|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 16, 2007 9:45:39 GMT
But did he really mean through the Christian faith? Not just by faith in general?
And if he did, is that still appropriate today?
In that vein, there is now a new question.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 16, 2007 13:49:48 GMT
" In my view faith is one of a number of outcomes of some sort of emotional or psychological trauma - such as depression." I believe I have found God because, while I was undergoing some form of depression at the time, I was searching for my own truth. Aren't you just sick of people trying to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe? On the more relevant note I like to think faith (in terms of God) is believing in what you cannot see, that it isn't necessarily an outcome of depression etc (although finding God may be). I think it is completely unrelated with psychological trauma, as it requires something else, is something else such as personal belief and motivation. As it is I believe in God ad infinitum %. I know he exists. I cannot think otherwise. For me, God is as real as atoms, oxygen, gravity, anything of this world that I see, feel and breathe. That is the extent of my faith, but there comes the faith where you need to persevere and strive, even when you utterly feel you cannot. You need to have faith to believe, to persist, and to endure. "This is interesting. If I was to take a guess, I would say that you have an inner conviction and that the text helps you realise it. Rather than the other way round. And that your faith is necessary for this to work, which is obviously great, but doesn't work for me." I think that seems right for me too. Whenever, say, I'm going under something there are answers in the Bible that help me to realise my conviction perfectly, and to understand what I can do to overcome it. And yes, you always need faith for it to work. Without faith or belief it cannot work. This does not mean that it's all merely illusionary or of our minds creation, quite the opposite, it just means that if we're not willing to look beyond ourselves and the world around us then we will not see God or anything in his word for that matter. Sometimes I can see the bible and what's in it for what it was intended to be, other times, sadly, it's just a book with black ink and thin white pages. "Scientifically, a vestige of tribal attitudes." I find myself nodding my head in agreement here. As I'm born and bred in two tribes, more or less unknowingly, I'm able to see both tribes' side of things and strangely different, though hostile, attitudes towards one another - which seem bred, a "vestige" of community attitudes. "I am a sceptic by nature, and that is the reason for my lack of religious faith. I don't begrudge others theirs, but I feel fine and if anything, more driven, as I am. This is why I dislike aggressive evangelism (not that I'm accusing any of you of that!)." Oh, look, I think many are sceptical in nature, and I was for my part due to my sister always getting scared of supposed ghosts dragging chairs across the floor while she slept at night. (In truth it was merely one of the old fridges making noises - pays to listen). But I'd be lying if I were to say that I never had numerous ghostly experiences (voices, immediate temperature droppings and piercing frequencies etc) and in the first place I believed in the possibility of God, although at some stages I didn't. Scepticism and doubt always comes into being, which is where faith falls into play. But when God comes to you, you simply know it is him and scepticism and doubt no longer exist (at least for those short minutes ). On the side note, I don't like to put religion or religious in anything (and whether that's right of me to think so, I really don't know), rather I prefer "spiritual". As a means to make a point that we don't need religion, rather true belief / faith (which still can be had from religion), a friend (who is the most perservering believer I've ever known, and proudly calls himself a Christian) said I was one of the most spiritual people he had ever known. He told me that not very many people in church had faith like me, or at least the down-to-earth spirituality that I had possessed (and all without religion ). Still, I can't help feeling that I'm being convicted right this very moment for even saying this as it sounds like I'm bragging, which I'm not. Just I had no other way to explain the point of view I'm coming from. "There is no scientific proof for God, and for that reason when you take it down to the level of proof and theory, faith will never win. There will always be a scientific explanation." Indeed, if you approach God without an open mind for his existence then you'll end right where you began. However, if a scientist (opting for the existence of God) were to put all his heart (emotional energy) into seeking God then I guarantee you he or she will find him. Searching for God by applying physical conventions will not get you anywhere. That is why science wins out, because it does not search beyond the "physical limitations" square when it comes to God, although it does magnificently in what it's designed for. Nevertheless, I reckon it's possible to find God through the scientists way of evaluating things anyway, regarding observing nature etc. Some astronormers in a Science magazine my philosophy teacher was reading said that all the things they see in the universe, with nebulas, stars dying/ awakening, it's all so well structured and sequenced that it's quite simply impossible for anything to be just some giant, random accident. I actually wouldn't have mind to have read the article, but I never had the chance to ask about it. Regarding the Big Bang, it may very well have happened anyway. If God were to suddenly begin creating things, wouldn't he like to do it with a "bang"? I sure would.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 16, 2007 14:11:56 GMT
Sorry for the double post.
"As I'm a christian I believe in the words of Jesus, and he proclaimed following:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Indeed he did, Basse, and I too whole-heartedly believe in his words too. But does that mean we need to be religious to have pure faith in God or Jesus? Don't we only need to have pure, spiritual faith in God and his existence?
Anyway, I think we are all brought to God, as said earlier, through the way that is perfect to us. God came to me in the way right for me, without a religion, and God came to Basse in the way right for him, as a Christian. Likewise as he did for Andan too as a Muslim. There is no religion God prefers, I believe, except the "religion" that we all have true, perservering faith and believe in Him, Jesus and his words.
As I said before, no one should confuse God with religion. They are two enormously different subjects. God is his own. Religion is religion, sometimes inspired by God. Likewise the bible is not Christian, nor are Jesus' words Christian. They are his words, his father's alone.
But don't have my belief for universal. God is flexible and can work in all ways, in all people and religion. My not having nor wanting a religion is purely me and perfect for who I am. I still believe in God, have the same faith, though, the way a Christian or Muslim would. Just I don't want to be seen as a "Christian" but rather a "child of God", a "believer of Christ", of which I'd proudly and honourably hold the titles.
P.S - I think me and Basse have different views on religion and Christianity in general, which explains the conflicting perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 16, 2007 17:07:30 GMT
Okay, I've put up a new question.
Should religious texts always be applied as they were written centuries ago, or should they (in principle) be interpreted differently, or even changed, to fit in with more modern times?
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 16, 2007 23:13:18 GMT
Regarding this new question, I thinks its a load of bollocks when some publishers expect you to be able to read olde English or something in a bible, which does not apply to modern times. Quite clearly this is 2007, not 1607.
One can't read a language he doesn't understand when it comes to the bible, the words after that become jibberish and frustrating to read (e.g. King James Version). It's like some churches these days, which fail to modernise and instead bore people with organ pianos )not that they're necessarily bad instruments), a priest reading out passages from the bible without any meaning or significance, without any flair in his voice, rather only for tradition and as a means to not put his heart into it, and all the while the people before him are waiting for the time to leave.
Still, that is the only change the bible should have. It should have modern translations. There is none of this tradition nonsense where we must keep it in Hebrew, Latin or some form of early English. No reason to keep the bible in some other language we've long since given up, it's merely stupidity as the word of God cannot be understood as it was intended. Olde English was for the people back then, not now.
Seeing as they're the only changes I see legitimate, it wouldn't be prudent to make changes to the text itself, as the text quite clearly still relates to people of this time. It also said in the bible that if any changes were to be made that the offender would be punished by God personally. Many of the passages etc do speak metaphors, but if you can understand them, which I think most people can, the words still speak to that person as it would have done to someone else several centuries ago.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 17, 2007 15:25:32 GMT
Texts from the Bible etc. should sure be modernized, but only to the extent of formulating phrases to make the reader understand what's being said. The actual content should never be changed, at least not in the Bible as I'm not sure what other "gods" say about changing their scriptures. As told in the Bible;
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
This doesn't only mean that Jesus is the same person in all times, but also that what he said in the old days are exactly the same as he would say to us. The way he would've said it would of course change. If you speak to fishermen, as Jesus often did, you speak in terms that they understand. If you speak to a punkrocker, you speak in terms that they understand. The message is the same, the construction of words when it comes to proclaiming the message varies depending on who you speak with.
To put it in a few words, Christians are those who believe in the words of Jesus. Christian faith is the faith in Jesus and that Jesus if both the Son of God and God embodied, as a human. It's also the belief that the Holy Ghost exists and has been sent to all who believe in God. And when Jesus sais that he's the only way to the father, he means what he sais. If you believe in what Jesus said and his missions, you're a christian. You dont neccesarily have to go to the local church and sing in the choir or proclaim to the world that you're christian, but as long as you believe in his words and God's words spoken through him, you're a christian.
No. You can have faith in magic if you so want, but that doesn't mean magic's from God - magic is Satan's answer to miracles.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 17, 2007 17:25:22 GMT
I meant religious faith.
Do you believe then that people who follow, say, Sikhism are destined for Hell?
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 17, 2007 17:38:20 GMT
Unless they convert, then yes.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 17, 2007 20:35:38 GMT
I have to say, I've never met someone who actually holds that belief. Excuse me whilst I ask some questions I've been saving.
1. Christianity is limited by geography. Is it unfair (and not very like a compassionate God) to allow someone to be condemned to Hell just because Christianity isn't an option in that place?
2. Are the distinctions between Christianity and, for example, Judaism enough to mean that Jews who live virtuous lives deserve to go to Hell?
3. How can you tell that the Christian God is right, and the Gods of other religions (who also say they are the one true God or set of Gods) are wrong?
4. Could you not interpret 'except through me' as leading your life according to the Ten Commandments and other rules, and having religious faith? Regardless of which particular religious structure they actually follow.
5. Is it not more than a little judgemental for God to cast everyone (from Jews who live good lives, all the way down to genocidal criminals) into the same Hell, regardless of the life they've led?
6. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? It was written after all by people, and some of them could potentially be just as insane or unscrupulous as anybody. And the Gospels are basically all eyewitness accounts, and often present different versions of the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 18, 2007 4:18:35 GMT
@basse "Unless they convert, then yes." Basse, there is no conversion to religion when it comes to God. You need true belief, true faith, none of this religion hysteria. I'm sick to death of hearing "convert or die" or "convert to our faith, our religious belief, and be saved". Like Christianity is the only answer. Belief in Jesus and God is the only answer, that does not mean only one religion made by man is the way to everything. Jesus is the way, not Christianity, not religion. Religion does not come into it with God and Jesus. It is the pure belief in them that does. @julius "Christianity is limited by geography. Is it unfair (and not very like a compassionate God) to allow someone to be condemned to Hell just because Christianity isn't an option in that place?" I don't think it is "be a Christian and be saved", it is "repent and believe in God and acknowledge Jesus as the son of God who died for us" and be saved. God said he will take vengeance on those of us who do not come back to him. We were made for God, not for our own selves and lives. And I don't believe that people simply believe blindly in the religion or faith system around them in their isolated culture, so there is probably no excuse if they don't discover the "real God". "3. How can you tell that the Christian God is right, and the Gods of other religions (who also say they are the one true God or set of Gods) are wrong?" Again, there is no such thing as the "Christian God". God is his own, not of our world. God speaks to ALL people, of ALL religion, ALL beliefs. When you discover God for yourself you will know he is the one true God and that his ways are the truth. No one else can convince you with anything unless you yourself find him. There is something in us that tells us it is God. "5. Is it not more than a little judgemental for God to cast everyone (from Jews who live good lives, all the way down to genocidal criminals) into the same Hell, regardless of the life they've led?" I guess all those wars, massacres, rapings and genocidal murders give God every right to be so judgemental. But remember it says in the bible that he judges each and every one of us according to the standards we judge those around us and according to our sins. It does not matter what life you've lived, there's no sin God cannot forgive. It's a matter if you repent from your ways and believe in God and Jesus, that they know you and you know them, that saves you. It is about man being a sinner, having a spiritual illness, that keeps us from God. Unless man returns to God he will die. That doesn't mean God wants man to go to hell, he doesn't, it pains him greatly than anyone can possibly imagine. God loves all things. But I guess we choose our own fate. We have free will, we decide for ourselves our own paths (as you know). "6. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? It was written after all by people, and some of them could potentially be just as insane or unscrupulous as anybody. And the Gospels are basically all eyewitness accounts, and often present different versions of the same thing." As said before, unless you really believe in God 110% then you will always have doubts about the bible and its origins. I used to think and the say the same thing about the bible (and God for that matter), but I guess once you discover God things are answered and taught by God that you come to learn the truth and what's from him. EDIT: I didn't really want to say this, but the other day I asked God if I were Christian. Needless to say, almost immediately I felt this sudden sense of identity and an immense joy that made my chest feel like it was going to explode. So look, I don't know. I felt peace when I asked that question, so maybe that was God's answer that yes, I was. Still, I don't really want to acknowledge it. Anyway I have a way with answers I don't necessarily want. I ignore them to the point where I believe it was all my imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 18, 2007 17:10:14 GMT
Well those questions were mainly aimed at Basse, which is why they seem strange to you, but thanks all the same.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 19, 2007 6:19:06 GMT
Lol, sorry Julius. I guess I can't help but put my input in.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 19, 2007 13:55:38 GMT
I believe, and I think the Bible sais it (not sure where though), that all of those who've died before the words about Jesus reached their homes will get a second chanse. Just like when Jesus died on the cross, he went down into Hell and preached for the people there. I believe he will do the same before, or after (not sure), his return here. It's a difficult question to answer, especially since I haven't read all of the Bible yet, nor read much on this special matter, or discussed it with others yet.
Again, it's a hard question to anser, for the same reasons as the last one. I dont think jews will go to Hell when they die, they are God's people after all. I do though believe that they will sooner or later understand that Jesus was right, when more and more things in the latter parts of the Bible come true. Pretty much the entire Old Testament speaks of Jesus' first arrival, but yet they deny him. I'm sure they'll sooner or later realise what they've done.
Because the things that the Bible speaks of is happening, and have happend or can easily be predicted to happend, and that all evidense from the Bible are becoming true. If I nopw believe the Bible is correct, then I must also believe that what God and Jesus said is true, and God said - both in the new and old testament - that no other gods shall be preached than him, just look at the ten commanments. That's why I believe that the God described in the Bible is the God.
No. I believe that we're to take that part especially literarily. If God sais that Jesus is the only way to him, and those that believe in what Jesus sais are Christians, I think it's perfectly logic that the way to God is through Christianity. The heathens in the Old Testament had faith in Baal, but he was declared a false god by the priests. Why the world would that have changed today?
In God's eyes, every sin is as awful as another. It's our view that has set the standards for how bad sins are, not God.
God wouldn't trust just anyone to write down the words of his mind would he? Besides, he also said that anyone who tries to change his words into another meaning (changing the words of the Bible, not modernizing it) will be punished. Quite simply, I believe God has prevented man from doingsuch fatal mistakes. I believe the Bible can be misenterpreted, but not changed into something God doesn't want.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 19, 2007 21:58:47 GMT
Okay, that would make sense. Although I haven't heard any of that before.
Does converting on the basis of evidence not contradic the very nature of faith? Faith cannot be based on a rationalised verdict that the Bible is accurately predicting the future (even if it is). I always thought God was asking people to become Christian on the basis of complete, blind trust.
Also, if Jews are God's people, why not Muslims? Or any other religion? Or spiritual people like Mashek? They're all trying to live good lives in a similar set of morals, and they all have faith in a God. The message is largely the same, even if the wording is different.
Again, that's not really faith. That's believing something on the basis of proven evidence (if you think that the Bible is indeed 'coming true'); almost like science. Since when has God had to prove himself to non-believers?
How do you know that part is to be taken especially literally? Baal is usually described in the Bible as a symbol of evil, other religious texts have the best of purposes in mind (Charity, modesty, compassion etc etc). There are few, if any, fundamental differences.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 19, 2007 23:18:18 GMT
"4. Could you not interpret 'except through me' as leading your life according to the Ten Commandments and other rules, and having religious faith? Regardless of which particular religious structure they actually follow." Indeed, the only way to salvation is through Jesus, no one / no thing else (Remember Jesus is also God in another form). But do not go looking for Christianity if you want to believe in God. Find truth for yourself rather than look to what other people have to say. Look for God himself and when you find him the real answers and truth will be revealed and the life he wants you to live. "Does converting on the basis of evidence not contradic the very nature of faith? Faith cannot be based on a rationalised verdict that the Bible is accurately predicting the future (even if it is). I always thought God was asking people to become Christian on the basis of complete, blind trust." I think there are some cases where you must put aside all doubts and throughts and just trust in God. In regards to faith, I believe it can arise out of just about anything. From having faith from what you cannot see by having faith by what you can see. Remember I began looking at God (and Jesus for that matter) because I was seeing things happen in the world that prophecies in the bible seemed to speak about. Now whether or not those prophecies did at all match the actions occuring in the world at the time, I really don't know, but nonetheless I did have some form of faith arise that maybe there really was a God who did exist. "Also, if Jews are God's people, why not Muslims? Or any other religion? Or spiritual people like Mashek? They're all trying to live good lives in a similar set of morals, and they all have faith in a God. The message is largely the same, even if the wording is different." From my mere knowledge, I believe the Jews are God's only people, but the rest of us (who aren't Jews) are still God's as well. Believe it or not but most western nations in particular are servant states of Israel, which is the Jewish homeland (remember Jesus was also a Jew). It makes sense that we are servants because remember the tiny details that Australia, Britain, New Zealand etc helped free Israel (and Jerusalem) from the Turks in World War I and with the Americans helped create Israel as a nation after World War II. Likewise American taxpayers help run the Israeli economy and America has for a long time had strong relations with the small nation, supplying everything from money to unwanted arms, such as tanks, fighter planes and machine guns - which have all given Israel a literally uncontested edge over the Arab nations who are her enemies. Off topic. This might prove a point of interest for any of you, but this is what God said to a man when he asked God about something (found this on some website). I know God really said it because it was very touching for me and I could feel the spirit within me awaken. The very words below seemed to speak to me in some way: "I want the world to know how much I love all things. I am the Lord God and I created all. I am going to do something to show the world I exist. I am going to speak to the people. My people must learn how to hear my voice. I yearn for deep communion with all people. I will not remain quiet. Listen to me. I have a plan for each of you, a plan that will bring you to the zenith of your creation. You can only reach this pinnacle of existence with my plan. I love you so much that I give you the choice to reject me. This rejection causes me great pain. I suffer for my children. A great wind is coming. It begins with the whisper of my voice. This wind will sweep the earth and consume the universe with love. I, the Lord God, am coming. I will strike my chord in every heart. I have been doing this since the beginning, but people have not listened. Even good people do not listen to me. People fill the churches and sing songs and listen to each other. I tell you, the time is here to listen to the Lord your God. If you do not, you will be isolated from me for all time. I will leave you to the darkness. You give me no alternative. In your heart, as you perceive this message, you know it is I. You cannot deny your God, any more than you can deny yourself. Listen to me. I am speaking, even now, to your heart." Pretty convincing if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 20, 2007 11:33:02 GMT
You're partially right. Faith is about blind trust, but through faith you get evidense. Evidense might also lead into stronger faith. If faith and evidense weren't supposed to be connected, should we stop believing in God because what he sais evidently is happening? I believe, and have always believed, in God. It isn't until the last few years that I've found, mostly through books and study, the evidense of what the Bible sais is happening. These evidense only strengthens my faith in God, not the opposite. The Jews are God's people because he selected them from the masses. The Bible speaks of this. The biggest similarities amongst the religions, and the Mashek type (I dont know a better word for it ) is the moral questions and what's in, for example, the Ten Commandments. There are many differenses when it comes to more complex questions. Muslims dont believe Jesus was God embodied, only that he was a prophet. They dont believe he died on the cross either. Many of the important issues, such as the picture of the God/gods and how he acts doesn't go well with the truth. For an example, the hindus believe that we're all reborn after death, in an almost endless cycle until we reach "heaven". This doesn't go along with the truth either. Like I said before, evidense comes through faith and these evidense strengthens the faith. There are many differences, although the questions regarding other people are much like each other. To take a few examples; the state of Jesus (if he existed, was God, how he died etc), the state of God (are there more than one God, how does he think, why did he create the world and how, what's his reaction to our deeds etc.), the afterlife, the state of man (if we're special or if we're just part of life, a higher state of life than say a fly etc) and many more. From an outer perspective it can seem that the questions that separate religions are small, but if you study them more you'll see that the differenses are big.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 20, 2007 12:49:14 GMT
Oh, how I love God! Sorry, lol. I decided to properly talk to him which I had not done in many, many months. Needless to say I could see something in my eyes when I looked in the mirror that I had not seen in a very long time - it was joy, pure indescribable joy.
Anyway, Basse, I probably am Christian, just I need to get over a few things if I'm to call myself one. Still, I won't believe it is the only way to God. Jesus said it is through him that we get to God, not through "Christianity". ;-)
A man, a Christian, had been serving God for so long, busy doing things, that he completely forgot to talk to God himself. When he went to talk to God, God came to him and said "I've missed you!" In my opinion this says that it is your faith and personal communion that is most important, not so much as Christianity, although following Christ's word is equally as important too.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 20, 2007 15:04:07 GMT
Okay, that clears up my question about the evidence. I still find it an extremely odd argument to present to non-believers though.
Well, the Bible was written by people from that area and race, so it's not altogether surprising. This is the sort of thing my point about human intervention in religious texts covers.
But more importantly, why is God bothered about your ethnic origin?
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 20, 2007 15:11:44 GMT
You tell many exciting stories Mashek. I wish I could've been there to experiense some of them Have you asked God directly about this? I haven't, it's only what I've read and studied that has given me this opinion. You seem (or, you evidentially have ) a very close relation with Him, so why not ask? I dont want to push you to any hasty decisions, dont do it if it feels wrong by any means; I'm just curious. Dont get me wrong when I speak of Christianity. I'm used to having all these rules and commandments to do that a close communication with God is puty as second best. We used to go to a church in town, we quit about a year ago. The problem wasn't the people there, or the message from it, no, it was - at least for me - because of the set schedules of how the mass (or what to call it) should look like. First some talking, then singing, then the preaching for 30 minutes, then more singing, more talking, collecting of money and then downstairs to drink coffee. The content wasn't the problem, but the way that it was delivered in was a problem. All meetings were very much the same and it was only a few times that I honestly felt that "Wow, God really is talking here". The content of the meeting left little room for discussion amongst the people there, most - if not all - talking was made from the altar to the people, no debate or open speech whatsoever. Quite often the church arranged something "special", something I presonally thought was a waste of time when we could've both saved money and learnt more from just having a discussion around the tables about some parts of the Bible. I dont want to be too hard on this, I did like much of what we did there, but many things could've been way better. Another problem was that the pastor never seemed to get that maybe someone else also could have a good idea of how the church should work I dont mean to be mean to the pastor, he's a good guy, but he could sure need to learn how to listen and think over others' opinions
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 20, 2007 15:17:15 GMT
He isn't. It might sound coontradicting after I said that the Jews are His people, but if you check with the New Testament, he sais that the apostles should go and preach the truth to all people on Earth. He created us all and he knows us all, he made us as we were supposed to be, he even set some of the obstacles in our lives that by completing them, we can get stronger in our faith. We're all part of his creation, together we're an image of Him. I think (and if I remember right, the Bible sais this as well) that He picked the Jews mainly to show the rest of the world what the men and women whom he helped could do, so that the rest of the world could see his power and understand his message, to bring more people to Him.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 20, 2007 15:42:43 GMT
How do you exactly define Christianity? I still fail to see how it matters how you do it as long as you live your life in a moral way, and therefore it doesn't matter which religion you follow.
Also related to this, how do you know that the God of, say, Islam isn't the same thing as the Christian God, just presented in a different way? Are you saying that there is one 'correct' God, and the 'others' are wrong?
Is it right that the Bible should be kept the same, when increasingly people are finding it irrelevant? A lot of churches at the moment here are modernising (swapping pews for chairs, and becoming sort of community centres) and becoming less strict on the rules. They face falling congregations, and if they don't move with the times Christianity will drop out of public life in the UK. Is it a bad thing necessarily that religion moves with the times to be more releveant to the people? In short, is it better to sacrifice some aspects (like anti-homosexuality) to ensure that the basic moral code and special relationship with God can survive?
This is what I meant when I asked whether texts such as the Bible should be updated. And I think it has to be, and the English Church is recognising it (there are now gay priests for example) and they have chosen to further their core principles over following the Bible to the letter. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 21, 2007 12:22:43 GMT
To me, being a christian - or part of Christianity - is quite simple. If you believe in one true God, in Jesus and that he was both God and human, that he died on the cross to forgive our sins, you believe what he siad in the Bible and do your best to follow what he said, then you're a true christian. You dont neccesarily have to go to a church, be a preacher or missionary or go into the extremes, but if God wants you to be a missionary then you should do so.
The distinct differense between people with good moral and people who believe in the truth is that many parts of christian good moral isn't good moral to the others. Many people I know who have good moral and are very nice persons are against many things the Bible sais about human moral, such as abortion, gay marriage, parts of relationships (the "have 'fun' for 15 years before thinking about getting married"-part, and others) and more. These people also dont believe in God and despise him and what he sais, apart for a few of these moral questions. They do what they can to ignore christian opinions and only go for the humanist part of the message. But as the Bible sais, I believe you cant pick what you think is good or bad from th Bible and only follow a few parts, at least not if you see yourself as a christian.
Yes. Take the islamic god for example, he was a god even before Islam was invented. He was one of many gods that the old arabs preached to at the Black Rock, but Muhammed selected him as his god because he was seen as the strongest one. Many moral questions get same anseer if you ask a muslim and christian, but the type of belief is very different. Some parts of the religious message of Islam also goes along with the Bible, and I believe those parts can be good, but I dont think that just following any religion automatically makes God happy with you.
No. God doesn't change because the world changes, and therefor we're not to change our ways when it comes to following his words. the Bible sais that it's going to be much harder to be a true christian in the end of days and that many that were christian give up their faith and continue with only a few messages from God, that are commonly accepted. The important part isn't to make the world feel comfortable with God by changing him to fit the world, it's about changing the wrong ways of man to fit what God wants. God is the higher being, not man. Life with God isn't like life as a politician where you change your opinion according to what the majority wants. God doesn't change his message, but we want to change it because it doesn't match our modern views, and that's not right.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 21, 2007 16:00:55 GMT
You say that, but have you considered the situation?
If the English Churches don't move with the times they will stop being a part of English life. They will cease to exist as an important influence in political life and ethical debates. Is that worth it?
From a realistic rather than idealistic point of view, surely it's better to sacrifice one or two principles for the sake of the greater good? Or do you disagree and think Christianity within the UK should lose its position in the public eye, with its principles intact, albeit ignored?
The argument is that Christianity as a whole is the important part, and that details like abortion and homosexuality don't really matter, or were only appropriate for certain eras in history. They say that Christianity is out-dated and should be modernised - like when the Church conceded that the earth was a globe and not flat. If they didn't move with the times it would be disastrous for them.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 21, 2007 21:16:16 GMT
I know what's happening with the church in Europe, Sweden especially. We already have quite lame church and yet people say that pastors shouldn't be allowed to be politically involved, churches that dont want to support gay marriages are racists et cetera. I wont change my opinion unless God tells me to, and I dont believe he will (if I did, why would I stick to this at all?). The Bible tells about this time, and it's impossible to stop what's coming. Freedom of speech only applies to those with a certain opinion and freedom of religion is soon to be removed, or ignored. Swedish media and televsion speaks an immense lot of balance between the sexes and that everyone's free to think what they want, but the latter is really just liberal propaganda. You're free to think and say whatever you want, as long as you're liberal in your thinking.
Everything God said in the Bible is appropriate to all eras. To God, every sin is equally terrible. Why not keep the anti-gay part and remove the no-murdering principle instead? To God, it's the same thing, both are sins. Let people murder each other without charging them, no problem.
The catch is that the world isn't described as a flat place in the Bible, that was only the church's mistake, coming from a lack of knowledge. God didn't say that Earth was flat, but he did say that all killing - abortion included - is wrong, just as homosexual acts are wrong and lies and swearing and misuse of His name are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Dec 22, 2007 8:03:35 GMT
"Have you asked God directly about this?"
Well, that's the thing. I probably don't ask correctly or just don't know how to listen full stop, which I deeply think is the case. I'll just keep it at I've never been asked to become Christian.
"Life with God isn't like life as a politician where you change your opinion according to what the majority wants. God doesn't change his message, but we want to change it because it doesn't match our modern views, and that's not right."
Let's just say that life without God isn't life at all and not worth living - from behalf of my more pessimistic views, but that is my very honest and informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 22, 2007 12:22:21 GMT
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 22, 2007 12:31:54 GMT
This is an amusing, rather tongue-in-cheek answer to that. It does however point out that the Bible clearly doesn't agree 100% with the globe, when you look at the detail. Because it's an undoubted fact that some (even if you don't think all) of gay people were born that way, and so it's not really their fault. If I go so far as to murder someone (barring something like split personality) then I have a made a choice. That may be the case in Sweden, but it definitely isn't here. We allow racist far-right politicians to debate in the Oxford Union. I don't see how this argument is relevant to the world as a whole. My theory is that the Bible was written with the best of intentions to provide a moral code. I think it was appropriate for the time (which was after quite violent), but I don't think all of it is appropriate today - that's why the New Testament superceded the Old Testament. Instead of levelling the city of Jericho for aggressive reasons and turning people into salt, we have 'love thy neighbour' (to avoid confusion, I stress that this is purely Platonic!). Or does that not apply to neighbours who are homosexual? Whether you think I'm right or that the Bible is the literal word of God, I know that the New Testament made everything in the Old Testament invalid (people not understanding this is why they say there are contradictions). And to my knowledge there is nowhere where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 22, 2007 13:21:56 GMT
Haha, indeed it's amusing. I'm more than sure that the four corners of the world aren't supposed to be taken literarily. The four corners could mean other kinds of corners than the corners of a cube or flat square, like four places that we regard as ends of the world (say the north and south poles, the middle of the Pacific and etc, but I'm not sure. But I dont believe God literarily meant that the world is flat and square It may not be that, yet. I believe that most of Europe,a dn later the world, will have systems like ours in a near future, as the EU grows and takes more and more control on how countries are supposed to work. And of course, not only the EU, but the views of non-christians will change as well, and they will become more and more ignoring about everything that has got to do with Christianity and God. Here might be some answers to that.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Dec 22, 2007 14:06:12 GMT
I see, but you take my point that it's quite easy to get multiple interpretations from Biblical texts? I'll come back to this in a moment.
I'm not sure, I know that there is a growing anti-EU sentiment in the UK (at least in my experience) and I personally hope that the EU can be restrained. That said, I don't think the EU would ever affect freedom of speech in its member nations. In the UK we have freedom of speech extremely deeply entrenched and I don't think the EU could, even if it wanted to, ever stop people expressing their views. In fact, I doubt they actually stop you expressing them in Sweden, they're just not widely publicised.
That seems extremely tenuous to me. There's a lot of 'implication' and 'begun to wonder' and alternative transaltions and 'if', and citing some unsupported 'Biblical expert' doesn't make it any more reliable. If you ask me, that organisation isn't ridiculously fundamental (which is good), but it does have preconceived views. And so it will quite happily latch onto anything, however fragile, as evidence to support these views. As I said at the beginning, it's easy to come up with alternative interpretations, and this is just one of them - and it's no certainty that this is the will of God.
If that's the best they could come up with, I'm not convinced.
To conclude, I think that the anti-homosexuality argument is just another of these ideas that don't have founding in the Bible itself, and isn't central to Christianity. And for that reason I don't think that it's a sin to be gay, and I don't think the Church should be maintaining the position on this subject as a matter of principle. I'd like to make clear that I don't think the Church should surrender its key values to make itself popular, but I do think it has to be open to change on the values that aren't key. Therefore, the Church is there to preserve the values that are central to the faith, and isn't there to force old-fashioned views that don't even represent pure Christianity onto people.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 22, 2007 18:55:56 GMT
Indeed it's easy to get a wrong picture of what the Bible sais, unless you test what you think it sais against other parts of the Bible. If what you've come up with goes against what God said in other places, you've misinterpreted it. If it goes along with what God said, it's much likely correctly interpreted. I haven't seen a direct stop of expression, but if you look at all the big parts of Swedish society - learning in schools, media etc - they're all liberal propaganda, more or less forcing people to think certain things. I've had a few problems where I couldn't write what I honestly felt and thought. For instance, my old Swedishteacher wrote in response to a work I made "You musn't write that, it's agitation against an ethnic group". This was in a work where I wrote about what I thought on homosexuals getting married in church. Everything God said is a central part of Christianity, you can't rank what's most important and least important, apart for two cathegories: 1, believe in God, Jesus and that he died on the cross to forgive our sins, and 2, everything else. In many places in the Bible there are clear arguments against homsexual acts. Here are a few of them: Romans 1:24-28Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 1 Timothy 1:8-10We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Matthew 15:16-20 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
|
|