Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote:There's nothing wrong with right and wrong. I just think that there's enough similarities in most monotheistic religions that it's possible that they're all right.

I see the similarities as evidence that they evolved from one another. The concepts are shared/expanded upon. SO they could actually all be wrong.

cyberweez wrote:Prebe, and ur-bane, what is good? Good according to Prebe? What is good according to God? If you are good according to God, you'll get into heaven. But that good is perfect. Your good is a MUCH lower standard. Maybe you mean as long as good outweighs bad? A works based system? That's what man loves, to earn his keep. That's what every religion teaches, except Christianity and even Judaism. God chose Abraham b/c of his faith, not b/c of anything he did. The guy tried to tell a king his wife was his sister so they wouldn't hurt him.

Hmmm... I thought "good according to God" was pretty much outlined in the Bible. But the bible also specifically states (more than once, I might add) that a love of God is what will get you into heaven, and that the treatment of your fellow man, while important in and of itself, is not a determinant for entry.

Ahhh yes, the classic half full/half empty argument.....

What similarities? I believe the Bible teaches that you can't earn your way, no other religion does. And ur-bane has a good point. Many civs have flood story, what's more likely, it really happened, and one is right, it really happened, they are all wrong, it really happened, they are all right, or it never happened, they all made it up separately? They are all similar, but I don't believe they could all be right, or that it never happened. So, either they are all wrong, and it happened some other way, or only one is right.

Hmmm... I thought "good according to God" was pretty much outlined in the Bible. But the bible also specifically states (more than once, I might add) that a love of God is what will get you into heaven, and that the treatment of your fellow man, while important in and of itself, is not a determinant for entry.

Good according to God is outlined in the Bible. Perfection. A love of God is required. So, it becomes, what does a love of God mean?

Cail--Indeed. The same argument that takes many forms, and never gets anyone anywhere, unless you can see that it is both at the same time. My apologies for that.

cybrweez wrote:Good according to God is outlined in the Bible. Perfection. A love of God is required. So, it becomes, what does a love of God mean?

Interesting enough. But I'd like to know how you draw the parallel between "good according to God" = "Perfection."??

Your question is a valid question. My answer is also a question (or two...): why should it be a question at all? Why has God left so much open to interpretation? Why not a cut and dry to the point explanation that would be impossible to contradict? If "good according to God" is perfection, he should have lived by his own words when [if] he "inspired" the Bible.

Cybrweez wrote:Av, you did do a good job of staying out, unlike Prebe.

I refered to another post, that SalothSaR could read or not. I didn't but in before the discussion was open. And I did so, because it was obvious that your brand of advice did not cater for the likes of SalothSaR, who feels genuine compassion for his fellow man regardless of whom they worship. The only thing you could give him was: "Forget your compassion, the non-believers deserve everything they get.". If that's your attitude fine. I am just not so sure it made SalothSaR less depressed to know for sure, that all non-believers go to hell.

If that is how you deal with existential crisis and depression in you fellow man, don't be talking to me about good!

FYI: I, the moderator, have been following this thread for both personal and non-personal reasons.

Prebe, your post was fine. First, in my own opinion it didn't appear to be counter-christian. Second, Sal voiced no concern about it, neither to me nor in thread.

While it is ok (suggested, even) that you state what kind of discussion you're looking for, I will not have segregated threads. Everyone is welcome in every thread so long as the conversation is fitting to the stated goals and subject material. Now, if the thread originator points out to me or another mod that a post is inappropriate, it will be moved (or in case of the extremely inappropriate, deleted).

If any part of this policy is unclear, you can bring it up with me via PM or in the roundtable discussion announcement.

Game on.

Prebe wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Av, you did do a good job of staying out, unlike Prebe.

I refered to another post, that SalothSaR could read or not. I didn't but in before the discussion was open. And I did so, because it was obvious that your brand of advice did not cater for the likes of SalothSaR, who feels genuine compassion for his fellow man regardless of whom they worship. The only thing you could give him was: "Forget your compassion, the non-believers deserve everything they get.". If that's your attitude fine. I am just not so sure it made SalothSaR less depressed to know for sure, that all non-believers go to hell.

If that is how you deal with existential crisis and depression in you fellow man, don't be talking to me about good!

Prebe, you've lost it. What other attitudes do I have that I knew nothing about? Where did I say forget compassion on non-believers? And where is it obvious SalotHSar does not cater to my "brand of advice"? I see some stretches in other threads, but this tops them all.

Weez, Prebe. Cool it.

Sorry Weez, sorry Syl. It got out of hand. I am however prepared to explain my post line by line, when I have cooled down tomorrow.

G'night.

SalotHSaR wrote:

The Esmer wrote:

SalotHSaR wrote:I think I said somewhere that I look up the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic when I research. And generally, whenever I do said research the words mean what the English words suggest they do. However sometimes there's some more to it than only that. It could be that a certain word is possessive or usually past tense. But for the most part, what's there is pretty accurate.

I spend a fair amount of time in the Bible and researching the words in their original languages, so I should know.

Yes, but my point is, gently, that unless you can talk to the people who said those things, you can't possibly know what they meant. This is just as true today as it was then. Only they can provide context to the words, without which they are basically meaningless. You can't tell me can sit down with an ancient figure in the Bible and not have to have him explain what he "meant" during a simple conversation about the weather?

I just don't like your avatar.

Well, I can admit that you have a point, but wouldn't that be true about any ancient civilization? How can we know so much about the Romans if we can't understand the language of the day?

Exactly true! Put everything you read to that test, modern or ancient. Would you bet your life, or your very soul, that you do "know", to the exactness of certainty, that you can discern the "subtleties" of the sentences in the "information" we have from the past? We are still "guessing" what ancient Rome was like, and thats just a law of nature not to be challenged. Its a particularly human condition that can only be accepted, and adapted to. I don't mean to say that just because we can't read the "subtext" (brilliant reduction, A!), that we can't learn from them, only that we can't glean the "intentions" (again, A ) of those words, and therefore RISK misunderstanding. This RISK is crucial, if not fatal, and puts you in a position of extravagant danger and unlikely success.

Your fierceness for your faith, friend, and this question in particular, led me to believe that YOU believed that any mistake in your interpretation of these issues would damn you to eternal hell, and it only naturally occurred to me that you were already doomed, if that was the case, and implored you to find a different approach to resolving your dire dilemma. You cannot know the things you seek to the exact certitude that you require, in the manner which you are attempting. Your desire to do Gods will, and obey or please Him is about as fierce as any I have witnessed, friend, and just for that I believe your God is indeed most proud, for fierceness and determination are ultimitely required on such a journey as determing Gods will for each of us as individuals first, and humanity second, for the first guarantees the second if we do it according to our conscience and character, and learn to grow in a positive way. Just believe with everything you are friend, every ounce, but you must temper that force of faith with a sense of sobriety (free from influence), that your aim and efforts are not wasted on "words" and their possible mistaken intentions. Just ask God Himself, and if he does not answer, assume you already had the answer that pleases Him. ( I use God, and Him, etc. in direct deference to you, salothsar).

SalotHSaR wrote: I just don't like your avatar.

The Esmer would request an "intervention" from the "Jaytar", or the "Edgetar" on this? Or maybe a contest to come up with an "appropriate" avatar for The Esmer? I am not confused or offended at all by your opposition to it, sal, and would consider it a humble gesture on my part to appease at least a small part of your torment to the "evidence of evil" that abounds around you.

Or you could use Mozilla and block all those unwanted pesky images.

Weez:

I wrote:I refered to another post, that SalothSaR could read or not. I didn't but in before the discussion was open.

No changes here

I wrote:….And I did so, because it was obvious that your brand of advice did not cater for the likes of SalothSaR

Should have read: “I don’t think, your brand of advice is doing anything, other than confusing SalothSaR even more than he already is.”. The obviousness was mine, not SalothSaR’s. I can’t profess to know what he finds comforting, but I can guess.

I wrote:….who feels genuine compassion for his fellow man regardless of whom they worship.

This sentence I stand by 100%

I wrote:…The only thing you could give him was: "Forget your compassion, the non-believers deserve everything they get.".

That is, I admit, a stretch. However, I did ask for your confirmation (3 times as I recall) whether you think that Jews and other non-Christians go to heaven. You did not bother to answer, so I took the hints from your other posts, as an indication that you believe that they don’t. This combined with the following:

Weez wrote:I believe there is a hell. What it is exactly, isn't important to me, and I don't dwell on it, b/c I believe Jesus provided my "way out".

Is pretty much saying that you don’t’ care about the infidels destiny post-mortem, because you are covered. It does however seem that SalothSaR does, which I find an amiable trait. Whether this also implies an advice to SalothSaR is an assumption on my behalf I admit.

Weez wrote:I also believe its not wise to, let's say, "self-reflect" to much. Jesus calls us to love others more than ourself, which means, I should spend my time thinkin of the needs of others.

This is exactly what SalothSaR does, and that makes him depressed, because the words of the Bible do not answer his questions.

I wrote:If that's your attitude fine. I am just not so sure it made SalothSaR less depressed to know for sure, that all non-believers go to hell.

I stand by this sentence 100% as well (providing the assumption, that you don't believe non-believers go to heaven).

I wrote:If that is how you deal with existential crisis and depression in you fellow man, don't be talking to me about good!

A bit harsh perhaps, but check out what you wrote:

Weez wrote:If you are good according to God, you'll get into heaven. But that good is perfect. Your good is a MUCH lower standard.

Pardon me (and pardon the expression) but what the hell do you know about my good? Other than the fact, that I don’t do it in the name of the Lord?

I know it all came out a bit harsh, and I apologise for any inconvenience.

Prebe

Cybrweez wrote:What similarities? I believe the Bible teaches that you can't earn your way, no other religion does. And ur-bane has a good point. Many civs have flood story, what's more likely, it really happened, and one is right, it really happened, they are all wrong, it really happened, they are all right, or it never happened, they all made it up separately? They are all similar, but I don't believe they could all be right, or that it never happened. So, either they are all wrong, and it happened some other way, or only one is right.

Hmmm... I thought "good according to God" was pretty much outlined in the Bible. But the bible also specifically states (more than once, I might add) that a love of God is what will get you into heaven, and that the treatment of your fellow man, while important in and of itself, is not a determinant for entry.

Good according to God is outlined in the Bible. Perfection. A love of God is required. So, it becomes, what does a love of God mean?

(Sigh. Why can't I leave well enough alone? Oh well...)

Point by point:

-Many religions teach that you can't "earn your way" - heck, many of them look at the journey as bein important and don't even mention a destination for their respective "ways". Besides, the Bible itself is conflicted on the subject of "earning" heaven - although armies of theologians working in concert have found ways to reconcile conlicting texts on the subject, the most simple answer is that different biblical contributors had different opinions on the subject.

-As for the multiple culture flood theory, recent scientific theory - in conjunction with actual observation of melting polar caps - suggest that massive floods did in fact happen - in different areas and at different times: As the glaciers left over from the Ice Age melted, great lakes were formed across their tops. As melting continued, the edges of the glacier would eventually give way, releasing deluges great enough to raise sea levels and, in some cases, even cause the earth's plates to shift. As most people tend to settle at sea level, the sudden raising of the sea would indeed have looked like a global deluge to the tribes in affected areas.

(Interesting Factoid: Such a glacial release could explain the composition of the Dead Sea.)

- Good is defined as many ways as Salvation in the Bible. I refer you to point one.

Plissken wrote:...the journey as being important and don't even mention a destination for their respective "ways".

That about sums it up for me.

Good post Plissken.

So gods "good" is perfection? I'm not sure I agree. Where does the bible, or any christian writing, demand that we are perfect? It demands that we love one another, that we not murder, that we not steal, along with a number of other ideals. None of which I see as being incompatible with an atheists idea of good.

What puts gods "good" on a higher level?

--Avatar

Wild. You never know where these threads will go.

God does require perfection. That's why it is impossible to make it into heaven. Everyone fails the first two commandments constantly, consistently. The Bible says that everyone falls short of the Glory of God. The Bible teaches us that no one is worthy, not even one. And the Bible says that our human goodness is as filthy rags by comparison of deeds done in the Spirit, which would mean doing something without any selfish motive and in honor of God and with prayer to God. Only then is goodness truly perfect.


It's like this, "God, please let me win the lottery. I'll give 20, no 50, no 80% of it away to charity! Who else would do this Lord? Please let me win the lottery so I can help people."

Reality. "God the lotto is upto $20 million. Can I please have $4 million?"

---

It's like this, "I'm a CEO of a company. I will make an announcement that we will donate $2 million to assist with the disaster in New Orleans."

Reality. "I can probably triple the money in return income for less than half of what it would cost to get the same press for a spot in the superbowl halftime show, and instead of it being an advertising expense, it's deductable".

---

It's like this, "Honey, please stop drinking so much. It's making you tired and depressed. You don't want to lose that good body do you?"

Reality. "I'm tired of being smacked around. You look like #($@ and you act even worse. I'm tired of being embarrassed. If you lose your job over this, then I'm taking the kids and leaving you."

---


Sometimes people say what they mean and mean what they say, but that is very seldom. There is always something that someone wants from you whenever you are being spoken too. They want money, time, sex, an ego rubbing, a back rub, something. Always! People are very self-centered. Even when they are doing a so-called good deed it usually has a selfish motivation and when it doesn't then its more like reflex action than anything else. A man dives onto a grenade to protect his friends. Some would call that a good deed, others stupid. A baby is saved from a burning building. Brave man, lucky to be alive, if he has burns he'll think about that before he enters another building like that I assure you. But mostly it was a good thing. It's just that it is so rare.

I just have one thing to add to this at the moment.
SalotH--I (to steal Cail's word that I really like) vehemently disagree.

If God demands perfection, then where does forgiveness come in? Why then does the Catholic religion include the rite of confession? The religion teaches that if one is truly sorry for his sins, one will be forgiven by god, and the door to heaven is once again open for that individual.

By no means does God require perfection. Were that the case, He would have started over after Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. (A perfect creation would not disobey, eh?)

Add to that the fact that we live in an imperfect (by human standards, which shouldn't surpass that of God, IMO) world, and it is clear that a God that does not demand perfection of Himself cannot possibly demand perfection from his creation.

I have to vehemently (?) agree with Ur-Bane here. I don't know what faith you are SalotH, but as a Catholic, we know we're not perfect, we know we're sinners, and God knows it too. That's why he sent Christ to us. To teach us, and to die for our sins. That's the whole concept behind forgiveness.

Ur-Bane---It's not called Confession anymore, it's called Reconcilliation.

Cail wrote: UR-Bane---It's not called Confession anymore, it's called Reconcilliation.

Ahh. Thanks. Reconciliation is definately a more accurate term. It was a term used while I was in Catholic school, but it was at that time still called Confession. But now I know.

Or at least, one that does not offer perfection shouldn't demand it.

Sorry Salothsar, I'm not sure how to relate those examples to to the question.

SalotHSaR wrote:God does require perfection. That's why it is impossible to make it into heaven. Everyone fails the first two commandments constantly, consistently.

Worshipping other gods and making graven images? You're going to have to clarify that.

SalotHSaR wrote:The Bible says that everyone falls short of the Glory of God. The Bible teaches us that no one is worthy, not even one. And the Bible says that our human goodness is as filthy rags by comparison of deeds done in the Spirit, which would mean doing something without any selfish motive and in honor of God and with prayer to God. Only then is goodness truly perfect.

So all good deeds are meaningless unless performed in honour of the christian god? Not to the recipients, I'll wager.

I fear that we're turning this thread into the other one, as these are perhaps best suited to that debate. Nonetheless, this seems further confirmation of the idea that the only thing that god really seems to care about is that he is worshipped, and not how his believers conduct themselves.

I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for [their] descendants, to the third and fourth [generation]. But for those who love Me and keep My commandments, I show love for thousands [of generations].

--A

What is it with the squre bracket often seen in biblical quotes Avatar? The Watchtower seem to be full of them. I have never had an explanation.