddha is said to have found enlightenment through the elimination of desire. While silent on the "God and Heaven" issue, Buddhism elude to a state of peace that is attainable through contemplation of one's own being. Who are you? Know that, and the universe is at your disposal.

A Lakota Medicine Man by the name of Wovoka once studied the Bible and was so taken by it's message that he created a dance which told the teachings of Christ in a language the natives would understand. He called the dance Ghost Dance and united the Apache, Comanche, Lakota, Cherokee, and other tribes under the banner of this dance. His intentions were misunderstood by the federal government as a native uprising. For teaching the message of Love and Brotherhood the federal government massacred thousands of native men, women, and children who were caught unaware and without weapons at the battle of Wounded Knee.

So, what is the right religion to God?

As he said unto Moses, "I AM"

As Christ said to the masses, "I AM"

The answer to who you are, "I AM"

Gabriel's sender to Mohamed, "I AM"

Wovoka's Ghost Dance Message, "I AM"

It is not so important what road you take to God, so long as you find him within yourself.

Good luck on your travels my friend. Remember, no one knows anything about anything other than whats is inside their own head.

With Love,

Your Brother