Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gay & Believing - Is there room for both?
Options
Comments
-
So Paul was a liar and a fraud? If so, why is such a huge amount of the new testament text taken up with his teachings, and practically nothing from Peter, Jesus' right hand man?
Where did Jesus say he was 'The Son of God'?
I simply clarified what another poster said, as you didn't seem to want to understand what he/she meant.0 -
Lady Chuckles wrote: »As long as you love and live life without hurting others surely you'd be loved by God.
Sure. Except that you can't live a life like that. Now what?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Jesus? Surely you mean the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John asserting this is what Jesus said? Do you believe them erroneous in what they report? If so, on what basis?
I don't know what you're on about. I merely clarified something another poster said.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Sure. Except that you can't live a life like that. Now what?
Sure you can. You love, you be the best you and you don't hurt people intentionally.0 -
Lady Chuckles wrote: »Surely the core idea with Christianity is to believe, love and be the best you?
The core idea with Christianity in the first instance is to believe you can't be the best you. Especially when it comes to love.
If you come to believe that then you will be saved and are assured that God will make you the best you you can be. Especially when it comes to love.0 -
Advertisement
-
Where did Jesus say he was 'The Son of God'?
I can think of a couple of occasions recorded in a number of gospels. Mark 14 and Matthew 16 spring to mind. There are other examples.
Incidentally, I don't see how anyone can throw out the majority of the NT as workings of man uninspired by God and still believe that Jesus was divine.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »The core idea with Christianity in the first instance is to believe you can't be the best you. Especially when it comes to love.
The core idea is to try your very best
0 -
Lady Chuckles wrote: »Sure you can. You love, you be the best you and you don't hurt people intentionally.
Sure you will - where intentionally means anything that isn't pure accident. Are you trying to tell me that you aren't selfish. For if you are then hurt people you will.
Or perhaps you're supposing hurt begins at a high pain threshold.0 -
Lady Chuckles wrote: »The core idea is to try your very best
Not with Christianity it's not. If you can find anywhere where Jesus used the word "try" in relation to the performance demanded of you then post it here.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »It's a point that's only relevant on one of the other forums in the Religion and Spirituality section. Here, Paul's writings are as much God-inspired as are the writings of those who recorded what Jesus said.
If we don't assume the one then we can't aasume the other and we can't say a thing about what Jesus did or didn't say.
Exactly. There has been serious doubt as to the origins of what are called the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who supposedly knew Jesus. Though how they were supposed to be educated fishermen in those times, recording all he said and did, even when they were supposed to be asleep in the garden of Gethsemane, is yet another of the 'mysteries'. Therefore, the 'gospel' words of Paul-Saul are certainly no more reliable than the first ones., and as he was a Jewish Pharisee with Roman citizenship, as well as an approver of murder, he could easily copy and paste any sort of story together to make up imaginative sories to make up a new religion, once Jesus was well out of sight. James, Jesus' own brother, was already in Jerusalem, so why is there no record of what he might have to say, instead of Paul-Saul? The rest is history.0 -
Advertisement
-
CorsetRibbons wrote: »I don't know where to start but I guess it's in the title. I'm gay and have been for as long as I can remember. I can't really remember being any other way. And I believe in God...a God, (but I'm not sure if it's in the biblical sense of the word). To me, God explains the unexplainable and the miracles that happen and I frequently talk to it in my head and pray to it in my heart.
I would suggest you decide for yourself what God is. I read the Bible a few years ago and I found the God therein to be an intolerent manipulative being whose actions are very questionable from the point of view of medern morality.
If you look at the Universe and see evidence of a higher power and that you are part of it's creation, then you probably have faith that you are part of it's plan or design? As such, you were made the way you are, why shouldn't you find peace in this and try to live a full and happy life? What harm is there in how you live your life so long as your happiness does not mean sorrow or hurt for others... Be the best you and you'll probably find you never have to apologise to anyone.0 -
Lady Chuckles wrote: »The core idea is to try your very best
But the point, at least according to Christianity, is that your best is never good enough. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The notion that merely trying to be a good person (good by whose standards, I wonder?) and The Big Guy Up In The Sky will be cool with that isn't supported by Christianity. The offences we cause aren't just against our fellow humans, other lifeforms and ourselves, they are ultimately against God.
When I read the idea that you should "be the best darned person you can be" - and I hope I'm not misrepresenting your views, Lady Chuckels - I can't help but think that Christianity has somehow been intertwined with the eastern doctrine of Karma, and that it's just a matter of doing more good in the world than bad.
Christianity says that we are already dead in our sins. That we have, in other words, already failed to meet the standards. It is only through Christ that we can be forgiven our offences.
If people want to know more about Christianity then I would heartily recommend this excellent series by Don Carson. It's a long study but I certainly found it very beneficial.0 -
Exactly. There has been serious doubt as to the origins of what are called the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who supposedly knew Jesus. Though how they were supposed to be educated fishermen in those times, recording all he said and did, even when they were supposed to be asleep in the garden of Gethsemane, is yet another of the 'mysteries'. Therefore, the 'gospel' words of Paul-Saul are certainly no more reliable than the first ones., and as he was a Jewish Pharisee with Roman citizenship, as well as an approver of murder, he could easily copy and paste any sort of story together to make up imaginative sories to make up a new religion, once Jesus was well out of sight. James, Jesus' own brother, was already in Jerusalem, so why is there no record of what he might have to say, instead of Paul-Saul? The rest is history.
My point was to illustrate the futility of trying to choose Jesus over Paul. If you throw out one you throw out the other, you can't pick and choose.
If you choose to throw out both then you're engaging in a different discussion and not one relevant to the point I was making.0 -
Heya.. I think the church is just really afraid of gays.. surprisingly as allot of the child abuse was man on boy in the church.. I dont think anyone has the right to say if someone is a particular way then they may not be apart of god.. god (if there is one) created us all in our own way of differences.. its what makes us unique.. he intended you to be gay and you should be proud.. as i said the church i believe is just afraid of it... nowadays its more open to be gay and bi and its apart of everyday life.. its normal to be disable and not thought of as dum only challenged.. etc. everyone has the right to be heard and everyone has the right to be treated the same as anyone else would expect to be.. its not right for people to think they dont deserve some things, we are an ever expanding society with different views.. look at steven hawking i think it is?? if this was the old days he would have been left astray (like christy brown as a child), due to our intellectually developing society hawkings is one of if not the smartest man in the world yet he cant move his body with control and christy was an artist, famous, this is all only my opinion so bare with me haha
Ghost0 -
Exactly. There has been serious doubt as to the origins of what are called the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who supposedly knew Jesus. Though how they were supposed to be educated fishermen in those times, recording all he said and did, even when they were supposed to be asleep in the garden of Gethsemane, is yet another of the 'mysteries'. Therefore, the 'gospel' words of Paul-Saul are certainly no more reliable than the first ones., and as he was a Jewish Pharisee with Roman citizenship, as well as an approver of murder, he could easily copy and paste any sort of story together to make up imaginative sories to make up a new religion, once Jesus was well out of sight. James, Jesus' own brother, was already in Jerusalem, so why is there no record of what he might have to say, instead of Paul-Saul? The rest is history.
Perhaps you can expand on this in another thread.0 -
mascaput said:
Utter rubbish. Here Paul publicly testifies of his past:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Paul was Christ's apostle - a man endued with the power to infallibly teach all that Christ wanted him to. Paul's letters, like those of the rest of the apostles, are Scripture - God's word.
Paul condemned homosexuality, as well as many other sins. Like with the OT prophets, it did not take God Himself to write down the words for them to be His words.
John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
*******************************************************************
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Not quite correct. Saul, who later changed his name to Paul, to hide his identity as being an assistant to the murder of Stephen, one of Jesus' followers, and his brutality to the Way followers when Jesus was no longer around.
Acts 22:3 “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. 4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, 5 as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished.
And here he writes to a church:
Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.
We are not told why Saul changed his name to Paul. Possibly to make himself more acceptable to the Gentiles. Possibly to commemorate his first Gentile convert: Paulus.
Jesus approves of many who were murderers, blasphemers, liars, fornicators, homosexuals, etc. Every Christian was once some sort of evil person.Hardly the kind of guy that Jesus, with his "Thou shalt not kill" motto would approve of.
He not only heard His voice, but was taken in to heaven to have the many truths of the gospel revealed to him:Paul-Saul never even met Jesus, but then mysteriously 'claimed' to have heard a voice of a man whom he never met, which certainly puts some perspective on the teachings that came from his mouth later on.
2 Corinthians 12:1 It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
What others preached or not is not the issue. The issue is what Scripture teaches. You may dismiss it as merely the words of men - but Christianity is based on it as the Word of God. You can't honestly claim to be a Christian and deny the Scriptures as God's word.As for his 'condenming' sodomy and sexual perversion (the word homosexual only originated in the 1890s), there have been many priests in history who preached the same thing, but did so to cover up their own actions, as even our recent Irish history clearly and unavoidably tells us. Get the name of an early riser and you can sleep till midday.
************************************************************************
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »If people want to know more about Christianity then I would heartily recommend this excellent series by Don Carson. It's a long study but I certainly found it very beneficial.
I'm glad that you gave it a listen. I found it hugely helpful too, I may give it another listen quite soon.
I would say personally that the only thing that separates anyone from God is sin (Isaiah 59:2), we've fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Nobody is righteous, no not one. This is why we need Jesus to be saved. If you believe and trust in Jesus, and you bear fruit by faith this means that your ways will be God's ways, your heart will follow after His. Ultimately faith in Jesus leads to obeying God's commandments. This is true for anyone, and if I'm brutally honest I've found it difficult on a number of occasions.
Christians grow in holiness over time by Christ's help (Philippians 1:6). People are people, anyone can be a Christian. The question is are we willing to follow God's ways over our own or indeed make God's ways our own?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I can think of a couple of occasions recorded in a number of gospels. Mark 14 and Matthew 16 spring to mind. There are other examples.
I took a look at the examples you provided, and I see that all that Mark 14 says in the New International Version (NIV):
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
The priest didn't say who the 'Blesed One' is/was. Mary was referred to as 'blessed amongst women so he could have been referring to her.
The second part of Jesus' reply then goes on to mention someone called the Son of man, which, were he referring to himself, could only mean that he was the Son of Man, and not the son of a god. He didn't say who the 'Mighty One' was, so it's pure speculation as to who or what he might have meant.
Incidentally, I see that you posted Jesus' 'no reply', in Mark 14:61, but didn't post the previous text, where the relevant issues are as follows:
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Therefore, Jesus was being accused of saying that he would knock down the temple, and not that he was the son of the Jewish God.
The King James Version says things differently,
King James Version (KJV) Mark 14:61 - 62
61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Link
Then Matthew 16:15-17 says:
New International Version (NIV)
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
So here Peter is in supposedly in direct communication with 'God the Father', therfore making him equal with Jesus, so why would Peter be sidelined in the later "Acts", which were mainly the works of Paul'Saul? Jesus is even therefore saying that not even he had said to Peter that he was 'the Son of God'Fanny Cradock wrote: »Incidentally, I don't see how anyone can throw out the majority of the NT as workings of man uninspired by God and still believe that Jesus was divine.
I never said he was 'divine' or anything at all. I'm asking as to how the supposed teachings of Paul, an accomplice to murder and brutality, who supposedly condemned sodomy and perversion as being against the will of 'God' etc., were used to supplant the teachings of Peter and James, who were still around when Jesus had 'gone'.
It is Paul-Saul's voice that drowns out much of the NT. Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. His authorship of seven of the fourteen is questioned by modern scholars.[3]
The NT is remarkably and completely silent on what Jesus thought or said about 'sodomites' or what were considered to be perverted people in his time.
If Christians are supposed to believe that Jesus was rigorous in maintaining their God's, his supposed father's, very explicit teachings to Moses and his people some thousand or so years earlier, then I can't see how it can be even remotely inferred that he wanted anything to change in his time.
Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
This clearly instructs believers to kill what we would today call male homosexuals. I'm not saying anything one way or another on the rights and wrongs of what we today call homosexuality (from the Greek- homo = same; Latin-derived sex = sex: same-sex) but I am questioning the storyline and the very widely varying interpretations and spin that Christians apply to the subject.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Perhaps you can expand on this in another thread.
OK, as I know it's a pretty big area, and probably a bit too extensive to go into here, though there is no doubt that Paul-Saul's 'version' of things played a major part of the formation of what is called Christianity (messiah-anity) today. I'll put something together.0 -
OK, as I know it's a pretty big area, and probably a bit too extensive to go into here, though there is no doubt that Paul-Saul's 'version' of things played a major part of the formation of what is called Christianity (messiah-anity) today. I'll put something together.
You'll find the vast majority of Paul's preaching is based on what is in the Gospels and its logical conclusion. Likewise, you will find that Paul's letters are very similar to Peter's. Peter being an eyewitness of Jesus, gives the approval to Paul's work in his second letter in the New Testament. Likewise, if you compare James or 1 John - 3 John to Paul's letters you'll find an abundance of similarities.
The question is, what is the source of these commonalities? The answer seems to be that they were preaching the same Gospel.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »You'll find the vast majority of Paul's preaching is based on what is in the Gospels and its logical conclusion. Likewise, you will find that Paul's letters are very similar to Peter's. Peter being an eyewitness of Jesus, gives the approval to Paul's work in his second letter in the New Testament. Likewise, if you compare James or 1 John - 3 John to Paul's letters you'll find an abundance of similarities.
The question is, what is the source of these commonalities? The answer seems to be that they were preaching the same Gospel.
Well, let's play it by ear, and not jump to any conclusions. Paul-saul was not exactly a 'logical' man, as logical mean don't go around spouting about hearing the voices of men they never met. However, that's another matter.0 -
I'm not "jumping to any conclusions". I'm looking to your claim, then I am responding based on what I know of the New Testament to that claim.
It depends what you regard as logical. Personally I think Paul is one of the most profound thinkers I've ever read. The Christian Gospel makes perfect sense from beginning to end if one reads through the sequence of our relationship with God. Atheism or agnosticism doesn't make sense, in fact it could be argued that the logical conclusion of either is to regard life as ultimately futile, baseless, aimless. Christianity presents a different view of the world, and ultimately a more realistic one.0 -
Well, let's play it by ear, and not jump to any conclusions. Paul-saul was not exactly a 'logical' man, as logical mean don't go around spouting about hearing the voices of men they never met. However, that's another matter.
Stop trolling, or your stay here will be very short.
If a person clearly hears a voice speaking to him, then it is entirely logical for them to speak about it.
I have yet to meet anyone who has seriously studied Paul's writings and finds him to be illogical. They may not agree with him - but his writings demonstrate that he was highly articulate, capable of constructing very organised arguments, and highly logical.0 -
philologos wrote: »I'm not "jumping to any conclusions". I'm looking to your claim, then I am responding based on what I know of the New Testament to that claim.
It depends what you regard as logical. Personally I think Paul is one of the most profound thinkers I've ever read. The Christian Gospel makes perfect sense from beginning to end if one reads through the sequence of our relationship with God. Atheism or agnosticism doesn't make sense, in fact it could be argued that the logical conclusion of either is to regard life as ultimately futile, baseless, aimless. Christianity presents a different view of the world, and ultimately a more realistic one.
OK, I could go into that whole area and explain why there is no actual need to believe in deities and their alleged agendas, but this is probably not the proper place for it. The whole idea of being somehow 'saved' by having some imagined relationship with something you can't understand and by believing things, makes no sense, as we can only be 'saved' from our stupidities and unreason when we stop doing stupid and unreasoned things. Life neither condemns or forgives, as we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, and accepting anything else is simply lack of human fibre.
Life is only futile and pointless if you choose to make it so, and if you decide to make it so, then why should you expect another pointless 'life' when you are dead? Would you put a tenant who had previously wrecked your property back into the same house, and let him do it all over again? I would presume not, so why would you expect 'God/Life/whatever' to do likewise, if it only operated on the same basic level of logic as yours or mine?
Where you came from, you will inevitably return to, and no priest or imagined power will or can alter that, though you can of course wish to think it is true, and pay the cost of the privilege.
What's real is real, and what's imagined is imagined, and is therefore not real, so the trick is to realise the difference and stop messing your mind with things that simply make no actual sense, as life won't 'forgive' you for wasting it anymore than a car will forgive you for not watching the fuel guage and running out of petrol. Try it, and see if believing any different will refill the tank...;)0 -
Not quite correct. Saul, who later changed his name to Paul, to hide his identity as being an assistant to the murder of Stephen, one of Jesus' followers, and his brutality to the Way followers when Jesus was no longer around. Hardly the kind of guy that Jesus, with his "Thou shalt not kill" motto would approve of. Paul-Saul never even met Jesus, but then mysteriously 'claimed' to have heard a voice of a man whom he never met, which certainly puts some perspective on the teachings that came from his mouth later on.
As for his 'condenming' sodomy and sexual perversion (the word homosexual only originated in the 1890s), there have been many priests in history who preached the same thing, but did so to cover up their own actions, as even our recent Irish history clearly and unavoidably tells us. Get the name of an early riser and you can sleep till midday.
Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was the ultimate convert, somebody who was totally lost and then found, singled out in fact. Forget about 'others' - nobody is ever judged by 'others' or what 'others' think..parents, friends, neighbours, brothers, sisters, priests, politicians, etc. etc. etc. It has nothing got to do with it....that is a sideline, and a poor one. An excuse for not being 'yourself' and honest.
The truth is that there are no medals for being hetero or gay or bi etc. everybody is in the same boat...'sex' is pretty darn cool, but it is NOT what makes the sum of a person..unless the person chooses it as their main defining factor....the sum total of 'who' they are.
..and even if they do, they are no different than any other person who chooses their sexuality as their defining identity whether they are gay or straight. It's a heartbreaking game...
God is above all of those things...the alcoholic or drug addict etc. who faces a life battle is no different to anybody who has sexuality or relationship issues - everybody has something - that's why everybody should encourage, because nobody is worthy..and everybody needs a little love and encouragement and help.0 -
OK, I could go into that whole area and explain why there is no actual need to believe in deities and their alleged agendas, but this is probably not the proper place for it. The whole idea of being somehow 'saved' by having some imagined relationship with something you can't understand and by believing things, makes no sense, as we can only be 'saved' from our stupidities and unreason when we stop doing stupid and unreasoned things. Life neither condemns or forgives, as we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, and accepting anything else is simply lack of human fibre.
Life is only futile and pointless if you choose to make it so, and if you decide to make it so, then why should you expect another pointless 'life' when you are dead? Would you put a tenant who had previously wrecked your property back into the same house, and let him do it all over again? I would presume not, so why would you expect 'God/Life/whatever' to do likewise, if it only operated on the same basic level of logic as yours or mine?
Where you came from, you will inevitably return to, and no priest or imagined power will or can alter that, though you can of course wish to think it is true, and pay the cost of the privilege.
Great. Ultimately if you regard our stance with God to be "imaginary" because ultimately you believe He is imaginary, there is more to this discussion rather than just an objection as to whether or not Jesus Christ Biblically was the Son of God. There is something external fuelling that position. Namely that you believe that there is nothing beyond the material universe.
I find that there is a lot of rhetoric concerning the subject of God. In reality it is quite plausible to believe that the universe had to come from somewhere other than itself. It's also quite plausible to believe that there was an intelligent being behind the Creation of the universe. Not only for the mere reason of why the universe is the way it is, but also in respect to other areas such as moral accountability / moral universalism. Good and evil as concepts are hinged upon an absolute standard. Atheists can argue as much as they like that there is no absolute proof for God (there is no absolute proof for many things that they also assume to be true, but let's leave that aside), but they can't really argue that the concept of a God as Creator of the universe isn't a strong possibility.
As for Jesus being the Saviour of mankind. It results from the logic following on from Creation. Which seems to me to be as follows:
1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows what He has made.
4. By extension God must know everything about what He has made if He is to be truly omnipotent.
5. Therefore, God knows how best to live in His Creation.
So we're at a position where God has created the world and has laid down standards for how we should live. Yet, there is discord in the world, there is corruption, hatred, violence, sexual immorality, slander, greed, disrespect, abuses of the highest order. Why is this?
God according to the Christian Scriptures created us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). People commonly think that this means that we should somehow look like God, as if God was a material being like you and I. Jewish and Christian thinkers argued that it is because we have a spiritual likeness with God. I think they could be right in this sense. However, the word tselem which is used in the passage also means reflection. This to me signifies a duty. We were created to live for God in everything that we did. We failed to do it, because we thought we could do things better, despite the fact that God Himself knows how best to live in His Creation (see above). We claimed that we ourselves were the gods of the universe. Ultimately we rejected God's way and went our way.
God as Creator also by extension has authority over His Creation. Insofar that they rejected His standards, He also has the authority to judge on the basis of these standards. In a sense God is the legislator and judiciary over His own Creation. We come before Him guilty with the burden of our disobedience. As a result we deserve His condemnation. Paul in the New Testament scriptures argues that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) using Psalm 14 as his basis. This is obvious. Look at the newspaper today and you'll see how short of God's standard we've fallen. You'll hear stories about murder, rape, theft, deceit and all kinds of dishonesty. This is a testament to the fact that we've gone our way rather than His way.
So as a result of this we come before God guilty. We've done what is wrong, we can't deny it while being truthful. This is obvious to anyone, or at the very least our moral accountability for what we have done wrong irrespective of whether or not people may believe in a deity is obvious if indeed we want to be honest with ourselves. As a result we deserve condemnation. This is the reason why Jesus came into the world. To save us from the rightful condemnation of God, and to restore God's way in the world at least amongst those who would believe and trust in Him. Jesus paid the penalty we should have paid by dying on the cross for our sins and descending into hell. Jesus by rising again from the grave gave us new life. A new life which was different from our old sinful one.
The reason why life isn't futile is that there is a God, and there is being beyond the grave. Death didn't keep Jesus in. The history of the early Christian church is testament that Jesus didn't stay in the grave.
The question so much isn't really that you don't have reason to believe in the Lord Jesus. The question is whether or not you're willing to put your trust in Him. If you wish to keep living your way which ultimately results in death and condemnation that is ultimately your choice although a choice that is ultimately tragic. If you wish to accept Jesus, and live as you were created to, I can only welcome you into our family. I long that as many people in the world come into our family before they die. I long that as many people know the truth.
This is the only reason I post about Jesus on boards.ie. It's the only reason that I try to speak to my friends and colleagues about Jesus, it's because I honestly believe that Jesus will transform your life. I believe that all humankind longs to know of their eternal destiny, and their ultimate origins. Of course it is important that we care for humanity and serve their temporal needs on this earth. That's hugely important infact. However, it is not as important as the eternal need, the eternal need for Jesus Christ. I get accused of a lot of stuff from patent dishonesty, to being a Bible basher, in some cases a fundamentalist. No doubt many people on boards.ie think that I'm obnoxious and intolerant for saying that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that nobody can come near God without aaccepting Him and indeed that all people (myself strongly included) are sinners and need to be saved. I'm happy to be accused of these things ultimately because I care for humanity. I want people to know Jesus and be saved.
Is that such a bad thing?What's real is real, and what's imagined is imagined, and is therefore not real, so the trick is to realise the difference and stop messing your mind with things that simply make no actual sense, as life won't 'forgive' you for wasting it anymore than a car will forgive you for not watching the fuel guage and running out of petrol. Try it, and see if believing any different will refill the tank...;)
You talk about reality. I believe what's real is real. I just believe that Jesus is real, alive, and living with us today. Anything less as far as I'm concerned isn't reality. However, leaving this aside for now. Let me ask you something.
If the Gospel is true, and I didn't tell people about Jesus wouldn't I be a morally repugnant person? Among the worst of all in fact?0 -
@ philologos. Your brave to spend so much time on the argument. Very Laudable.0
-
philologos wrote: »Great. Ultimately if you regard our stance with God to be "imaginary" because ultimately you believe He is imaginary, there is more to this discussion rather than just an objection as to whether or not Jesus Christ Biblically was the Son of God. There is something external fuelling that position. Namely that you believe that there is nothing beyond the material universe.
<Snip>
The reason why life isn't futile is that there is a God, and there is being beyond the grave. Death didn't keep Jesus in. The history of the early Christian church is testament that Jesus didn't stay in the grave.......snip
Philologos, thanks for your above post, which I snipped for the purposes of brevity in making this particular reply. You raised many points to explain the background to your perspective, and I think it deserves a more comprehensive and measured reply, but probably not in the context of this specific thread, as there are many issues involved, as well as the current issue i.e. Christian morality and how it applies to homosexuals, which has always been a topic of much inflammatory ideas and counter-arguments.
I would ask you to not to assume what I may or may not think about what is or is not 'beyond the material universe', as you don't yet know what I think, just as I don't actually fully understand all of what you think in a wider context, though you have given me a good starting point for understanding at least your general framework on the main issues at hand, which I appreciate your taking the time to do.
I'm not here to inflame or annoy anyone, as that is stupid behaviour, though if people choose to get upset or excited about asking or answering questions about biblical accounts and their interpretations, and the obvious role they have played and continue to play in the context of social behaviours on human societies and their thinking for several thousand years, then that is their responsibility. They are responsible for the control or lack of control they exercise on their minds. I am only responsible for what I think, as far as I know to this point in time, and I am fully aware that there are things I do not yet know. Therefore, I do not feel compelled to adhere to rules that may seek, however inadvertently, - such as "Judge not or be judged yourself" - as I have no problem about being judged on the merits of my questions, proposals and explanations, as far as I know them to be. If I am wrong about something, then it is up to me to accept that fact, but likewise I expect the same consideration in return. The reason I do this is that such blanket prohibitions are often used by debaters of these sort of subjects to restrict evaluation and judgement upon material that is presented in a way that appears to contradict other ideas that are also supposedly presented as 'truthful'. Many of these ideas are not clearly explained as to their veracity or likelihood of being accurately thought out, even according to what is written, as people tend to apply personal interpretation to things even if they don't appreciate that things need to be seen in their own perspective, and from what we know of the thinking that pervaded such writings in times very different to our own in many respects.
Probably another thread, maybe with a more appropriate title, would be the best way to go on this, so if you give me some idea as to what you would like to entitle it, then just let me know and we can discuss the possibilities of having a considered and mutually beneficial discussion. Argument and discussion of ideas can be a beneficial thing, and is profitable to all if they want to understand different viewpoints. If they merely wish to gain some form of unjustified 'victory' over others, then they miss the point of the exercise, or at least that's how I see it.
I will address the issues of Paul-Saul under separate heading, during the week, as agreed previously with Fanny Craddock.0 -
I took a look at the examples you provided, and I see that all that Mark 14 says in the New International Version (NIV):
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
The priest didn't say who the 'Blesed One' is/was. Mary was referred to as 'blessed amongst women so he could have been referring to her.
Yes, of course, a Pharisee priest would naturally have been well aware what Jesus was saying to his own mother. Moreover, this priest was apparently so annoyed about these words that he tore his own clothes in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy because he was actually talking about his mother. That is, of course, preposterous.
The Greek used in the passage to refer to the Blessed One is eulogētos. It occurs 8 times in the NT. In each case it refers to God.
Additionally, if you think that there was any ambiguity as to who Jesus was referring to when he talked about the Mighty One then I think you have absolutely no interest in history. Jesus was an observant Jew knowledgeable in the Hebrew scriptures and living in a predominately Jewish religious culture. He was addressing other observant and knowledgeable Jews living in the same culture. The term Mighty One as used, for example, in Isaiah 1:24 could only mean one person - God. Everybody knew who Jesus was talking about because words carry meaning.
Your claim is akin to stating that an avid Chelsea fan of the last 20 years would be clueless as to the identity of The Special One.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, of course, a Pharisee priest would naturally have been well aware what Jesus said to his mother. Moreover, he was so annoyed about this that that tore his own clothes in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy because - according to you - Jesus was actually talking about his mother. That is, of course, preposterous.
Incidentally, the Greek used in the passage to refer to the Blessed One is eulogētos. It occurs 8 times in the NT. In each case it refers to God.
Additionally, if you think that there was any ambiguity about who Jesus was referring to when he talked about the Mighty One then I think you have absolutely no interest in history. Jesus, an observant Jew knowledgeable in the Hebrew scriptures and living in a predominately Jewish culture, was talking to other observant Jews. In their monotheistic religion the term Mighty One as used, for example, in Isaiah 1:24 could only mean one person - God. Everybody knew what Jesus was implying because words carry meaning.
Your claim is akin to stating that an avid Chelsea fan of the last 20 years would be clueless about the identity of The Special One.
Before I make a more substantive reply, can you tell me, do you know was Jesus a Pharisee or a Saducee, or to what branch of 'Judaism' did he adhere?
It could be a long an futile discussion if you wish to delve into the ideas surrounding the Mighty One' ideas of Judaism, versus the Mighty Three (Trinity) of later biblical writings, as Judaism did not and do not have this idea, which was only further developed as dogma after Nicaea. However, if you wish....;)0
Advertisement