Seperation of Church & School

[Embar Angylwrath]

Doesn't manifest?

What about Jesus appearing to the apostles after he died. Asking them to stick fingers into his wounds. That was a direct manifestation by god with the purpose pumping up morale and helping them beleive in him. If God will do that for them, why won't he do that for Jaro. Or you. Or Dd.

And I suggest you read the story about Elymas, who was temporarily struck blind by God for interfering with Paul. Another intervention.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if god manifests himself and waves his magic wand to change the outcome of an event, or stays invisible and does it. It's still an intervention in the affairs of men to change the outcome of an event.

Edit:

Acts 22:3- 21 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city. At the feet of Gamaliel I was educated strictly in our ancestral law and was zealous for God, just as all of you are today. I persecuted this Way to death, binding both men and women and delivering them to prison. Even the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify on my behalf. For from them I even received letters to the brothers and set out for Damascus to bring back to Jerusalem in chains for punishment those there as well.

"On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' I replied, 'Who are you, sir?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.' My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. I asked, 'What shall I do, sir?' The Lord answered me, 'Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.' Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light, I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus. "A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me and stood there and said, 'Saul, my brother, regain your sight.' And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him.

So god blinds him, and then SPEAKS to him. You don't see that as a direct manifestation of god? The guy had a short little conversation with god, and that's not a direct manifestation?

Face it Kulaf. The Christian god has no qualms in intervening in the affairs of men. He is absolutely an interventionist god.

Second edit: And by the way, god striking him blind and only removing the blindness when he did what god commanded... that's a pretty nasty god. Sort of tosses free will out the window again.

[Kulaf]

Jesus had not yet ascended back into Heaven when he appeared to the Apostles.

6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”

I think any discussion of intervention by God requires a discussion of the trinity (God, Holy Spirit, Jesus). So if we want to get into the "trinity" then we can, but if we do then you have to show me God manifesting, and not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is usually seen as a agent of God and acts through natural forces to enact Gods will. My personal belief is that the Holy Spirit is the driving force of life and death on Earth. It is the divine spark that gives people life, but at the same time causes death. When God acts through the Holy Spirit any physical malady can be cured or caused.

Regardless......it does not necesarily change an event.....but offers a choice. What if Saul had chosen not to go? What if Moses has just walked back down the mountain and thought he had a hallucination? I know you keep trying to drive this free will thing into the ground, but you really aren't showing anyone losing their power of choice.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If someone is coereced into an act, the will is not free. There is still will, but it's not free will. There is still choice, but its not a free choice. God forcing someone to make a choice or otherwise alter that persons course of action, removes free will.

You are incorrect about the Holy Spirit (if you are a Christian that is). The Holy Trinity (Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spiirit) are all God. The Holy Spirit is no less God than Jesus. Its why they call it the Holy Trinity. It is not an "agent" of god. It is God. Angels are agents of god. Maybe even saints. But the Holy Spirit? Its God, just like Jesus is God, just like God the Father is God. Sorry Kulaf, you can't just define the Holy Spirit as "not god" just so you can eliminate evidence of manifestations of god.

Edit: More about manifestations of Jesus. If you're Catholic, he manifests himslef at every mass. They aren't being figurative when they say "body and blood of Christ". They mean that in the most literal way. It just so happens that a miracle occurs at avery mass so that the wafer and wine still look like the wafer and wine, when in reality, they are the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And that brings up another thing... which religion is the correct one? No one really disputes that the Catholic religion was the only Christian religion for over 1,000 years. Although there were continual schisms, none really produced a separate Christian religious hierarchy until the split-off of the eastern orthodox church. The first Prtestant religion didn't occur until the 16th century.

Now there are dozens of protestant religions and literally 100s of sects within those religions. Which one is true? They can't be all true.

But the can all be not true. Seems to me, if you're a true Christian, you have no choice but to be Catholic. Otherwise you're tacitly admitting that the Catholics got it wrong. That they were wrong for over 1500 years. They've been instructing people on the relationship between man and god for two millenia. And now you have it right? Your belief system is the correct one?

How can one rationalize the existance of another beleif system than that of the Catholics (if you're a Christian)? If you think the premise of the faith is wrong, how could you EVER know what is right?

Edit: Meant to also address the post-Ascension manifestation of Jesus. There have been several, at least according to the Catholic Church. So... you're wrong on that count as well.

[Kulaf]

You are attempting to use a legal definition of coercion to Free Will and it doesn't hold water. Eve was coerced by the snake but still freely chose. So did Adam. It is the very nature of free will in the bible that there will be all forms of temptations.....and that you might even face death if you profess your love of God (Peter denouncing Jesus 3 times), but you still have your choice to make. It doesn't change a thing.

There are many interpretations of the trinity and I never said the Holy Spirit wasn't God......simply that it was the agent/arm/device/whatever you wish to call it that God created when he set the Earth in motion.

There is no manifestation of God on Earth except in the book of Genesis when God dwelled with Adam and Eve. When they were cast out, no human has ever looked upon the face of God. And while Jesus was God in spirit.....he was not God in flesh.

[Kulaf]

I don't know that I am right. I don't think there is a single human alive today who can say with 100% certainty that they know the will of God and that they have a complete grasp of everything. I also certainly don't think that Jesus ever intended people to have to go to a particular place to worship him. I even detest the use of the cross as a symbol of worship. It is one thing if you want to rememeber Jesus's sacrifice on a personal level, but using the cross for any other purpose is wrong imo.

I don't put faith in organized religions. I seek God on my own.

[Embar Angylwrath]

See my edit about manifestions and the appearance of Jesus post-ascension. The Catholics would disagree with your statement, but of course you know better than them.

As to free will... we are talking about God influencing free will. Choices that arise from the progression of naturla events, even the choice to be crucified rather than renounce your faith, are free will choices because god is not involved in the choice. When he coerces, the will is no longer free, as it pertains to him. Can't beleive that you're that obtuse to not see the distinction.

Finally... please tell me you don't take Genesis as a literal historical account? If it as allegorical account, then you can't use that as an example of free will because it never happened. But lest say that it did. Eve still made her choice based from free will. Temptation does not equal coersion.

[Kulaf]

Edit: Meant to also address the post-Ascension manifestation of Jesus. There have been several, at least according to the Catholic Church. So... you're wrong on that count as well.

Let's not dwell on the Catholics track record of interpretting the word/will of God. That would be a long and bloody path.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't know that I am right. I don't think there is a single human alive today who can say with 100% certainty that they know the will of God and that they have a complete grasp of everything. I also certainly don't think that Jesus ever intended people to have to go to a particular place to worship him. I even detest the use of the cross as a symbol of worship. It is one thing if you want to rememeber Jesus's sacrifice on a personal level, but using the cross for any other purpose is wrong imo.

I don't put faith in organized religions. I seek God on my own.

You seek a Christian God, correct? One that was defined for you by the Catholics, originally. If they are wrong, then perhaps the whole notion of Christ is wrong. Your beleif system is largely shaped by interpretations of the New Testament and interpreted for you by at least 1500 years of Catholicism. Which was then modified by Protestantism. In fact, you wouuldn't be able to beleive in Christ if it weren't for the Catholics, because you'd never know about him, because organization that spread the word was the Catholic church.

I think you owe them a thank you card, or some roses, for laying the groundwork for your beleif system.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Edit: Meant to also address the post-Ascension manifestation of Jesus. There have been several, at least according to the Catholic Church. So... you're wrong on that count as well.

Let's not dwell on the Catholics track record of interpretting the word/will of God. That would be a long and bloody path.

You have to deal with that notion my friend, if you call yourself a Christian.

The organized religion you despise is the one that brought the Word out of the middle east, spread it through Europe, even picked the books for the Bible for you. (You do know there was a selection committee that decided which writings were to part of the "official" bible and which weren't? The early catholics had several synods that selected the texts,a nd by around 500 ad, those were generally accepted as the bible.)

[Kulaf]

Yes I do, and I have read exerpts from several of the gnostic gospels. What's your point? The Protestant cannons exclude several of the Catholic ones as well. I am not one of those that believes that the bible is some sacred document. It is book that is an aid to help one understand God. Nothing more.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yes I do, and I have read exerpts from several of the gnostic gospels. What's your point? The Protestant cannons exclude several of the Catholic ones as well. I am not one of those that believes that the bible is some sacred document. It is book that is an aid to help one understand God. Nothing more.

To my knowledge, the protestant bible and the catholic bible only differ in the Apocrypha, which is Old Testament. They are identical in the New Testament.


My point is... you would not be a beleiver in Christianity if not for the Catholics, who brought the word of god to all of Europe and beyond. Had there been no heirarchy, no organized religion, you would not beleive in a Christian god because you never wuld have heard about him. The Catholics shaped the definition of the Christian god, hell, they might as well own the copywrite on it. They developed what you use as a base of who Christ is. What the Holy Trinity is. Hell, the definition of what the Holy Spirit was nearly broke the Christians in the early years, and it resulted in the calling of the Council of Nicea (late 300s I think, you're really making me stretch my history... but 12 years of Catholic school help). Up until the Council of Nicea, there was a split in beleif about the Holy Spirit, and about the existance of the Holy Trinity. Anyway, at the Council of Nicea, a bunch of Catholic bispos decided there was a Holy Trinity, there was such a being as the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit was part of the triune God. Just as much God as God the Son and God the Father.

Oh... and you can thank Constantine for making the Catholic Church what it is today. Until he declared it the official religion, and essentially the maker of laws, it wasn't heirarchacal. Interesting that the pillars of everything you believe today about Christ are because of Constantine. He helped organize the christians into a heirarchacal religion, which then set about codifiying and classifying everything about God, including what you use as the basis of your beleif in him.

So.. my point is...the god you think you have a relationship was defined for you by men over 1700 years ago. And that definition of that god you think you know was continually distilled and rarified until the 16th century, when a new set of people went about redfinging the god the catholics spent 1500 years explaining to people.

So if they were wrong... can't you be wrong too? Can't you even explore the concept god is a human construct? Or maybe he exists ina form that isn't in the Christian tradition?

I've cheated a bit in this thread, since I haven't told you what I believe. The honest answer is that I really don't know. I think the Christian religion doesn't make sense to me, but then again, it doesn't have to in order to be real to others. I prefer a religion or beleif system that is in harmony with what I observe. Right now, Christianity doesn't meet that standard. But as you can tell from my participation in this thread, it certainly isn't because I haven't tried.

Edit: I just went and checked. The Council of Nicea rejected Arianism, which was causing all the stir about the Holy Spirit. However, I was incorrect about the Council of Nicea hashing out the concept of the Triune God. That didn't happen until the Council of Constantinople in 381, a few decades after the Council of Nicea.

That being said, my larger point still stands.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And regarding your fallacious interpretation that damned souls simply are destroyed, I give you this, lifted from a website.

First, the Bible teaches plainly that the departed souls of evil beings will be preserved in eternity. We read in 2 Peter 2:4 that God did not spare the angels that sinned, but put them into chains of darkness reserved unto judgment. We read in Revelation 14:11 regarding those that worshipped the beast and were punished "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." How could they not have any rest if they were unconscious through all of this? We read in Matthew 9:43 and 45 that it contains a "fire that shall never be quenched." Why would we have this language if it were mere unconsciousness forever? Fire is a symbol of suffering and torment, not of relief. Five times in Matthew and Luke the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used. This hardly sounds like the activity of unconscious people. In Mark 9:44, 46, and 48 we have the phrase "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." This is a picture of decay and destruction, but not of a complete ending of consciousness. Matthew 25:46 Jesus talks about the goats who failed to minister to Him. He says of them that they would go away unto everlasting punishment. How could they know punishment if they were not conscious to experience it? Finally, in 2 Peter 2:20-22 Peter says concerning those Christians that fell away that it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned away. How can this be possible if all wicked souls will just be extinguished? It doesn't seem like they would know one way or the other that their punishment was worse than the others if they were all just annihilated. So the scriptures do teach an unending conscious torment for those who are not obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ ( 2 Thessalonians 1:8).

http://www.the-churchofchrist.com/end_t ... troyed.htm

Pretty compelling scripture citations for the damned not just poofing out of existance....

But if you'd like to address each of those scripture citations one by one, I'd be happy to read your explanation. Otherwise, I'm going to consider your supposition that the damned just cease to exist to be, in Vulgate Latin, Utterum Bullshiticus.

[Kulaf]

Then what is the "second death"? Answer that and you will have your answer.

[Ddrak]

If you beleive that god plays by the rules and is non-interventionist... then I assume you don't beleive in miracles, and by miracle, I mean the direct intervention of god to change the outcome of playing by the rules (usually natural rules). Is that a correct statement?

I should have said "largely non-interventionist", as opposed to other mythology like Egyptian, Greek or Roman Gods that were apparently spending more time intervening than not.

Miracles - I believe in the concept but I'm pretty damn skeptical. I strongly suspect the biblical authors to be a little on the side of exaggeration whenever talking of them as well. Even so, biblical stories of miracles seem to be rather even handed and often went to those who didn't actually pray for them which rather negates the "poor bastards" thing.

Obviously, the resurrection of Jesus is pretty clearly a miracle and fundamental to the Christian faith.

Many Christian religions beleive their members can be taken over by the Holy Spirit. Literally possessed by god. If that isn't interventionist, I don't know what is.

Many Christian religions are complete batshit insane too. Like I said - if you choose religion over reality then you have serious issues. To convince me something is a miracle, you have to exclude every other scientific explanation.


On Church history, it's a bit rich to conflate the "Catholic Church" with the "Roman Catholic Church". If anything, the original catholic church was far closer to current eastern orthodox than modern Roman Catholicism. Protestantism only has to thank the Roman Catholics for so completely bastardizing the religion through their accumulation of wealth and power that the entire world was pretty much ready for Luther to rightly call them all hypocritical bastards. Suggesting that Protestantism is somehow built on Roman Catholicism is just plain ignorant - it literally strips the non-biblical parts off Roman Catholicism and (attempts to) return the church to what it was supposed to be.

Even as a Roman Catholic, how can you level accusations against non-Catholics without looking at your own denominational history. Are you perhaps suggesting the reformations in Vatican II should be ignored? Or every other reinterpretation of dogma that's happened in the last thousand years with each new Pope? May as well start with the fundamental question - is the Pope infallible when speaking ex-cathedra?

I'm pretty sure no Christian denomination has it exactly right, but it's mostly irrelevant to me. There's very little difference in the core theology in my opinion, just different window dressing that people love to argue over. They all basically agree that if you accept Christ as your savior, etc. etc. then you go to heaven.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Kulaf - you dodged the question. I asked you to explain how those citations fitted in with your notion that the soul ceases to exist if damned. This is kinfd of what Jaro was directing at Dd. When you can't explain, you ignore or redirect. So, I'm just going to asssume that you just ignore conflicts in scripture and laregly just makeit up as you go along. A cafeteria Christian... you choose to take some scripture, and ignore others, especcially when they may conflict with one another. But don't feel bad about it, I think every Christian has to do that because there are contradictions in the Bible.

@Dd - There was no need to call the Catholics "Roman Catholics" until the schism, since up until that point there was only one Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church remain laregly similar even to this day, some 1000 years after the split.

Of course your point is well taken that Roman Catholics did a lot of what I connsider evil things all in the name of Christ. But that's what you get when you have imperfect men failing at being good and just men. We've had evil Popes, evil Bishops, the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. No denying it. But does that make the belief system wrong, just because there occassionally horrendous things perpretated on others by those supposedly in charge of the beleif system? In reality, it doesn't make the Catholic Church any more or less beleivable, because it wasn't the concepts of the Church that killed people, it was the misuse of the power the Church had, and the conduit of that was fallible men.

Kind of like a chainsaw. Its designed for cutting large trees down, and it does that remarkably well. But in the hands of the wrong person, it can be used to kill, or cut a couch in half, or do damage to a car. All things it clearly was not designed for. But it doesn't mean the chainsaw is defective.

My point still stands un-refuted that every Christian alive today owes their belief system to a heirarchical religion known as the Roman Catholic Church. The books you beleive contain a tool (scripture) you use towards your path to understanding and fostering your relationship with a Christian god were selected for you by a series of committees of catholic bishops. Those committees were comprised of men. Most Christians beleive the choices of those men were "divinely inspired", meaning God directed the men to choose those certain books (interventionist if he did). Oh, and apparently God didn't think women capable of that chore. In fact, the Christian god has largely kept women sidelined for almost 2 millenia. Why? Does he love them less?

And then you owe Constantine a big debt of gratitude for making catholics to Catholics. They went from being sects of Christianity, enduring constant schism that threatened to make Christianity explode (why? because men couldn't agree on some very basic concepts about Jesus, God and how all that god-man stuff worked). Constantine solved all that by naming a head of the faith (who was a pretty dynamic figure, did a lot of good, and really pulled a lot of the sects together). Welcome to a heirarhical religion!

For the next 600 years that was the model. Over 600 years men were shaping what you use as a basis of your faith. They interpreted scriture for you. You use those interpretation as your foundation for understanding the Christian god. Even after the schism, there was another 500 years of just two Christian faiths, very, very similar in what they do and what they beleive. And the split was over who was the real leader of the church, nothing dogmatic.

Then Luther got fed up with a lot of what he saw were inconsitancies with scripture and his reality, so he put a few post-it notes about it on a doorway and started his own version of Christianity.

Look.. I get that what people beleive about god is intensely personal. That's why in this thread I've never claimed that any one persons' version of god is wrong. Its right for them, for now anyway (which brings in the question of conversions and why people discard belief systems, but thats another topic). I don't have an issue with anyone beleiveing anything, but I do have an issue with people that ignore inconsitancies in their belief system, or try to uyse twisted or batshit logic (see Kulaf and his position on free will and also ignoring almost everything in scripture that describes souls living through eternity).

I think the honest answer is my answer to this. I simply don't know what is right and what isn't I see inconsistancies in enough form and substance that it prevents me from accepting the notion of the Christian God. I'm not saying there isn't a God, I truly beleive there is. I just don't think Christianity got close to the mark on explaining who he is.

Why would a god, who is in the Christian tradition, infinite in his love and wisdom (that lawful neutral stuff is crap, as far as Christians are concerned. To them, God is a loving God. He loves even sinners. He loves them because he made us that way, capable of sin.

So why would a God with infinite love allow the Holocaust to happen? Or wipe out over 250,000 people in a matter of minutes in the Indian Ocean tsunami? That's a weird kind of love. (This is why the other I noted in the other thread postulates god can be all good or all powerful, but he can't be both. If he was both, he woul prevent acts that result in needless suffering and death.) I'd give him a pass on the Holocaust though, because that was men visiting evil on other men. But natural events that cause pain, suffering and death? Why would an all powerful and all loving god do that?

Again, it makes more sense to me that God is all powerful, but not all good. I don't know if Jesus was God, but I do beleive he was tapping in to a higher truth about harmony. Maybe he could even tap into some of the power of God. I beleive God is a God of balance and harmony, but isn't necessarily human-centric. I beleive there is much wisdom in the books of scripture, as there are in other non-Christian books and teachings. And there are a lot of similarities between all those books and teachings when it comes to how to get along better as a species. To acheive balance and harmony as a people.

That's what I think its all about. There are many paths but only one mountain top. Which path you choose is entirely up to each person. The most important thing is to just keep walking.

[Kulaf]

Kulaf - you dodged the question. I asked you to explain how those citations fitted in with your notion that the soul ceases to exist if damned. This is kinfd of what Jaro was directing at Dd. When you can't explain, you ignore or redirect. So, I'm just going to asssume that you just ignore conflicts in scripture and laregly just makeit up as you go along. A cafeteria Christian... you choose to take some scripture, and ignore others, especcially when they may conflict with one another. But don't feel bad about it, I think every Christian has to do that because there are contradictions in the Bible.

So basically what I said before about you not reading what I post is 100% accurate, because I already posted what the "second death" is. It is in the book of Revelation 20:13-15

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Unless you have some logical reason why God would pull people out of Hell......then destroy Hell........then toss them back into fire to burn for all eternity when they were already burning for all eternity. Of course here I am using your definition of Hell.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do you interpret this line? What is happening to those who were "not found written in the book of life" when they're cast into the lake of fire? And what of the passages insisting that man's worm "dieth not?"

And going back to one of the questions I asked before that you never answered, how do you interpret references to hell as being earth?

In response to your inquiry regarding my disembodied voice, I considered that it may have been an angel or some other supernatural agent. I considered that it may have been one of my friends that shouted up to me, and for some reason didn't stick around until I climbed down. I considered that it may have been my subconscious, somehow aware of the impending break (Perhaps I heard the branch creaking, and my defense instincts kicked in before I consciously recognized it) manifesting a warning in the form of hallucination. Ultimately I settled with the third option.

I also have to acknowledge that this event happened ~20 years ago. Given the weak nature of memory, I may have simply heard the branch begin to snap, and my mind has since filled in the space with an audible voice. Funny things happen when we're faced with life-and-death situations, perceptions get blurred. At this point, it's impossible to recall the details with any certainty and it may have been silly for me to even bring it up.

To Dd,

I never expected any direct or audible communication from God, but I wanted some form of evidence. Something more than the "emotional" communications my mom and religious teachers/pastor described, because I never took morality itself as communications from God. I recognized quite early that if I prayed for guidance in a moral dilemma, for example, and came to a conclusion about a proper course of action, that occasionally my mother or religious mentors would tell me it was the wrong decision, or was not what God wanted. How, then, could I possibly tell the difference between what God was telling me to do and what my own conscience was telling me to do? I know this likely isn't how you perceive morality or communication with God, but remember that I was raised in a rather evangelical environment, and is how I was taught to "know" God.

I think I understand your perception of the passages describing hell - that they're the writers' own imaginings of the torment caused by separation from God, and are metaphor to that end?

To both Dd and Kulaf,

I'm still curious why, if acceptance of Christ is not the only method for humans to achieve salvation, God would have sent him here in the first place. Why not simply stick with the original method of judging people based on their merits? What necessity was God fulfilling by sending a portion of himself to earth to be tortured and murdered, and why would an omnipotent being need to operate in such a manner?

[Kulaf]

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do you interpret this line? What is happening to those who were "not found written in the book of life" when they're cast into the lake of fire? And what of the passages insisting that man's worm "dieth not?"

To both Dd and Kulaf,

I'm still curious why, if acceptance of Christ is not the only method for humans to achieve salvation, God would have sent him here in the first place. Why not simply stick with the original method of judging people based on their merits? What necessity was God fulfilling by sending a portion of himself to earth to be tortured and murdered, and why would an omnipotent being need to operate in such a manner?

My interpretation is quite simple. At the end of days God will wipe out everything except those chosen to dwell with him. All of the fallen angels, Earth, the souls of those not determined to be worthy shall all be destroyed......quite literally. If you want a term for "hell" that more closely resembles the fire and brimstone interpretion, that word would be the Greek Gehenna, or the Hebrew Hinnom which was an area near Jeruselem where the bodies of criminals and other wicked people were consumed in fire and presumably eaten by worms.

It is difficult to say that anyone currently resides in Heaven or Hell when the day of jugement has not come. How can one be sentenced if one has yet to be judged. And if you believe that people have been judged when they die and do reside in some literal "Hell", then why are they judged again at the end of days? Can one redeem oneself out of Hell? I don't think so.

So those who's names are contained in the book of life will dwell with God. Free of sin, free of death......perfect existance.

In answer to your second question I quote Romans 5:12-21

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Basically if you are never exposed to the law......or to the words of Jesus, you are not charged with sin other than disobedience with the law that which God wrote into the human soul. Once you are exposed to the law, more is asked of you......but the easier is your salvation through following it. That is about the best I can explain it.

[Ddrak]

@Dd - There was no need to call the Catholics "Roman Catholics" until the schism, since up until that point there was only one Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church remain laregly similar even to this day, some 1000 years after the split.

I consider the pre-schism church and the Roman Catholic church fairly separate. It really wasn't until after the split that the church really took off in power and politics and (I think) the Roman Catholic side was much worse than the Eastern Orthodox. That's probably why there was no eastern reformation.

Honestly, I think saying that to be a "true Christian" you need to be Catholic is a bit like saying to be a "true American" you need to be British. Just as the American Revolution reset the excesses of British Imperialism while refining their imperfect original experiment with democratic systems from 1215, so the reformation reset the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church and refined their imperfect original experiment with what Christianity really means.

I think the key to everything religious is exactly what you said: "But that's what you get when you have imperfect men failing at being good and just men." Any religious person who doesn't acknowledge that and internalize it has failed before they've started. I certainly don't think I have my religion perfect and take (what I think) is a healthy skeptical view of any of my unproven beliefs.

The history of the church is a litany of humans doing human things and trying to better understand the divine. Selecting the books, keeping women sidelined, running off to slaughter Muslims, etc. Hell no - they weren't perfect and the only thing we "owe them" is to take their mistakes as a warning for ourselves while looking for the good things at the same time.

One of the absolute worst things was the formation of a hierarchical religion that mandated absolute power and belief towards the center. It all but stalled Christian development and introspection for 1700 years (along with scientific development for a great part of that) until the reformation gave it a quick kick up the ass and forced renewed vigor into skepticism. Would Christianity have survived without Constantine's formation of the "one true church"? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't thank him very much for organizing religion into a political force because there's little else that has rendered more evil on the world.

Today, rational Christians roll back those 1700 years and seek the original books, the original texts pre-translation and pre-council of whatever. They look for discrepancies and seek answers from them. Dogma is dead for a rational Christian.

To echo you, I do not know what is right and what isn't. I see inconsistencies in scripture but not significant enough to prevent me from accepting the notion of a Christian God. I do think Christianity as a whole is close to the mark, because the other religions I've studied seem far more flawed to me.

I do believe God is largely (not completely) non-interventionist and especially so since Jesus' ascension. I question many reported miracles as misunderstood natural phenomena, especially as you go back further in time when it was less and less well understood. I think God primarily acts through men, through guiding their thoughts and desires.

God is lawful first and loving second. To harp on God's love is to ignore whole swathes of scripture, particularly the cases where God places other emotions in front of love. I believe you have to be very careful in your arguments, because to focus only on God as a "loving God" as opposed to "just", "wrathful", "jealous", "righteous", etc. is to set up a strawman that isn't the biblical version of a Christian God at all.

So, I reject your argument that the Christian God as defined in the Bible would necessarily intervene to prevent natural or man-made forces causing harm and suffering. I think you're playing a strawman and the God you're fighting against is one that is very different to what I believe the Bible describes (though is very similar to the over-cuddly teddy-bear a bunch of people think he is). I think the uncomfortable truth is the definition of "good" isn't quite what a bunch of people want it to be.

I am more inclined to believe there are many paths and many mountains and, dammit, I haven't seen any yawning chasms on my mountain path yet, but far be it from me to judge those on a different path other than saying "it's not for me, yet".


@Jaro,

My Dad is a Presbyterian minister and my Mum is even more religious*, so I have a good idea of your upbringing. I really don't think I could tell the difference between "God" and "my conscience" so I go for the latter until someone proves the former. I suspect my conscience is shaped by my belief anyway, so God gets a good edge there if/when he wants it. Perfectly reasonable for someone to say I'm deluding myself though.

Yes - you get my theory on hell. I don't think I'd like to be trapped for eternity knowing God but also knowing I was irredeemably separated. Probably go a little nutty.

As for why Jesus if you can get to heaven anyway by never hearing about him - dunno. Maybe the whole thing is allegory anyway. Would that change the belief?


* My mum keeps telling me how she can't possibly understand how a baby can form without God being intricately involved. The sad part is I know if I told her about the science on fetal formation and how DNA activates it all, she'd just go back to God saying it was all too complex and God was a better answer. That makes me sad because I find the science far, far more thrilling.

Dd