Random questions
Offline My main question: The bible clearly states "thou shall worship no god's before me", yet Jesus claims the way to salvation is through him. I have heard differing idea's on who Jesus was. I have heard he is the "son" of god, and I have heard he is god personified into human form. I would argue with the latter, considering he would have been talking to himself at intervals snd talking in third peson at others, which seems quite odd even considering the time he was supposedly in. So, when they praise and worship Jesus in church, are they blaspheming? Why is the "holy spirit" talked about as if it is an entity of it's own and worshipped and praised apart from both jesus and god.
Another question, which I hit on in another post, how do theists deal with the fact that the bible has been rewritten, retranslated and many parts of it removed completely in an attempt to retain some kind of credulity in more modern times?
Next, how do theists deal with the fact that most christians have not even read the bible, very possibly even their own parents, who also most likely indoctrinated and programmed them into this religion from birth? They seem to learn bits and pieces of the bible as interpreted by a pastor. I see several theists on this forum making the bold claim that one must "study" theology to truly understand the bible. Your god did not make a book for the people, but for a select group to interpret it for these "stupid" people? baaah
What do theists think about intelligence quotient statistics between them and atheists?
I have a good grasp of the answers most likely to come up, but I would still like to see other opinions.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
This is not necessarily a request for worship.
Many Christians think the old law passed away when the 'prophecy' was fulfilled (vaguely and metaphorically). The old law being that which you mentioned (and would have been the case before the coming of their messiah).
Mostly Catholics do this in the extreme.
It is considered a part of the deity, for most Christians, however. "completely separate and completely one".
They're trying to be "deep"; I suspect that it is a reflection of the "body, mind, and spirit" of many of the preceding mythologies.
They believe biblical canon was divinely guided, as well as the translators for their favourite versions (though they will readily disregard versions they don't like), and that the Bible has retained the spirit of the text despite re-writing and translating.
They "read" the bible, which for them could mean a few lines now and then. They feel like they don't need to actually read all of it to have the holy spirit fill them with divine knowledge of its truth.
Some people believe it must be interpreted to be understood.
They often believe that, though interpretation is necessary for understanding by non-Christians (in order to become Christian), and intellectual understanding by Christians, if one accepts the deity into one's heart, that spirit can guide one in interpreting and naturally understanding it (particularly the true meaning) without other outside help.
I'm not sure why you have to ask these questions...
Will all of the answers then, be the same? If so they are all pointless indeed. But I am not aware of a real concensus or monopoly on opinions. More intelligent theists could have better or more entertaining idea's. I know I do, lol.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Fixed:
This is true. I gave answers with the assumption of consistency (e.g. I've given the most relevant out of dozens I've gotten).
The first three answers are interchangeable for most theists:
1. It doesn't say that
2. It changed after Jebus
3. It's god.
You'd get better responses on a theist message board, I suspect.
You changed my quote to "less" I still say more because I'm sarcastic like that.
But due to these few responses here, fun answers are now less likely to come about. Oh well.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Many different denominations with many different versions of "scripture", different theological doctrines, different ways of saying "holier than thou", different ideas of the messiah; "purely divinity" or "half divinity"...
Yeah... that's what makes religions fun(ny)... the whole "inconsistent and volatile mixture" theme makes for some nasty moments in dark humor!
(And a shitload of European Feudalism, for better or for worse)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You have to understand the concept of the Trinity, my friend. Jesus is God (John 1:1). The word "God" is a title. This title is shared by three persons, and these three persons include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three share the same title, because all three are God. Here is a brief summary of what happened. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. What does this mean? This mean that all three are omnipresent , omnipotent, omniscience. They created the universe and man (Genesis 1-2). Man eventually sinned, and mankind needed atonement for their sin. Jesus, who was by nature God, willfully put aside his Godship, and came on earth as a man to die for our sins. When he put his Godship aside, he made himself subject to Yahweh (The Father). Phil 2:5-11 explains it all.
So when we say that Jesus is God, we are not saying that he and the Father are the same person, and he was talking to himself. We are saying that the term God is rightfully applied to Jesus just as it his with his Father. On the cross, Jesus was not praying to himself, but he was praying to the first person in the Trinity, the Father.
Well, let me start off by saying that the majority of everything in history is subjective. No one alive today can conclude with 100% accuracy the events of thousands of years ago. Now, as a Christian, if i am to accept by faith that the Christian God exist, then i cant believe that he would alow his word to be edited (as a way to take away its original context). I believe that God, with his omnipotence, had a Divine hand in what books were selected to be in the bible, which is his word, and all of the books including the words within the pages are there because HE wants them there, not man. And the bible as it stands today is the bible that God had preordained.
I have a slight issue with the concept of blind faith. If someone has barely picked up the bible and read it and claim to be a christian is blind faith to me. But, as long as the person has that spiritual connection with Jesus Christ, thats all that matters. No doubt, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but all one can do is pray that they find the truth, the truth that Jesus wants us to find.
According to the Nicean crede Jesus is the son of god while also being the human incarnation of god while the holy spirt is the part of god which exists in all people. This is the tirnity as I understand it.
I don't know of any books that have been removed since the council of Nicea. I highly doubt most christians are even aware of those books. Most American christian are barely aware of greek and Russian orthodox tradition. Let alone the arian or coptic one's. If for example you brought up to them the Gospel of Mary in which she says Jesus told her the path to him is through knowledge (rough summary and paraphrase) they would not know what the heck your talking about. They don't have to defend that which there ignorant of, it's there greatest weapon.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.