The Holy Bible Q&A and Help Thread (Religion in here)

[Fira777]

Need help or need questions regarding what/whom THB talks about?

This is the place to do so.

I'll go first.

I know The Holy Bible says we should forgive all offenders yet if you read Mark 3: 27-31 it talks about The Unforgivable Sin so, what can happen to me (according to God) if I don't forgive someone who have done The Unforgivable Sin?

Yes (just incase anyone askes) I always do and always will agree on and accept The Holy Bible Agreement found on Matthew 18: 19 and 20.

[Ziilyn]

So if God is so forgiving why didn't she just forgive Eve or Cain or Lucifer? Why did he banish them? Why did he forsake them? If God is so infinitely merciful why didn't just forgive?

[Kerrah]

Can god create a boulder so big he can not move it?

OR... Can god create a gaming console so big he can not afford it? He did, it's Xbox 360.

[Terrell]

Ooo... I sense the controversy even now. I'll declare my allegiance straight off - I'm a theist, but though I have great respect for many Christian traditions, I'm not a Christian.

Can god create a boulder so big he can not move it?

Yes, he can. And he can move it and not be able to move it, and both, and neither, all simultaneously. Just because he can.

Or rather, because he's above such concepts. To me, that question is an irrelevant one. It's like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'. Does it matter whether or not angels have mass?

There is a word that's used in some Buddhist theology. That word is 'mu'. What 'mu' means, as an answer to a question, is to deny the question. It means that the question is wrong. For an easy example, suppose someone were to ask 'have you stopped beating your wife?' - the correct answer is mu, because the question is based on false assumptions. Traditionally, when someone would ask the Buddha whether or not there is a God, the Buddha would answer mu.

I think there's wisdom in that. When it comes to the properties of God, we must always remember that we're trying to name the unnamable, and apply human properties to something that transcends humanity. Different religions are (note my bias; I'm pluralist) merely different artificial constructs that we may approach this truth from.

So, to your question, the answer is mu.

I know The Holy Bible says we should forgive all offenders yet if you read Mark 3: 27-31 it talks about The Unforgivable Sin so, what can happen to me (according to God) if I don't forgive someone who have done The Unforgivable Sin?

"I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever."

I think you always need to read the Bible critically. Think about what it's really saying; ask yourself what message Jesus is trying to communicate.

Here... I've been reading a little by Thich Nhat Hanh lately (so if there are too many Buddhist analogies, that's because I've still got his stuff in my head), and what he says about the Holy Spirit is quite relevant. The Holy Spirit is not what you say or what you do, but a way of thought and of relating to the world around you. What I think Jesus is saying there is that any deeds can be forgiven, as long as the person is still good at heart. I think it's remarkably inclusive, saying it doesn't matter what you say, do, or believe as long as you haven't betrayed the Holy Spirit; that universal spirit of creation that inhabits all of that creation. Or something, I don't pretend to be an expert in metaphysics.

Yes (just incase anyone askes) I always do and always will agree on and accept The Holy Bible Agreement found on Matthew 18: 19 and 20.

"I promise you that God in heaven will allow whatever you allow on earth, but he won't allow anything you don't allow. I promise that when any two of you on earth agree about something you are praying for, my Father in heaven will do it for you. Whenever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you."

That's the passage (technically, that's 18-20, not 19-20, but I felt it all needed to be there)... what 'Holy Bible Agreement' are you talking about? To me, that looks like a fairly straightforward passage about cooperation and harmony. When people work together, united with a single purpose, they will succeed because God smiles upon such friendship.

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Are you a believer in biblical inerrancy? If you are, then I'm afraid we're probably not going to get along. I think you need to interpret the Bible just as you interpret any other book, and take from it what you need so that it may serve as a rung on the ladder of your own personal spiritual development. Treating it as absolutely true carved-in-stone unchangeable is, in my opinion, disgracing the spirit of the book. Then again, I'm very liberal in my interpretation of the Bible as I'm sure you can tell.

[Kenzuki]

So if God is so forgiving why didn't she just forgive Eve or Cain or Lucifer? Why did he banish them? Why did he forsake them? If God is so infinitely merciful why didn't just forgive?

Just because i'm bored....

God did forgive Adam and Eve, because later Cain and Abel are making sacrifices to God, and where did they learn to do such a thing? that's right from Adam and Eve. They still had to be punished for their sins though.

God did show mercy to Cain by placing a mark upon his forhead, so that whosoever kills Cain vengeance shall be taking upon him seven times. But as above, he still had to pay for his sins by being forced into the Land of Nod.

Oh and Lucifer doesn't get forgiveness because he knew better. Unlike Adam and Eve who were blissfully ignorant of what Sin is, Lucifer and his angels knew good and evil from the begining. Therefore he doesn't get a second chance because he knew better. It's ironic, because he was already the second most powerful being next to God, and yet he wanted more. Such a waste.

In closing, yes God is a loving, merciful God. But what sort of Father would he be if he didn't chastise his children when they do wrong? Does it not say that if he didn't chastise you, that ye are bastards and not sons?


-The More You Know :thumbsup:

[Yuber8900]

When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all

[Creative]

In closing, yes God is a loving, merciful God. But what sort of Father would he be if he didn't chastise his children when they do wrong? Does it not say that if he didn't chastise you, that ye are bastards and not sons?


-The More You Know :thumbsup:

Dude.*

In the OT, God is kinda "let's go drown this city, the people don't like me".

I wonder really about this whole merciful deal, in the OT he is kinda brutal.

Now, flame on, if you wish.


((*Put it there for the effect))

[Wulfang]

When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all
FUTURAMA FTW!!!

[Nephalim]

Oh that was all the Old Testament, when God was a pissy little teenager. He's grown up. Fatherhood does that to a guy.

[Kenzuki]

Oh that was all the Old Testament, when God was a pissy little teenager. He's grown up. Fatherhood does that to a guy.

Pardon? Oh you were making a joke.

[Darkwind]

Dude.*

In the OT, God is kinda "let's go drown this city, the people don't like me".

I wonder really about this whole merciful deal, in the OT he is kinda brutal.

Now, flame on, if you wish.


((*Put it there for the effect))

This is why I don't take the OT literally. It doesn't match the way Jesus portrayed God at all. 'Course, that's just my interpretation of it.

[Nephalim]

Pardon? Oh you were making a joke.Was I? Accounts of God are as a wrathful and occasionally sadistic figure in the Old Testament, wreaking terrible vengeance on any who suffer even a momentary lapse in faith. However as the Bible progresses God becomes a much more benevolent, gentle entity, no longer terrorizing his subjects into worshiping him but trying to help them by offering up his son as a bloody sacrifice.

Is it really that ridiculous to propose that perhaps God matured?

[Kenzuki]

Yes. Because God is not capable of changing. He is a being that is out side of time all together.

"I am the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I change not." - God.

I don't look at God as doing anything wrong when he chastises people. Didn't your parents punish you when you disobeyed them?

[ScytheRexx]

This reminds me of an episode of South Park...

Oh, and just so you know, I am agnostic, I don't believe in organized religion, but I do believe in spirituality, and if God, Zeus, Alla, etc... all decided to come hang and my house, I am cool with that.

But as I said, I do not believe in organized religion, and thus I do not believe in all the books, scripts, stones, symbols, and other such human created swag, Holy Bible included.

[Flamestrider]

I don't look at God as doing anything wrong when he chastises people. Didn't your parents punish you when you disobeyed them?

Turning some woman to a pillar of salt just for turning around seems a tad excesive, does it not?

[Nephalim]

Yes. Because God is not capable of changing. He is a being that is out side of time all together.Well, that's true, if it's true.
"I am the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I change not." - God.Dear God, sorry to disturb you but your name is on a lot of quotes in this book. Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look.
I don't look at God as doing anything wrong when he chastises people. Didn't your parents punish you when you disobeyed them?Yes, but they did it through means that didn't involve opening up the desert and swallowing me when I questioned their wisdom. There's chastising, and then there's killing people. You don't think maybe he flew off the handle once or twice in the Old Testament?

If God is incapable of changing, then why'd he change?

[Terrell]

Turning some woman to a pillar of salt just for turning around seems a tad excesive, does it not?

Well, yes, but obviously that never actually happened. It's a story, designed to communicate a certain message.

It's like... there's a bit in Kings, I think, or maybe it's Judges, where the prophet Elisha is entering a city. Some children come out and mock the silly old man. Elisha doesn't say anything and they keep laughing at him. So God sends a pair of ravenous bears down, who promptly maul and kill all the children.

Clearly, if taken literally, that makes God a sadistic psychopath. However, it's not literal. That passage is the sort of thing you tell your children to make a moral point. Don't point and laugh at old people, and respect your elders. If you take Goldilocks and the Three Bears literally, the bears are savage murderers - after all, they kill Goldilocks for wandering into their house, sampling a little porridge, and falling asleep - which is why you shouldn't take it literally.

The same with Lot's wife. She looked back on Sodom - metaphorically, looking back at sin and evil. The message there is that you shouldn't look back at that sort of thing, but look ahead to the future and better things. It's not literal... it's the same reason Jesus used parables, talking in metaphor.

[Flamestrider]

Terrell: I wasn't saying that biblical stories ought to be taken literally. I was saying that a statement like Kenzuki's (The punishments that God doles out are justified) relies on the assumption that said punishments actually occurred.

[Cantus]

This reminds me of an episode of South Park...

Oh, and just so you know, I am agnostic, I don't believe in organized religion, but I do believe in spirituality, and if God, Zeus, Alla, etc... all decided to come hang and my house, I am cool with that.

But as I said, I do not believe in organized religion, and thus I do not believe in all the books, scripts, stones, symbols, and other such human created swag, Holy Bible included.

Scythe, you've renewed my faith in humanity.

No offense to christians, but the Bible, Torah, Quran, and most other "holy texts" are kind of the equivalent of fan fiction after the first hundred years or so. Honestly the New and Old testaments are so contradictory it's not funny, so you have to realize that belief in a diety isn't about following the tenants of some text to the letter. It's about realizing the overall message of the faith (i.e. Ten commandments), and leaving it at that.

That's why I like Buddhism (though because I can't for the life of me give up fish and bacon I don't practice it), it hasn't tried to create a stagnant society based solely on principles that don't work. Instead it merely requests that you respect yourself and others, and try your best to evolve through the stages via the eight fold path. It doesn't say you're going to hell or heaven, it says you have to enlighten yourself over time, and thus gain nirvana by thinking and acting appropriately, not by simply believing solely in one and only one almighty being.

[Terrell]

Terrell: I wasn't saying that biblical stories ought to be taken literally. I was saying that a statement like Kenzuki's (The punishments that God doles out are justified) relies on the assumption that said punishments actually occurred.

Then we agree. Of course, if you take the events described in the Bible literally God must have many alternate personalities, some merciful and giving, others vengeful and murderous. All of those biblical stories need to be taken in the context in which they were written.

No offense to christians, but the Bible, Torah, Quran, and most other "holy texts" are kind of the equivalent of fan fiction after the first hundred years or so. Honestly the New and Old testaments are so contradictory it's not funny, so you have to realize that belief in a diety isn't about following the tenants of some text to the letter. It's about realizing the overall message of the faith (i.e. Ten commandments), and leaving it at that.

Not just the Ten Commandmants. The Bible is a hodge-podge collection of different works written over centuries. Some books are histories, some are collections of laws (specifically, laws for a society that's been dead for millennia - Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not literal and are not a valid justification for anything, like witch-burning or homophobia or anything like that), some are proverbs. The reader needs to take what's valuable out of the book and leave the rest. That differs from person to person, of course. What works for one may not for another, and the Bible is like that. It brings spiritual comfort to many, and that's a good thing. Others don't find it works for them, and that's fine for them as well. It's when people try to declare it the only truth, the only path that it's okay to walk, that you get problems. The Bible's a tool, nothing more. One should never confuse a tool with the goal.

That's why I like Buddhism (though because I can't for the life of me give up fish and bacon I don't practice it), it hasn't tried to create a stagnant society based solely on principles that don't work.

Has Christianity tried to create a stagnant society based on principles that don't work? How so? I don't quite see what you mean, so could you please clarify?

[Kerrah]

When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all
Futurama > The Bible

Thread over

[ScytheRexx]

The Bible's a tool, nothing more. One should never confuse a tool with the goal.

Problems is, people look at the Holy Bible and see not the words of the authors, but the words of "God".

[Kenzuki]

The biggest mystery of the Bible may be that it exists at all - that its ancient texts have survived down the centuries, to excert unique spiritual influence on men and women today. Unlike sacred writings such as the Koron and Book of Mormon, the 66 books of the Holy Bible had no single person as their author. In fact, over an estimated 1,600 years, forty different authors from all walks of life - including kings, shepherds, priests, prophets, a physician, a tax collector, a leatherworker, and several fishermen - wrote the poetry, history, laws, and teachings found in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible was not even written in a single tongue: its authors employed three languages Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Now for all of it's shortcomings, flaws, and out dated language. I dare any one of you to do the same thing. Get that many people, many who did not even know each other. Tell them to write a holy book about a religion, take 1,600 years, and see if they even remotely get it right. Whether you believe in it or not no one can deny that the books that make up the Bible are a true piece of literary art that has influence the world for generations.

P.S. History and Theology were my favorite subjects in School :P

[ScytheRexx]

Whether you believe in it or not no one can deny that the books that make up the Bible are a true piece of literary art that has influence the world for generations.

I don't think anyone can deny that, agian, my only issue is that many people take all those stories are fact, the words of "God", instead of some well written mythology.

If "God" exists, I don't think thousands of people were following him around writing about his "life" in so much detail that you would feel like he was next to you talking with Lucifer at the coffee house.

I was raised christian, my family is still heavily christian, but as I grew I realized the falacy that my family still follows, that a human made book or symbol is the words or image of "God".

If "God" wished to speak with me he knows my address, we can hang out for coffee

[Kerrah]

If "God" wished to speak with me he knows my address, we can hang out for coffee
Deal.

[Nephalim]

Whether you believe in it or not no one can deny that the books that make up the Bible are a true piece of literary art that has influence the world for generations.That's all very pretty, but it doesn't really deal with anything anyone has said. It doesn't make quoting the Bible as if that's proof of a theological claim any more reasonable. And incidentally, if you subbed in most any religious text for the word "Bible" in that statement it would be just as true.
Now for all of it's shortcomings, flaws, and out dated language. I dare any one of you to do the same thing.
I just want you to take a look at your second sentence and understand that it in no way dealt with the first.

[Kenzuki]

Ok, you say that the God of the Old Testament is different from the one in the New? Well then, do you perchance remember the story of Annanias and Sapphira? A person in the Church sold all of his stuff and gave the money to the Church. He then got a little fame amongst the people for doing it. So a married couple (Annanias and Sapphira) thought they would do the same. Only, the withheld a portion of the money. Annanias then went in and started talking to Peter saying how he gave everything to the Church. Peter asked him three times if he gave everything. He said yes every time. Because he lied about this, God struck him dead. Shortly right after, his wife came in and did the same thing. Peter asked her three times if she was telling the truth, she said yes each time. She was struck dead as well.

So while there might not be as much smiting going on in the New Testament, it's certainly there.

[Timolas]

I'm a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that if I lied about something spiritual like those two I wouldn't get struck dead.

[ScytheRexx]

I'm a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that if I lied about something spiritual like those two I wouldn't get struck dead.

I am also pretty sure I would not want to worship a diety that decides the best punishment for me would be to kill me.

[Timolas]

I am also pretty sure I would not want to worship a diety that decides the best punishment for me would be to kill me.
I follow the Bible and Church, but yet again I don't take it literally.
Since the authors of the time recorded what they saw etc, I guess they could attribute people dying to God's work.

For example the case with the pillar of salt. It was because anyone who looked back got turned into one. However, if they can't look back how did they know she got turned into a pillar of salt for looking back?
A pillar of salt is a pretty bad polymorph spell.

I just try to avoid too many in depth questions. It isn't blind faith, but if I go hounding after every conspiracy theory etc I'll just be killing my time. Miracles have happened, or so they say, so that's indication enough for me.

[Kenzuki]

Well to each his own as they say.

[Doomsday]

I am also pretty sure I would not want to worship a diety that decides the best punishment for me would be to kill me.

Assuming Heaven is infinitely better than this world, as Christianity and Judaism state, it is probably worth it to die in order to make sure you get there. Whats a few more years of an ok life compared to an infinity in an amazing state of existence.

[Nephalim]

So while there might not be as much smiting going on in the New Testament, it's certainly there.As are childish outbursts in adults. Even Jesus went a little nuts when he saw the vendors at the temple. But in the Old Testament God's having a temper tantrum every few chapters. And I think we can all agree that the candid camera sacrifice of Isaac was pretty fucked up.

First off, there's no genocides in the New. God's not bringing cities crumbling down or killing everyone's firstborn. Second, there is substantially more miracles of healing. I mean, how many resurrections happened in the Old Testament? (Visions don't count) And then we have Jesus raising Lazarus, that little girl, and Peter raised Tamara. We have multiple healings, even of enemies of Jesus, and I can't recall any notable healings from the Old Testament at all (though I am a tad rusty).

There's a fundamental change in God's mentality. If he is incapable of change, then that would imply that he can't so profoundly shift gears like this. It's a tad silly to claim that God's incapable of anything.
Assuming Heaven is infinitely better than this world, as Christianity and Judaism state, it is probably worth it to die in order to make sure you get there. Whats a few more years of an ok life compared to an infinity in an amazing state of existence.But Ananias and Sapphira didn't repent. They died in sin, so, by Christian doctrine, would go to Hell.

[Doomsday]

well in Judaism being put to death, whether by court or divine intervention, is the only way to repent for certain sins. You still have to go through "hell" for 11 months but you will still be able to reach some level of heaven.

[Nephalim]

well in Judaism being put to death, whether by court or divine intervention, is the only way to repent for certain sins. You still have to go through "hell" for 11 months but you will still be able to reach some level of heaven.All right but this story didn't appear in a Jewish text.

[Kakwakas]

Not entirely related, but still interesting: I was reading about some old texts that were found that didn't quite make the cut when the stories for the holy bible were compiled. One of them was an alternate version of the Book of Revelations. It's a lot like John's except once someone feels bad for the people in Hell and believes that they shouldn't be down there, they're all brought to Heaven.

[Kenzuki]

Not entirely related, but still interesting: I was reading about some old texts that were found that didn't quite make the cut when the stories for the holy bible were compiled. One of them was an alternate version of the Book of Revelations. It's a lot like John's except once someone feels bad for the people in Hell and believes that they shouldn't be down there, they're all brought to Heaven.

That would be the Apocolypse of Peter if I'm not mistaken.

And there are plenty of ressurections in the Old Testament. Both the prophets Elijah and Elisha raise people from the dead. And the Story of Isaac was a test to see if Abraham loved God more or the son that god had given him. There were plenty of healings in the Old Testament. God also shows compassion in love in the Old as well as the New.

[Cantus]

Yet in its 1,600 some odd years of existance, it's been written by anyone and everyone charismatic enough to add their own works and call it God's. I have several friends who would be audacious enough to add their own philosophies to the book.

Looking at the Bible in terms of its followers and you see such fallacies as the change of Jesus' heritage from Jewish Arab to White. That even though the man himself told us to forgive, his apostles and future writers pushed a vengeful agenda to claim more followers. That he himself claimed to be the son of God, something not even Muhammed would say six centuries later.

The Bible, just as any other modifiable text, has been added to so heavily in times and eras of peace and strife that its message has been corrupted in those 1,600 years. I've made a study of Dante's Divine Comedy, and it's honestly a better look at Christianity than the Bible itself. It focuses on the people and prophets, their deeds, and what became of them. Instead of giving ridiculous quotes that can have multiple meanings, the Divine Comedy brings to light the fact that religion is only as perfect as its writers...and we all know that most of these men didn't perfectly practice what they preached.

[Nephalim]

And the Story of Isaac was a test to see if Abraham loved God more or the son that god had given him.I get that. That makes it no less fucked up.God also shows compassion in love in the Old as well as the New.Ok, so you don't see a change of pace between the Testaments?

[Drirlake]

I find it ironic that people argue so much about different religion when all of them have the same meaning at the end : Peace for humanity
I will just point out one thing....
Most of the teachings in the Torah, Bible and the Quran are the same etc: Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, thank god for his blessing and prey to him etc..
Except for a few details, the three books would exactly hold the same teachings.
First Moses came, with the torah, saying he was god's prophet, thus, Judaism was born.
Then Jesus came, with his holy teaching that was later written as the bible also saying the same thing, Christianity was born, although not all those who followed Judaism believed in him, some accused him of being a sorcerer. Conflict arises between the new believers and the old ones.
The came Mohammed, saying he was the last prophet, and that the final perfect book "final testament that completes all others." is the quran, Islam was born, of course not all those of Christianity or Judaism believed him, some called him a poet, although it was known that Mohammed, was illiterate.
My point that all three religions all have one important aspect: is the worshiping of god and bringing peace in the world, why people still argue so much about religion I will never know.

[Nephalim]

why people still argue so much about religion I will never know.Well, I do. We're curious about where we came from and why we're here, and even when religion supplies that answer, it's not exactly a closed file. That people care about universal truth and the true spirit of the divine doesn't boggle my mind.

And while Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have self-admitted common origins, there are tons of religions that don't, and some don't even involve a god at all. It's the single most unknowable thing in the universe. I doubt the discussion's going to end anytime soon.

[Kenzuki]

I get that. That makes it no less fucked up.Ok, so you don't see a change of pace between the Testaments?

There is a difference in tone between the Old and New Testaments for sure. I still don't think God himself changed in between the two. The thing is that anyone (and I don't mean to insult anyone when I say this.) who looks at the Bible and tries to understand it with a carnal mind or understanding is simply not going to get it. It's a spiritual book it's not ment to fully make sense as we understand it.

But in closing I'de just like to say that to each his own. We will never fully know which religion is right until we die, and by then it won't matter anyway. I've learned that two subjects you don't talk about over the internet are religion and politics. So let's just all quit while we're ahead :P

[Nephalim]

There is a difference in tone between the Old and New Testaments for sure. I still don't think God himself changed in between the two.Naturally, I don't expect to undercut your whole belief system with a few posts in a Warcraft forum. What I'm contesting is your proposal that God maturing over time is impossible and ridiculous.
The thing is that anyone who looks at the Bible and tries to understand it with a carnal mind or understanding is simply not going to get it. It's a spiritual book it's not ment to fully make sense as we understand it.The thing is, we are human beings. The people who wrote it were human beings, and if God was working through them, he probably figured his audience were mostly human beings. Now we are limited by our humanity, I'll be the first to admit (if not insist), and as such, cannot somehow rise above what we are to apply ourselves to the Bible. God would probably know that, since he made it like that. So if the books he's written to convey his countenance to us can't be understood by us by virtue of the fact that we are human beings and can't stop being human beings... well, it's not the brightest plan I've ever heard, and I (usually) think that God's a lot smarter than I am.
We will never fully know which religion is right until we die, and by then it won't matter anyway.This is an unfortunately popular philosophy, that there is a "right" religion. The matter was handled rather brilliantly in South Park, when it turned out only Mormons got into heaven, and everyone else went to Hell (see "Do the Handicapped Go To Hell" and part 2: "Probably"). Every religion has its merits, even that one you think it completely insane, and every religion has its utter silliness. I mean I guess it's our social nature to work in terms of binary opposites; that everything has to be one or the other, male or female, up or down, right or wrong. Unfortunately this leads a lot of people to ignore other beliefs or philosophies purely on the grounds that it's not part of theirs.
I've learned that two subjects you don't talk about over the internet are religion and politics. So let's just all quit while we're aheadThings are far from out of hand, in this thread anyway. I know everyone's afraid about offending people or being offended or *gasp* getting passionate about anything ever, but if we can't talk about some of our most defining beliefs to other people, then... well, nothing, really, it just totally blows.

[Kenzuki]

I look at it this way. There can be but two possible out comes when it comes to religion.

1. They are all wrong.

2. One of them is right and the others are wrong.

Because they all can't very well be right now can they?

[Nephalim]

Because they all can't very well be right now can they?Well, let's begin by defining "right," or, perhaps more appropriately, defining "wrong." If you're looking for quantitative facts in religion, or spirituality, or most philosophy, you're trying to get blood from a stone. So if by right you mean possessing historical accuracy in their mythologies, you're probably going to conclude that they are all "wrong." In terms of doctrine and practice, most of these change drastically over time. I mean, if the Vatican II is "right," does that mean every doctrine before it was "wrong?" And if all that matters, the likelihood of belonging to the proper religion in the time when they are practicing the proper doctrine is (A) very, very, very slim, and (B) not really any person's fault.

We're dealing with the creation of the universe, here, and our place in it, across the entire world through the entirety of human existence on it. No religion has an accurate rundown of the origin of our solar system and planet, they all work with metaphors and symbols and stories. And why wouldn't they? Try relating the layout of the cosmos to a person whose experience logically dictates that the sky is just a ceiling they can't reach.

So yes, they could well all be right.

[Timolas]

One of the things that always keeps me going is the thought of how the universe started. The Big Bang, but from what? : >

[Yuber8900]

One of the things that always keeps me going is the thought of how the universe started. The Big Bang, but from what? : >

According to the Theory, all the matter in reality went into a super dense ball then exploded. Of course the theory doesn't elaborate on why all the matter became dense or where it came from.

[Kenzuki]

One of the things that always keeps me going is the thought of how the universe started. The Big Bang, but from what? : >


It doesn't bother me when scientists claim the universe was created from the big Bang. Because doesn't the Bible say that there was war in heaven? Can you imagine at the power that was unleashed?

[Nephalim]

The Big Bang, but from what? : >There's an interesting theory about that. The Big Bang only works if time has always behaved in the same capacity that it does now. If it's always been linear than there's likely a point where time and space began, which points to something outside of both being responsible for its inception. However time may not always have been linear. If we got back far enough time might, sort of fold in on itself, not beginning with a point, per se, but something more like a bowl-shape, if you want to think about it visually. If this is so, then time would simply have always been.

[Yuber8900]

Not more time talk. Time talk is annoying, time talk makes me think, me thinking results in large scale devastation.

[Kenzuki]

One of the things that always keeps me going is the thought of how the universe started. The Big Bang, but from what? : >

I thought you were Roman Catholic Timolas? They don't usually ascribe to such things as the Big Bang or Evolution.

[Yuber8900]

I thought you were Roman Catholic Salomit? They don't usually ascribe to such things as the Big Bang or Evolution.

They so never teach the Big Bang theory in school, nope never.

[Nephalim]

I thought you were Roman Catholic Timolas? They don't usually ascribe to such things as the Big Bang or Evolution.They teach both in Catholic schools, and I'd say most Catholics believe them.

[Kenzuki]

They teach both in Catholic schools, and I'd say most Catholics believe them.


That's interesting. I did a study of Catholicism once. Alot of the beliefs held by the Catholic Church are largely non-biblical in nature (such as Purgatory), to the point where alot of people make the mistaken of thinking it's a seperate religion than Christianity. I even had a priest once tell me that they don't tech Christianity, they teach Catholicism. Now the thing which I find interesting is that alot of Catholics hold that the Church is more authoritive than the Bible is. Which is one of the reasons there has been such a rift in between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.

It all stims from the Five Solas

Sola gratia (by grace alone)

Salvation comes by God's grace or "unmerited favor" only—not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus' sake. While some maintain that this doctrine is the opposite of "works' righteousness" and conflicts with some of the aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine of merit, it might be asserted that this article, taken at face value, conflicts in no way with Roman Catholic teaching; while the doctrine that grace is truly and always a gift of God is held in agreement between both views, the difference in doctrine lies mainly in two facts: that of God as sole actor in grace (in other words, that grace is always efficacious without any cooperation by man), and second, that man cannot by any action of his own, acting under the influence of grace, cooperate with grace to "merit" greater graces for himself (the latter would be the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church). This doctrine asserts divine monergism in salvation: God acts alone to save the sinner. The responsibility for salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree as in "synergism" or Arminianism. Lutheranism holds that this doctrine must not be maintained to the exclusion of gratia universalis (that God seriously wills the salvation of all people).


Sola fide (by faith alone)


Justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, "being declared guiltless by God") is received by faith only, not good works, though in classical Protestant theology, saving faith is automatically accompanied by good works. Some Protestants see this doctrine as being summarized with the formula "Faith yields justification and good works" and as contrasted with the Roman Catholic formula "Faith and good works yield justification." However, this is disputed by the Roman Catholic position as a misrepresentation; it might be better contrasted with a comparison of what is meant by the term "justification": both sides agree that the term invokes a communication of Christ's merits to sinners, where in Protestant theology this is seen as being a declaration of sinlessness (while not necessarily being so - "simul justus et peccator" for Luther), Roman Catholicism sees justification as a communication of God's life to a human being, cleansing him of sin and transforming him truly into a son of God, so that it is not merely a declaration. This doctrine is sometimes called the material cause or principle of the Reformation because it was the central doctrinal issue for Martin Luther and the other reformers. Luther called it the "doctrine by which the church stands or falls" (Latin, articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). This doctrine asserts the total exclusion of any other righteousness to justify the sinner other than the "alien" righteousness (righteousness of another) of Christ alone. Sola fide excludes even the sinner's own righteousness of sanctification or his "new obedience" from his justification.


Sola scriptura (by scripture alone)

The Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all — that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. The Bible requiring no interpretation outside of itself is an idea directly opposed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible can be authentically interpreted only by Apostolic Tradition, the Magisterium (that is, the pope and bishops), and the ecumenical church councils. This doctrine is sometimes called the formal cause or principle of the Reformation, since it is the source and norm of the material cause or principle, stated above. The adjective (sola) and the noun (scriptura) are in the ablative case rather than the nominative case to indicate that the Bible does not stand by itself but is an instrument of God by which He comes to man.


Solus Christus (by Christ alone)

Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and there is salvation through no other (Acts 4:12). While rejecting all other mediators between God and man, classical Lutheranism continues to honor the memory of the Virgin Mary and other exemplary saints. This principle rejects "sacerdotalism," which is the belief that there are no sacraments in the church without the services of priests ordained by apostolic succession under the authority of the pope. Martin Luther taught the "general priesthood of the baptized," which was modified in later Lutheranism and classical Protestant theology into "the priesthood of all believers," denying the exclusive use of the title "priest" (Latin, sacerdotus) to the clergy. This principle does not deny the office of the holy ministry to which is committed the public proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. In this way, Luther in his Small Catechism could speak of the role of "a confessor" to confer sacramental absolution on a penitent. The section in this catechism known as "The Office of the Keys" (not written by Luther but added with his approval) identifies the "called ministers of Christ" as being the ones who exercise the binding and loosing of absolution and excommunication through Law and Gospel ministry. This is laid out in the Lutheran formula of holy absolution: the "called and ordained servant of the Word" forgives penitents' sins (speaks Christ's words of forgiveness: "I forgive you all your sins") without any addition of penances or satisfactions and not as an interceding or mediating "priest," but "by virtue of [his] office as a called and ordained servant of the Word" and "in the stead and by the command of [his] Lord Jesus Christ" [The Lutheran Hymnal, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941), p. 16]. In this tradition absolution reconciles the penitent with God directly through faith in Christ's forgiveness rather than with the priest and the church as mediating entities between the penitent and God.


Soli Deo gloria (Glory to God alone)


All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.



But mainly that's one of the reasons the split is still there today. Not to mention the Eastern Orthodox broke off even earlier in history.

[Timolas]

I thought you were Roman Catholic Timolas? They don't usually ascribe to such things as the Big Bang or Evolution.
There will always be extremists - I'm fortunately not one. The Roman Catholic Religion teachers don't try to convince us otherwise, in fact they try to teach us to not take everything in the Bible at face value, not because they are lies, but because some things can be parables and writers are obviously influenced by ideas and lifestyles, beliefs etc of their times as well as the Holy Spirit.

A little confusing really... but in the end I'm just trying to stick to these points, live a good life, be kind to others, follow the 10 Commandments (which are practically following the law anyway, I aint gonna kill anybody) etc.
If I'm wrong and atheists are right it doesn't really matter, because when I'm dead I won't exist anymore.

A question to atheists -
I'm amazed that you guys can go on living happily believing that the day you die there will be nothing... the thing that scares the living crap out of me the most is the thought that there is no afterlife, no nothing.
Oblivion is worse than hell could ever be. 0_0 Just nothing... at all. Ever again. *shudder*

[Kerrah]

A question to atheists -
I'm amazed that you guys can go on living happily believing that the day you die there will be nothing... the thing that scares the living crap out of me the most is the thought that there is no afterlife, no nothing.
Oblivion is worse than hell could ever be. 0_0 Just nothing... at all. Ever again. *shudder*
A) I am not technically an atheist (I decided to become an Agnostic the moment I realised what bad name Atheists have in the internet), but i'll answer this anyways.
B) When i thought of that for the first time when i was a kid, i couldn't sleep for the rest of the night. I was six.

[Drirlake]

A question to atheists -
I'm amazed that you guys can go on living happily believing that the day you die there will be nothing... the thing that scares the living crap out of me the most is the thought that there is no afterlife, no nothing.
Oblivion is worse than hell could ever be. 0_0 Just nothing... at all. Ever again. *shudder*.

Agreed, I also wanted to ask atheists this question from a long time, since there is no afterlife, and there is no punishment for the bad deeds you do, whats keeping you from stealing, lieing, killing?? Your morals? Morals are just words, If nobody was watching you, will you steal? will you kill if nobody will know?

[Wulfang]

Well, I freely assume I'm an atheist, as most of the experiences I've had in my life have led me to think that there isn't anything greater than what we already feel aorund us.

Timolas, you said that you're surprised an atheist can live happily while thinking that he'll simply "go away" when he dies. All I can say is that I'm afraid of death and the knowledge that I will simply stop existing when I die is still very confusing to me, but I accept it and try to live my life to its fullest. The notion most people have that they'll go to an afterlife where they'll remain for the rest of existence (either in eternal bliss or in eternal torment) is, in my opinion, simply the result of the human mind refusing to accept its eventual disappearance.

And Drirlake, I don't refrain from doing bad things because I'm afraid I'll be punished when I die, I do it because I don't want to hurt in any way those around me or because I have my own moral code. I don't think morals are just words, they're the limits we establish to our own actions. Of course your morals will depend on the way you were raised, but that isn't a reason to simply ditch them saying they're "just words". I think everyone should behave according to their own morals and trying to respect the freedom and happiness of those around them, and not following a moral code you don't completely agree with because you're afraid you'll be sent to Hell.

[Nephalim]

A question to atheists -
I'm amazed that you guys can go on living happily believing that the day you die there will be nothing... the thing that scares the living crap out of me the most is the thought that there is no afterlife, no nothing.That's understandable, since most if not all societies put so much emphasis on survival and meaning. However, forever's a long time. Existence has its merits, but there are times when the infinite peace and quiet that can only come with not being is appealing. I mean really, what's the point in existing if you're just blissing out all the time?
Oblivion is worse than hell could ever be. 0_0 Just nothing... at all. Ever again. *shudder*Well, we understand suffering as it exists in the realm of human experience, and when we suffer, particularly if we suffer constantly, we get used to living with it. We suffer every day and it's a part of our lives. The idea behind Hell, as I understand it, is that it goes beyond the human experience. I mean, you hear "eternal suffering" and think "What else is new?" but now it's grounded in nothing physical, it's ceaseless agony that we never grow accustomed to. If Hell's not that bad, then it's basically like living here. Given the chance, residents of Hell would likely opt to not exist than to go on existing in Hell.

Also, if there's no god and no design (in some cases even if there is) it implies that life is pointless and has no meaning. Which seems bleak but can actually be very liberating. I mean think about it: your existence in no way impacts anything of consequence and never will. So since there's no point to anything, you might as well be happy in spite of what everyone else wants or thinks or believes.
Agreed, I also wanted to ask atheists this question from a long time, since there is no afterlife, and there is no punishment for the bad deeds you do, whats keeping you from stealing, lieing, killing?? Your morals? Morals are just words, If nobody was watching you, will you steal? will you kill if nobody will know?Morality is a human construct that changes with the social winds. However, so are concepts of materialism and entitlement. So if you're shedding any of your excess philosophical baggage, you might as well shed it all. In which case killing and stealing are inane and pointless, and the potential for a hindrance of one's personal happiness likely outweighs the happiness you will acquire from the act.

[Kerrah]

I also wanted to ask atheists this question from a long time, since there is no afterlife, and there is no punishment for the bad deeds you do, whats keeping you from stealing, lieing, killing?? Your morals? Morals are just words, If nobody was watching you, will you steal? will you kill if nobody will know?
That's how the natural chaotic way of things goes, there is no Morale in nature. But in an organised Human Society, a human has to go by the rules in order to enjoy the good things the society can give him. I myself try to go by the basic moral codes even if nobody is making sure I do, just because of the thought that if nobody wouldn't, the world would be chaotic like it was before humans evolved from apes.

...and just in case there actually is a god.
I mean really, what's the point in existing if you're just blissing out all the time?
Exactly. I thought Christianity was against Hedonism.

[Aldrius]

Agreed, I also wanted to ask atheists this question from a long time, since there is no afterlife, and there is no punishment for the bad deeds you do, whats keeping you from stealing, lieing, killing?? Your morals? Morals are just words, If nobody was watching you, will you steal? will you kill if nobody will know?

I don't need some god watching my every move to want to do the right thing. =x

[Timolas]

This is actually pretty interesting, enjoying talking to you lot without anyone flaming or ridiculing. :)

I see your point with the hell worse than oblivion thing Neph, that does make sense.

Also I don't see why morals and religion have to be the only things keeping us from doing wrong. I'd rather avoid spending the rest of my life in a prison cell for killing someone. Besides the fact that I'd be ruining someone else's life for no reason. Even if I got away with it, I'd feel guilty.

If death is oblivion though and it was 100% to me I think I'd go down in my last breath struggling to stay alive. Probably become some demented wreck trying to discover a way to live forever. x-P
-
This is something I've given some thought many times before too.

I am in control of my actions, and I can see through my eyes, smell and use all my senses. Why do I do that though - why does the human body have to have me controlling it.

Just go look in the mirror, and ask yourself why you aren't someone else. I'm rambling in my attempt to explain myself, I'm sorry... I don't know how I can convey my line of thought. -_-

EDIT: From a religious point of view, I suppose I could simply describe it as my soul - the human body is a machine. It thinks, with all its senses etc. That's how I am alive. Yet why am I, Timolas, the one to see this body when I look into the mirror and see myself staring back.

[Terrell]

Also I don't see why morals and religion have to be the only things keeping us from doing wrong. I'd rather avoid spending the rest of my life in a prison cell for killing someone. Besides the fact that I'd be ruining someone else's life for no reason. Even if I got away with it, I'd feel guilty.

Those are morals. If you didn't have morals, you wouldn't be feeling guilty. A moral code can exist with any religion or with none, but as morals what define the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong', you must have them if you think some things are right and other wrong.

[Timolas]

Those are morals. If you didn't have morals, you wouldn't be feeling guilty. A moral code can exist with any religion or with none, but as morals what define the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong', you must have them if you think some things are right and other wrong.
Right, sorry, when morals were mentioned I thought it was meant more along the lines of rules you set for yourself. :)

EDIT: I'd also like to add that when I've been arguing that the Forsaken should probably be purged, I said it believing that it would be salvation with an after life for them, almost a mercy killing from sadistic monsters. If I were to see it as them just being put down as animals and just being condemned to 'oblivion with no afterlife', then I wouldn't touch any of them.

[Kakwakas]

According to the Theory, all the matter in reality went into a super dense ball then exploded. Of course the theory doesn't elaborate on why all the matter became dense or where it came from.

All matter exists in one point, 'explodes,' continues to expand, speeds up as it does so (this is where we are), and then the universe reaches a certain point and begins to contract into one, single point again.
Yes, it's true that we don't know where this matter came from or what sparked the (first) Big Bang (though time isn't really relevant, as time did not exist before the Big Bang). These two problems aren't that big of a deal, though. They're no worse than the problems of where the Judeo-Christian god came from.

[ScytheRexx]

As agnostic I always considered the possability that when I die, I will completely cease to exist, nothing will be left of me other then my lifeless shell, which will be decay till the earth that birthed me reclaims me.

This is not exactly a happy image, no creature would like to cease existence, which is why everyone hopes for a afterlife or rebirth.

Personally, while in class one day four years ago, I came up with my own little theory of an afterlife, an existence without truely existing. Bare with me, this is just a silly theory, and not one I really believe to the fullest. I didn't create my own religion, just something I thought was interesting ideal to life and death.

I believe in energy, it exists, but never is created or destroyed. Energy is only transformed, it changes its form, from one thing to the next.

Now we use energy to power everything we run, lights, cars, robots, but what makes us move? What gives life to us? Our soul.

I believe the human soul is a form of energy, it exists, and gives us life. We generate energy at all times, our organs continuing to produce the energy to keep us alive.

When we die, the energy is never destroyed, it simply is transformed untill another source can utilize it. Our energy, with a memory of our existence, moves into new life, in a constant cycle, like a river of life. Though we as individuals will stop existing, everything we learned will exist within the energy we left behind, for new life to take and grow. Think of it like a form of reincarnation.

I believe a part of us can sense this energy, the little tingly feeling one has on the back of his neck when he thinks he feels a ghost.

Just a silly theory.

[Kenzuki]

When most people think of Hell they think of burning lakes of oil, or chains of lice etc. Now it certainly sounds like there is going to be some fire or some sort there for sure. But what the thing that most people miss about Hell is that what it literally means is "Seperation from God". That's what Hell is in reality. Now this would technically mean that if a person chooses not to follow God or want to be with him he simply let's that person have what he wants. Now if God is life imagine being in a place where God is not found? Contriary to popular belief God doesn't go around damning people to Hell. It was created as a place for Satan and his angels. The reason people go to Hell for not following God is because that's the only choice. The main choices therefore are not simply Heaven or Hell. It's "Being with God" or "Seperation from God." Which I think most people who believe in such a thing will agree that that in itself is worse than simply burning forever in a pit.


Christianity is in essence against Hedonism. Because you're taught that you shouldn't walk after the flesh which is basically your basic instincts like lust, anger, and a bunch of other things. You see the difference I see between the Old and New Covenants is that the Old Covenant was based upon the flesh or things that the people could understand. Instead of you dying you passed your sins onto an animal and that animal would be slain in your place. This is because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins. But it wasn't a perminant thing, as every time you sinned in your life you HAD to sacrifice for that sin that you had commited all that year. Needless to say it became a hassle. This is why the New Covenant came about, it would provide a sacrifice that was forever. No longer would you have to sacrifice a bull or a sheep for your sins. No longer did you NEED a priest to forgive you of your sins. It was something more spiritual in nature that wasn't based upon the carnal understanding and the flesh.

Some people accepted this, while others could not.

[Kerrah]

I believe that if there once was a god, he went on a vacation a long, long time ago.

[Wulfang]

I believe that if there once was a god, he went on a vacation a long, long time ago.
Agreed...

[GodofUtopia]

well, when i die, i know where i will go, i will go to Heaven, beacuse i have been a gooooooooood person :)

and believed in God

[Timolas]

well, when i die, i know where i will go, i will go to Heaven, beacuse i have been a gooooooooood person :)

and believed in God
I'm sorry, but trolls are evil.

[Kerrah]

Warlock is the god of these forums, so i quess that means GodofSuburbia will be going to hell when he dies here.

[Creative]

Warlock is the god of these forums, so i quess that means GodofSuburbia will be going to hell when he dies here.

Comparing a living creature to God means you will go to Hell.
Probably.

[markellion]

These talks about morals reminded me of one of my favorite books,The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

The best part for me was when Huckleberry Finn decides to help a run away slave named Jim get to freedom despite the fact he believed God would punish him for all eternity for it. The book just gave me a window to a different way of thinking I guess, the old rural south being so different from what my world is like