|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bible Verses: Do Disbelievers Go To Hell?
Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 4:6-8, Romans 2:14-16, Luke 12:47-48, and Romans 1:19.
what is this... numbers and names.... please tell us what the verses are.. or is it a thread that only christians should reply?
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 4:6-8, Romans 2:14-16, Luke 12:47-48, and Romans 1:19. |
Text of the above verses....although for the life of me, I don't understand the question and the relevance of all of them.
Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
John 4:6-8 (New International Version)
6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Romans 1:19 (New International Version)
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
I can see the relevence of some of the listed verses to the topic and not others. My own thought on the subject is that if you believe in your heart, and try to the best of your abiity to do what you know in your heart is right...you should be all set. I don't believe that going to Church every Sunday, praying daily, observing all the religious holidays and trappings is really going to bring you any closer to God if all you are doing is going through a predetermined course of actions (sounds like a kata to me) and have no real love for God in your heart.
Indeed, indeed! Well put, Vrythramax!
So, if someone doesn't understand the application of one of the verses to the topic, why don't you say which one it is so I can address the issue?
So, if someone doesn't understand the application of one of the verses to the topic, why don't you say which one it is so I can address the issue?
@mike1reynolds
if you could explain John 4:6-8 to me I would be appreciate it...and I am not trying to be a smarta**
thanks in advance
if you could explain John 4:6-8 to me I would be appreciate it...and I am not trying to be a smarta**
thanks in advance
Yep, I'll second that. John 4:6-8, for a start.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| @mike1reynolds
if you could explain John 4:6-8 to me I would be appreciate it...and I am not trying to be a smarta** thanks in advance |
I'm fairly sure I know exactly what he's getting it, but ya really need the whole story, which is really John 4:1-42.
Theres so many cool things going on in that story. A little insight into that story which isn't directly in the text but readers would have picked up on. The 6th hour is pretty much around the middle of the day. Thats significant because all the women go to the well in the morning when its not so hot out, but this woman was out there when everyone was already gone because she was an outcast of her own society, which was an outcast of Jesus's society.
Theres also a paraphrasing by a gentleman named Steve who is a pastor somewhere in chicago which is on his blog which is a dang good read, unless you happen to be one of the people who is convinced that its your job to tell people they are going to hell and/or consider yourself to be the heresy police.
*edited to insert a link I forgot the first time.
Thank You a_dubDesign, I read the entire passage and I understand mike1reynolds reference now
Thank you also for the very informative link to the searchable Bible
Thank you also for the very informative link to the searchable Bible
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Thank You a_dubDesign, I read the entire passage and I understand mike1reynolds reference now
Thank you also for the very informative link to the searchable Bible |
Hey no problem, I loves me some biblegateway.
Well, actually, if you look at the original post more closely, the verse is ONE John, not the Gospel of John. Here is what 1 John 4:7-8 says:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Well, actually, if you look at the original post more closely, the verse is ONE John, not the Gospel of John. |
Thats kinda crazy that it worked out like that.
OK just out of curiosity then, I'd like to ask...
How do you define God?
Is God just the one God that is mentioned in the Bible, that all Christians believe in, who is the Father of Christ?
Or is God a universal God, the God of the entire world/universe that the Christians call God, the Muslims call Allah, the Sikhs call Waheguru, etc etc?
It is my firm belief that anyone who experiences God in their own way (more or less) has the capacity to love and to learn to love.
See, in all honesty, I like this quote:
It may be true that there could be some who do not believe in God, and yet love and care about people around them and the world in general. I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love. However, I'd appreciate not limiting God to mean the Christian God or the capacity to love coming only from that one source. The Sikh Gurus preached universal love... they (tried their best to) abolish the caste system here, spread equality, ban the outdated and unnecessary social rituals and customs of that time, etc etc.
(Note: I'm not trying to promote Sikhism. I'm just trying to say that the Sikh gurus, who called God as Waheguru, also spread the same message of equality, fraternity and love)
How do you define God?
Is God just the one God that is mentioned in the Bible, that all Christians believe in, who is the Father of Christ?
Or is God a universal God, the God of the entire world/universe that the Christians call God, the Muslims call Allah, the Sikhs call Waheguru, etc etc?
It is my firm belief that anyone who experiences God in their own way (more or less) has the capacity to love and to learn to love.
See, in all honesty, I like this quote:
| Quote: |
| Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. |
It may be true that there could be some who do not believe in God, and yet love and care about people around them and the world in general. I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love. However, I'd appreciate not limiting God to mean the Christian God or the capacity to love coming only from that one source. The Sikh Gurus preached universal love... they (tried their best to) abolish the caste system here, spread equality, ban the outdated and unnecessary social rituals and customs of that time, etc etc.
(Note: I'm not trying to promote Sikhism. I'm just trying to say that the Sikh gurus, who called God as Waheguru, also spread the same message of equality, fraternity and love)
I've often wondered the same theory. Are Allah and the Christian God one? The only thing that would be "wrong" (I use the term wrong loosely, and from the standpoint of a Christian), is that as Muslims, they deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Do we all worship one God?
The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon, so Allah is an ugly distortion of what God really is. The Qur’an never says anything about the heart. The real God judges you by what is in your heart, Allah does not.
The denial of Jesus’ divinity is another example. No other religion does this. Hinduism explicitly embraces the divinity of Jesus. They say that he is an “Avatar”, which means divine incarnation and world savior. All other religions are silent on the topic. Only Islam explicitly rejects Jesus’ divinity, and this rejection is encoded in the Qur’an.
Not so fast. Jesus contradicts this notion in Matthew 7:21-23:
He goes on to say that prideful Christians are people that He never knew. They are not going to be with Him.
The denial of Jesus’ divinity is another example. No other religion does this. Hinduism explicitly embraces the divinity of Jesus. They say that he is an “Avatar”, which means divine incarnation and world savior. All other religions are silent on the topic. Only Islam explicitly rejects Jesus’ divinity, and this rejection is encoded in the Qur’an.
| tidruG wrote: |
| I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love. |
Not so fast. Jesus contradicts this notion in Matthew 7:21-23:
| Jesus wrote: |
| Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. |
He goes on to say that prideful Christians are people that He never knew. They are not going to be with Him.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon, so Allah is an ugly distortion of what God really is. |
I did not know that. I'll have to do some more research on this. Hopefully, when I get some free time, I'll be able to read a translated copy of the Qu'ran.
| Quote: | ||||
Not so fast. Jesus contradicts this notion in Matthew 7:21-23:
He goes on to say that prideful Christians are people that He never knew. They are not going to be with Him. |
That was the point I was trying to make. You can't enter Heaven just by proclaiming yourself to be a believer of Jesus Christ.
Anyway, I need you to explain something else as well...
"the will of my Father who is in heaven"
What is this will? What are the rules? And once again, I ask... can these rules be followed only by Christians (what I mean to ask is whether we need to convert to Christianity in order to follow God's will?)
After what you have written about Allah and the Qu'ran, I will refrain from talking about that. However, my question still remains unanswered... is God and the capacity to love exclusive only to Christians and believers of Jesus?
@Soulfire, I do in fact believe in the concept of only one God. Different religions, in my opinion, are just different ways of worshipping that God. This is in tune with my firm belief in equality. We are all, in my opinion, capable of loving and being loved, irrespective of our belief in God and irrespective of the name of the God we pray to.
Christians who adhere to liberal theology as well as many Catholics do not believe that only Christians go too Heaven. Christians who adhere to conservative theology think that all non-Christians go too Hell.
I embrace all true religions, so beyond this I can’t exactly speak for those who follow exclusively Christianity.
As to the Qur’an, the entity that dictated the Qur’an to the illiterate Mohammed claimed that it was the archangel Gabriel (Jibriel), but the “gut” reaction is always truthful. The higher mind (soul) thinks faster than the conscious mind, so your first reaction is the most accurate one if it is a powerful one and obviously from some part beyond the intellect. Mohammed’s first reaction to this entity was sheer terror. He ran for miles to get home and was still trembling in fear when he embraced his wife.
Also, the entity came to him while he was in a cave, which is classic dark side symbolism. Hell is usually depicted as cavernous. Heaven is never depicted this way. Caves are full of bats, another dark side Halloween dark side symbol. Demon’s have bat’s wings, for example. And of course caves are dark. Demon’s work better in the dark.
When asked for a sign that this was an angel and not a demon, Muslims will ironically refer to the “Night Journey”. Where the entity carried Mohammed to another city hundreds of miles away and then brought him back in a single night. They never think about the fact that “the devil can do mighty deeds too”, but the main thing to me was that it was at night. A demon’s power is stronger at night.
I embrace all true religions, so beyond this I can’t exactly speak for those who follow exclusively Christianity.
As to the Qur’an, the entity that dictated the Qur’an to the illiterate Mohammed claimed that it was the archangel Gabriel (Jibriel), but the “gut” reaction is always truthful. The higher mind (soul) thinks faster than the conscious mind, so your first reaction is the most accurate one if it is a powerful one and obviously from some part beyond the intellect. Mohammed’s first reaction to this entity was sheer terror. He ran for miles to get home and was still trembling in fear when he embraced his wife.
Also, the entity came to him while he was in a cave, which is classic dark side symbolism. Hell is usually depicted as cavernous. Heaven is never depicted this way. Caves are full of bats, another dark side Halloween dark side symbol. Demon’s have bat’s wings, for example. And of course caves are dark. Demon’s work better in the dark.
When asked for a sign that this was an angel and not a demon, Muslims will ironically refer to the “Night Journey”. Where the entity carried Mohammed to another city hundreds of miles away and then brought him back in a single night. They never think about the fact that “the devil can do mighty deeds too”, but the main thing to me was that it was at night. A demon’s power is stronger at night.
| Quote: |
| The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon, |
yes i belive that ur god is my god (muslim, jew,cristian)but only do not god has a son etc...
Actions speak louder than words. Islam is the most violent religion in the world.
The Qur'an drums a constant beat of hate and judgement against Christians and Jews. Christian religious bigotry is the result of twisting the Bible. By contrast you have to twist the Qur'an, glossing over and ignoring the innumerably statements of religious bigotry in it, to claim that it is not bigoted. Muslim religious bigotry comes straight from the Qur'an.
The Qur'an drums a constant beat of hate and judgement against Christians and Jews. Christian religious bigotry is the result of twisting the Bible. By contrast you have to twist the Qur'an, glossing over and ignoring the innumerably statements of religious bigotry in it, to claim that it is not bigoted. Muslim religious bigotry comes straight from the Qur'an.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Actions speak louder than words. Islam is the most violent religion in the world.
The Qur'an drums a constant beat of hate and judgement against Christians and Jews. Christian religious bigotry is the result of twisting the Bible. By contrast you have to twist the Qur'an, glossing over and ignoring the innumerably statements of religious bigotry in it, to claim that it is not bigoted. Muslim religious bigotry comes straight from the Qur'an. |
Dude, actions don't relate to the written(christian or islam) word, so your 1st paragragh is sort of meaningless when we are talking about the teachings, not how different factions interpret them. At different times in the past, the christians could be pointed at as the most violent.
The 2nd paragraph is just rhetoric. I'd be much more interested in your justification for believing that Quran is "demonic".
I personally think that God speaks to different cultures in ways that lead them to God's path. For me, that helps explain the amazingly different tones of the old and new Testaments.
And violent teachings? I don't have to tell you how violent the Old Teastament is, right? But I like to believe that those people weren't ready for a forgiving God and needed "law" to get them on the road to God's Ideal.
Anyway, why the demonic belief?
I am of the belief that there is but one God and it is man who has chosen to call him (for lack of a better term) by differant names. Many cultures pray to God, by what ever name and in many differant ways...but the end result is always the same...they are praying to God.
Christians have in the past been just as violent as some presant day religions appear to be, but I don't think that is a result of God's will...here again it is man who has [attempted] to interpret God's will and set about on a course of actions that they may very well believe is right and just. Now before anybody starts flaming me, I am not supportive of any violent action in God's name, nor for love of country...I am simply stating that these people who we now call terrorists may truly believe they are doing God's Will here on earth.
When you stop to look at history, in a thousand years they may just be in the place where Christians are right now...accepted, for the most part, and considered respectable, also for the most part. Christians (and I am one) have in history done some pretty horrific things, I can only thank God that they did not have the weapons available to them during the Crusades as we have now. Our history would be vastly differant if they had.
Christians have in the past been just as violent as some presant day religions appear to be, but I don't think that is a result of God's will...here again it is man who has [attempted] to interpret God's will and set about on a course of actions that they may very well believe is right and just. Now before anybody starts flaming me, I am not supportive of any violent action in God's name, nor for love of country...I am simply stating that these people who we now call terrorists may truly believe they are doing God's Will here on earth.
When you stop to look at history, in a thousand years they may just be in the place where Christians are right now...accepted, for the most part, and considered respectable, also for the most part. Christians (and I am one) have in history done some pretty horrific things, I can only thank God that they did not have the weapons available to them during the Crusades as we have now. Our history would be vastly differant if they had.
I am heavily into Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Lamaism, Christianity, Zen, Nagualism and other forms of shamanism, but Islam is different. The Qur'an is the only scripture I know of that anyone considers holy that is in fact complete garbage. It reads like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of an angry bigoted Southern evangelical minister.
The Old Testament *describes* all sorts of wars and internal purges when the Jews would turn to demon worshiping. But it doesn’t encode a system of religious bigotry in it’s pages. It also has some heavy stuff and talks about selfless love on many occasions. There is absolutely nothing like that in the Qur'an. Prior to my reaching the negative conclusion that I have about the Qur’an I read it for four years. It took me that long to get through the book because it was just such garbage I couldn’t make it through more than a few pages at a sitting. Every paragraph is a different topic. It is a like listening to a con man who is constantly changing the subject in order to avoid being pinned down on his lies, but even more extreme. Only a nut case on speed would talk like that today, changing topics every paragraph.
As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity.
The Old Testament *describes* all sorts of wars and internal purges when the Jews would turn to demon worshiping. But it doesn’t encode a system of religious bigotry in it’s pages. It also has some heavy stuff and talks about selfless love on many occasions. There is absolutely nothing like that in the Qur'an. Prior to my reaching the negative conclusion that I have about the Qur’an I read it for four years. It took me that long to get through the book because it was just such garbage I couldn’t make it through more than a few pages at a sitting. Every paragraph is a different topic. It is a like listening to a con man who is constantly changing the subject in order to avoid being pinned down on his lies, but even more extreme. Only a nut case on speed would talk like that today, changing topics every paragraph.
As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| ...The Qur'an is the only scripture I know of that anyone considers holy that is in fact complete garbage. |
At least your upfront with your feelings.
| Quote: |
| It reads like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of an angry bigoted Southern evangelical minister. |
Again, much like the Old Testament.
| Quote: |
|
The Old Testament *describes* all sorts of wars and internal purges when the Jews would turn to demon worshiping. But it doesn’t encode a system of religious bigotry in it’s pages. |
When I was talking about 'evil' stuff in the OT, I'm thinking of stuff like:
Lot offering his daughters to be raped to save his guests.
Moses ordering the deaths of non-believers. (Baal worshipers)
Execution of sexual perverts. (sex with animals)
Moses being upset with his warriors not killing the Midianite women
Moses again ordering the deaths of the Midianite boys.
We know there is a lot more, but the point is that there is a lot of vile stuff in the christian bible also. And it is pretty evident that if you aren't a believer, you have no protection/rights and can be killed because of it.
| Quote: |
|
As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity. |
Well, I would have a tendency to wonder about ANYONE who is listening to voices in his head.
But that includes virtually any religious text. But I can understand why YOU think it was demonically inspired. It's not really compelling, though. Unless you are trying to incite debate on that point, it might be prudent to state it as a belief instead of established fact.| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity. |
It is pretty evident, mike, that you are anti-Muslim. But why should a voice speaking in your head (in any manner) be the voice of a demon. If you saw your parents being brutally murdered in front of your eyes, a little voice in your head would probably call out for revenge. Sorry for using an example like this... just wanted to get my point across... anyway, back into it... that voice wouldn't be the voice of a demon. It would be the voice of your anger, of your human reaction to what you have witnessed.
I have also read a few of your other posts concerning the demon story and about caves/bats/night. You seem to thinking along the lines of most Christian cultures. The night isn't seen by all religions to be friendlier towards evil forces. Nor is the bat symbol the symbol of evil/darkness in every culture.
The reason I'm posting about this is because I agree with HoboPelican when he says
| Quote: |
| Unless you are trying to incite debate on that point, it might be prudent to state it as a belief instead of established fact. |
which is what you did to that Moderator guy on the other thread. The unseen entity here is believed by all (or most) Muslims to be God, and by one person (or very few persons) to be a demon. If we are going to give weight to an idea based on the number of people who believe in it, then beyond a shadow of a doubt, the unseen entity is God.
I am a christian and I guess some people would call me a 'fundamentalist' 
because I believe the Bible is totally true.
But that's not the issue here. Mike, I don't think you're right about the Qur'an.
About the voice-in-your-head, lib said great things about it. And as far as I know, most religous books are written by people who claim to have had 'voices in their heads'. The Bible also contains prophesies from people who say the had a dream in which God spoke to them.
About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.
About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?
About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 )
About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction?
And something more:
I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'.
I believe the Qur'an isn't right, but not because it's garbage, but because Jesus is only a prophet in it. I believe He's Gods Son, who saved the earth.
Sorry Mike, nothing personal. I just wanted to react to your posts about the Qur'an. I thought they weren't fair. And other people: sorry for my 'just quoting texts'. I did that because else my post would be so much longer...
Yours,
JohanFH
because I believe the Bible is totally true.
But that's not the issue here. Mike, I don't think you're right about the Qur'an.
About the voice-in-your-head, lib said great things about it. And as far as I know, most religous books are written by people who claim to have had 'voices in their heads'. The Bible also contains prophesies from people who say the had a dream in which God spoke to them.
About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.
About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?
About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 )
About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction?
And something more:
| Quote: |
| Christians who adhere to conservative theology think that all non-Christians go too Hell. |
I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'.
I believe the Qur'an isn't right, but not because it's garbage, but because Jesus is only a prophet in it. I believe He's Gods Son, who saved the earth.
Sorry Mike, nothing personal. I just wanted to react to your posts about the Qur'an. I thought they weren't fair. And other people: sorry for my 'just quoting texts'. I did that because else my post would be so much longer...
Yours,
JohanFH
| johanfh wrote: | ||
| I am a christian and I guess some people would call me a 'fundamentalist' because I believe the Bible is totally true.
But that's not the issue here. Mike, I don't think you're right about the Qur'an. About the voice-in-your-head, lib said great things about it. And as far as I know, most religous books are written by people who claim to have had 'voices in their heads'. The Bible also contains prophesies from people who say the had a dream in which God spoke to them. About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred. About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you? About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 ) About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction? And something more:
I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'. I believe the Qur'an isn't right, but not because it's garbage, but because Jesus is only a prophet in it. I believe He's Gods Son, who saved the earth. Sorry Mike, nothing personal. I just wanted to react to your posts about the Qur'an. I thought they weren't fair. And other people: sorry for my 'just quoting texts'. I did that because else my post would be so much longer... Yours, JohanFH |
Thank you for finding the words I wanted to say but couldn't. It's an excellent post.
As far as "Is love only for Christians?". No, I don't think so. I believe we're given the capacity to love when we're conceived. It's how we use that love that matters. I also believe that with God in our life we have the ability to love differently and deeper. By that I mean, I may dislike someone's actions, but I can still love that person. And like JohanFH, I don't feel it's my place to state wheither someone is going to hell or not. The simple fact is, I don't know. The only person I have any control over is myself.
| lib wrote: |
| The unseen entity here is believed by all (or most) Muslims to be God, and by one person (or very few persons) to be a demon. If we are going to give weight to an idea based on the number of people who believe in it, then beyond a shadow of a doubt, the unseen entity is God. |
No, Muslims believe that it was the archangel Gabriel.
I suspect that the reason that you don't see that as compelling evidence that it might be a demon is that you don't take it seriously. If you take it seriously then there aren't many options beside archangel if you think it was lying about its identity.
Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence.
| johanfh wrote: |
| About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.
|
It is extremely repetitious. I guess you could call that poetic. Confucius would take incredibly profound passages from the Book of Changes and interpret them in the form of meaningless pompous poetry. He created a school of scholarship that did wonderful work, Mencius’ prose commentaries are extremely penetrating and invaluable, but Confucius’ poetry was facile and shallow. Beautiful in poetic terms is a euphemism for superficial and trite when it is nothing dressed up in flowery language.
Beautiful spiritual poetry should speak of selfless love. The Bible does that with great frequency, especially in the New Testament. Just look at what happened earlier in this thread when a_dubDesign quoted the wrong verse and yet it was still about compassion and love. There is absolutely nothing about selflessness or compassion in the Qur’an. Instead it is deeply interwoven with many different strategies for encouraging bigotry against other religions.
A major portion of the Qur’an is alternative Biblical histories. They are told in a very choppy manner, usually it is just a paragraph or two implicitly stating that the Bible is wrong on this particular fact about a Biblical personage and the Qur’an is giving you the real truth on the matter. It is like walking down old familiar streets that are all painted pink. It is a means of impugning Christians and Jews by endlessly implying that they believe in a false religion, even as it deceptively pretends to pay respect to those religions.
The Qur’an slips in an alternate cosmology that encourages bigotry by asserting that there are no demons. Muslims do not believe in demons because angels can’t fall. There are only jinn -- spirits, some of which are good and some of which are evil. In Christianity every soul is a battlefield, but in Islam the dark side doesn’t stand a chance. Anyone that goes to Hell is dishonest and deceptive disbeliever and the individual Muslim reading the Qur’an is only in real danger from such disbelievers. The danger from within is addressed only in the most bland and shallow terms; only in terms of rules like the Ten Commandments, never in terms of what is in your heart. All of the focus is external, almost none of it is internal. It is easy to judge others but much harder to objectively judge yourself; discouraging self examination encourages double standards, which is the root of all bigotry.
It is like the way AIDS first attacks the body’s ability to recognize the virus’ presence. If evil can downplay its strength and take the believers off their guard then it can strike much more effectively. Once there is no room for suspecting evil it can say all sorts of subtly corrupt things that people just absorb without critical analysis and get programmed by. Over and over the Qur’an ironically pretends to pay respect to the “Peoples of the Book” as it condemns most of them to Hell. For example, in the same sentence the Qur’an encourages Muslims to harshly judge Christians and Jews even as it says to forgive them, by impugning their motives with Satanic implications. ‘Forgive those Satanists, God will deal with their sins, which incidentally are the most vile of possible sins’. The Qur’an always expresses forgiveness in exclusively hypocritically terms of harsh judgment.
Another hypocrisy is that along with many virgins for each male Muslim there is alcohol in Heaven, even though alcohol is forbidden. It gets around this ban by not actually saying the word ‘alcohol’ but only implying it with a description of the new and improved Heavenly version as a beverage that doesn’t give you a headache no matter how much you drink. Heaven is portrayed exclusively in terms of carnal sense gratification, primarily for men. Sensual companionship for women in the afterlife is never described. Where all the virgins come from is not addressed either. To be one of many for each man is obviously not an ideal Heavenly fate for a female reader of the Qur’an to contemplate. Heavenly benefits described exclusively in terms of carnal sense gratification are totally contrary to every other religion on the planet.
| johanfh wrote: |
| About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?
About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 ) About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction? |
That is completely different, Gideon only experiences momentary fright, sort of like jumping when someone comes up behind when you thought you were alone. God says, “you’re not gonna die”, as a mocking hyperbole. Kind of like telling a child crying from a minor tumble, “looks like we’re gonna have to amputate!” Mohammed’s terror was much more prolonged and intense.
The Bible says that the devil can do mighty deeds too, it doesn’t say only the devil can do mighty deeds. Each case is individual. If you have a good argument that these people were deceived by charlatans I’m open to here it. I don’t just automatically assume that locutions are demonic, I have to see some evidence of lying and hypocrisy in the entity’s statements.
| mabuhay wrote: |
| Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence. |
Childish taunts in lieu of meaningful input. How edifying. If you’re not interested then buzz off.
I don't know how to interpret the question in the poll. Does it mean "All non-christians go to hell?", or "Disbelievers go to hell rather than believers?". I disagree with the first senetence. Here's a quote that should confirm this: Matthew 21,28-32.
Very well said, but there is one thing that you didn't mention. Without the help of God, one could do actually nothing good, cause we all are egoists and we can't overcome this ourselves. Only by having His support could we do something so extreme as 'loving our enemies' or 'turning the other cheek'. I don't know what about you, but I wouldn't have the strenght even to get on with people around me, if I hadn't tried to get on well with God. That's why those practises aren't useless, they help you to have the real love not only of God.
Christians shouldn't lock themselves in monasteries but be the living example of the love of the God for the other people. I'm not a theologian (it is enough for me that my boyfriend is one). I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart...
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| I can see the relevence of some of the listed verses to the topic and not others. My own thought on the subject is that if you believe in your heart, and try to the best of your abiity to do what you know in your heart is right...you should be all set. I don't believe that going to Church every Sunday, praying daily, observing all the religious holidays and trappings is really going to bring you any closer to God if all you are doing is going through a predetermined course of actions (sounds like a kata to me) and have no real love for God in your heart. |
Very well said, but there is one thing that you didn't mention. Without the help of God, one could do actually nothing good, cause we all are egoists and we can't overcome this ourselves. Only by having His support could we do something so extreme as 'loving our enemies' or 'turning the other cheek'. I don't know what about you, but I wouldn't have the strenght even to get on with people around me, if I hadn't tried to get on well with God. That's why those practises aren't useless, they help you to have the real love not only of God.
| Quote: |
| Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence. |
Christians shouldn't lock themselves in monasteries but be the living example of the love of the God for the other people
. I'm not a theologian (it is enough for me that my boyfriend is one). I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart...| the_mariska wrote: |
| I don't know how to interpret the question in the poll. Does it mean "All non-christians go to hell?", or "Disbelievers go to hell rather than believers?". I disagree with the first senetence.
|
But you agree with the second?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
But you agree with the second? |
No. Only in the context I wrote before. Believing in God does help people to be better (or at least it should). It's very hard to cope with the dark side of your naure on your own, and God does really help with it. Real and deep belief makes you change your mind, your nature and your behaviour. However, there are people who are 'saints' though they don't believe (one for them was Gandhi), I know some atheists who are better Christians than most of Christians. Unfortunately there aren't many 'real Christians' at all, even among those who claim to believe..
Mike,
a short reaction to your answer at my post. I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. With
I did not mean the Qur'an is a poem, I just meant it's not made for reading from the first page untill the last, because of the nature of the book. I quote from the Wikipedia:
I'm not reacting at your statements about hypocrism, because thats a different subject and at this moment I don't have time to read carefully what you wrote and to react. Sorry about that.
About Gideon: in the time of Gideon the people believed they would certainly die when the saw God. You can also read this in Judg. 13:22, where the father of Samson also thinks he will die because he saw God. So the fear of Gideon isn't a hyperbole.
I don't say the devil does all these deeds. I was just reacting to your post where you said that things in the Qur'an were deeds from a demon because of 'fear - a cave - the night - movement over a big distance - voices in your head'. I answered that in the Bible God works in the same way as you said a demon did in the Qur'an. I mean: I believe the Bible. But I think it's to easy to say (like you did) the Qur'an is garbage and written by a demon. It's much more complicated than you said it is.
So please, if you react, read my other post
Yours,
JohanFH
a short reaction to your answer at my post. I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. With
| Quote: |
| Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred. |
| Quote: |
| The surahs are not arranged in chronological order (in the order in which Islamic scholars believe they were revealed) but in a different order, roughly descending by size. |
I'm not reacting at your statements about hypocrism, because thats a different subject and at this moment I don't have time to read carefully what you wrote and to react. Sorry about that.
About Gideon: in the time of Gideon the people believed they would certainly die when the saw God. You can also read this in Judg. 13:22, where the father of Samson also thinks he will die because he saw God. So the fear of Gideon isn't a hyperbole.
I don't say the devil does all these deeds. I was just reacting to your post where you said that things in the Qur'an were deeds from a demon because of 'fear - a cave - the night - movement over a big distance - voices in your head'. I answered that in the Bible God works in the same way as you said a demon did in the Qur'an. I mean: I believe the Bible. But I think it's to easy to say (like you did) the Qur'an is garbage and written by a demon. It's much more complicated than you said it is.
So please, if you react, read my other post
Yours,
JohanFH
Oh, and Mahubay:
I'm 26 and I guess after 8 years of study in a theological university my english isn't the queens but I might consider my self little bit of a professional in theology
JohanFH
| Quote: |
| How old are you amateur theologians anyways? |
I'm 26 and I guess after 8 years of study in a theological university my english isn't the queens but I might consider my self little bit of a professional in theology
JohanFH
meh might as well
16 and still trying to gain as much knowlage of diffrent belifes as i can
| Quote: |
| How old are you amateur theologians anyways? |
16 and still trying to gain as much knowlage of diffrent belifes as i can
@johanfh, I enjoyed reading your post... especially this part:
3 cheers, cookies, and a glass of lemonade/beer (as your prefer) for that.
Another round of applause for another excellent post
Short and effective. Well said. I agree.
Very well. I quite agree. It's an excellent thing if all the Christians of the world (the largest religion on earth, btw) or of any other religion went around promoting love and peace and all things nice. However, a lot of Christians (and Muslims for that matter... and a lot of other religions too, actually) go around not just spreading their message, but trying to spread their religion. Why not try to propagate the idea without trying to propagate the religion?
Forget my age. I'm not a theologian either. I'm just a student of logic, love and idealism. I tried learning about religions (still trying to learn about as many as I can), but got pissed off a lot of times at inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and discriminations. I'm still learning as much as I can, though, and hope to learn a lot more over the course of this summer, when I should ideally have enough free time on my hands to learn a lot of other things as well.
| Quote: |
| I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'. |
3 cheers, cookies, and a glass of lemonade/beer (as your prefer) for that.
| livilou wrote: |
| As far as "Is love only for Christians?". No, I don't think so. I believe we're given the capacity to love when we're conceived. It's how we use that love that matters. I also believe that with God in our life we have the ability to love differently and deeper. By that I mean, I may dislike someone's actions, but I can still love that person. And like JohanFH, I don't feel it's my place to state wheither someone is going to hell or not. The simple fact is, I don't know. The only person I have any control over is myself. |
Another round of applause for another excellent post
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
Childish taunts in lieu of meaningful input. How edifying. If you’re not interested then buzz off. |
Short and effective. Well said. I agree.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart... |
Very well. I quite agree. It's an excellent thing if all the Christians of the world (the largest religion on earth, btw) or of any other religion went around promoting love and peace and all things nice. However, a lot of Christians (and Muslims for that matter... and a lot of other religions too, actually) go around not just spreading their message, but trying to spread their religion. Why not try to propagate the idea without trying to propagate the religion?
| Quote: |
| How old are you amateur theologians anyways? |
Forget my age. I'm not a theologian either. I'm just a student of logic, love and idealism. I tried learning about religions (still trying to learn about as many as I can), but got pissed off a lot of times at inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and discriminations. I'm still learning as much as I can, though, and hope to learn a lot more over the course of this summer, when I should ideally have enough free time on my hands to learn a lot of other things as well.
| lib wrote: | ||
Very well. I quite agree. It's an excellent thing if all the Christians of the world (the largest religion on earth, btw) or of any other religion went around promoting love and peace and all things nice. However, a lot of Christians (and Muslims for that matter... and a lot of other religions too, actually) go around not just spreading their message, but trying to spread their religion. Why not try to propagate the idea without trying to propagate the religion? |
Yeah, I know some people who are strongly against propagating the religion.. and they even claim that I offend them saying that I believe in God. Roaming into someone's life (like do Jehova Witnesses) is something horrible, I don't know if that could convince anybody. However, it's natural that when we talk about the love of God, we will talk about God, too
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I fully understand that when we talk about the love of God, we will end up talking about God. And if anything in our lives has deeply touched us, we do tend to try and introduce the same thing in other people's lives too. An example can be one of those TV drugs that helped your son get taller and now you want your brother/sister to indtroduce it to your nephew.
However, I think we should keep it objective and state "so and so are the advantages, and so and so are the disadvantages" instead of going something liek "so and so and so are the advantages... you won't find it in any other drink... you JUST HAVE TO take this one... your son's entire future depends on it... he could get a better job, better wide, better sex if he's taller..... etc etc."
I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
However, I think we should keep it objective and state "so and so are the advantages, and so and so are the disadvantages" instead of going something liek "so and so and so are the advantages... you won't find it in any other drink... you JUST HAVE TO take this one... your son's entire future depends on it... he could get a better job, better wide, better sex if he's taller..... etc etc."
I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
This is my conclusion from studying the Bible and other works written about the Bible by wiser men than me.
First, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. The path we choose to walk in life we continue in death.
Second, what are we doing here? We are here because the Lord wanted beings to love him on their own free will.
Conclusion, we can choose to love him and follow him or not. If we do we continue after death and if we don’t we also continue. The difference is that we are not trapped in our bodies here where all have access to the Lord. I think the loss of the access to him is the true pain of hell.
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.
This leaves us with an interesting solution to a universal equation. This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment. This may be why Buddhists have referred to Jesus as a spiritual genius. It is the ultimate truth.
Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus. Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live.
So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.
I doubt anyone who finally meets the Lord will not be astonished at how much more different and powerful he is than what we expected. And as a further example, what about a person who lives in the US, who works hard, goes to church, cares for his family. Is he on the path to continue serving his creator? I certainly can’t say he is not. But say this way he lives happens to simply be the easiest way and is in fact his awn way and not that of his creator.
This is the danger I see in such religions and schools of thought that pursue simply enlightenment. It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship. And this is certainly not to say that the search for enlightenment is not necessary. I wouldn’t be wearing my keyboard out letting you guys look at my thoughts is I was uninterested in enlightenment and the testing of my conclusions.
First, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. The path we choose to walk in life we continue in death.
Second, what are we doing here? We are here because the Lord wanted beings to love him on their own free will.
Conclusion, we can choose to love him and follow him or not. If we do we continue after death and if we don’t we also continue. The difference is that we are not trapped in our bodies here where all have access to the Lord. I think the loss of the access to him is the true pain of hell.
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.
This leaves us with an interesting solution to a universal equation. This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment. This may be why Buddhists have referred to Jesus as a spiritual genius. It is the ultimate truth.
Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus. Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live.
So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.
I doubt anyone who finally meets the Lord will not be astonished at how much more different and powerful he is than what we expected. And as a further example, what about a person who lives in the US, who works hard, goes to church, cares for his family. Is he on the path to continue serving his creator? I certainly can’t say he is not. But say this way he lives happens to simply be the easiest way and is in fact his awn way and not that of his creator.
This is the danger I see in such religions and schools of thought that pursue simply enlightenment. It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship. And this is certainly not to say that the search for enlightenment is not necessary. I wouldn’t be wearing my keyboard out letting you guys look at my thoughts is I was uninterested in enlightenment and the testing of my conclusions.
| Quote: |
| First, hell is not a punishment |
When why do we use the terms like "damned" to burn in Hell's fire forever, etc etc?
| Quote: |
| We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. |
So basically, this is all about sacrifising what you really want to do, and living your life by his rules, obligations, customs, etc.
No thank you... I think I'd rather listen to ROck music that gives me pleasure. I think I'd rather question everything and learn from the answers I get in return rather than jump with blind faith into it all.
| Quote: |
| This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment.
. . . . Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live. |
I'm having some trouble comprehending this part.
In the beginning, you're saying that the Lord's (shackling) way is the best way to live. Then, later you say that living by truth and logic is the best way to live, but it's not the Lord's way?
OK well, I just tried to restructure your sentences... an alternate meaning to your last sentence could mean that though the Lord's way is the best way, living by truth and logic is not the Lord's way or the best way.
Well, you're saying
| Quote: |
| Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus. |
THen why is it dangeroud?
You've admitted that Buddhists, Taosists and simple intellectuals have found the truth using logic. THen what's the difference between believing in the Lord and not believing in him. The end result is that we all have to live with love and mutual respect. Some of us get forced to live this way because of the lord, and the rest of us do this because we see logically how this is benefitial to all of us.
| Quote: |
| So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord. |
This part of your post re-affirms to me the thought that you believe it is more important to sacrifise everything we want and live to please God. This is hypocrisy to God. Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God". Logically, one can state the importance of being kind and good and just and fair with your neighbour and anyone else for that matter. I can be loving and kind and not to evil deeds even if I listen to gothic music or even if I have sex with my brother. As (I think) you're implying, it is our actions and our attitude that counts more than our belief.
| Quote: |
| It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship. |
Why must we assume that seeking enlightenment is solely for the sake of enlightenment, or that it is about self-worship? I seek enlightenment about Life, and Death, and God and his existence. Suppose I do get enlightened and find that the truth is that God does exist, and what he really wants is for us to be happy without any rules?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| First, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. The path we choose to walk in life we continue in death.
Second, what are we doing here? We are here because the Lord wanted beings to love him on their own free will. Conclusion, we can choose to love him and follow him or not. If we do we continue after death and if we don’t we also continue. The difference is that we are not trapped in our bodies here where all have access to the Lord. I think the loss of the access to him is the true pain of hell. |
These few lines are quiet wise.. I have my own idea of the same thing. I know a lot of people, that base their lifes on sex (well, they call it love), money, sometimes alcohol/drugs and nothing more (turn on MTv for example to see what I mean). Everytime they hear the word 'god' they start cursing or shouting. It's their choice to do so, and that's not a problem for me.
But I think God would love to give them eternal happiness in heaven (as He has forgived prostitutes and a criminalist), but the only problem is that they don't accept this offer. That's why people who live without any moral law simply wouldn't feel good in heaven. God wouldn't force them to be with Him, if they don't like so.
And about the punishment? I think God doesn't have to punish anybody, those people who decide to decline Him would simply realise how much they have lost.
| Quote: |
| So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord. |
Well, I cannot agree with it. I know that every religion (well, except for some sects) is a path to get closer to God, but there is a big difference between natural religions and the revelated ones. In the first ones people come to such conclusions as you said, but in the revelated religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) God is the first one who contacts with people and reveals some truth to them. What is more, the words Jesus or Bible cannot be trated that way, as Jesus is not a lagre shark who created an island but a historical character that has lived on the Earth.
| lib wrote: | ||
When why do we use the terms like "damned" to burn in Hell's fire forever, etc etc? |
This would be like saying one who does not go to school is “damned” to have a low paying job, I think.
| Quote: | ||
So basically, this is all about sacrifising what you really want to do, and living your life by his rules, obligations, customs, etc. No thank you... I think I'd rather listen to ROck music that gives me pleasure. I think I'd rather question everything and learn from the answers I get in return rather than jump with blind faith into it all. |
Yes, but the trouble is what I want to do is not best for me. For example, I really like to drink. It makes me feel good, but only for a few hours. The “sacrifice” of what I want, alcohol, for what God would want of me, perhaps to do some reading and get some extra sleep, is better for ME.
The Lord does not want us to not have pleasure. He does love us and want us to be happy. We are most happy when we follow his way. He also most certainly would have us question everything, test it by fire. I don’t think the true God would not want his people to do this.
| Quote: | ||||
I'm having some trouble comprehending this part. In the beginning, you're saying that the Lord's (shackling) way is the best way to live. Then, later you say that living by truth and logic is the best way to live, but it's not the Lord's way? OK well, I just tried to restructure your sentences... an alternate meaning to your last sentence could mean that though the Lord's way is the best way, living by truth and logic is not the Lord's way or the best way. Well, you're saying
THen why is it dangeroud? You've admitted that Buddhists, Taosists and simple intellectuals have found the truth using logic. THen what's the difference between believing in the Lord and not believing in him. The end result is that we all have to live with love and mutual respect. Some of us get forced to live this way because of the lord, and the rest of us do this because we see logically how this is benefitial to all of us. |
I think you need to give my post another quick read. I just read through both of ours three or more times and I think you are simply misunderstanding my conclusion.
To rephrase I could say “the whole truth is the Lords way, partial truth is not”.
Through logic and reason a person can come to understand the “truth”. Besides Buda, and I am not so sure about him as he was never able to put it in simple words, I am unaware of any Buddhist that has reached FULL enlightenment. This is the danger. A man can come to only understand partial truth and his life will be all the better for it. I hate to do this but I an struggling to write a simple explanation. Let me make some examples.
A man can spend his life through logic and reason living a life pleasing to God and not follow God because he never reached to point of enlightenment that would reveal to him that the Lord created him and wants him to love and live for him.
Another man through logic and reason may legalize the Lord and devote himself.
Another may hears Jesus’ message and accept it, then confirm it through logic and reason.
| Quote: | ||||
This part of your post re-affirms to me the thought that you believe it is more important to sacrifise everything we want and live to please God. This is hypocrisy to God. Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God". Logically, one can state the importance of being kind and good and just and fair with your neighbour and anyone else for that matter. I can be loving and kind and not to evil deeds even if I listen to gothic music or even if I have sex with my brother. As (I think) you're implying, it is our actions and our attitude that counts more than our belief.
Why must we assume that seeking enlightenment is solely for the sake of enlightenment, or that it is about self-worship? I seek enlightenment about Life, and Death, and God and his existence. Suppose I do get enlightened and find that the truth is that God does exist, and what he really wants is for us to be happy without any rules? |
We don’t have to assume this. It is just how most seekers have explained it to me. As is full enlightenment is not possible but a fulfilling life is spent in search of it. As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance. The rules and shackles you speak of are not cause you harm as if to “urn” salvation. His “rules” are the best way for us all. At times it certainly feels like this or that would be better. Like a child wanting dessert before dinner. But it’s not.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| Well, I cannot agree with it. I know that every religion (well, except for some sects) is a path to get closer to God, but there is a big difference between natural religions and the revelated ones. In the first ones people come to such conclusions as you said, but in the revelated religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) God is the first one who contacts with people and reveals some truth to them. What is more, the words Jesus or Bible cannot be trated that way, as Jesus is not a lagre shark who created an island but a historical character that has lived on the Earth. |
This is an area that I would like to discus further. Certainly I do not believe that all religions are the path, but I am almost certain that in many religions the path can be found.
The trouble I see is that many religions are partially true enough to feel very credible.
Also, with my example of the island native, how else would God reveal himself?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God".
|
It depends on how close you are. The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| We don’t have to assume this. It is just how most seekers have explained it to me. As is full enlightenment is not possible but a fulfilling life is spent in search of it.
|
I was never clear on the distinction between enlightenment and balancing one’s karma. It is the later, not the former, that determines one’s final incarnation and ascension. In Hinduism there is the state of Samadhi, union with God, but if you balance your karma and don’t reach Samadhi, then what? I think that these are relative stages.
The Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism teach that the ultimate spiritual goal is the awakening of the oversoul. There is a mind above the soul, which incorporates many souls. There could be higher aspects of the soul still, but this one takes so long to mature that only seven oversouls have awakened in the history of the human race. According to Tibetan prophecy the eighth is to awaken now. The Dalai Lama is a still incarnating member of the last oversoul to awaken.
The soul path, the straight and narrow path of the Middle Way or Tao is a high-wire act. The oversoul path combines many soul paths to weave a network that is a flat surface. It is not nearly as treacherous. That is, if the oversoul is awake. It is a sort of super-enlightenment, a group Buddha. And this new one will be much more powerful than the other 7. Among other distinguishing features it will have Christ as a central member.
I re-read my post from last night. Not upto my standards... probably was too sleepy or something. Anyway, here we go again:
I meant to bolden a bit more of it. I meant to write it like this : Then why do we use the terms like "damned to burn in Hell's fire [color=red]forever", etc etc?
I'm sure we both agree that eternity is more than life. Being damned to having a bad job (for the rest of your life), is not quite so bad as being damned to burn in Hell's flames (for eternity).
Anything (almost) done in moderation is good for you. TO have a higher rate of success as a salesman, you have to do some amount of social drinking.
Another scenario... I have a girlfriend I love and she loves me. We both are mature, and we have sex regularly. But we're not married yet. Does that make me a bad person? What if we both don't think marriage is all that important? What if we only think of it as a legal permission to fornicate? What if "love" is more important to us than social permission to fornicate?
You know what? I was very afraid that's exactly what had happened there
Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)
What exactly are you referring to here?
I agree with that. Another explanation for monastic life tending towards asceticism is that as asceticism gives you time to yourself... to sit and perhaps meditate on God, or to sit and try to think of possible answers and seek enlightenment.
| horseatingweeds wrote: | ||||
This would be like saying one who does not go to school is “damned” to have a low paying job, I think. |
I meant to bolden a bit more of it. I meant to write it like this : Then why do we use the terms like "damned to burn in Hell's fire [color=red]forever", etc etc?
I'm sure we both agree that eternity is more than life. Being damned to having a bad job (for the rest of your life), is not quite so bad as being damned to burn in Hell's flames (for eternity).
| Quote: |
| Yes, but the trouble is what I want to do is not best for me. For example, I really like to drink. It makes me feel good, but only for a few hours. The “sacrifice” of what I want, alcohol, for what God would want of me, perhaps to do some reading and get some extra sleep, is better for ME. |
Anything (almost) done in moderation is good for you. TO have a higher rate of success as a salesman, you have to do some amount of social drinking.
Another scenario... I have a girlfriend I love and she loves me. We both are mature, and we have sex regularly. But we're not married yet. Does that make me a bad person? What if we both don't think marriage is all that important? What if we only think of it as a legal permission to fornicate? What if "love" is more important to us than social permission to fornicate?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I think you need to give my post another quick read. I just read through both of ours three or more times and I think you are simply misunderstanding my conclusion. |
You know what? I was very afraid that's exactly what had happened there
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| A man can come to only understand partial truth and his life will be all the better for it. |
Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance. |
What exactly are you referring to here?
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism. |
I agree with that. Another explanation for monastic life tending towards asceticism is that as asceticism gives you time to yourself... to sit and perhaps meditate on God, or to sit and try to think of possible answers and seek enlightenment.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
It depends on how close you are. The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism. |
I didn't write this mike, your getting sloppy....
| lib wrote: |
| I meant to bolden a bit more of it. I meant to write it like this : Then why do we use the terms like "damned to burn in Hell's fire [color=red]forever", etc etc?
I'm sure we both agree that eternity is more than life. Being damned to having a bad job (for the rest of your life), is not quite so bad as being damned to burn in Hell's flames (for eternity). |
My point is simply that God is not doing the sending. If we choose to live outside of his presents that is the path we have chosen.
| lib wrote: |
| Anything (almost) done in moderation is good for you. TO have a higher rate of success as a salesman, you have to do some amount of social drinking.
Another scenario... I have a girlfriend I love and she loves me. We both are mature, and we have sex regularly. But we're not married yet. Does that make me a bad person? What if we both don't think marriage is all that important? What if we only think of it as a legal permission to fornicate? What if "love" is more important to us than social permission to fornicate? |
My point is not that alcohol is bad, but that following the Lords will is better for you.
Sex is a good example. I am very certain that you FEEL what you are doing is right, despite the fact that many of your elders and thousand year old rules disagree. Especially in our current society with its lack of accountability and sitcoms convincing us that sex is a necessary part of adult life.
Here is the fact however. Sex brings about lots of very complicated emotions, produces children and is really good a spreading disease. Nearly every society has found it much better for a single person to make a formal commitment to another person for the duration of their lives before indulging in sex.
Additionally, sex and love are not the concatenations that poetry and 80’s music would have us believe, although it certainly FEELS like it. Loving a person has more to do with sacrifice and protecting that person on a daily basis. Truly loving someone is not using their body for please and assuming a connection otherwise.
BTW, I am not saying that your love is not sincere, just that it is immature. This could be written to horseatingweeds – 10years just as well.
| lib wrote: |
| Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?) |
Nothing, and the Lord is not against it. It is not the Lord’s way only because it is not done for the Lord. We have free will to follow him or not. We also have free will to live the best we can see to live and still not follow him.
| horseatingweeds wrote: | ||
|
As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance.
|
I'm thinking of the time between Adam and Eve getting kickout out of the garden and the 10 comandments.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| My point is not that alcohol is bad, but that following the Lords will is better for you. |
If you agree with me when I say that social drinking can help boost your career, and this helps you get more comfortable in life... then how is the Lord's will to have us not drink and therefore, possible lose out on some clients, better for us in this life?
(True, your obvious argument to this would be that the Lord's will will help us get into Heaven, which is eternal... life is just temporary... but I believe the discussion so far has been restricted to this life alone.)
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Sex is a good example. I am very certain that you FEEL what you are doing is right, despite the fact that many of your elders and thousand year old rules disagree. Especially in our current society with its lack of accountability and sitcoms convincing us that sex is a necessary part of adult life. |
I never said that sex was a necessary part of adult life. Priests (most of them, at least) have been successfully celibate. As far as thousand year rules are concerned, I've stated before (probably in another thread) that just because something has been accepted for a thousand years, it doesn't make it right. And just because something has been being done for a thousand years, it doesn't mean we do the same thing. If we never progress beyond age old customs to inculcate modern discoveries or practices, we'd be stuck in a rut forever. I've stated before that I believe the true reason marriage was given so much important was because of man's greed and selfishness, and possessiveness.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Here is the fact however. Sex brings about lots of very complicated emotions, produces children and is really good a spreading disease. Nearly every society has found it much better for a single person to make a formal commitment to another person for the duration of their lives before indulging in sex. |
Please don't mistake my post and my idea of sex with your girlfriend (as stated in my previous post) with swinging, wild, indiscriminate, casual sex or one-night stands. Having multiple partners can obviously spread disease, etc. Sex is not the only thing that brings about complicated emotions... love does, too... so does attraction... feelings of jealousy, or in some cases, hatred to the point of irrationality and thoughtless actions.
Also, your point of sex bringing about lots of complicated emotions... let's try to get to the root cause of this... sex (before marriage) is treated as a taboo. Sex after marriage is confined to the bedroom and done in secrecy from your children as if it's something wrong that they should not know about. If we simply accepted sex as an adult in-born urge and learnt to deal with it as if it's no big deal, there wouldn't be any complicated feelings being brought out by it.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Additionally, sex and love are not the concatenations that poetry and 80’s music would have us believe, although it certainly FEELS like it. Loving a person has more to do with sacrifice and protecting that person on a daily basis. Truly loving someone is not using their body for please and assuming a connection otherwise. |
Amazing how you can degrade sex to something that is "using someone's body for pleasure". If two people are in love with each other, you would expect their hormones to play an active role. Studies has shown that having a healthy sex life is good for your relationship, and good for your own health as well. Sex is not just about using someone's body for pleasure (at least, not always, and definitely not in the scenario I have painted), it's a physical expression of your love for someone. That's why it's called "making love". I agree that in lots of cases, sex is about using someone's body for pleasure. However, sex as a result of love is not. See my previous point in this post, where I have said the same thing. When I wrote that scenario, I wrote it with 2 people deeply in love with each other... not a couple of kids who think they're in love and will stay together forever who have sex because it feels good.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| BTW, I am not saying that your love is not sincere, just that it is immature. This could be written to horseatingweeds – 10years just as well. |
I highly doubt it. From the last sentence there, I'll assume you're assuming me to be either in my late teens or very early 20s or so... I'll assume you're 10 years older than the age you've assumed of me. I'll also assume you're happily married. Pardon me if I'm getting a little personal here, but I'll also assume that you fornicate with your wife. You obviously also love her. Now, just picture 2 people in the same stage of their relationship as you and your wife... the only difference is that they're not married. Does this make their love immature? Does marriage give love maturity automatically? Well, Britney Spears got married for 11 hours. Were those 11 hours filled with mature love?
| horseatingweeds wrote: | ||
Nothing, and the Lord is not against it. It is not the Lord’s way only because it is not done for the Lord. We have free will to follow him or not. We also have free will to live the best we can see to live and still not follow him. |
So then, there is a way of living that is actually very good for our life, but it's not quite the Lord's way? Does this mean that there could be a better life, but if we choose this better life, we risk not going to Heaven because it's not God's way?
| lib wrote: | ||
If you agree with me when I say that social drinking can help boost your career, and this helps you get more comfortable in life... then how is the Lord's will to have us not drink and therefore, possible lose out on some clients, better for us in this life? (True, your obvious argument to this would be that the Lord's will will help us get into Heaven, which is eternal... life is just temporary... but I believe the discussion so far has been restricted to this life alone.) |
Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.
| Quote: | ||
I never said that sex was a necessary part of adult life. Priests (most of them, at least) have been successfully celibate. As far as thousand year rules are concerned, I've stated before (probably in another thread) that just because something has been accepted for a thousand years, it doesn't make it right. And just because something has been being done for a thousand years, it doesn't mean we do the same thing. If we never progress beyond age old customs to inculcate modern discoveries or practices, we'd be stuck in a rut forever. I've stated before that I believe the true reason marriage was given so much important was because of man's greed and selfishness, and possessiveness. |
I am uninterested in debate, only discussion or even argument.
| Quote: | ||
Please don't mistake my post and my idea of sex with your girlfriend (as stated in my previous post) with swinging, wild, indiscriminate, casual sex or one-night stands. Having multiple partners can obviously spread disease, etc. Sex is not the only thing that brings about complicated emotions... love does, too... so does attraction... feelings of jealousy, or in some cases, hatred to the point of irrationality and thoughtless actions. Also, your point of sex bringing about lots of complicated emotions... let's try to get to the root cause of this... sex (before marriage) is treated as a taboo. Sex after marriage is confined to the bedroom and done in secrecy from your children as if it's something wrong that they should not know about. If we simply accepted sex as an adult in-born urge and learnt to deal with it as if it's no big deal, there wouldn't be any complicated feelings being brought out by it. |
80's music, sounds nice, very convenient.
| Quote: | ||
Amazing how you can degrade sex to something that is "using someone's body for pleasure". If two people are in love with each other, you would expect their hormones to play an active role. Studies has shown that having a healthy sex life is good for your relationship, and good for your own health as well. Sex is not just about using someone's body for pleasure (at least, not always, and definitely not in the scenario I have painted), it's a physical expression of your love for someone. That's why it's called "making love". I agree that in lots of cases, sex is about using someone's body for pleasure. However, sex as a result of love is not. See my previous point in this post, where I have said the same thing. When I wrote that scenario, I wrote it with 2 people deeply in love with each other... not a couple of kids who think they're in love and will stay together forever who have sex because it feels good. |
Sex is not a physical expression of love. Commitment is and sex is the celebration of that commitment. If you would like to debate this point I will crush you and your three smartest friends but honestly I am uninterested as it would get us nowhere. Do you really believe that a society would be healthier under your described believe than under the long held believe held by so many societies? Do you really think our current generation just happened to have appeared so very originally wise? History can teach us my friend.
| Quote: | ||
I highly doubt it. From the last sentence there, I'll assume you're assuming me to be either in my late teens or very early 20s or so... I'll assume you're 10 years older than the age you've assumed of me. I'll also assume you're happily married. Pardon me if I'm getting a little personal here, but I'll also assume that you fornicate with your wife. You obviously also love her. Now, just picture 2 people in the same stage of their relationship as you and your wife... the only difference is that they're not married. Does this make their love immature? Does marriage give love maturity automatically? Well, Britney Spears got married for 11 hours. Were those 11 hours filled with mature love? |
Yes, Yes, Wasn't there.
| Quote: | ||||||
|
This better life only seems better. The Lord’s way IS the best. He would like us to live the best that we can and if we lived by his way we would. Again, when a person views a decision or a thing as something that will make their lives better but it is not in the Lords way, they are simply mistaken. No different that a child wanting dessert before dinner.