Religion and Common Sense

[Asus]

But if you ask him for anything and he actually responds then he is interfering with your free will.

*He doesn't answer all prayers but he hears them all. I should say every prayer's answer is not always Yes.
Him responding does not interfer with our free will. You have a choice beyond the new information. He doesn't make someone do this or that. He sheds light on choices for people and they make their own choice. This changes situations which are linked to other people's situations etc.

Why does God feel it is necessary for us to worship him?

He loves us. He created and wishes for us to follow and be with Him. We worship Him because He is our Lord and Savior. Without God we would not exist. Without following God, we would be lost in a world of sin only to follow death. Without Him, there is no grace,hope or life.

One, how do you know you are "right"?

I know God exists because I talk to Him. He guides me and answers my prayers. We have a relationship.
God promised that He would preserve His Word and that is exactly what He has done. Read it to discover.
Also why I know God isn't just an idea is because without Him there would be no hope. No reason to live. People would growup then have kids only to work til they die just as everyone else follows that cycle. Everywhere I look, people tend to be pulled down by their existance here on earth. By stress, hopelessness, depression and sin. I see the opposite occuring with those attending Church, praying, or basicly in contact with God or events *changed by God. By changed, you can my comments above.
Everything about God is love,life, hope and grace.

Two, how to you justify your own religion in the face of the hundreds of other religions on Earth?

Christianity vs Islam
Religion by definition means 'to be bound' by rules and regulations and rituals in order that one MAY attain salvation (whatever their definition of salvation may be). Christianity is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY faith which is not a religion (by definition). This is in stark contrast the teachings of THE most anti-religious person there ever lived- Jesus the Christ.
Jesus taught that the truth would SET YOU FREE and that it would be faith ALONE in His sacrificial death and resurrection for our sins which would save us and NOT our good deeds.
Deeds should not be the way out because I can do just about anything if I am rewarded for it. But believing and faith is something that is life changing. I can't believe in God to get into heaven if I don't really believe.
Other religions may have similar points but they lack on many accounts.

This is extremely hard for me to put into words.

Nice testimony. Enjoyed the read. I should have done something similar but I probably won't because I also must head to bed.

 

[Jackal hit]

Christianity vs Islam

i think that link is pretty funny, actually, it's anti muslim and by osmosis, anti middle eastern propaganda. a lot of what was being said about mohammet is false. hell just read an AMERICAN(authored) history book, or take a pre-1200 western history class. you'll find out mohammet never did that whole conversion or death gig. it was one of his sons that did that. this son's "teachings" later became... shiite i think(or sunni). it was that one that did the whole fanatical conversion by the sword deal. hell i was shocked when i learned it wasn't mohammet doing all that. also, lmfao... allah is the same god as the bible's god. actually islam is more closely related to judaism than christianity. allah most definitely does NOT come from the nomadic arab tribes' idol-gods lmao... mohammet was a christian before he changed. as was medina, a christian town. screw it, the whole area was christian and jewish(with exception of the arabic tribes), as it was byzantine/byzantine influenced land. islam is totally against idolatry... and -- well you guys can think through the rest of it, i'd like to think . the only reason i'm defending islam is because that website is totally propagandist. i've attended conferences by famous PhD middle eastern scholars(getting dragged to them by my anthro friend... girls have uber skills of making you wanna go along with them lol) who paint totally different pictures than what that website is preaching lol. i'm not saying anyone on the forum is bad, i'm just saying, becareful of your sources, the website is wrought with fallacies... ie, things that people IN THE MIDDLE EAST don't even believe in, yet the website says they do (i'm turkish, i would know ) ... but in general i think all the religious ideas on that website ... on both sides of the argument... insane beliefs lead people do do insane things.

btw, the whole business thing that i brought up before... it's a lack of spiritual understandings that cause office politics, looking out for #1, the stamping down of small businesses, things like enron, mci, etc. these people, if taught spiritual lessons, would never do things that they do.
okay peace, take care, a... okay bye

 

[Murray]

I just wanted to point one thing out:

I searched through this thread of the word "sacrifice" to make sure it hasen't been mentioned yet. (Not a very safe way of checking, but, meh, I'm lazy).

Anyway, the part about sacrificing people was mentioned in the old testament, before Jesus was born. He died for our sins, so we didn't have to sacrifice anymore. That's the reason why the judish people still sacrifices, they don't believe in Jesus like the christian people. But those who do believe in it knows that sacrificing is not neccisary (and of course those who doesn't believe in it at all).

PS: Yes I know non-believers don't give a damn about what the bible says, but my argument is based on the text from the bible, so...

Oh and just one more thing: Those "gaps" mentioned at first is rather harsh to point out since the bible basicly symbolises what really happened (assuming it is true).
We don't have to take it litteraly like most people do.

 

[mchammer75040]

I know God exists because I talk to Him. He guides me and answers my prayers. We have a relationship.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/
More than likely me posting that offended you, but my point is dont you think everyone else of OTHER religions are just as equally convinced they are talking to their gods as you are? If we were to accept or dismiss God on prayer relationship I could dismiss it all together cause of my experience since Ive never talked to God. So who is really talking to their god and who is just talking to themselves?

People would growup then have kids only to work til they die just as everyone else follows that cycle..

Thats exactly what we do in life, you cant avoid that I dont care what faith you are THAT is what you do in life.

Everywhere I look, people tend to be pulled down by their existance here on earth. By stress, hopelessness, depression and sin. I see the opposite occuring with those attending Church, praying, or basicly in contact with God or events *changed by God. By changed, you can my comments above.
Everything about God is love,life, hope and grace.

Your over generalizing, going to church, praying and such doesnt bring happiness. Again I could dismiss your arguments by my own experience.

Christianity vs Islam
Religion by definition means 'to be bound' by rules and regulations and rituals in order that one MAY attain salvation (whatever their definition of salvation may be).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Christianity is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY faith which is not a religion (by definition). This is in stark contrast the teachings of THE most anti-religious person there ever lived- Jesus the Christ.

Do you even know what anti-religious means?

But believing and faith is something that is life changing. .

Excepting any religion will be life changing, that isnt anything special and hardly a point.

Other religions may have similar points but they lack on many accounts.

What accounts?? You havent proven anything in any of your posts, and Im pretty sure just like my previous post to you this will get ignored also.

 

[FortisVir]

The Gospel of Thomas was thrown out at the council of Nicaea. Basically, Christians were killing other Christians because everyone believed something different. So Constantine decided to tell everyone to get their act together, to decide what the canon Bible would contain. Dozens of books of gospel were thrown out by the hundreds of bishops that attended. Books that were accepted as the truth at the time by some sects of Christianity.

Modern Christians like to say that these books were thrown and therefore have no relevance upon Christianity today, but I disagree. The Gospel of Thomas was probably more fiction than fact, but that does not mean it is not worth examining. Also, does this mean that the Gospels of Mark, John, Luke, and Matthew, because they were canonized, are 100% true?

Also, I find the idea that I receive joy from "tearing apart" other people's beliefs, insulting to my moral character. I like to debate religion just because it is one of the most fascinating topics a person can have an intellectual discussion, not because I want to strip people of their beliefs. I don't go up to little girls on the street and say "Hey you know what.....God is just pretend. HAHAHA Owned!". As an agnostic, I don't force my beliefs upon other people, I just like to have an interesting discussion. And if you feel like I am forcing my beliefs onto you, I apologize.

Anyway, on the subject of prayer I sort of agree with Asus. I don't believe that prayer is interfering with free will, but is instead a means for people to get closer to God, in order to accept Him. Asus points out that "You have a choice beyond the new information". All I was trying to point out was that the existence of dozens of major religions works against the idea that God wants everyone to accept Him.

Also, I want to say that I think the founding principles of the major religions are good. Compassion towards one another, kindness, and all that is fine. And, I am not denying that the Bible is historically accurate, that would be going too far. The debate is on the existence of a supreme being.

I don't want to offend anyone with this next paragraph, but I might as well considering mchammer posting http://www.schizophrenia.com/ .

I think history has proven that the Church has been used for political gain. However, the primary purpose of organized religion, in my opinion, is to serve as a security blanket. After all, who wants to die and lay in the dirt for the next billion years? It doesn't sound very appealing does it?

The security blanket has two purposes -- 1- to explain acts of the Earth. 2- Salvation in the afterlife. Ancient civilizations had Gods to explain what was happening. A lightning bolt killed mchammer, Zeus must be angry at him. Our voyage went way off course, we must pay our repects to Poseidon, etc.

Of course, these days we know what causes lightning and rain, we know that the sun is a ball of hot gas. So in today's modern society, the function of the security blanket has been focused onto the afterlife, which no amount of science has yet been able to explain.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

If we were to accept or dismiss God on prayer relationship I could dismiss it all together cause of my experience since Ive never talked to God. So who is really talking to their god and who is just talking to themselves?

not exactly.. while you have a point about hallucinations in general, logoically you can't dismiss god based on the fact that you've never conversed with god. it's the simple case of 'absence of proof is not proof of absence.'

i'll reitterate, and would like if anyone can refute what i say; it's all about experience. if you've experienced god, you have some reason to believe in god (considerations like insanity and the like must be taken into account). if you have not experienced god, you have no reason to believe in god. the experience of others is entirely foriegn to you, and shall always remain so. so your perception of their experiences (and your perception is all it is, of course) should play no role in the formulation of your own outlook.

as a general skeptic, i'm willing to buy that we in general can never be certain of the relationship between our subjective experiences and objective reality. this again goes to the 'insanity' idea, or similarly an 'all is dream' idea.. descartes evil deceiver for example. however, i cannot preclude the idea that a "true" visitation from god can somehow be known to be real in a way not known to me. while my every experience now could be a ruse, pehaps god can transmit information in a way that i can know that it is infact not deception. i can't rule this out, therefor i can't say that people who say they know god exists because they've spoken with him (how's he doing, btw?) are deluded.

maybe they do know. they must conceed, however, that without that visitation, there is no way for a person to know the existence of god. indeed it is illogical to believe in god without such an experience. it's simply adding a unneeded variable to the 'equation of existence' (to coin a bad phrase). as was pointed out earlier, faith is by it's nature illogical. scripture is meaningless in this arguement to a true skeptic.

of course, if the existence of god is empirically testable, then that's a whole different story. the example of air was brought up earlier. and the distinction was pointed out, that we can collect evidence, reproducible empirical evidence that air exists. and this is what i don't get about some religious/spiritual people; if you just tell me that your belief in god is illogical and completely based on something outside of the physical world, then i have no problem with that. it's when people claim that the material world somehow supports their beliefs in the metaphysical, that i have to ask for proof. as of yet i have seen neither proof nor even evidence in the physical universe that there is a reality beyond the physical (be it god or ghosts or what-have-you). but i'll keep an open mind.

 

[blahblahblah]

...how do you justify your own religion in the face of the hundreds of other religions on Earth? What makes your's the correct one? See from my point of view there are all these different religions all wanting me to believe that they know the "truth". How can anyone know for sure that theirs is the "right" one?

See that is my biggest concern with religion. It's the fact that so many people claim that they and only they know the absolute truth that really bothers me. Since most of them contradict each other, it's obvious that many, if not most, of them don't in fact know the truth at all.

I appreciate your willingness to talk about this, and I look forward to hearing how you view these things that I bring up.

Now that I look at your second question, it appears that my previous post did a good job of answering this question. If that doesn't answer you question adequately, could you post a more specific question? Well, I hope that answers you questions.

 

[FortisVir]

of course, if the existence of god is empirically testable, then that's a whole different story.

And this is exactly the problem. The existence of God isn't empirically testable. Anyone remember how the last topic with this name ended? It was pretty much a stalemate. I have never witnessed a debate where the atheistic/agnostic side suddenly says "Ah you're right I want to accept Jesus", nor I have I seen the religious side say "Ah you atheists are right, God doesn't exist". Because of the nature of faith itself, an argument such as this one never swings rapidly from one direction to the other.

Christians like to quote the Bible a lot, which I don't really understand. An intellectual atheist/agnostic does not deny that the Bible has a factual basis. But I think intelligent Christians understand that quoting the Bible isn't going to convince anyone.

Conversely, atheists/agnostics like to throw things out like evolution and dinosaurs, and carbon dating, etc. Myself included. The problem is that by using logical information to combat faith, you are trying to rationalize something irrational in nature, it's impossible. And even though I like to put my opinion into this type of discussion, I don't expect to "convert" anyone, nor do I want to.

So uhh....anyway what I am trying to say is that a stalemate is inevitable. Which, funny enough, is why I often find myself talking about this subject more with agnostics/atheists than with staunch Christians/Muslims/Hindis/etc.

The subject of conversing with God has always intrigued me. I'm curious, when talking to God-
-Does God answer back? Or is it more like a confessional?
-If God replies, what does He sound like?
-When talking to God, do you visualize something? Does God manifest Himself in your thoughts? Or are your thoughts random? Or do you visualize nothing at all?

Obviously, a person could draw the connection between talking to God and senility, but I believe that to be a little harsh. I wonder if there has been any research done to illustrate (from a statistical standpoint) how talking to God either increases or decreases relative to age.

And read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. You can make your own connections .

 

[blahblahblah]

think I need to do some garden variety cleanup and support Asus on some topics on this thread.

mchammer75040 - I honestly do not know your intentions. Do you wish to have a civil debate or do you wish to flame people who have different beliefs than you? I ask that, because right now it appears that you are flaming people (in contrast to other people such as Neutrino or other posters). There is more than one way to disagree with somebody. Just because you disagree with somebody does not make you right. Have you ever thought that people could assign different definitions to different words? I don't think so. If you would like to be better received by me or Asus, why don't you treat us like you would treat a friend who you would have a debate with. That is all I am asking.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/
More than likely me posting that offended you, but my point is dont you think everyone else of OTHER religions are just as equally convinced they are talking to their gods as you are? If we were to accept or dismiss God on prayer relationship I could dismiss it all together cause of my experience since Ive never talked to God. So who is really talking to their god and who is just talking to themselves?

Do you happen to know what schizophrenia is? If so, I am ashamed that you would use schizophrenia to describe Christians. I do not know who you are, but I would like a level of maturity and responsibility if you would like responses from somebody. By making comments like that, you loose all credibility in my eyes. But, it is your prerogative to post whatever you feel. I am just asking that you treat us Christians with more respect (or if you do respect us, try rewording your posts to make them less hostile please).

I know from previous posts you claimed you were a Christian or at the very least you read the Bible. Simply reading the bible does not make you a Christian according to my beliefs. Likewise, claiming that you are a Christian is unlikely. Becoming a Christian is a positive life changing experience. If you did not experience that, I find it hard to believe you can understand things from my viewpoint. Reading the Bible before I became saved took a completely different meaning after I was saved.

Thats exactly what we do in life, you cant avoid that I dont care what faith you are THAT is what you do in life (refering to dieing).

If Christianity did not exist, and the world existed like you suppose, why do we have rules then? If life was pointless, why is murdering a person considered bad; shouldn't that be considered a good thing since you would be ending a person's miserable life early? Or if you do find a reason to determine murdering bad, what about other crimes, why would man obey rules if there was no other purpose?

According to my beliefs, there is life after death. Either heaven or hell. However, since you do not believe in that, I will not go into detail.

Your over generalizing, going to church, praying and such doesnt bring happiness. Again I could dismiss your arguments by my own experience.

You are assuming that you had a true Christian experience. I can tell you that if you had the experiences I have had, you would not be that way. To me, going to church, praying and such does bring happiness to my life. I wish you would go back to church with an open mind, you would see how much you are missing. If you don't mind me asking, why did you stop going to church?

Do you even know what anti-religious means?

This is where a difference in definitions occurs. In our context, anti-religious means that church is not there for a formal set of ceremonies and rituals. In Christianity, church is meant as a method of fellowship and learning about the Jesus. Yes, there are a few rituals in Christianity, but they are not required to become or maintain your relationship with God (you can't call accepting Jesus into your life because you only do that once).

Excepting any religion will be life changing, that isn’t anything special and hardly a point.

You mean "expecting" or "accepting"? I just want to make sure I understand why you write so I can properly address your point. This not meant to insult you, everybody makes spelling mistakes (including me), I just want to make sure I understand what you are trying to say.

~
I just want to repeat, that I will discuss my faith with anybody who wishes to do so as long as they treat me with respect. I am happy to see that this thread hasn't turned sour like I had expected it to. I just wish there are more Christians who can help support me and Asus's points.

 

[Death.Trap]

[Canibus]
Yo, the holy script from Genesis 1-26
says, "Let us make man in our image under our likeness"
First of all who's THEY? You see if God
was truly a single entity that's not what he would say

God is three persons in one all-powerful being. United yet seperated at the same time, you could say. They are; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


First of all I would like to staight that I am Catholic. I am also 16 years old.


My personal belief is that theres good chance the Big Bang did occur. Let's, for a moment, assume that it did. The Big Bang theory places all matter into a single infinitely tiny point; a singularity, just like what lies at the center of a black hole. So where did this ball of EVERYTHNING come from? To tell you the truth, Science does not know, nor will they ever. It is completely impossible to scientifically prove where this matter/energy originally came from.


Now heres by Big Bang theory: God created all matter in the universe and collected it into one singularity. By doing so he esentially hit the 'on' button for the universal machine. Protons repel eachother depending on how far apart they are. There is a attractive force but it only extends for a small distance. One reason that this singularity could have exploded. Another is because of anti-matter. I'm not exactly sure what anti-matter is, I only know that it is effectively opposite of regular matter. If I take the anti-atom of Hydrogen for example, and collide it with regular Hydrogen, absolutely insane amounts of energy are supposed to result. But of course this is all theoretical. Then theres negative engery, which I'm not sure what purpose it could possibly serve but to keep wormholes open.


So theres an infinte number of factors that could result in the explosion of matter and the expansion of timespace into what we know as the universe.


I believe that God did NOT create the earth in 6 days. That is simply a dumded-down version of what really happened. Can you imagine people in 150 B.C. readin about how the God created all matter in the universe and then it exploded because of anti-matter. How then after billions of years Earth was created from a cloud of dust that cirlced a Sun which BTW was created from the same stuff. Oh, and yeah, you guys know how the sun works? It releases engery in the form of heat and electromagnetic radiation because of fusion reactions inside it's core!




I can't...

So that's basically what I believe.

Maybe I'll write abook about it someday...

EDIT- Let me add that when I say it's basically what I believe I'm refering to creation.

 

[blahblahblah]

And this is exactly the problem. The existence of God isn't empirically testable. Anyone remember how the last topic with this name ended? It was pretty much a stalemate. I have never witnessed a debate where the atheistic/agnostic side suddenly says "Ah you're right I want to accept Jesus", nor I have I seen the religious side say "Ah you atheists are right, God doesn't exist". Because of the nature of faith itself, an argument such as this one never swings rapidly from one direction to the other.

Christians like to quote the Bible a lot, which I don't really understand. An intellectual atheist/agnostic does not deny that the Bible has a factual basis. But I think intelligent Christians understand that quoting the Bible isn't going to convince anyone.

Conversely, atheists/agnostics like to throw things out like evolution and dinosaurs, and carbon dating, etc. Myself included. The problem is that by using logical information to combat faith, you are trying to rationalize something irrational in nature, it's impossible. And even though I like to put my opinion into this type of discussion, I don't expect to "convert" anyone, nor do I want to.

So uhh....anyway what I am trying to say is that a stalemate is inevitable. Which, funny enough, is why I often find myself talking about this subject more with agnostics/atheists than with staunch Christians/Muslims/Hindis/etc.

The subject of conversing with God has always intrigued me. I'm curious, when talking to God-
-Does God answer back? Or is it more like a confessional?
-If God replies, what does He sound like?
-When talking to God, do you visualize something? Does God manifest Himself in your thoughts? Or are your thoughts random? Or do you visualize nothing at all?

Obviously, a person could draw the connection between talking to God and senility, but I believe that to be a little harsh. I wonder if there has been any research done to illustrate (from a statistical standpoint) how talking to God either increases or decreases relative to age.

And read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. You can make your own connections .

Very eloquent post. Let me answer your question based off of my own personal experiences.

God does not answer back in the way you might imagine. God doesn't just start speaking to me in my mind. However, God will send me clear signals during the day that he is listening to me. Let me give an example. I know you non-Christians are going to think this is corny, but whatever. Example, I was going to have a bad day. I knew I was going to have a bad day because I did not study enough for my tax accounting test that I was about to take. It was made worse because I am considering about going to get my Masters in taxation, so I should do really well in that class ( I was pretty much having a stress/anxiety attack). Before class started, I looked at my cell phone and realized that their was a text message from one of my Christian friends who messeged me a quote out of the Bible. By reading that quote, all of my anxiety went away from me while I was taking that test because God said gave me a sign that it would be alright. I knew (at that time) the test I was taking that I was not going to do well on it (I got a 62% on that test, just for comparison I scored a 98% on my first tax mid-term), but God was there to get rid of all that stress anxiety I was having. Some of you may discount what I have said for various reasons, but a huge burden of stress and panic was lifted from me. I have no doubt that it was God answering my pray of asking him to cut the stress out of my life so I could take that mid-term than go home and do homework that I had to do.

I visualize nothing when I pray. I just say what I am thinking in my mind. I know that God is hearing me. I do not have to get on my knees or put my hands together when I pray. God will listen to me whenever I speak to him as long as I am giving him my attention. He takes care of all my problems.

 

[Death.Trap]

Also, because there seems to be some reasonable people on here. I was wondering about something. The protestant church's came from the Catholic church. Most people know, or should, know this. I'm curious to know how some Protestant church's/people can seriously look at the Catholic church and say FUBAR THE CAtOLICS! (no disprespect intended, I'm just trying to add some humor to this post)


The protestant Chruch came into being because one priest disagreed with the way the vatican was running things. One priest brought about hundreds of protestant church's. I can't really explain my question, I guess it would be easier in person. But I think you can get the general idea from this post.

 

[Neutrino]

Now that I look at your second question, it appears that my previous post did a good job of answering this question. If that doesn't answer you question adequately, could you post a more specific question? Well, I hope that answers you questions.

Spent the last eight hours writing an engineering project so couldn't get back to you till now. Anyways, thanks for responding to my questions. For you first answer, I'll just leave it at what you say because it doesn't make sense to me, but since it does make sense to you it won't be productive to try and elaborate on it.

As for my second question. While you touched on it a little, and asus tried to answer it, I still feel it is mostly unexplained. As you asked for me to clarify I will try to do so the best I can.

My original question was what makes your own religion the "right" one over other religions? Now as you've described, I'm sure you feel you are, but if you try to think about it from an objective view point how can you say that your religion is the correct one while all these other religions are incorrect? I just see no basis for this beyond personal feelings and childhood upbringing.

Now it's been brought up that christianity is not a religion. Let's please just not even bother going there. Here's the definition of a religion:

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I see no way in which anyone can rationally argue that it is not a religion. So let us begin on the basis that christianity is one among many religions held by people on this earth. Also, to asus, note that I'm talking about ALL religions on earth, not just one. This is not a christianity versus islam argument.

Now to further clarify my question to you, blahblahblah, do you not think that other people feel the same about their own religions as you feel about yours? Religion is after all a personal experience as has been pointed out, and your own basis for your belief is your own personal experience with religion and God. But there are all these other people who have the same type of experiences or beliefs in their own religion. I'm sure they think it is just as "correct" as you think yours is. I'm not saying any spedific one of you are necessarily correct or incorrect, only that you can't all be correct. In fact if one is to say that Christianity is the one correct religion then that means many many other religions are wrong. But from an objective viewpoint how can you judge your own religious experiences or feeling as more valid than someone elses religious experiences and feelings? See, that is just what doesn't make sense to me.

That's one of my main concerns with religion. I have one more thing along those same lines I'd like to bring up too though. However if you just answer one question I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to the one above. If you have time to respond to both that's great to.

My second question for this post is do you or other people reading this thread believe that if a person does not accept God's existence and Jesus Christ as their savior then they will go to Hell? The reason I ask is because if you do then by those beliefs I'm probably going to go to Hell then. Now I consider myself to be a good person. I adhere to my own morals, I try not to lie, I don't steal, I'm faithful and loyal in relationships, I try to treat other people with the same respect that I expect them to treat me. I'm not saying I'm anywhere near perfect, but I like to think that I positively contribute to society. So here's a person like me, who tries to do the best they can and treat other's well, but will most likely never accept religion. Yes, you could argue that I will someday (which is probably unlikely), but for the sake of argument say I never do. In fact if you take into account my personality it is practically impossible for me to accept something without factual evidence. Here's where we reach the problem. Why does the christian God condemn me or someone like me to eternal damnation? Have I truly done anything so horrible as to deserve that? Just wondering what other people's thoughts are on that subject.

Additionally, and along the same line of thought as above, what about people who have never heard of God or Christianity? How about a tribe in the jungles of Africa or South America that don't have contact with the rest of the world and don't know about these things. So of course they can't accept the religion since they've never even heard of it. Another example is a child. What about a child that hasn't learned about religion and dies before they have a chance to? Also, how about people who are taught different religions by their family? How can they be expected to accept another religion when their own family, the one's they trust and hold the most dear to themselves, teach them something else?

Got a bit carried away there, but once I get typing I have a hard time stopping until I've written all that I wanted to.

But it's some things to think about.

 

[OCybrManO]

Let me give an example. I know you non-Christians are going to think this is corny, but whatever. Example, I was going to have a bad day. I knew I was going to have a bad day because I did not study enough for my tax accounting test that I was about to take. It was made worse because I am considering about going to get my Masters in taxation, so I should do really well in that class ( I was pretty much having a stress/anxiety attack). Before class started, I looked at my cell phone and realized that their was a text message from one of my Christian friends who messeged me a quote out of the Bible. By reading that quote, all of my anxiety went away from me while I was taking that test because God said gave me a sign that it would be alright. I knew (at that time) the test I was taking that I was not going to do well on it (I got a 62% on that test, just for comparison I scored a 98% on my first tax mid-term), but God was there to get rid of all that stress anxiety I was having. Some of you may discount what I have said for various reasons, but a huge burden of stress and panic was lifted from me. I have no doubt that it was God answering my pray of asking him to cut the stress out of my life so I could take that mid-term than go home and do homework that I had to do.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx

I'm not saying I'm right on this, but I feel I should post the opposing view of this experience. I don't know how obvious this sign may have seemed because you never told us which quote it was... but what was it a sign of? Everything will be OK? Your stress will disappear? That may have been the placebo effect in action. If you believe the "pill" is real and will fix the problem your body can sometimes fix the problem on its own even if the "pill" is just sugar. In this case, the "pill" would be the action of taking a text message from your friend as a sign from God that everything will be fine.

Anything you might interpret as an act of God will be interpreted differently by people with other beliefs. There is no way to prove who is right. Anything religious people use as evidence of God's existence, scientists will try to prove that it was just a coincidence or that it never happened. Then, anything that science proves can be immediately turned around by saying "God made it so that it would look that way" (you can use that argument for just about anything an atheist says). Repeat ad nauseum. It will always end in a stalemate because even if science somehow detects everything that exists the religious people will believe that God's existence is beyond detection because he is all powerful.

In short, there will never be concrete evidence either way (unless God himself comes down to Earth and performs a bunch of miracles in front of tons of people)... so just believe what you want and have fun!

 

[blahblahblah]

Gahhh...there is a lot of stuff I have to read and reply to.

I'll be responding to your posts in time. But, neutrino, I must ask you one quick question. Have you ever gone to church before? Going to church may provide you with better answers. I can only address so many questions with this thread. Plus, communicating through a forum is not the easiest way to answer questions you may have.

[Edit]: Asus, you could help me out anytime. lol

 

[Pressure]

I a few questions hopefully one of you catholics or christians can answer for me. I wanna know about angels. God created Angels, right? Angels are not supose to have free will like we do, but what bothers me is if this is true how did some (e.g. Lucifer and his followers) decide they wanted to overthrow God. First of all, since God is all-knowing wouldn't he have known this was going to happen? Second, if Angels don't have free will why is it that Lucifer would try to do that?

Just to let some of you know, the Devil used to be an Angel. You'd be suprised how many people DON'T know this. I believe he was kinda like God's second in command, the only person above him was God, I'm not sure though. Can someone confirm that?

 

[blahblahblah]

I a few questions hopefully one of you catholics or christians can answer for me. I wanna know about angels. God created Angels, right? Angels are not supose to have free will like we do, but what bothers me is if this is true how did some (e.g. Lucifer and his followers) decide they wanted to overthrow God. First of all, since God is all-knowing wouldn't he have known this was going to happen? Second, if Angels don't have free will why is it that Lucifer would try to do that?

Just to let some of you know, the Devil used to be an Angel. You'd be suprised how many people DON'T know this.

The Bible is not a book of answers. I suppose I could find out when I go to heaven.

Based off of what I know of the Bible, it would appear that God gives everybody free will to do what ever they want. Isaiah 14:12-15 basically says that Satan made a decision that he wanted to be greated than God. From reading that you would have to assume that in order for Satan to make that decision, he would have to have free will.

 

[mchammer75040]

think I need to do some garden variety cleanup and support Asus on some topics on this thread.

mchammer75040 - I honestly do not know your intentions. Do you wish to have a civil debate or do you wish to flame people who have different beliefs than you? I ask that, because right now it appears that you are flaming people (in contrast to other people such as Neutrino or other posters). There is more than one way to disagree with somebody. Just because you disagree with somebody does not make you right. Have you ever thought that people could assign different definitions to different words? I don't think so. If you would like to be better received by me or Asus, why don't you treat us like you would treat a friend who you would have a debate with. That is all I am asking.

Ok your right sorry, I wrote this this morning and I was kinda flustered. I also have a really short fuse, sometimes I come off mean but Im not really paying attention.

Do you happen to know what schizophrenia is? If so, I am ashamed that you would use schizophrenia to describe Christians. I do not know who you are, but I would like a level of maturity and responsibility if you would like responses from somebody. By making comments like that, you loose all credibility in my eyes. But, it is your prerogative to post whatever you feel. I am just asking that you treat us Christians with more respect (or if you do respect us, try rewording your posts to make them less hostile please).

Yes I do know what schizophrenia is, Im not saying christians are the ones hullucinating/hearing voices, but who knows? I think it has to be tooken into consideration like Timmy says, most people from all religions are equally convinced their religion is right. Or maybe that they have seen or heard their god, all Im suggesting is that it does need to be tooken into consideration when you look at it that way.

I know from previous posts you claimed you were a Christian or at the very least you read the Bible. Simply reading the bible does not make you a Christian according to my beliefs. Likewise, claiming that you are a Christian is unlikely. Becoming a Christian is a positive life changing experience. If you did not experience that, I find it hard to believe you can understand things from my viewpoint. Reading the Bible before I became saved took a completely different meaning after I was saved.

I had a changing experience sure, but I would have also had a similar changing experience if I was to join any other religion. People may change for the good when joining a religion, maybe the security at the thought of knowing a afterlife exists. Maybe the acceptance of the ethics or philosophy of that religion.

If Christianity did not exist, and the world existed like you suppose, why do we have rules then? If life was pointless, why is murdering a person considered bad; shouldn't that be considered a good thing since you would be ending a person's miserable life early? Or if you do find a reason to determine murdering bad, what about other crimes, why would man obey rules if there was no other purpose? .

These ethics are apart of being a social animal.

You are assuming that you had a true Christian experience. I can tell you that if you had the experiences I have had, you would not be that way. To me, going to church, praying and such does bring happiness to my life. I wish you would go back to church with an open mind, you would see how much you are missing. If you don't mind me asking, why did you stop going to church?

I stoped going to church because I stopped seeing a point. My dad did crack, my mom abused pills and liquir and we were very poor. This was around the time I started questioning god, I know its selfish, but its the main reason although its not the reason I dont believe today.
Thats what Im talkin about going to church and praying and such never brought me any comfort, it was actually the opposite. The more I went to church, then came home and found my mom laying on the kitchen floor I started to wonder. I thought that god hated me that he never helped so it always made me sad when I went to pray and no help was provided (and still isnt).

This is where a difference in definitions occurs. In our context, anti-religious means that church is not there for a formal set of ceremonies and rituals. In Christianity, church is meant as a method of fellowship and learning about the Jesus. Yes, there are a few rituals in Christianity, but they are not required to become or maintain your relationship with God (you can't call accepting Jesus into your life because you only do that once).

Ok fine thanks for sheding light on that.

You mean "expecting" or "accepting"? I just want to make sure I understand why you write so I can properly address your point. This not meant to insult you, everybody makes spelling mistakes (including me), I just want to make sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Err accepting my bad.
~

I just want to repeat, that I will discuss my faith with anybody who wishes to do so as long as they treat me with respect. I am happy to see that this thread hasn't turned sour like I had expected it to. I just wish there are more Christians who can help support me and Asus's points.

Like I said I didnt mean to come off like a ass earlier, just not my day and you felt it.

 

[FortisVir]

Additionally, and along the same line of thought as above, what about people who have never heard of God or Christianity? How about a tribe in the jungles of Africa or South America that don't have contact with the rest of the world and don't know about these things. So of course they can't accept the religion since they've never even heard of it. Another example is a child. What about a child that hasn't learned about religion and dies before they have a chance to? Also, how about people who are taught different religions by their family? How can they be expected to accept another religion when their own family, the one's they trust and hold the most dear to themselves, teach them something else?

According to Dante, these people would end up in the first circle of Hell, Limbo. The atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad. There is no torture and there is light. This is where the great philosophers and poets such as Socrates, Aristotle, Virgil, Homer, Plato, etc. reside. Yeah, this is Dante's work and his view, but it still seems in line with the teachings of the Church.

And thanks for answering my questions, blahblahblah. Interesting reply.

 

[mchammer75040]

not exactly.. while you have a point about hallucinations in general, logoically you can't dismiss god based on the fact that you've never conversed with god. it's the simple case of 'absence of proof is not proof of absence.'

i'll reitterate, and would like if anyone can refute what i say; it's all about experience. if you've experienced god, you have some reason to believe in god (considerations like insanity and the like must be taken into account). if you have not experienced god, you have no reason to believe in god. the experience of others is entirely foriegn to you, and shall always remain so. so your perception of their experiences (and your perception is all it is, of course) should play no role in the formulation of your own outlook.

Uhh yea good point.

 

[blahblahblah]

According to Dante, these people would end up in the first circle of Hell, Limbo. The atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad. There is no torture and there is light. This is where the great philosophers and poets such as Socrates, Aristotle, Virgil, Homer, Plato, etc. reside. Yeah, this is Dante's work and his view, but it still seems in line with the teachings of the Church.

And thanks for answering my questions, blahblahblah. Interesting reply.

I don't agree with your conclusions about the 7 levels (or however Dante's Inferno had) of hell. Dante's Inferno is not backed up by scripture in the Bible.

I look at it this way. If Adam and Eve both committed sin, whose to say that we would have choosen differently? After all, if you go according to the Bible, everybody came from Adam and Eve. So that blunder from Adam and Eve pretty much damned everybody to Hell. With that in mind, God has given everybody an opportunity to be saved back then. What is important to note (according to my beliefs) is that if a person was willing to be saved, (even if they didn't personally know it, because of God's Omniscience) that person would be saved one way or another (through missionary or other circumstance causing that person to meet a Christian).

Just another way (the way I believe) you could look at it.

 

[Death.Trap]

I a few questions hopefully one of you catholics or christians can answer for me. I wanna know about angels. God created Angels, right? Angels are not supose to have free will like we do, but what bothers me is if this is true how did some (e.g. Lucifer and his followers) decide they wanted to overthrow God. First of all, since God is all-knowing wouldn't he have known this was going to happen? Second, if Angels don't have free will why is it that Lucifer would try to do that?

Just to let some of you know, the Devil used to be an Angel. You'd be suprised how many people DON'T know this. I believe he was kinda like God's second in command, the only person above him was God, I'm not sure though. Can someone confirm that?

I'll give you the Catholic answer. God created the angels before he created man. He wanted them to love him of their own choice, thus he gave them free will. Now Angels are entirely above our plain of existence, they are, to put it bluntly, way smarter than we, at least in this life, are. But Lucifers downfall was the culmination of one of the seven deadliest sins, Pride. He could not bear the fact that a lowly pitiful human women would become the Mother of God. So he revolted, along with other Angels.


I for one have trouble comprehending how an Angel could possibly revolt against God and hope to win. But as I mentioned earlier, God, Angels > man


I guess that might be one of the first things I ask God when I die, assuming of course I go to heaven. Which BTW, I plan on doing.

St. Michael the Archangel cast Satan out of Heaven with a prayer. Satan was then sent to hell.


That's probably not exactly the official Catholic viewpoint. But it's damn close.

 

[Letters]

I know this is reply #103, but why the Hell did we need a redo of this shit?

 

[Death.Trap]

According to Dante, these people would end up in the first circle of Hell, Limbo. The atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad. There is no torture and there is light. This is where the great philosophers and poets such as Socrates, Aristotle, Virgil, Homer, Plato, etc. reside. Yeah, this is Dante's work and his view, but it still seems in line with the teachings of the Church.

And thanks for answering my questions, blahblahblah. Interesting reply.

Once again I'll give the Catholic answer.


Souls who are not baptized into the church-[I'm not refering to protestants because in truth I really don't know, I would have to ask someone. But I think that this doesn't apply to you guys]-like, lets take the unborn who are murdered through "abortion." They end up in Limbo. In Limbo one is just as happy and at peace as one is in heaven, though you will never see the face of God.


This 7 levels of hell thing I would have to read about, I've heard about it but I'm 99.99% sure that it is not an official teaching of the Catholic Church.


EDIT- Actually I'm 100% sure.

 

[Jackal hit]

see this is another logistical problem with "being saved." what happened before christianity? did everyone just go to hell? was there a chosen religion? also, if you don't have the opportunity to ever meet a christian in life, then you go to hell or limbo or whatever automatically(pardon me if i misread the person's post)? and if they go to hell because they're not christian, and never had a chance to be christian, isn't god creating that person to go to hell from the get-go? and following that reasoning, doesn't that take away a person's free will to choose to go to heaven? also, don't you think it's a little silly to give people free will, and then say "okay you're free to do whatever you want, but if you go against my will, you're off to hell" that's not really free will... just FYI. that's coercion by threat. i dunno about you guys, but god can't threaten me or impinge on my free will by commanding me to do things, such as being christian(i'm not trying to offend, mind you). btw, i definitely do believe in god, and i believe in freewill. i just don't believe in hell, or god having requirements of us or anything. i think god loves fully, and without requiring us to accept him like a neurotic feudal king. i can be completely honest when i say that if the god of the bible is really god, that i'd make a better god, i'd never require anyone to love me, there would be no hell, all the bad experiences a person would ever go through would be on earth, and they'd be free to go back to earth in a new body any time, they can "sin" (if that's what you like to call it), and i'd still welcome them to heaven with my unending, undying love. i ... gotta finish this later, gonna go drive around a bit.

 

[Pressure]

I'll give you the Catholic answer. God created the angels before he created man. He wanted them to love him of their own choice, thus he gave them free will. Now Angels are entirely above our plain of existence, they are, to put it bluntly, way smarter than we, at least in this life, are. But Lucifers downfall was the culmination of one of the seven deadliest sins, Pride. He could not bear the fact that a lowly pitiful human women would become the Mother of God. So he revolted, along with other Angels.


I for one have trouble comprehending how an Angel could possibly revolt against God and hope to win. But as I mentioned earlier, God, Angels > man


I guess that might be one of the first things I ask God when I die, assuming of course I go to heaven. Which BTW, I plan on doing.

St. Michael the Archangel cast Satan out of Heaven with a prayer. Satan was then sent to hell.


That's probably not exactly the official Catholic viewpoint. But it's damn close.

I thought Lucifer revolted long before humans even existed. Hm, I've never read the Bible, but it sure sounds like an interesting read. Wasn't hell made just for Satan also? From what I've heard hell is toture for him, not a place that he enjoys.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Just to let some of you know, the Devil used to be an Angel. You'd be suprised how many people DON'T know this.

perhaps many don't 'know' this because it's not necessarily true. in one of the great examples of the problems with transliteration, the references to lucifer found in isaiah 14:12 is not clearly identified with satan. many biblical translation seem to be refering to christ by the term. lucifer literally means "light bearer or bringer", in latin.. refering to the 'morning star', or venus. in many bible versions, the 'morning star' of isaiah 14:12 seems to be refering to christ. the use of the term lucifer as a proper name for satan seems to stem from a misreading of the latin, assuming the passage was refering to satan.

just google it, i'm sure biblical scholors have written a great deal about this. i just got the above from an ex-catholic friend of mine i was talking to about this.

 

[Pressure]

Thanks for clearing that up .

 

[Asus]

Long post ahead and it was hard to keep it organized and readable.

My original question was what makes your own religion the "right" one over other religions? Now as you've described, I'm sure you feel you are, but if you try to think about it from an objective view point how can you say that your religion is the correct one while all these other religions are incorrect? I just see no basis for this beyond personal feelings and childhood upbringing.

*See below. The reason I believe in Christianity vs any other religion is because of the differences. You cannot rationally look at the belief in God like math or science. It doesn't have anything to do with childhood upbringing since that is just opportunity.

Now it's been brought up that christianity is not a religion. Let's please just not even bother going there.

*I'll see if I can make it as simple/quick as possible.
Oh wait, I found a
Link .
Wasn't that quick? Well, you might still be reading.

Religion comes from a latin word that means to "bind back". Basicly how humanity binds itself together with its god or gods. One main point that makes Christianity stand out among other religions (and why I said it wasn't a religion) is because God initiates, what God has done and is doing for humanity, rather than us initiating with God or meeting in the middle.

I fully believe in the Bible as His Word. Many religions believe parts of the Bible but not all of it. Other religions acknowledge people and events in the Bible but don't believe the teachings since they have their own 'book' usually. (Those 'books' have been dated as being writen after Jesus' time here on earth unlike parts of the Bible.)

Religion is after all a personal experience as has been pointed out, and your own basis for your belief is your own personal experience with religion and God.

Yep.

But from an objective viewpoint how can you judge your own religious experiences or feeling as more valid than someone elses religious experiences and feelings? See, that is just what doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing that comes to mind that may be objective in your eyes.
The morals that I believe in probably most of you probably also believe. There are quiet a few religions that would go against those morals. Look at all the killing going on in the world among religious people. You may look at many religions and ask yourself why do they think they can do this or that. Christians respect others and are caring, loving, gracious, helpful, and forgiving people.

There are many religions that share those morals with Christians but they are tangents from the teachings of Christ. People split from the their church to form one that had their beliefs. They have elements that differ and are flawed because they try to apply their own understanding. You cannot attempt to understand God's thinking or reasoning for many things so you must have faith. Trying to fill that void with your own understanding will only distance yourself from God.

Do you fully understand the architecture and how silicon chips work, chemistry, physics or programing? Those are just some examples that you may not beable to use your own reasoning and understanding. And those are even among ourselves. If you tried to apply it to something you do not know you will come to inaccurate conclusions.

My second question for this post is do you or other people reading this thread believe that if a person does not accept God's existence and Jesus Christ as their savior then they will go to Hell? The reason I ask is because if you do then by those beliefs I'm probably going to go to Hell then. Now I consider myself to be a good person. I adhere to my own morals, I try not to lie, I don't steal, I'm faithful and loyal in relationships, I try to treat other people with the same respect that I expect them to treat me. I'm not saying I'm anywhere near perfect, but I like to think that I positively contribute to society. So here's a person like me, who tries to do the best they can and treat other's well, but will most likely never accept religion. Yes, you could argue that I will someday (which is probably unlikely), but for the sake of argument say I never do. In fact if you take into account my personality it is practically impossible for me to accept something without factual evidence. Here's where we reach the problem. Why does the christian God condemn me or someone like me to eternal damnation? Have I truly done anything so horrible as to deserve that? Just wondering what other people's thoughts are on that subject.

Yes, I believe you would go to hell. Being good is satan's biggest deception.
Remember, it isn't about deeds. We are saved only because of what God has done for us, not what we can do for Him. This is a difference compared with other religions as well. If based on deeds alone you can pass into heaven then you could just behave and yet still be a flawed/'poisioned' individual who does not believe that Christ is your Lord and savior.

Lets make this a little simpler.
Lets say you lived in the medieval age. You wanted to get into the King's land because it had much to offer and the rest of the world was in turmoil yet his land was at peace. And all you had to do was show that you can behave yet not actually believe he is your King and follow his ways through life.

It is impossible for a holy God to allow sin into heaven. Even though you try to tame it yourself, sin is in you. It is in me. Why can a Christian go to heaven even though they have sin too? FAITH. They confess Jesus is Lord and they turn from sin to follow in His footsteps. Those that reject God's love and refuse His plan for forgiveness will be eternally separated from Him.

Additionally, and along the same line of thought as above, what about people who have never heard of God or Christianity?

God gives a 2nd chance to ask for forgiveness after death.

That's it? Yes that was a short answer. hehe

About infant deaths.
I believe that when an infant dies, they are safe even though they are not 'saved'. I believe that because they are too young to have commited a conscious sin, that they are safe. I don't really believe in infant baptism being the way to 'save' an infant. Rather than explain it myself I found another Link . hehe
And also what I said above about 2nd chance.

in one of the great examples of the problems with transliteration, the references to lucifer found in isaiah 14:12 is not clearly identified with satan. many biblical translation seem to be refering to christ by the term. lucifer literally means "light bearer or bringer", in latin.. refering to the 'morning star', or venus. in many bible versions, the 'morning star' of isaiah 14:12 seems to be refering to christ. the use of the term lucifer as a proper name for satan seems to stem from a misreading of the latin, assuming the passage was refering to satan.

Lucifer = Angel
light bearer or bringer makes sense so far.
Lucifer then turned against God
Lucifer does = Satan

Thats my quick take on it.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Lucifer = Angel
light bearer or bringer makes sense so far.
Lucifer then turned against God
Lucifer does = Satan

Thats my quick take on it.

ok, i've done some legwork on this, because it's one of the few interesting things about this thread. the term "lucifer" occurs 3 times in the latin vulgate (which was a translation of greek and hebrew scripture), the latin scripture used by the church for more than 1000 years. in each case (isaiah 14:12, job 11:17, and 2 peter 1:19) the term appears in lower case. it's usually translated as a day-, morning-, or sometimes shining-star. sometimes it's a combination like 'shining star of morning' (depends on which version of the engilsh bible you're using). apparently many people consider "morning star" to be a title of the christ. indeed i think some christians are rather offended by the notion that people can so conflate satan and christ texturally.

in the king james version of the bible (transalted from the latin vulgate), only the isaiah passage leaves the term "lucifer" untranslated. other versions like the niv and ylt translate all three occurances to something similar to "morning star", like the kjv does in the job and 2 peter passages.

i guess if you want to be a "kjv only" type, you can dismiss the confussion right away.. but it's an interesting problem, since this appears to be the only scriptural reference to satan ever being an angel, and it doesn't sound rock-solid (even by multiple-transliteration standards).

 

[Death.Trap]

I thought Lucifer revolted long before humans even existed. Hm, I've never read the Bible, but it sure sounds like an interesting read. Wasn't hell made just for Satan also? From what I've heard hell is toture for him, not a place that he enjoys.

Lucifer did revolt before humans were created. You're forgetting were talking about God here. God had to test them, and seeing that Mary would become the Mother of God was unnaceptable to Lucifer.

 

[Death.Trap]

see this is another logistical problem with "being saved." what happened before christianity? did everyone just go to hell? was there a chosen religion? also, if you don't have the opportunity to ever meet a christian in life, then you go to hell or limbo or whatever automatically(pardon me if i misread the person's post)? and if they go to hell because they're not christian, and never had a chance to be christian, isn't god creating that person to go to hell from the get-go? and following that reasoning, doesn't that take away a person's free will to choose to go to heaven? also, don't you think it's a little silly to give people free will, and then say "okay you're free to do whatever you want, but if you go against my will, you're off to hell" that's not really free will... just FYI. that's coercion by threat. i dunno about you guys, but god can't threaten me or impinge on my free will by commanding me to do things, such as being christian(i'm not trying to offend, mind you). btw, i definitely do believe in god, and i believe in freewill. i just don't believe in hell, or god having requirements of us or anything. i think god loves fully, and without requiring us to accept him like a neurotic feudal king. i can be completely honest when i say that if the god of the bible is really god, that i'd make a better god, i'd never require anyone to love me, there would be no hell, all the bad experiences a person would ever go through would be on earth, and they'd be free to go back to earth in a new body any time, they can "sin" (if that's what you like to call it), and i'd still welcome them to heaven with my unending, undying love. i ... gotta finish this later, gonna go drive around a bit.

Before Christ died on the cross everyone* who lived died went to limbo to await his coming. After he was crucified the gates of heaven were opened and those who were in limbo were permitted entry.




*On a side note; before christianity Jewdiesm ( not sure how to spell that lol) was the 'correct' religion.

 

[Neutrino]

*On a side note; before christianity Jewdiesm ( not sure how to spell that lol) was the 'correct' religion.

The "correct" religion according to whom?

 

[Asus]

The Jews were God's chosen people but not their religion. Back then Jews rejected Him as a whole and those who accepted him where considered outcasts by the Jewish community.

 

[Death.Trap]

There religion was given to them by God. I'm not sure how far 'back then' you are refering too. The only time I am aware of that they rejected him is after being led out of Egypt by Moses. They were at Mt. Sinai and built a idol made of gold and worshiped it. God delt out some justice and then condemed them to walk the desert for 40 years until the entire generation of Moses was dead.

 

[Death.Trap]

The "correct" religion according to whom?

According to Christian/Catholic theology.

Christ hadn't been born yet and the Jew's were following a religion dictated to them by God, as we Christians are now doing.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

it's judaism, btw. though i have seen it spelled judaeism also.

 

[Asus]

I'm not sure how far 'back then' you are refering too. The only time I am aware of that they rejected him is after being led out of Egypt by Moses.

Jews were split on the issue of Jesus being the Messiah, the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the poeple of israel as their great Savior and Redeemer. Those Jews who believed He was the Messiah followed Him and turned from their previous ways while those Jews who rejected Him as the Messiah continued to practice Judasim.
Those who believe in Judasim didn't think Jesus fulfilled who they through the Messiah is. Basicly they were expecting a King while Jesus was humble.

Jesus however did not come like a tyrant King, a King of war, nor did he come wearing a crown or distinguished clothing, he did not come with chariots and body-guards, nor with His own personal army. He came as a humble servant of God fulfilling everything that was prophesied about Him.

They were expecting a lion but received a lamb. They were expecting a King of war yet He came as a king of peace. They were expecting a king who would lead the people to rebellion, yet He taught them obedience to God. They expected to see the blood of their foreign overlords and enemies, yet He spilt His own on the cross. They wanted someone to look up to, yet He lowered His head and let them spit on Him, whip Him, beat Him and torture Him. They were expecting someone on a large valiant horse, yet He came on a small brown donkey.

We are told that in Jewish tradition the donkey was used as a sign that a king was coming in peace. Whereas a decorated horse was often a sign of a king proclaiming war or displaying the pomp of victory over his enemies. The Roman authorities were probably laughing and mocking at the sight of Jesus riding into the City on a small donkey. Yet many Jews were probably angry, disheartened, disappointed and disillusioned to say the least. In only a few days the cheering of the Jews who exclaimed "Hosanah" save us now, would soon change to a wild frenzy of "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!!". Jesus however foreknew and foretold that all this would happen. For it was all revealed to the prophets of Israel and to Him by His Father in heaven.

 

[Death.Trap]

Jews were split on the issue of Jesus being the Messiah, the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the poeple of israel as their great Savior and Redeemer. Those Jews who believed He was the Messiah followed Him and turned from their previous ways while those Jews who rejected Him as the Messiah continued to practice Judasim.
Those who believe in Judasim didn't think Jesus fulfilled who they through the Messiah is. Basicly they were expecting a King while Jesus was humble.

Oh, I thought you were refering to the time before Christ was born. You pretty much summed it up right there.

 

[Death.Trap]

Jews were split on the issue of Jesus being the Messiah, the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the poeple of israel as their great Savior and Redeemer. Those Jews who believed He was the Messiah followed Him and turned from their previous ways while those Jews who rejected Him as the Messiah continued to practice Judasim.
Those who believe in Judasim didn't think Jesus fulfilled who they through the Messiah is. Basicly they were expecting a King while Jesus was humble.

Oh, I thought you were refering to the time before Christ was born. You pretty much summed it up right there. But something that I find interesting is that they Jew's no longer practice animal sacrifices. That was one of the rituals that was supposed to stop with the coming of the Messiah.