According to the Bible, all people are sinners. So by this logic, all people will go to Hell.
Ummmm...It does say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, it does not say that God made man sinnful. In fact sin didn't actually enter the world until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree. Adam being the symbol of man-kind therefore cursed man to be sinful. Thus all people are sinners and destined for Hell unless their sins are forgiven. Well according to the bible, his heart stopped, he no longer bled, life signs were zero. For Three days. By what sense of the word Dead do you gain this idea that he didn't "really even die"? Hmm...I would like to know. I'm not saying this in a sarcasitc or mean way. I know the wording can appear as such. I never hold any ill feelings or will towards someone, so please consider that when reading further.Also according to the Bible, Jesus didn't really even die...what value is death when you are resurrected afterwards? Zero. So his "death" meant nothing.
Let me ask you this, what value is paying for someone's legal fines if you're just going to get it back anyway? Does that person suddenly go back to jail just because you were paid back? Or do they remain free? I think the value came in the dying and death, and the ressurection has no effect on that what so ever.
Well, first common sense is not actually common. It's more of an understanding thing. If it was common then children wouldn't have to learn that a hot pot should not be touched, I mean that's only common sense. So common sense does not know better than my dogma, rather how one uses it to convince themselves defeats my beliefs in their mind. And I still see no flaws in presented, simply you not understanding where I'm coming from. Somethign you couldn't do because you've never been in my head or lived my life. So misunderstanding of my words is by no means your fault, incase you got that impression from what I've written.These are but only two of the massive flaws that make the Bible untrustworthy...common sense knows better than your dogma.
assuming the existence of a creator-god does not also need to assume that he owns us as slaves.
Master and Servant I believe are the terms used. Not slave. A Butler is a servant, and the boss the Master. You've sort of taken it out of context there.
Material Wealth was an example, some do serve Satan, others serve something else in their lives. It doesn't have to be Material wealth. However you can't serve God and something else. You must serve one or the other, your choice. The difference however is that God is free-will boss. The other is Slave owner. And there is no balance. That's like saying there's a balance between good and evil. That assumes evil to be something grasped, taken hold of. Rather than a lack of something. I mean a negative charge in a battery isn't actually negative, it's more like less of a positive charge. 2 = positive, 1 = neutral, 0= negative. So evil is not a balance with Good. Rather simply not good. You don't server material wealth, that means you don't care about it. If someone were to blow up your car, you wouldn't worry about how much it cost or the fact that you worked hard to get it, you worry about how you're going to get to work. You care about God not the stuff you have. You can't balance the two.by the way... "you cannot serve two masters" if i'm not mistaken, is not referring to god and not god, or one idea and the other... but God and Material Wealth. If, on the other hand, we are going to take it out of context, i would prefer to see it as saying you cannot serve materialism and spirituality, but i disagree... you Have to serve both to Balance them. i would say it is the focus on wealth that prevents spiritual progress, not the wealth or the serving of it. it's all about balance.
Well I think it's silly to assume the otherway around. That seems to me like the constant amongst non-believers as the easy way out of believing in a God whom we say is caring and merciful. They always come back with "Why would God burn us in Hell? Why Does God allow bad things to happen?" People want to believe he's burning us and therefore as you say we're seeing it differently. However God makes it clear, Hell was not meant for us. He didn't want us to burn.the semantic rearrangement of god burning us for not believing into us Choosing to be burned (by not believing) is silly (if you ask me) and dishonest (although i wouldn't say intentionally dishonest, i'm not accusing anyone of lying...) and i dismiss it entirely. it's another way of seeing it to be sure... sort of like seeing my ass as a thing designed to keep
chairs firmly on the ground... is another way of seeing things.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should PERISH but that all should come to repentance.
Yeah, I find the book of Mormon interesting as well that doesn't mean I find it to hold more stock than the Bible.i find torah/talmud much more interesting,
Well when I prove your understanding incorrect I think that means a little more than the fact that it came from the bible. It means you're operating on misconceptions of the Bible.when someone "proves" a point by quoting the bible, what i'm thinking is "so what? it's just the bible."
And your so what statement comes from what you believe the Bible to be. For me, the Bible is the word of God. It's what God wants us to know. He'll teach us more in other ways yes, but it's all in there. For you, it's just an anthology of books. Nothing more.
That doesn't mean it doesn't make more sense when taken literally. It simply means you find it easier to assume it's metaphors.i usually see the bible as metaphors, and i think the bible at least makes SOME sense that way. occasionally it even makes sense when taken, er, "literally..." but not too much.
I've seen such evidence, it's blarny. A huge bunch of blarny. Half of it doesn't even read the prophesies of Jesus. Which is what one basis the idea of Messiah on. And Jesus fullfilled these prophesies.also, i would continue to argue that if jesus claims to be the messiah, and there is (ample) evidence that he is certainly not... then the claim that he is actually GOD can be ignored as well... or at least discounted. i mean they said the same thing about Eric Clapton... so what?
I've heard it said that maybe they just filled in the prophesies. But we know the first Greek transaltion happend hundreds of years before Jesus was born. So how could they have predicted Jesus would come unless parts of the Bible were true. Does that make it the word of God? No, but it's getting close.
There are also no contridictions in the bible, C.S. Lewis read it from cover to cover and couldn't find a single one. As have thousands before him. And this Bible was written by multiple authors over thousands of years. Many having no contact with each other. Does this make it the word of God? No, but it's looking more important than all the others. In my mind, agree disagree. Up to you. But you're not the only one who's done their research. I wasn't brought up in a christian home, this is my belief based upon all I've learned. Just in case you think I'm simply arguing what I was told to argue.
Nope. You have a base belief of balance. I never said that a belief that one must have 100% of has to be long and eloquent. It could be one word. Mine, God. And just the defintion of elements has changed, not the base idea. That they are what the world is made out of. They are the forces of creation and nature. We are carbon based, an element that is a base.well, that certainly dispenses of every hypothetical argument and nearly every hypothesis that ever existed. i guess they count for nothing. no, i contend that you and anyone else can argue theory without ever committing to anything. in fact, the process of science is one of dispensing the ideas you obviously weren't committed to... or you couldn't change them, right? without this change, we would still be trying to let the Fire out of Earth and rocks... the old view of elements. but we kind of left that by the wayside with the periodic table.
And today most people don't understand that science isn't about answers, rather probablities. The closest ideas we have to answering our current questions. Not the answers to them. Science is willing to remove theories because of the base belief, that as we learn the answers come closer. I believe our world, everything we have philisophically, spritituall, scientifically, and ethically, is built on Dogma. What you disreguard.
Oh, and unlike Eric Clapton, there was proof with Jesus. It's whether or not you choose to disreguard that evidence that makes the difference.
And respectfully I must suggest, that I might be. Not are, might. Are refers to facts. And well facts aren't facts because they don't consider everything. Therefor it is ridiculous to say are, and should rather say might. But isn't that what science and belief are all about? Being wrong to fix what you believe to come closer to being right? But might isn't. Everyone I've ever talked to who had a scientific view asked me if they should disreguard everything becasue it might be wrong. I've never said that, I've always said they aren't even trying to consider the possibiltiy that they might be. I always consider that a possibility, but my faith is unwaivering. No one has ever shown me evidence that I'm wrong, just as I have never been able to show anything but the Biblical verses to prove I'm right. In this we are at standstill, except in our own minds and ideas.i must respectfully suggest that you are wrong about what we can argue and believe in. the limits you're imposing are superficial... arbitrary.
In that way, I respectfully suggest, you might also be wrong.
Statistics: Posted by Levi — Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 am
]]>
but that's just what i saw, how i saw it.
also everyone that believes in god in that post believes god is a male or female... whereas i believe if there is a god that s/he contains both male and female, somehow. hermaphrodite? sure, why not... but i wasn't being Quite that literal. i think adam and eve were equals, both images of god...
which brings me to the "fairy tales" post that i forget who made... i think that's just about right... bible = fairy tales... but not the way he meant. i see it as stories that describe things that actually happened... but not the way a history book does. more like the way a poem does, or a picasso.
i don't think there was a flood, for one. i think the flood is a fairy tale with a moral and a meaning that ultimately isn't about water or god deciding to kill off humans. whatever it was, it was important enough to preserve the way it was preserved... but no one in this milennium LIKES poetry. it's certainly nothing to kill for. i still think the point is to get people to stop killing.
i don't think the point of the greek tragedies was to encourage people to get posessed by demons and kill and die horrible ways... i think there were symbols and meaning and stories about life... but if you take it all literally... well. pity. anyways, before i go...
sometimes computer metaphors are so useful...
even though you still run the risk of being flamed by someone who sees the same terms more (or less) accurately.
but this might be the best way i can put it... in theory, it's all uniform, machine to machine... backwards compatible... to a point, for certain, it's all x86 (human dna? theology?) instruction... on intel's (humans?) anyway.
in practice, you install this, it works, on other machine, not so much. sometimes it's obvious why, sometimes there's no telling. but none of it is constant. we try to make it all work. we get something done, but not everything. *this* installation (pay no attention which) works best on *this* machine. (also not important.)
so be it. microsoft tries to make everything the Same, hackers (non pejorative) try to make everything Unique, everyone else (to be inaccurate) just hopes it Works... as if we even all agreed what that means.
bye bye thread. it's been fun.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:23 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:06 am
]]>
http://www.petesqbsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=307
Anyway, the reason why I'm not gonna get involved in another "meaning of life" thread is exactly this:
I'd write more, but you wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm sick of repeating myself to brick walls.
Statistics: Posted by Pete — Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:02 am
]]>
i'm pretty satisfied with it... i had what i hoped was an interesting idea to share and maybe hear some other ideas... i'll try to keep reading it, too.
at some point in the near future i'm going to try very hard to simply walk away and disappear from this thread without ceremony... before it gets out of hand.
if i've made anyone ponder something... anything, COOL. if i gave anyone an idea that made them happy, cooler. i wasn't trying to "convert" people or anything... i Hate dogma! and besides, i'm not unaware that my thoughts are... weird. i like them anyway, they're um, they fit me personally.
but if this thread got too involved it could make people unhappy and bitter... and that's not what i had in mind. i was willing to take chances with it, yeah, but if i can quit before it gets too deep, i will.
thanks again to everyone that posted... and of course i don't "own" this thread, so you all talk amongst yourselves. i'll be here for a little, and then give up on it.
hopefully everyone will grow very bored of it eventually, and then it won't be any trouble. of course there is no doubt in my mind i'll have something to say in another thread soon. for one thing, i really like BASIC. sorry about the mess.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:18 am
]]>
"children from me" works fine, but would cause odd looks, and would not suggest ownership... merely relation. that is the way i prefer to think of god... rather than a Master than gave us free will...
imagine a slave owner who allows a slave to buy his freedom. "so that's it?"
"yeah, you're free now. do what you will with your own life"
"including come back and be your slave?"
"er, that defeats the purpose of buying your freedom, doesn't it?"
why serve ANY masters? i make the attempt to "serve" reason and humanity... but i refuse to be a slave, so long as i can help it. what's the point of free will if we're only going to sell ourselves? i don't trust the language being used here... "Serve..." "Master..." man makes god in his image... and man has some serious psychological baggage to take into
account.
it's like i said before, maybe on this forum... the bible's like a beatles song, some people here "love each other and get along and live" and some people hear a secret message to go kill people. how? oh, insanity, call it whatever.
you hear "free will" and think of serving a master, i hear "free will' and think of living as i see fit.
we swear we're reading the same thing. it's all perspective. that's why i don't give yours as much weight. i listen... i've listened, i will listen. but i've tried to become very careful what i believe in. call it a sin. call it whatever. call it like you see it.
i see it differently.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:55 am
]]>
We aren't meant for Hell, Hell is for those who must pay the price for sin. For the wages of sin is death. All are guilty under the law, and so all are guilty of sin. Sin leads to Hell, not God sending them there. It's God being just. I like to think of it this way. A murderer stands before a judge and says, "I believe you are a just Judge, a merciful judge, and you will let me go." The Judge was just and was merciful but this is his reply. "You are right to say I am just, and also right to say I am merciful. You were given a way out, but you refused to take it. Therefore you fall under the law. And under that law I must punish you justly. You must pay for the crimes of your sin." The murderer is sent to Hell. Now, look at where he says the man was given a way out. In my belief that is Jesus. Jesus paid the price for our sins, we simply need to accept this payment. It was death that paid the wages of sin, and Jesus died therefore removing the need for payment for those who accept. If you don't accept, you reject and therefore it is not God but yourself who sends you to hell. This is a common misunderstanding amongst people.
...and that's exactly where that ideal fails miserably. According to the Bible, all people are sinners. So by this logic, all people will go to Hell. Also according to the Bible, Jesus didn't really even die...what value is death when you are resurrected afterwards? Zero. So his "death" meant nothing. These are but only two of the massive flaws that make the Bible untrustworthy...common sense knows better than your dogma.I'd write more, but you wouldn't listen anyways, and I'm sick of repeating myself to brick walls.
Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:34 am
]]>
the semantic rearrangement of god burning us for not believing into us Choosing to be burned (by not believing) is silly (if you ask me) and dishonest (although i wouldn't say intentionally dishonest, i'm not accusing anyone of lying...) and i dismiss it entirely. it's another way of seeing it to be sure... sort of like seeing my ass as a thing designed to keep
chairs firmly on the ground... is another way of seeing things.
"hey why'd you shoot me?"
"i didn't shoot you, you chose not to get out of the way of my bullet!"
"oh, well that was stupid of me, i'm sorry."
i usually see the bible as metaphors, and i think the bible at least makes SOME sense that way. occasionally it even makes sense when taken, er, "literally..." but not too much.
also, i would continue to argue that if jesus claims to be the messiah, and there is (ample) evidence that he is certainly not... then the claim that he is actually GOD can be ignored as well... or at least discounted. i mean they said the same thing about Eric Clapton... so what?
> You see, you have to pick a belief or else you are arguing nothing
well, that certainly dispenses of every hypothetical argument and nearly every hypothesis that ever existed. i guess they count for nothing. no, i contend that you and anyone else can argue theory without ever committing to anything. in fact, the process of science is one of dispensing the ideas you obviously weren't committed to... or you couldn't change them, right? without this change, we would still be trying to let the Fire out of Earth and rocks... the old view of elements. but we kind of left that by the wayside with the periodic table.
> and therefore have nothing to say.
similar to the way that stephen hawking has nothing to say, i gather.
you're not talking about science, or belief, or thought, or theory. what you're describing is Dogma, the idea that you can ONLY take on new ideas when they fit the old ones without gaps in understanding. there are many ways to believe, they are not all dogmatic. i must respectfully suggest that you are wrong about what we can argue and believe in. the limits you're imposing are superficial... arbitrary.
> One must be willing to listen to others, to heed advice. I've met one or two people who are totally unwilling to think they're wrong and will fight totally against it. This hurts them.
yeah. that's Dogma. i'm not 1% in favor of Dogma.
> We still need the 100% base belief.
i don't.
by the way... "you cannot serve two masters" if i'm not mistaken, is not referring to god and not god, or one idea and the other... but God and Material Wealth. If, on the other hand, we are going to take it out of context, i would prefer to see it as saying you cannot serve materialism and spirituality, but i disagree... you Have to serve both to Balance them. i would say it is the focus on wealth that prevents spiritual progress, not the wealth or the serving of it. it's all about balance.
but this is all speculation of things i don't believe in dogmatically... which according to you, means nothing.
not that i mind... i just uh... well, what can i say? if it doesn't matter then there's no reason to type further.
thanks for joining the discussion again. oh, and you really don't *have to* defend your beliefs. i mean, they're in your head. i'm not. the only way i can hurt your beliefs is if you let go of them... i'm not telling you what to do with your beliefs... and you're welcome to them... whether they hurt you or not... the only person you have to defend your beliefs from is yourself... you're the only person that ultimately controls them. not that there isn't plenty of influence. it explains where you got them. but argue your points all you like: that's why pete made a site that's free.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:27 am
]]>
As odd as this is going to sound, these work together. You see, you have to pick a belief or else you are arguing nothing andtherefore have nothing to say. However in a quest to continually update that base belief one must understand that they are not right. One must be willing to listen to others, to heed advice. I've met one or two people who are totally unwilling to think they're wrong and will fight totally against it. This hurts them. We still need the 100% base belief.you say you: "yes you have your ideas and beliefs and I have mine, but we have to choose. You can't follow more than one, you can't fully combine ideas."
which i see no reason to agree with, and then you say:
"Another thing that I think is an interesting observation (not to your post, just in general) is that no human is ever correct? We say 2+2 = 4. Well, that's right, but somehow it's wrong. "
which seems to support my stance of deciding not to decide 100%...
I think we go back where we originally came from some millions years ago.
Dust of mother nature
Genesis 3: 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."
This next part gets long, but it all works together. Basic idea of these passages, Jesus is God.as for jesus... i am very interetested in theology in general... i have a lot of reason to believe that jesus is NOT the messiah the jews spoke of, and in fact, i've read some pretty reasonable jewish interpretations of scripture that suggest it is god (Not the messiah) that provides redemption and forgiveness with regards to man's imperfection.
John 1:1 - 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
absolutely refuse to spend eternity with a god that burns people for not believing in him.
We aren't meant for Hell, Hell is for those who must pay the price for sin. For the wages of sin is death. All are guilty under the law, and so all are guilty of sin. Sin leads to Hell, not God sending them there. It's God being just. I like to think of it this way. A murderer stands before a judge and says, "I believe you are a just Judge, a merciful judge, and you will let me go." The Judge was just and was merciful but this is his reply. "You are right to say I am just, and also right to say I am merciful. You were given a way out, but you refused to take it. Therefore you fall under the law. And under that law I must punish you justly. You must pay for the crimes of your sin." The murderer is sent to Hell. Now, look at where he says the man was given a way out. In my belief that is Jesus. Jesus paid the price for our sins, we simply need to accept this payment. It was death that paid the wages of sin, and Jesus died therefore removing the need for payment for those who accept. If you don't accept, you reject and therefore it is not God but yourself who sends you to hell. This is a common misunderstanding amongst people.First Hell was never made for man. We were not meant to go to Hell. Hell was reserved for Lucifer and his angels.
Now I'm going to add something to my "Humans are always wrong" paragraph. Humans are wrong, God is not. Humans can have a right belief in God, if God reveals himself. Which I believe he has done, many times. And all of this stuff is in the Bible, read it cover to cover. Don't stop because you don't like what it's saying. That's a common thing amongst people I ask to read the bible. They get not even through Genesis and stop. That's not the way to go about anything. I mean, you wouldn't have your views if you just stopped half way would you?
I can't expect anyone to take my advice, my evidence, especially on a forum
, I can however say that people continually talk about being agnostic as being in the middle, a center ground. However that's like saying your on the fence about the decision. When I can guarantee, that the Fence is owned by Satan, and Agnostics are simply athiests in the end. Jesus said it himeself, you cannot serve two masters. You either know God, or you don't. There is no inbetween.I do however mean no disrespect to those who don't agree with me. I will continue to defend my beliefs if necessary, but I do have a tendancy to word things incorrectly and that can often come out wrong. I do not disprespect any belief system. To do so is foolishness, in my opinino any way.
Statistics: Posted by Levi — Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:50 am
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:03 am
]]>
after all, we have minds with vast information stored within them. if we do not also multiply this information, we have only multiplied some of our factors.
i would argue that from your argument, one could derive the need to not only learn, but Teach.
by sharing the wisdom we contain, we multiply not only the body, but the mind.
i don't understand why someone would reduce the number of things we do to One anyway. it's like the goofy first-cause argument... there's no reason there couldn't have been several simultaneous First Causes... there's no reason to think we have Only one ultimate purpose either... i never intended to imply as much.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:41 am
]]>
but you've limited your concept of natural meaning to the things we Consciously (know how to) do? why? we have natural functions we may not consider:
naturally speaking, we serve functions other than to reproduce... we contribute to the erosion (shaping) of earth just as wind and water do (much much faster than water, even)
we compete with other species for space and resources, which can produce a balance that left unchecked would allow species to reproduce into extinction (right now we are moving towards our own extinction by removing the things that balance our population...)
and speaking of balance, there was too much oxygen on the planet before mammals were here... plants and trees were covering the planet with their own exhalation to the point where they could have suffocated. we have shifted this, and even now with an overabundance of co2 i would say the imbalance is still not as bad as the overabundance of oxygen was. i'm not an expert on prehistoric biology though.
if you're going to argue that our natural functions constitute the ONLY meaning of our lives, at least list more than one of our natural functions. reproduction is a means to an end or ends, not an end. it is not all we do. THAT is a fact, regardless of what you or i believe.
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:34 am
]]>
He didn't mean to bring about the whole math concept when he said that
lol.,Statistics: Posted by MystikShadows — Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:32 am
]]>
]]>