I noticed some people here are knowledgeable about Christian religion and I have some questions that came to my mind when I was talking with a friend recently, here it goes:

The bible says something like: in the beginning there was chaos then God came and modeled the chaos, separated water and earth, etc. What is known about this chaos? What was it? Who created it?...

Is God a creator or an architect who built the universe from existing materials (ie the chaos)?

Where does the concept of soul appear in the bible? I heard about Adam being modeled from mud (sp?) then God put life in him, does that include a soul as well? Do animals have a soul?

The story about how Lucifer was the angel-in-chief then turned against God, the battle ensuing and the banishing to hell episode, is that biblical, evangelic (sp?) or just Christian mythology?

What's your personal view on the "God is all good and all powerful yet evil exists" issue and predestination?

When was hell created, by who (ie who made it what it is) and for who?

posted June 01, 2003 00:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed some people here are knowledgeable about Christian religion and I have some questions that came to my mind when I was talking with a friend recently, here it goes:

The bible says something like: in the beginning there was chaos then God came and modeled the chaos, separated water and earth, etc. What is known about this chaos? What was it? Who created it?...

Not chaos, nothingness


Is God a creator or an architect who built the universe from existing materials (ie the chaos)?

The Creator


Where does the concept of soul appear in the bible? I heard about Adam being modeled from mud (sp?) then God put life in him, does that include a soul as well? Do animals have a soul?

Spirit is a better word than soul, the spirit is the God breathed eternal part in a human's makeup. The soul is the intellect, personality, etc.


The story about how Lucifer was the angel-in-chief then turned against God, the battle ensuing and the banishing to hell episode, is that biblical, evangelic (sp?) or just Christian mythology?

It is Biblical, although the battle has not yet taken place and Satan has not yet been banished to hell. Even after his banishment he will not rule there. Hell is a place of punishment, it will have no ruler.

What's your personal view on the "God is all good and all powerful yet evil exists" issue and predestination?

God gives all people the ability to make choices, the wrong choices are what lead to evil.

When was hell created, by who (ie who made it what it is) and for who?
There are two separate places known as "hell". The first is Hades, it is where the the unsaved dead go to await final punishment. At the final judgement, all unsaved people, Satan and his fallen angels will be cast into the Lake of Fire/Outer Darkness, a place of eternal punishment and separation from God.

Never attempt to figure out religions, you'll end up scratching your head in confusion.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all decendents of Zoeasterism - the first monotheistic religion of note. All three have the same basic concepts, but were modified by each of their respective prophets.

The story about how Lucifer was the angel-in-chief then turned against God, the battle ensuing and the banishing to hell episode, is that biblical, evangelic (sp?) or just Christian mythology?
Actually, the existance of Lucifer is totally symbolic,

God created the bringer of light (knowledge) aka. Lucifer.
God created mankind (Adam, Adam is the Sumerian translation for mankind)
God placed mankind in Eden (ignorance, what we don´t know, can´t harm us)
Lucifer gave us knowledge (the opposite of ignorance) since that´s what he was created for

Lucifer promised us we would be gods if we ate from the tree of knowlegde of good and evil.

Many people see this as a lie, because they expect that, when we become gods, we have an halo of 3 meters, can lift rocks while we just made them so heavy we cant lift them and sit in clouds with butnekid angels flying around us.
(Actually we can already do that, just take a pill ;) )

Some people say that Lucifer seperated us from God, we were no longer lambs of ignorance but had the freedom to follow our own minds, becoming gods!
God lost it followers, withered and died.

We already are in "hell", and I like it :)

all unsaved people, Satan and his fallen angels will be cast into the Lake of Fire/Outer Darkness, a place of eternal punishment and separation from God. What about the people who have never heard of God?? Are they doomed to be thrown into hell?

And "faith" alone is not enough.

"I don't understand have God expects everyone to choose the one true religion on faith alone, it seems to me to be a pretty sloppy way to run the universe."
-Jubal Harshaw Stranger In a Strange Land


P.S. I do not mean to troll, or otherwise hurt you, I place this warning because people have misunderstood my post for bashing trolls.

BTW, what is your religion?

I myself am between faiths. :cool:

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all decendents of Zoeasterism - the first monotheistic religion of note.Especially that Judaism is older than Zoroastrism :rolleyes: and both Christianity and Islam draw from the source of Judaism.

It's impossible to tell which monotheistic religion was first, but definitely there had been monotheistic concepts before Jews, let us quote Ekhnaton's cult of Aton as an example. Also in every polytheistic religion there was a branch of priests who believed that all gods are just incarnations or aspects of the most powerful and more important one of them like the clergy of Enlil (Sumerian) / Marduk (Babylonian).

As for the questions asked in the opening post:

Chaos is not material, it's like emptiness and disorder. So technically it's still *something*, but it's interpreted as God creating everything from scratch.

Soul is not really about the gift of life, but rather God's image. Spirit has a bit different meaning.

There are several references to Lucifer's fall, but not the whole story gathered together in one piece. Some ideas aren't biblical.

As for God almighty and evil, God grants free will and doesn't revoke his gifts. Of course he does intervene from time to time as a part of His plan - at least that's what the Bible says. If you're thinking of the Flood, Sodoma and Gomora etc - punishment is not evil when it's due and administered by proper authority. What's more we can't see the full scope of reasons existing and of goals to achieve as well as dangers imminent or potential.

Predestination doesn't accord with free will. God is omniscent so for He knows everything that happens beforehand. However, a person always has to make the choice. God doesn't predestinate a person to be saved or not before his birth - we're rather all called to sanctity and salvation, but not all of us succeed.

Hell is the result of sovereign decisions made by a person. Flames and devils running all around is a mediaeval picture. Nowadays it's rather believed to be a state of mind.

I hope this helps you a little bit :)

Alright, I don't believe in this stuff, but it is interesting.
Can someone tell me how the hell the Nefilim ended up getting into the Bible. You would think the the Church would have cut out that bit by now, as it does relate to a Sumarian (I think) faith.

Most books of Old Testament were written down in Babylonia where Jews were deported after they kingdoms fell (712 BC for Israel, 586 for Judah IIRC). Therefore they were somehow influenced by Babylonian conventions that were derived from ancient Sumerian beliefs from before 2000 BC when the last Sumerian kingdom fell to Semitic Amorites from whom Babylonians were descended.

Also Abraham, whose original name was Abram, lived in Babylonian Erech prior to moving for Canaan. Thus he probably was Babylonian and his original language was that of Amorites and at that time not so much different from Accadian - the official 'high speech' of Babylon. Erech was previously known as Uruk and was a major political and religious centre where many important events originated.

According to the Bible God indicated His presence before the times of Abraham and there were people aware of it. Which means that before the times of Abraham there might have existed some origins of the cult of God as He's seen by Judaism. Then we would have different relations of the same events, different traditions etc although all drawing from the same source of ancient Semite culture enriched by Sumerian influence.

It's all just a matter of how far you are willing to go with your beliefs.

Personally, i don't buy any of that crap.

Alright, I don't believe in this stuff, but it is interesting.
Can someone tell me how the hell the Nefilim ended up getting into the Bible. You would think the the Church would have cut out that bit by now, as it does relate to a Sumarian (I think) faith. Well, there's another interpretation, if the church had done this it would mean that...

Better find a reason, that it belongs to the bible.

I want to reply but, i shouldn't. :evil:

Where's Mathetais when you need him?

Emptiness can be defined as the absence of matter, yet it is used to create something. God is then a creator who uses emptiness to create matter, like an architect using unusual construction materials. Physicists claim emptiness is perturbable and the like. God would then not create but convert emptiness (that is *something* we just can't properly define) into matter. (sounds like startrek :borg: )

There is *something* before God came and started creating/shaping stuff, how does time affect God, did he create time (from what?) to live trough it or to make his creations live through it. If he knows everything, then he knows what we call the future, that suggests he doesn't abide by the time rules he created for us. He decided to create the world at a particular time then let it evolve (tough he kept interfering) from there, was "time" created by God or is time a part of God to begin with?

Also on the first page of my bible (genesia?) it is written that God created earth and heaven. Period. It seems creation is limited to earth and that the universe is an other issue.

About predestination, God knows everything, then when a human is born on earth he must know if he will be heaven or hell material before the baby is even born. As God does give life then take it back (revoke the life license), I wonder if he couldn't prevent the birth of what is to be an evil individual, or is evil needed on earth in order to make the good ones sweat for their share of paradise? Is the whole point of living on earth is to be tested by other God's creations, but why since God already knows what will happen to you, isn't that "evil" of him? He knows you will go to heaven but first you must endure life on earth with his evil creations, pass trials he knows you will succeed in, you do have to break a sweat to be on God's right side?

@Blackhawk
If it's me you're talking to, I'm atheist, septic(sp?) and curious.

There is *something* before God came and started creating/shaping stuff, how does time affect God, did he create time (from what?) to live trough it or to make his creations live through it. Well time comes from observation of moving objects, lets say that everything in this universe stopped moving, that everywhere in the universe the temperature dropped to 0 Kelvin.
Would time exist then? Can you prove its existance? No...

So since "God" started moving (or since the Big Bang occured), you could observe time (If you were there that is)

Again, I personally would never use the bible as my guideance through life, I prefer practical advice from the living. :D ;)


About predestination, God knows everything, then when a human is born on earth he must know if he will be heaven or hell material before the baby is even born. As God does give life then take it back (revoke the life license), I wonder if he couldn't prevent the birth of what is to be an evil individual, or is evil needed on earth in order to make the good ones sweat for their share of paradise? Is the whole point of living on earth is to be tested by other God's creations, but why since God already knows what will happen to you, isn't that "evil" of him? He knows you will go to heaven but first you must endure life on earth with his evil creations, pass trials he knows you will succeed in, you do have to break a sweat to be on God's right side?
As far I know, predestination theory is only in calvinism and religions thereof. So, I wouldn't put predestination in the middle of anything. And the so called "vulgarcalvinism" is evil, but I think you know that already, because your questions aim at the heart of the problem.

Also on the first page of my bible (genesia?) it is written that God created earth and heaven. Period. It seems creation is limited to earth and that the universe is an other issue.
That's one of the parts, why bible-exegese usually requires knowledge of greek, latin, hebrew and of course Ethiopian, I was told. The problem is, that the translations interfere with eachother. (Not to mention the ones in modern languages).

The dominant founding myth from greek mythology, originated and migrated from good old Babylon, it goes something like this: In the beginning there was nothing ("chaos" in it's older connotation), then earth (~gaia) was born out of nothing (and some siblings). Then Earth gave birth to the sky.

The hebrew bible uses words in the beginning, which led to the German word "Tohuwabohu". It means today the same as chaos (modern connotation), everything upside down, mess. The hebrew meaning of the words is, irrc, something like "wasteland" or "empty land". In the beginning, there was "Tohuwabohu", then god created the earth and the sky.

Why founding myths are so similar and somehow got "mixed" is another question....

The dominant founding myth from greek mythology, originated and migrated from good old Babylon, it goes something like this: In the beginning there was nothing ("chaos" in it's older connotation), then earth (~gaia) was born out of nothing (and some siblings). Then Earth gave birth to the sky. In the greek mythology Chaos wasn't equal to nothing... Chaos was chaos..

Give an update to Greek mythology later, but now I am in a hurry.

Okay, thanks ... I'm not going to get ANY work done today with threads like this to pick apart! ;) :good:

Oh, Greenlion ... when you posted that I was sleeping like a baby in the arms of the One who Predestined me! (hehehe, more on that later.)

First things first, Oxymore. You're question seems to respect the Bible as the/a source for information on these subjects. We need to clarify that a bit. Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? If so, we can answer the questions from that Book and you should be satisfied. If not, then I could bring a million Biblical points to bear, and you could simply shrug and dismiss it.

My point is that questions like this really can't be answered without an agreed upon source of objective truth. If you think that Truth is relative and/or you think that the bible is not true, then we will just have a long, fruitless debate.

I'm not saying this to insult or dismiss your questions. I'm just trying to point out why so many threads on the Alley never get resolved.

(cracking my knuckles and getting ready to talk).

Question One:
The bible says something like: in the beginning there was chaos then God came and modeled the chaos, separated water and earth, etc. What is known about this chaos? What was it? Who created it?...

Is God a creator or an architect who built the universe from existing materials (i.e. the chaos)? The Bible clearly requires us to believe that God created the universe out of nothing (sometimes the Latin phrase ed nihilo is used). The "chaos" you speak of in Hebrew is tovu bavohu and gives the impression of a wild ocean. I think Moses uses that picture to paint the scene of a vast ocean, stretching far beyond what anyone can imagine, and how God with a single phrase brings into existence a material creation. The point is to highlight God's power. We do not have a biblical portrait of God creating the world out of a giant's head (as in Norse mythology).

Is God a creator or an architect who built the universe from existing materials (i.e. the chaos)? When God made man, the "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Adam is not the Sumerian translation for mankind ... it is Hebrew for "Man" just as Eve is Hebrew for "Woman" (you can also use the words 'ish and 'isha).
Humanity was created "in the image of God" which means that we are "like" God and "represent" God. The Hebrew word for "image" means that something is similar, not identical. This speaks to our intellectual powers, our will, our ability to create, our authority and many other areas of life. The more we know about God's nature and actions, the more we know about ourselves ... we will see more and more similarities. (I could go on to talk about the Fall and how these similarities are polluted, but that's a whole other discussion).

Back to your question ... the image of God is what made us unique after God formed us from the
mud. There is lots of debate about what the soul and spirit are. To be brief, the Bible uses soul and spirit interchangeably.
The story about how Lucifer was the angel-in-chief then turned against God, the battle ensuing and the banishing to hell episode, is that biblical, evangelic (sp?) or just Christian mythology?This whole thing isn't spelled out in the bible, so there is some Christian mythology around the topic. We tend to give too much of our imagination to the topic, and too little proof. A few places in the Bible do discuss it though.

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when
they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment"

Jude 6 "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the
great day"

From the Old Testament, Isaiah 14:12-15
How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,;
I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.

This suggests a rebellion by an angelic creature of great power and dignity (Lucifer?). The sin of Satan is described as one of pride and attempting to be equal to God in status and authority.

The name Lucifer isn't in the Bible too often, this creature is normally called "Satan" which is Hebrew for adversary. Other names are "The Devil", "Be-elzebul", "the ruler of this world", "the prince of the power of the air", or "the evil one".

SIDE NOTE on the Nephilim. This wasn't edited out of the Bible because (as we talked about in the beginning of this long post) the Bible is True and isn't edited like a human document.
The Nephilim are mentioned in two places:

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

Numbers 13:33 "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

These are not angels. Angels are nonmaterial beings and according to Jesus they do not marry (see Matthew 22:30), so these Nephilim are not angels (fallen or otherwise) to took human wives. It is far more likely that the "sons of God" here (as in Deuteronomy 14:1) refers to people belonging to God and, like God, walking in righteousness ... descendents of Seth who "called upon the name of the Lord". The point of the passage is that the followers of God married ungodly wives (daughters of men) and humanity lost its faith...leading to the Flood.
What's your personal view on the "God is all good and all powerful yet evil exists" issue and predestination? Could you have picked any short questions!?! ;)
Your questions seems to touch on two points. Election for believers and reprobation for unbelievers.

Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.

This is a hot debate, even among bible-believing evangelicals. The Bible clearly talks about it though.

Romans 8:28-30 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Acts 13:48, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed"

Ephesians 1:4-6 "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

This is not fatalistic or mechanistic. The picture in the New Testament is salvation is worked out by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures. This is done in love, a personal touch performed by a God whose creation has rebelled and who is not obligated to save anyone.

You may be asking, if God is that loving and
powerful, how can evil exist. Honestly, I don't know. The Bible never comes out and says why there is evil, except to say that God will be glorified by the way it all works out. I could go on with long philosophical arguments (mostly stolen from Alvin Plantigna of Notre Dame) on how God can still be good and all-powerful in the face of evil, but don't have time. (sorry)

When was hell created, by who (i.e. who made it what it is) and for who? Someone once asked Martin Luther what God did before he created the world, and Luther said, "He was creating Hell for morons like you!" (good ol' Luther)
Seriously, Hell is the separation from God's presence. We don't get too many details, some hints of suffering, drought, gnashing of teeth, and worms not dying. We get the impression that it is eternal, painful, and unchangeable. As hell is the absence of God, then you could say that God created it. You could also say that we made it ourselves, since we are the ones who by sinning flee from God's presence, choosing hell over His grace.

Hopefully that answers your main questions. Glancing through the replies so far, a few more comments ...
*Claron ... nice to meet you! Stick around!
"We are already in "hell" and I like it" ... for Christians, this world is hell. This is the furthest separation from God we will ever experience. For those who don't embrace Christ, this is as close to heaven as you'll get. Hell will really be worse .... much worse.
"Most books of Old Testament were written down in Babylonia where Jews were deported after they kingdoms." Sorry Chevy ... I think Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and others were written through history. Please tell me you didn't' buy into that JEPD theory ... please!
vulgarcalvinism ... nice phrase. Predestination has been abused. In my old church I had Calvinists who would refuse to share the gospel because "If they're elect, God will save them without me." Just an excuse for laziness. However as above, the bible does teach election.
Okay, fire back at me! :) :good:
I'm going to get some coffee! :coffee:

At Morgoth

I am aware, that there are other founding-myths in greek mythology. That's why I carefully worded it as "the dominant" one. There other versions of this, similar but very different. The "meaning" of chaos changed over time and interpretation in later years which made the meaning similar to "tohuwabohu". But one of the translation of chaos is "void".

At Mathetais:

I see that we agree on bible-interpretation, and that the holy scripture has to be interpreted in the languages, they were actually written in. :)

But still, I am happy that I haven't had latin for more than a half year. It's not worth the fuss.

The "chaos" you speak of in Hebrew is tovu bavohu and gives the impression of a wild ocean But I doubt that translation. Because the word "Tohuwabohu" meaning something like "wild ocean" would make no sense. It's propably of jiddisch origin, so came from actual Hebrew speakers. And it's used as meaning "chaos (modern connotation), mess, everything upside down".

[ June 02, 2003, 17:47: Message edited by: Yago ]

I said "gives the impression" ... from my studies Tohuwabohu (you had it right, I couldn't remeber the transliteration) is a word like "bang" "boom" (otomotopeia sp?). It paints a word-picture without a firm meaning ... poetic.

Anyway ... no comments on my other stuff? I guess that means you agree! ;)

Yes. ;)

Wow, that was long!!! :)

To answer your question Mathetais: no, I don't believe the bible is the word of God and I don't believe in any God. I did not intend to make this a debate of any kind. It's just that, the other day, I was talking with a friend, whose mother went to catholic school, about creation and evolution and how God created everything from scratch (but was is "scratch"?) and all. I grabbed a bible (French translation), read the first pages and started wondering after the first ten lines. Given that my knowledge about Christianism is thin and people around me are either atheists or Muslims, I thought I could get some insights and personal points of view on various subjects (especially about how time is related to God) from people here on SP.

Thanks for your opinions (or beliefs), keep it coming.

Actually the Hebrew name Adam has multiple translations: "man", "human beings", "person" or "Adam"..

Anyways the second comes close to my translation.


This suggests a rebellion by an angelic creature of great power and dignity (Lucifer?). The sin of Satan is described as one of pride and attempting to be equal to God in status and authority. But this is what Satan was meant to do right?

The name Lucifer isn't in the Bible too often, this creature is normally called "Satan" which is Hebrew for adversary. Other names are "The Devil", "Be-elzebul", "the ruler of this world", "the prince of the power of the air", or "the evil one".
I can of course call a chicken a duck, but it's still a chicken.

the Bible is True Then how do you explain the differences between the Coptic, James, death-sea scrolls and other versions of the bible?
And which part of the bible should be followed nowadays?

[ June 03, 2003, 09:30: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Really, the answers to all those questions will differ for people according to their beliefs.

I tend to believe animals have souls... after all, they're God's creation too, right? why favor us, especially since we're the stupid ones destroying everything we touch... (grumble, grumble, grumble)

I don't belive in a fire-and-brimestone Hell. instead, if your evil, you stay without God's presence for eternity. It would be the equivalent of being paralyzed, deaf, blind, mute, and unable to feel anything. ech, that'd drive me off the walls

Yago,

In the beginning there was nothing ("chaos" in it's older connotation), then earth (~gaia) was born out of nothing (and some siblings). Then Earth gave birth to the sky.
Chaos means chaos. "A mess, upside down" as you said in another post. And Earth did not come out of nothing, Earth 'married' the sky and not gave birth to the sky.

Chevalier, you say that God knows ecerything before it happens. Then why did He create us, the humans, if he knew that all this evil in the world would be caused by us?

Mathetais, couldn't you post a shorter reply?


Now a question:
Those who -truly- believe in God go to Paradise and those who don't believe in Him go to Hell.
But what if someone does not believe in God, yet he is a good person etc etc? And what about the people who didn't even heard of this God? And the animals? Is there a separate paradise/hell for them, do they come in the same paradise/hell with us or do they not go anywhere?

A sidenote on Lucifer:
I 've read a theory that according to comparative mythology the equivalent of Lucifer in greek mythology is Prometheus. Prometheus was the titan who gave the holy fire of the gods to humans without the permission of Zeus and because of his action he was punished by gods. Lucifer (Eosforos in ancient greek)means the bringer of light or the bringer of dawn and the fire that Prometheus gave to humans led to the dawn of civilazation. Lucifer gave the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the fire is the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, but Prometheus'(sp?) intention was good. He loved humans and didn't want to let them die.

And Lucifer's wasn't??

So God created Lucifer to bring evil and knowledge?? Are those two the same?

oh well, Ignorance is a bliss :)

Lucifer is exactly 'the bearer of light' in Latin. However, he has nothing to do with Prometheus apart from disobedience and mutiny.

In the Bible and apocriphes it's always stressed that his motives were selfish. Motives, not goals. He didn't really have goals, in plain words he changed priorities and started adoring himself in God's place. Metaphorical reference says he saw his own face and worshipped himself, creature, in the place of Creator, God.

@Alex: How would I differ from God if I could understand Him fully?

@Mathetais:

Sorry, pentateuch was written down in 6th century BC. Everything before that time was oral tradition. Jewish alphabet didn't even exist in Moses's times.

Another thing is that I don't believe we're in hell or in paradise. Yes, for those who will be saved, this world is the closest thing to hell they're going to get and for those who won't the closest thing to heaven they're going to get. Of course. But I don't believe believers will be saved because of the sole believing and I don't believe that non-believers can't be saved.

Last but not least, Christians who refuse to share the words of Christ oppose His teachings as He expressly told His disciples and therefore all Christians to go and teach in His name. Such thinking as 'I don't teach him because God could take him in my place' insults God and is the best way to score behind pagans.

Hmmm... I suppose I'll have to raise my poor cadaver from the chair and take that English Bible from the shelf for the upcoming quote war :D

Written My Mathetais
As hell is the absence of God, then you could say that God created it. You could also say that we made it ourselves, since we are the ones who by sinning flee from God's presence, choosing hell over His graceIt must really have sucked beeing born as an aboriginal back in the days when the white men didn't control technology and couldn't make their way to Australia or even so didn't know of it.

Ironic. Engines, which are hot as hell, helped the aboriginals by letting the white man meet them so they could get the choice of choosing God.

Mathetais, couldn't you post a shorter reply? Actually ... no, I couldn't. Not on these topics. See what happens when I leave something out? I get folk like Noblemen nibbling at the edges of my arguments.

So ... here we go about General Revelation and the book of Romans ... *sigh*

Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. I don't make this stuff up, I just preach it. The poor aboriginie has a chance. General Revelation speaks to him/her about the reality of God and what is basically required. We won't find out how many were able to respond in faith until heaven, but God does take care of those who lived before the white man made steam engines.

(I know you were just being difficult ya turd, but there is always a good answer ;) )

Romans 1:18-25
...Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.Just curious, was that the "argument" that condemned all native americans to hell, while the white men took their land?

And those nibbling at the edges, concerns people who were A) either born thousands of miles away from the bible or B) born into another religion. How can you even dare dashing away billions of people as nibbling on the edge of your convinience? Isn't that rude... {edited the peek of my own rudeness away. Sorry, Math I was just part confused/sad/frustrated at the moment with all this christian stuff. again.} I feel I spend more time pondering on it than most priest does. It would comfort me if you said you pondered on these things too, and just didn't take them for granted. *sigh too*. And I was/am not trying to be turdish. I am trying to understand what seems so obvious to you. :)

OFF topic;
Isn't it interesting that Christian priests in Denmark can now openly say that they do not believe in God, because they are in so much doubt of Gods existance but still want to preach the good, decent and honest ways of life in friendliness and helpfullness. My kind of priests. My life in a nutshell.

[ June 13, 2003, 23:57: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Lucifer is exactly 'the bearer of light' in Latin. However, he has nothing to do with Prometheus apart from disobedience and mutiny.
Chevalier

Perhaps you are right but jews used to demonize the gods of other nations, who were hostile to them. Few examples:

Beelzebul - derived from the carchidonian god of sun Baal
Astaroth - derived from the egyptian goddes of love Astarte
Azazel - derived from the canaatite deity Asiz
Belphegor- derived from Baal-Peor god of Moabites
Moloch - derived from Milcom, god of Ammonites or from the babylonian Malik

More detailed info here (http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/demons.asp)

There's even more of such examples and in the Bible alternative names are used or it's simply said that this and that nation worships this and that daemon (under given name).

The story of Lucifer is basically the one of Samael (the same person even, the name means 'the ligh of God') who was the angel-in-chief up to the said moment of mutiny against God. Then his name changed to Satanael, 'the enemy of God'.

Although you are more then likely to find more or less similar passages in other religions' myths and apocriphes, it's no foreign deity. Of course in polytheistic religions lesser gods are less powerful than God' angels, but that's a different thing.

Aaaaaaaaaahhh... So many posts but no one have answered my question.

Anyway. I think BOC is right. Same with Bhaal(I think another name name for Satan) and Baal(one of the Phoenician gods)

Off topic:
I saw last night a film on TV about a (black) detective who investigated a case. Behind the murders was a fallen angel with the name Azazel(sp?).

Milton draws on a lot of this stuff in Paradise Lost. If you want a light read you could check it out. :)

Alexander the Great wrote:

Chaos means chaos. "A mess, upside down" as you said in another post. And Earth did not come out of nothing, Earth 'married' the sky and not gave birth to the sky.

The connotation of Chaos has changed over time. It used to mean "void/nothingness". The change came probably with theological influence -> Bible.

...In the beginning, Hesiod says, there was Chaos, vast and dark . Then appeared Gaea, the dep-breasted earth, and finally Eros, ' the love which softens hearts ', whose fructifying influence would thenceforth preside over the formation of beings an things. From Chaos were born Erebus and Night who, uniting, gave birth in their turn to Ether and Hemera, the day. On her part Gaea first bore Uranus , the sky crowned with stars, ' whom she made her equal in grandeur, so that he entirely covered her '. Then she created the high mountains and Pontus, ' the sterile sea ' with its harmonious waves... As I said before, there are different versions. Chaos in it's earlier connotation meant "nothingness". And Gaea gave birth to Uranus. And then she married Uranus. And then she gave birth to the Titans.

http://www.ancientgreece.com/mythology/mythology.htm

The ancient Greek poet Hesiod, in his Theogony, claims that the goddess Gaia first gave birth to Ouranos, then mated with him to produce these offspring. Later, Ouranos was to name his children Titans, which translates into overreachers.
http://www.loggia.com/myth/titans.html

chaos - c.1440, " gaping void ," from L. chaos, from Gk. khaos "abyss, that which gapes wide open, is vast and empty," from *khnwos, from PIE base *gheu-, *gh(e)i- "to gape" (cf. Gk khaino "I yawn," O.E. ginian, O.N. ginnunga-gap; see yawn). Meaning " utter confusion " (1606) is extended from theological use of chaos for "the void at the beginning of creation" in Vulgate version of Genesis. The Gk. for "disorder" was tarakhe , however the use of chaos here was rooted in Hesiod ("Theogony"), who describes khaos as the primeval emptiness of the Universe, begetter of Erebus and Nyx ("Night"), and in Ovid ("Metamorphoses"), who opposes Khaos to Kosmos, "the ordered Universe." Chaotic is from 1713.
http://www.etymonline.com/c3etym.htm

Ok, Yago. I believe you now.

And Gaea gave birth to Uranus. And then she married Uranus. I didn't know that. I thought Gaea("gaea" is an ancient word for "earth", but anyway) and Uranus(means "sky") co-existed and then mated.

As for the titans, I don't know the ancient meaning of the word but now means something huge and big because titans were huge, giants.


But still no one answers my question...

Lucifer is exactly 'the bearer of light' in Latin. However, he has nothing to do with Prometheus apart from disobedience and mutiny.
Are you saying that God's creation was flawed?

Last but not least, Christians who refuse to share the words of Christ oppose His teachings as He expressly told His disciples and therefore all Christians to go and teach in His name. Such thinking as 'I don't teach him because God could take him in my place' insults God and is the best way to score behind pagans. Ah, but Jesus taught only those who came to him, he didn't come to them..
So actually a missionary going to farawayistan to preach is going a little bit the "wrong" way.

@Mathetais

The Aboriginals had an own religion who they hardly questioned, it would be weird to suddenly question his religion and become a Christian, while he never heard of the son of God!
And even if he did believe in God, he would still go to hell, because his greatest sin was being born.

Personally I think the Christians should ease up a bit. God didn't create them in a nutshell. Like the danish priests. They are easing up. There are so many logic flaws with this whole heaven concept, not science concepts nor purely faith, but horrible logical errors, that even if God exist he did a terrible job and isn't worth the effort. Traditions are apparently very hard to come by and the words in the book can maintain almost any belief with its cryptic lines in old languages and purely sweep away logic with words.

Christianity is a very very young concept evolution- wise. Only a few thousand years has it has to adapt. next to the human race, which biologically need well more than ten thousand years to adapt. The best thing that ever happened to Christianity is that recent fact that danish priest don't have to believe in God anymore.

I am very well aware that change and adaption is frustrating and dangerous to Christians' well foundated life. Its naught futile for a human as an individual to accept that he/she is spending a whole lifetime, countless of hours, on studies and understandings, if not in vain then in disdain. I am very well aware of that tradition can easily be circular argument itself, with no scrubbles to a human mind. And cryptic palindromic sentences defy logic at any chance they get. Its clear that million of minds standing together, with the inbuild human nature of getting results and achievement for hard work, are impossible to change from the outside of their more or less permeable nutshell.

The day of Revelations will indeed come to Christianity. Believers or not. But not from the outside, but from the inside. I am not the first one to write this. And I am certainly *not* the first one to think it. And I'll definately not be the last to claim this.

[ June 16, 2003, 13:15: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Ah, but Jesus taught only those who came to him, he didn't come to them..
So actually a missionary going to farawayistan to preach is going a little bit the "wrong" way.Nah, have you been reading some manichean heresy again? ;)

Jesus said that He, like a doctor, came to those who needed treatment and not to those who were well.

The Aboriginals had an own religion who they hardly questioned, it would be weird to suddenly question his religion and become a Christian, while he never heard of the son of God!
And even if he did believe in God, he would still go to hell, because his greatest sin was being born.Being Christian isn't prerequisite for salvation. It's only prerequisite for being saved through Christianity - people should remember it's God who decides saving before they say that for example the other branch of Christianity is all going to Hell.

The best thing that ever happened to Christianity is that recent fact that danish priest don't have to believe in God anymore.

+ following
I beg to differ. This way it would the be best for Christianity to stick to philosophy and drop the faith in God. Consequently, no church whatsoever would be needed and the whole organisation would be pointless - a philosophy school would serve better. What's more, people who no longer believe in the very source and core of Christianity, which is God, aren't Christians, so what they believe in is not Christianity. From the perspective of the church they are rather lost sheep than outsiders, but of course up to a point. Certainly, the negation of it's very basic principles isn't a good thing for Christianity.

Churches are very well needed. As a haven for words of kindness and honesty and fairness. Churches as a concept outlives God in so many fruitful ways, that God is more of a hinderance to mankind than a benefit. I have faith in those recent changes.


Something is sturring inside the nutshell. We kind people outside, are its nutrious soil. not its enemies. I sincerly hope that one day a magnificent three will flourish from the shell, with all religions as its lifegiving leaves. And we can finally grow into heaven from the first tree in the garden of Eden. I know I am centuries early with this. But I have a strong faith in that it will happen. So I linger with much peace in my life outside the shell as you do inside of it. And you cannot argue faith with the book.
Amen. Take a moment, to think. (http://www.mmjp.or.jp/amlang.atc/video/01/imagine_usa.htm)

[ June 16, 2003, 13:39: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Nah, have you been reading some manichean heresy again?

Jesus said that He, like a doctor, came to those who needed treatment and not to those who were well.
Then why do I need to search for Jesus and God and not the other way around?

At Alexander the Great:

That's not the only story, there are different versions from different written sources. So, it's good possible, that you had the story from a different source. That the Sky and the Earth weren't mother and son, but married, is another valid version, from another written source.

Then why do I need to search for Jesus and God and not the other way around? Because it's not a free lunch? ;)

But actually it is very close. According to Christian beliefs most of the work about you is done by God but you must be willing and trying to contribute. Not that it's not a narrow path.

*throws his hands up* (http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/tn/arguing.jpg.html)
But I'll try anyways.

Personally I think the Christians should ease up a bit. God didn't create them in a nutshell. Like the danish priests. They are easing up. This easing up is the worst thing in the world for both the church and the world.

If the death and resurrection of Christ is not the only way to salvation, than Christianity is useless, a waste, a total despair.

"easing up" is called "sliding away" and will lead many to Hell. It would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown in a lake than to be that Danish priest or one who teaches what he does.

Actually, how can not believing in God lead you to hell, with a healty dosis of sceptism(sp?) you could get the following:

If Lucifer lies, he would be very good in that, since he had a few millenias to practice and was created by the great flawless creator.

If Satan was lying, he would be perfect at it, since his lying was flawless, so he could make you believe he was God!
And his son, the son of God! Resulting that every christian goes down to the lake of fire.

Now if Satan was very very very evil, he would do that, and God could hardly do anything since Satan lied to him!
But God ofcourse created Satan with the intent to lie, so Satan made God believe he had a flaw...

Oh, and that lake of fire stuff? How many people have actually been there and returned?? Kenny?

If the death and resurrection of Christ is not the only way to salvation, than Christianity is useless, a waste, a total despair. No wonder God was cooking them already till they turned black/brown, so they could prepare for what was coming...

Well, on that only one way to salvation:

Yes, the death of Jesus Christ is the only way. It's for His blood and by His blood that we're saved if we are. Which doesn't bar non-believers from salvation. It's still God who has the final say.

@Math
It would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown in a lake than to be that Danish priest or one who teaches what he doesIf that is how you feel, if that is how christianity feels, you can have it all for yourself. And I won't even start bothering why you posted that link. Pretty mature, huh?

@Morgoth
Nice ones. Though, Christians have some standard phrases that have passed in generations, which doesn't necessarily answer any of your questions, but make sense in the art of circular argumentation. I can understand that science isn't accepted. But logic. I am truly puzzled how intelligent people cannot see obvious flaws of logic. Christians are doing nothing that doesn't make it an unfriendly, reward-orientated and arrogant religion that scares people into obidience with the threats of eternal fear and torment. Math put it quite precisely himself.

If the death and resurrection of Christ is not the only way to salvation, than Christianity is useless, a waste, a total despairIndeed, we have never agreed more. Love. Friendliness. Honesty, fairness and kindness, are not necessities(mark that word) at all in the base concepts of Christianity, they could have been anything. Only the death and resurrection of Christ counts. I might realize someday that I was wrong about God beeing the entity of kindness. Perhaps that is why my logic fails so horribly. Because I assume God is unquestionable and unconditional love and warmth. Which God isn't.

@Chev
Which doesn't bar non-believers from salvationAre you sure? Non-belivers can get salvation? Then you agree with the danish priest, whom Math would rather see drowned?

[ June 18, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

First, God's love is unconditional. Were it not so, then incarnation, death and resurrection would make no sense at all. However, something still has to be required from us, poor sinners, and it's not exactly crying 'make love not war' and general soft-hearted aproach. In Roman church, for example, God's inifite mercy (misericordia) is as much a dogma as free will. There's no free will without responsibility and coping with the consequences of one's choices that are already alleviated to the maximal extent possible where it still can be called free will.

And no, I don't agree with the Danish priest. What Mat refers to is Jesus's teachings about the leading of other people into sin, which is thus considered a lesser sin than 'just' a suicide. In his case it's not believing or not, or to be more precise - aposthasy or lack thereof, but how his proceedings affect the people who listen to him and follow him. That's what is more important than his performing priestly duties as a non-believer, which is secondary at most.

[ June 18, 2003, 02:02: Message edited by: chevalier ]

First part) How can unconditional love still demand that something is required? Or is it unconditional love to condemn people to eternal suffering if they didn't do as they are told. This is conditional love. Or his love is not kind in the english definition of kindness. Or his kindness is not love in the english definition of love. Well either way it is illogic, so I guess Christianity has no quarrels with it.

Second part) I am well aware of that the approach is different between what the priest does and what you wrote about not barring non-believers from salvation, but the result is exactly the same. You get a bunch of Goodhearted people standing up there with God, who didn't belive in God but devoted their life to goodness. I'll carve it out. If you say that non believers are not barred from salvation you are acting out a sin with exactly the same result as the priest and thus exactly as guilty. Well it is deduction of logic, so I guess its a little hard to graps for christianity. Or did I miss something in this?
Which doesn't bar non-believers from salvation. It's still God who has the final say.

@Nobleman - What did the link to the "imagine-USA" movie have to do with the topic. And even after I saw it I still don't feel bad for the Americans. But that's waaaaaay to off-topic.

[ June 18, 2003, 03:16: Message edited by: Velve Zauviir ]

Not really. I'm not committing that same sin. The priest doesn't believe in God therefore he doesn't believe in salvation. He only claims that God isn't necessary to be good.

I, in turn, say that to be Christian is not an indispensible prerequisite for salvation. Which doesn't mean that religions are of equal worth and that even the multiple branches of Christanity are equally right. In fact I still believe that the shortest way to God's hall leads through the door of holy catholic Church and that God's grace is always needed for anyone to be saved. Still, the only reason for anyone to be saved is the blood of Jesus Christ, who died for all born, dead and yet unborn regardless of whether they realise it or not.

As for love itself:

It's not love that sets the requirements and it's not God who's condemning one to Hell. In fact it's more like condemning oneself. To be condemned one needs to consider himself irredeemable. There's no such sin that God wouldn't forgive if His mercy were accepted.

You just repeated yourself with other words.
So I can ask again

First) If God's love was unconditional we wouldn't need to redeem anything. The english language has many synonyms for this, so we could keep the charade going for some posts with different wordings. God's "love" is conditional. The other way to look at it is, that Gods term "love" is not the same as the english word "love". Which would be illogic and in style with christianity. then sure why the heck. God's love is inconditional. There probably is some old hebrew twist in wording to every part of the translation anyway, further clouded by a few dozen roman translations etc. I do not see beeing the judge jury and executioner, sending people, who denied your magnificent gift and didn't play by your rules, to eternal suffering and torment, as an act of unconditional love. Nomatter how it is peoples' own fault. God is still both judge and jury and executioner. Isn't it plain obvious that this is not an act of unconditional love if you are both judge jury and executioner? That is if God has the final say ;)

Second) Again, yes your approach is different than the danish priest. We agreed on that. There is no need to explain it again. But if you truly mean non-believers are not barred from salvation, you'll add just as much chaos on earth and you'll have a bunch of Goodhearted ateists or buddhists up at God's judgement call. The *worst* thing that can *ever* come out of following the danish priest is to be a goodhearted ateist up at God's judgement call. You might say what you do in good intend, but granting non christians the gift of salvation, in not good for christianity. Is it, Math or Chev?


@velve
I wouldn't have to say this but read the post and listen to the song text. You are right that it has nothing to do with USA as a nation but the people. The link shows we live in a world that is far from joyous and religion isn't helping at all in a grand scale view. But there are lyrics in the song too, that are an natural add-on to my post. I wouldn't have to say it? And I don't care the least bit if you hate USA as a nation, but if you don't mourn those people dying each day in horrible religious deaths, Americans or not, you are pretty twisted. How can you not feel sad for those people? They could have been Korean, Japanese or even from Poland. It would be the same to me. I hope it was a typo you made when you wrote Americans instead of America.

[ June 18, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

How did this topic escape my notice? :o

Chevalier, Jesus did not say He was a way to heaven; He said He was THE way. There is no other name under heaven that men can be saved by, only by the name of Jesus Christ, and no man can even confess Him unless His spirit is in them. So if you believe in the Bible, then Christianity is the only way. "He who believes on me shall be saved and have eternal life; he who does not believe on me shall be condemned forever."

Nobleman: I don't believe you can be truly good apart from the nature of God. Try to live *everything* Jesus taught without His power to sustain you and see how far you get.

You are condemned to hell when you refuse to surrender those parts of your life that are not compatible with heaven. I might love someone with all of my heart, but that does not mean I am going to allow them to drink alcohol in my house. I know that consuming alcohol is hurting them, not helping them; by condoning such actions, I would not be expressing love for them. But because of free will, I can't just force them to stop drinking -- I can only insist that they not do it on my territory.

Incidentally, the Bible does NOT say "In the beginning, there was nothing" or "In the beginning, there was chaos" or any such thing. It says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So the whole chaos discussion is rather pointless.

Nobleman, it seems you have a skewed view of Christianity, although I haven't figured out yet just what you think it is. But this: Love. Friendliness. Honesty, fairness and kindness, are not necessities(mark that word) at all in the base concepts of Christianity, they could have been anything. Only the death and resurrection of Christ counts. Love is what Christianity is based on. Why did Christ die for us? Because He loved us. He said the whole law could be fulfilled with two commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind -- Love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty simple.

You are condemned to hell when you refuse to surrender those parts of your life that are not compatible with heaven. I might love someone with all of my heart, but that does not mean I am going to allow them to drink alcohol in my house. I know that consuming alcohol is hurting them, not helping them; by condoning such actions, I would not be expressing love for them. But because of free will, I can't just force them to stop drinking -- I can only insist that they not do it on my territory. If you don't wear black clothes, you go to hell, since in heaven all people are wearing white clothes.
If you can't fly, you go to hell, since heaven is an endless collections of clouds and it is necessary to fly, since you need to do groceries or go to the outhouse from time to time..

But that's just me pulling your leg ;)

Love is what Christianity is based on. Why did Christ die for us? Because He loved us. He said the whole law could be fulfilled with two commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind -- Love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty simple. And since the way to know Jesus is in the hands of corrupt priests... how can you know Jesus then (let alone love him) when the first steps of the road to him are obscured with corrupt mist.

Chevalier, Jesus did not say He was a way to heaven; He said He was THE way. There is no other name under heaven that men can be saved by, only by the name of Jesus Christ, and no man can even confess Him unless His spirit is in them. So if you believe in the Bible, then Christianity is the only way. "He who believes on me shall be saved and have eternal life; he who does not believe on me shall be condemned forever." Then give me a rational argument, why the Aboriginal or Zulu or whatnot who has never heard of Jesus (let alone believes in him), deserves to go to hell?

Satan would claim his soul? Didn't God then create Satan to lure people away from him?

[ June 18, 2003, 10:53: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

but that does not mean I am going to allow them to drink alcohol in my house. I know that consuming alcohol is hurting them, not helping them; by condoning such actions, I would not be expressing love for them. But because of free will, I can't just force them to stop drinking Sorry, I just can not resist. I thank god for the catholic church and monastery brew, Franciscan beer and wine from Vaud. I am indeed so tolerant in religion-matters, I even drink beer from dominician breweries from Lucerne. :D

The *worst* thing that can *ever* come out of following the danish priest is to be a goodhearted ateist up at God's judgement call. You might say what you do in good intend, but granting non christians the gift of salvation, in not good for christianity. Is it, Math or Chev?No, there are a few other things too. It's impossible for me to enumerate all, but for instance it may lead weaker individuals to apostasy (which is 2 and possibly 3 commandments broken), to removing God from their lives and replacing Him with themselves alone in terms of the judgement of good and evil, to separating Christian morals from Christian religion (both lose sense then), to denying the very core and source of Christianity, which is God, within the ranks of His worshippers, turning believers from worship, corrupting the beliefs of fellow Christians who will then corrupt further ones and so on and so forth. Of course, the level of guilt is also taken in consideration.

If God's love was unconditional we wouldn't need to redeem anything. We don't redeem ourselves, this has been done by Jesus Christ. Our part is showing the willingness and commitment rather than straightforward redeeming. A conscious and consequent choice of God over Satan. We need to repent as no sin and no evil may be allowed in God's presence for else what point would there be going to heaven? As a loving father God remostrates and even punishes us in order to correct and amend us even though it does hurt Him more than us. He however allows us to exercise our free will given from Him and won't break our will even if it's going to harm us ultimately. Isn't it the ultimate love on God's side to have created humans in they way that they can love God of their own choice rather than becausing of having been made so? God's love is such that He does not force us to love Him even to the least extent, but is only content with love given from a willing heart. Yet still he has not deserted us, but given us conscience to support us if we heed it.

They way people tend to see the problem, isn't it evil for a human couple to have children knowing that this world is full of pain and suffering, to which their child will be subject from birth to death?


I do not see beeing the judge jury and executioner, sending people, who denied your magnificent gift and didn't play by your rules, to eternal suffering and torment, as an act of unconditional love. Nomatter how it is peoples' own fault. God is still both judge and jury and executioner. Isn't it plain obvious that this is not an act of unconditional love if you are both judge jury and executioner? The other way round. God is judge and executioner because he is love. There's no obstacle to justice if the judge is to execute his sentence since executors have absolutely nothing to say about the sentence and don't even contribute in the slightest. In fact it's been tried and it's not a bad idea - imagine how many quick and unweighed death sentences would there be if the judge were to behead each of the culprits setenced. What wouldn't go in human courts is that there's no accusation, defence, judge etc but only one God. But this limitation is necessary due to the failing human nature. God isn't subject to failings and His judgement isn't biased if not by His love. In fact who of the living or dead would survive an unbending lawful judgement?

Besides, love is one thing and judgement is another. God still loves you even if you choose Satan and Hell in His stead, and yes it's always you to choose and not God sending you to Abyss. As I have said above in this post, in fact His suffering and pain is greater than your own in such cases - He sees His beloved creation abandon, disdain and oppose Himself, His gifts, His mercy and ultimately His love. What feels a mother whose son turned from the Christian ways she taught him and became a serial murderer, genocide, whatever, is only a mere fraction of the suffering of God.

Here's a useful link for further reading about the problems addressed by me so far: http://www.northforest.com/journey/problemwithgod.html

Chevalier, Jesus did not say He was a way to heaven; He said He was THE way. There is no other name under heaven that men can be saved by, only by the name of Jesus Christ, and no man can even confess Him unless His spirit is in them. So if you believe in the Bible, then Christianity is the only way. "He who believes on me shall be saved and have eternal life; he who does not believe on me shall be condemned forever."Of course and that's what I said above, twice.

But who believes more: he who maybe even truly believes in God's teachings or he who follows them? If non-believers are saved, they're still saved because of and through Jesus's death and resurrection and in His name. People don't go to Hell because there was no Christian missionary nearby although undoubtedly for many of them there being any could have meant or can mean salvation. Personally I believe everyone is given chance(s). Christians in Christian Church are being given one constantly.

Edit: Being offered the chance, shown the light and refusing to believe is a different thing. You still have to first believe. Which doesn't mean you can't believe in the hour of your death and exactly the same way most people do. One must bear in mind that it's the Church to serve God and do his biddings and not vice versa and we primarily believe in God and not Church. There might be, and have been, God without Church but might not be Church without God. Church is limited to God, God is not limited by anything and bound only by His word.

[ June 18, 2003, 15:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

@Chevalier

But who believes more: he who maybe even truly believes in God's teachings or he who follows them? If non-believers are saved, they're still saved because of and through Jesus's death and resurrection and in His name. People don't go to Hell because there was no Christian missionary nearby although undoubtedly for many of them there being any could have meant or can mean salvation. Personally I believe everyone is given chance(s). Christians in Christian Church are being given one constantly.Yes. You are a chatolic right? I utterly agree. Why I pulled you around in this argument is I wanted to make sure I fully understood what you meant, when forced to write it, carve it, out to dummies as me. Other branches of christianity will try and bring you down on this. I was waiting for this to happen, fx with Capstone, so I could see a longer and better response from you. I just won't want to see Math put a milestone around your neck. You are too good for that. Capstone or Mathetais might never acknowledge this as anything more than blasphemy.



No, there are a few other things too. It's impossible for me to enumerate all, but for instance it may lead weaker individuals to aposthasy (which is 2 and possibly 3 commandments broken), to removing God from their lives and replacing Him with themselves alone in terms of the judgement of good and evil, to separating Christian morals from Christian religion (both lose sense then), to denying the very core and source of Christianity, which is God, within the ranks of His worshippers, turning believers from worship, corrupting the beliefs of fellow Christians who will then corrupt further ones and so on and so forth. Of course, the level of guilt is also taken in considerationYes. Indeed. We can both mention tons of more *sins*, I am sure. But they are all just flaws to a christian, not an ateist. And the *worst* thing that can *ever* come out of him preaching this is a goodhearted ateist at the hour of judgement, nomatter how much the priest sinned or not. Which is exactly the same result you get when you say everyone has a chance. When they stand there at the hour of their death. As ateists. Exactly the same result not same approach as you keep arguing on. How can this plain logic be so hard to notice?

About Unconditional love, I was getting the relavance out on a side track for a line that tried to sound good. Judge jury and executioner... Sorry. You found out yourself anyway that it only matters who is judge, not who is executioner. However! The relevance boils down to this. If you are a Judge of your own system, heck your own creation, Supreme master of it all. Then it is not an act of unconditional love to send someone to eternal suffering and torment. Nomatter how you rule it their own fault of betrayal and denial. If you do send someone to suffering in your own Purely Unargued creation with yourself as supreme master, you are acting out conditional love, in the english definition of love. Or unconditional love, if it is some obscure haughty meaning of love, God is acting out. Again it is simple logic. How can it be so hard to see? Are you even reading and trying to understand what I write, before you type?

@Capstone
Love is what Christianity is based on. Why did Christ die for us? Because He loved us. He said the whole law could be fulfilled with two commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind -- Love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty simple.Yes. Jesus got it right. At least some of what he said. Jesus is what still keeps me around, interested. But I have seen christians so centered on loving God that they forgot to love their neighbours. I cannot live with myself if I do not love, help or care for anyone that enters my life or touches my life with good or neutral intend. I have seen christians fall short in every aspect of this. They are by no means evil, but they just lack the ability and strenght to love others or have unwillingly given it to the church. Instead they wither away in the church with a book they can hardly carry. And you know what. They are still going to heaven. All you need Capstone, is the love for God and neutrality to your neighbour as to yourself. This is the same as Jesus said. The clever cryptic wording, love your neighbour as you love yourself, pretty much leaves this as vague as a the light of a candlelight in the morning mist. All you actually need Capstone is love God and don't be evil to anyone. I admit Jesus wording sounds better. So lets just stick to love your neighbour as you love yourself. Who are we to blame those who loose all their strenght to help and love, cause they whiter away at old age with a hypnotic apathy listening to the priests at church in reapeatable patterns, each darn day at noon.

[ June 18, 2003, 15:26: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Are you even reading and trying to understand what I write, before you type?This is more or less about what I was going to ask you

If you are a Judge of your own system, heck your own creation, Supreme master of it all.Yes, God is the supreme and sovereign master of it all. As he's perfectly good and perfectly wise there's no reason why he shouldn't be the judge by His own rules, contrary to human legislators who don't have any jurisdictional power. However, in many countries there have been judges judging according to codes they helped develop - not holding both authorities at one time. Similarly God doesn't change His rules in every single individual judgement. And, I have to repeat, no matter what the outcome of the judgement is, he still love you. Over time kings have had to have family members tried and executed for treason for instance or banished (which is more similar to Hell than straightforward death penalty). I'm sure for many of them it was a personal tragedy and they still loved those whom they sentenced.

In God's case this even extends farther - it's not God who sends you to Hell and I'm saying this probably the third time: Hell is the natural consequence of Sin and is a result of the individual's choice. It's separation from God and the full knowledge of one's own unholiness as compared to the perfect holiness of God. The creature also knows that it has rejected God of its own sovereign choice. It's not even punishment since punishment is aimed to discipline, amend and correct. If it's the final condition that shall not alter, then punishment is neither necessary nor relevant and simply not the case. Sin and unholiness is not to be admitted into Heaven or what place would Heaven be? And if God were to purify the sin and unholiness against the subject's will, were would the gift of free will go? It sometimes requires much more love to let someone go his own way than to force him to do what we consider or know, as God truly knows, the best for him.

Then it is not an act of unconditional love to send someone to eternal suffering and torment.For sending see above. For eternal suffering and torment see above and also Mat's post explains it well. Fire consuming you constantly for whole eternity is only a figure. Hell is not a sadistic torture, it has nothing to do with revenge or even just judgement of an individual with all consequences - it's the judgement of which place is for you: Heaven or Hell. Although I'm actually quite sure that I would prefer the physical burning on fire alternative.

You are a chatolic right?Yes, Roman Catholic.

Other branches of christianity will try and bring you down on this.Plus probably a good many of Catholics. But it must be held that being a Roman Catholic isn't a free ticket to Heaven and that not being one is not a ban.

Capstone or Mathetais might never acknowledge this as anything more than blasphemy.I wouldn't be so sure, and for certain they'd rather see me as errant than blasphemous.

However, I'm not sure if you have realised the reservation on which I insist: One is not saved through faith alone, but neither is one saved through works alone. Also, one isn't chosen for salvation before his birth. Or rather we're all chosen for salvation, intended for salvation and called to salvation by God.

Works are needed for judgement as it's what the Seven Blessings say. We won't be judged for our denomination but for our deeds. That our denomination influences our deeds is a different thing.

However, no one would pass a lawful judgement in the light of God's law and come out spotless. Only God is holy and perfect and even though he calls us to be holy as He is holy, we are less then prompt in following His call. Therefore we need God's grace for salvation and there would never be salvation without grace. Faith can't be artificially separated from deeds or grace. It's true that according to Paul no matter how great your faith is it means nothing without love, but this doesn't make faith irrelevant. Faith and Church are the closest ways to grace.

Thus a man who has never heard of God might still be condemned too - if he through his deeds has rejected God, although it's impossible to claim he hasn't been given chance for it's possible to come to the conclusion that there is God and that God is of divine nature basing on reason even and he still has been given conscience as any human being.

It's impossible for a non-believer to earn salvation through works such as it is impossible for a believer. A non-believer still needs grace and if he is saved, he is saved in the name of Jesus Christ at the cost of His sacrifice and it's a matter between the man and God. This, of course, does not diminish the role of Church. The story of Paul himself is a good example here. Note also that losing faith is not the same as never having it and apostasy is not the same as normal doubts believers have. Consequently an apostate is not *just* an atheist.

Official Catholic view on the matter is included in:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."Above quotes comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm#843) on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Still, I do realise that this might be difficult to understand for a non-Christian and even non-Catholic Christian. You would probably come closer to understanding my point given the knowledge that for Catholics it isn't just saved or not saved - there are people who don't deserve to be condemned to Hell (ie haven't resigned themselves to Hell) but aren't quite ready to enter the realm of Heaven. Those are purified in Purgatory. As the doctrine of Purgatory is rejected by Protestants who are the majority between Christians here and this thread is addressed to Christians in general, I would ask you not to initiate a separate series of questions in this thread unless some of them are relevant to the understanding of the points raised by me. Of course I'll gladly answer any questions in a new thread.

[ June 18, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Chevalier:
But who believes more: he who maybe even truly believes in God's teachings or he who follows them? If non-believers are saved, they're still saved because of and through Jesus's death and resurrection and in His name. People don't go to Hell because there was no Christian missionary nearby although undoubtedly for many of them there being any could have meant or can mean salvation. Personally I believe everyone is given chance(s). Christians in Christian Church are being given one constantly.

Edit: Being offered the chance, shown the light and refusing to believe is a different thing. OK. So what you're referring to here is what Paul discussed in Romans 2; that nature itself teaches us the nature of God -- which addresses Nobleman's complaint about the aborigine as well. To whom little has been given, little is required. So if you've never had the opportunity to read the Bible, no I wouldn't believe you're required to keep it -- at least in the details. But love for the Creator and love for your fellow brethren is not a mystery that needs to be explained. So I'd agree that the blanket native who puts this into practice, although knowing nothing of Jesus Christ or His sacrifice, could still be saved. But, as Chevalier said, if you are shown the light and you reject it, that's quite a different thing.

Nobleman, Morgoth: Sounds like you're hung up on people's actions. There's nobody that's perfect, and a lot of times those who call themselves Christians really aren't. Nobody is saved by carrying a Bible or going to church. It's not even just believing in God -- it's having the life.

I would differ from Chevalier on one point. You are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and NOT of works. Paul makes this pretty clear in Romans 3 and 4. But a living faith will produce works -- the answer of a good conscience towards the God who has already saved us.

EDIT: Nobleman, anything that can be backed up by Scripture, I believe. So even if it goes against traditional thinking, as long as there is Scripture for it, that's all I care about. So be careful with those fundamentalist stereotypes. ;)

I checked that link a bit and oooooooh dear :mommy:

first, the proof for christianity


1. Jesus was a historical character.
2. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.
3. Jesus taught his 12 disciples the truth.
4. These disciples accurately wrote down the teachings of Jesus.
5. The writings of the disciples are true.
6. Paul the apostle was also given the same truth by Jesus and accurately wrote it down.
7. The Bible contains these true writings and does not contain any untrue writings. 1. So was Buddha, so was Mohammed, so was Zarahustra, so was Odysseus

*gasp* ... That also explains the Bermuda Triangle! Its Poseidon going ashtray!! :roll:

2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This is his proof for these arguments:
The disciples could not have effectively created a cohesive "false" story concerning the life and teachings of Jesus and concerning His resurrection from the dead. The critics who attack the resurrection do so based on their bias that miracles can't happen and their unwillingness to deal with their own sin. Demonstrating that the resurrection is a factual event is beyond the scope of this letter. However, there is information about it on the internet. Do you have internet access? If so I'll be happy to send you some addresses to check out.

I should mention, that if the resurrection of Christ didn't happen, than Christianity collapses. Even the apostle Paul asserted that the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity. So I would wholeheartedly agree that if you can disprove the resurrection as being a factual historical event, that it is stupid to be a Christian. However, the evidence for the resurrection is very strong.
7. Then why are there sooo many versions about? The dead-sea scrolls, even claims Jesus is not sinless!! I heard the mormon have an extra book?


No God -
Another difficulty with the "No God" concept is that it implies there is no purpose in human existence. Yet as humans we sense that we have purpose. No one who holds the "No God" concept has been able to satisfactorily explain how it happens that humans seem to have a purpose, or why they love.
And alas, things are not what they seem..
BTW, what is love?

Is God evil? - Would God slap someone in the face for no good reason? Well actually the fact that I am born here and seem to be a slave of the forces of good and evil for no good reason does feel like a slap in the face...

Oh, no, wait.... he loves, so God always has the right to slap me around because he loves me..

God's Role and Responsibility - Let me give another illustration. Parents give birth to children even though they know that their children will experience pain, suffering and hardship during life, Yet no one considers that childbearing is an unloving thing, rather we consider that childbearing is a supreme expression of love. We conceive children and then raise them and love them and care for their needs and desire the best for them for the rest of their lives. So why would we think that God is unloving because he creates us to inhabit a world in which we will experience pain, suffering and hardship? Shouldn't we have the same respect for God that we have for human parents? Oh..err idunno, maybe that God is responsible for all that evil and a human parent is not?


Flame away!! :)

[ June 20, 2003, 08:47: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

I would differ from Chevalier on one point. You are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and NOT of works. We don't even differ so much here. No one is saved without grace and faith keeps you close to grace. It's also necessary to believe first. I however believe that works are an important part, contrary to Protestants who believe that works are just a result of faith which alone is to save you. Of course there's no way one is saved by his works. As I said above, repentance is one thing, but it's impossible for a human to give satisfaction for his sins. Therefore all would be condemned under Law.

I don't know if the question: "why God allows evil?" have been answered. Though I think I have an answer: "Without evil there can be no good".(this is also a quote from Southpark: the movie)

I'll give you an example:
Now I'm on holidays and I say "Holidays are great". They indeed are great because the whole year I was in school. If I wasn't in school and had holidays all-year-round now I would have been bored to death.

@Alexander,
Very good ,you are now one step closer to the canyon of total confusion :lol:

Without darkness there would be no light, without love there would be no hate.

So this can mean that God has taoistic traits, God has both good AND evil traits..

For another thing, many Christians say God is all-loving and INFINITE!!

IF God was love, everybody would love and there would be no hate. Because hate would find no place in the hearths of men since their hearths would be full with love...

But if God is love and infinite, love could not exist!
Makes your mind go crammy huh? :D

Morgoth,
@Alexander,
Very good ,you are now one step closer to the canyon of total confusion
What makes you say that?

Noticed the :lol: thingie? ;)

I don't know if the question: "why God allows evil?" have been answered. It has.

Though I think I have an answer: "Without evil there can be no good".(this is also a quote from Southpark: the movie)Christian view is that evil follows life. Where there is no life, there is no evil. Evil is a result of free will given to humans (so both life and free will are prerequisites) who are not all good enough to resist temptation. The reason for free will is not acceptation of evil (that God hates) but granting the possibility of choice, as God wants humans to enter relationship with him knowingly and willingly, not under pression and not by default. If you *loved* a woman, would you rather have her submit to your perseverance and marry you for you to stop bothering her or would you rather give her the time and freedom to make an unbiased choice of totally her own that she would likely stick to for the rest of her life?