The Alpha Course

[Manson?]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Lol, I don't think anyone is wrong if they try to act morally. One must remember that most religious rules were most likely created by groups of men trying to control various populations of people or thought, and not by 'their god' or any 'god'.

I am not too sure when the split occurred, presumably at the second destruction of the temple 70CE, but people must understabd that at this point (and much before) in Israel religion, Hebrew religion, Caananite relgion, there was no difference between state and religion. So yes men used the concept of divinity to not so much control populaces but to make rules and guidelines to live by. 'God' was used to legitamize politics. A little history.... When the jews were to be taken into Babylon in around 586 BCE, they were held by the neo-babylonians for 40 years until the Persian king Cyrus allowed them to return to Israel ok?
He allowed them to on 4 conditions.
1. They create a constitution. So there is a book of laws made that are god-given to the people. (the Torah)
2. They had to pay taxes. So Cyrus funded them to build the temple, this acts quite superbly as a centre of taxation no?
3. No king. Once again this is fitted into the Torah with a prophecy that Israel would be without king.
4.Prove ownership - What better way to say you deserve to live there then have a document saying the land was given to you by God. The Torah. (AKA first five books of jewish bible) That was how it was done back then.
So the question from this example is... How/when did a political document make the jump to a religous one???

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I think you got the part about Atheists subtly wrong.. they're not staking their eternity on having the right answer, they're saying there's no evidence of any God or Gods and therefore have to believe the resulting position; most Atheists would change their position if confronted with compelling evidence.

I don't think anybody is saying that there is material evidence for the existence of God and an after life. The argument is based on circumstantial evidence and personal experience. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that you're staking eternity on a losing bet if I'm right. Conversely I'm wasting many of the precious fleeting moments of my short existence if you are right.

Originally Posted by photon

"We should walk by and express what we know to be true until proven wrong." That doesn't really make any sense though, because if you know it to be true then it's been proven. It should be "believe it to be true". EDIT: At least given the general definition of "know", not a "know it in my heart" which is just another way of saying believe.

Well I don't like the word "belief" for the same reasons you dislike the word "know": It can be misinterpreted. A ten year old boy can express a belief in Santa Claus because the concept is pleasing to him. Yet he knows that someone could prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Many folks believe that there is a God and a heaven because it is a comfort too them. Yet these people wouldn't want you or I to try to convince them that their belief is true or false. You would rob them of their comfort by planting doubts in their minds. I would show them a God that they are accountable too. Both of us would take them from their happy place and probably not be invited back to their dinner party.

How about the word "confident". I'm confident that there is a God and a judgment and a heaven and a hell. You are confident that these things don't exist. Agreed?

[Calgaryborn]

Cheese

Maheem never existed. Which makes it easier to portray her without sin. An innocent like her infant. She never laughed at Noah's warnings. She never rejected her Creator because she would be the god of her own life. She wasn't a part of the violence that God brought about the flood because of.

Just think, Adam(and Eve) broke the only law that was given knowing that the punishment was immediate death. God commuted their sentences, postponing their judgment until His Son could come and pay the penalty for them. So what do the sons of Adam do? They start killing one another. Talk about a death wish.

O and by the way; there was no rain before the flood so your imaginary friend should have been considerably freaked out when she saw the cloud. Especially after hearing Noah preach at her 400 years. I guess there is no getting through to some people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Cheese

Maheem never existed. Which makes it easier to portray her without sin. An innocent like her infant. She never laughed at Noah's warnings. She never rejected her Creator because she would be the god of her own life. She wasn't a part of the violence that God brought about the flood because of.

Just think, Adam(and Eve) broke the only law that was given knowing that the punishment was immediate death. God commuted their sentences, postponing their judgment until His Son could come and pay the penalty for them. So what do the sons of Adam do? They start killing one another. Talk about a death wish.

O and by the way; there was no rain before the flood so your imaginary friend should have been considerably freaked out when she saw the cloud. Especially after hearing Noah preach at her 400 years. I guess there is no getting through to some people.

I'm not quite as familiar with the story as you so I have to ask -- was Noah preaching about the flood for 400 years before it happened?

[Manson?]

Yikes!!!
Do you honestly believe the old testament in such literal terms????
I'm sorry but try to think logically about it. Enough water to flood the world??? Where did it all go afterwards???? A big enough ark to fit 2 of each animal of which there are approximately 20,000 distinct Kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians we know of... This I suppose is where faith comes into play no?

CalgaryBorn O and by the way; there was no rain before the flood so your imaginary friend should have been considerably freaked out when she saw the cloud.

I am unsure, where do we know of this or assume this from??? About no rain before the flood that is. How did anything live, grow, etc.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I was not aware that Hal Lindsey had ever prophesied. Are you sure about that Azure? To the best of my knowledge he has spent his career interpreting prophetic scriptures in light of world events. He's been wrong a lot and probably should be ignored but, I don't think he should be classed as a false prophet for that.

I think he was one of the first people to start the belief that bar codes were in fact the number of the beast.

He has mellowed though, most of his prophecies were years ago.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Manson?

The whole idea of "right and wrong" vis a vis heaven and hell , eternal life eternal damnation are originally Christian ideas. To be more specific, if Christianity comes from Sectarian Judaism, and Islam concedes both, Christianity is the first western religion that brought this element up. In early Hebrew religion the after-life never was mentioned, and even now, isn't a widely accepted aspect of modern Judaism. In Islam of course it exists but not to the 'fire and brimstone suffering' level of Christianity. There really is an in-or-out mentality that is so black and white in CHristianity that is hard to pin-point within any other religion. DIGRESSION(anything put above Allah ie the Christian messiah is shirk which is basically unforgiveable sin. A further digression, it is interesting to note how much devotion Muhammud receives from some Muslims. This could consider be considered shirk for the same reasons, no?)

I believe the Zoroastrians(sp) were the first to use the figurative place of Gehenna as a place of punishment. It was literally a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The word "hades" is from Greek mythology of course. Yes I agree that "hell" and "hades" wasn't apart of Hebrew religion but this understanding was introduced by Christ. The after-life is a mystery to the Israelites and was much debated. I think within Christianity there are large sects which believe that you can lose your salvation. So I guess they see things as less black and white. The Catholics for instance believe everyone except Saints will spend time in torment refining themselves. You can shorten this time by works before you die and by the family and friends paying to have priests conduct a ceremony called the Eucharist. For baptists it is generally pretty cut and dry, though.

Originally Posted by Manson?

My point if i can remember it now, is that you are viewing (or at least how I have interpreted your post) religion in a predominately Christian manner. Not that I can blame a Christian for having viewpoints within his accepted constraints. But really, do the semantically small differences between say a Mennonite and a Pentecostal Christian or you, the baptist, make the difference between heaven and hell in your eyes??? Or were you using the getting the boot from God example as between you and say a Muslim.

God created churches to spread the gospel. The gospel is God's good news that a Saviour(His Son) came and paid the penalty for our sins. And that if a man receives the Messiah as his Lord and Saviour his sins are forever forgiven. This allows one to become an adopted child of God and have a relationship with him. Heaven is certainly a perk but, it is the restored relationship that is the heart of the gospel. Sin had destroyed that relationship. Churches do not administer salvation. One is saved by going to God directly with hat in hand. A Christian's responsibility is to proclaim the good news(Gospel) to the lost and to come together in a church to worship and to build one another up in the Faith. So basically the message has to be right. The shingle on the church doesn't matter because salvation isn't through the church. Now within Christianity there are denominations who teach that Salvation is through an ordinance or sacraments of their particular church. There is also sects who have added works to the free gift of salvation. This can't be done because to do that you are not trusting in the Saviour but rather yourself or church. There are sects which also present a false Christ; Making him an angel or a prophet rather than God. They are in effect trusting in false Christs.

As for the two groups you mentioned: they both present the gospel and the true Christ. Mennonites because of their strict society will struggle with having members who have chosen the life style but never have receive the Saviour. Perhaps being religious they don't see their need. Pentecostals will have members who think that because they came forward in a service and repeated a salvation prayer they are saved. They are trusting in what they experienced at the revival service rather than Christ. Both groups teach you can lose their Salvation which will cause some to work to prove to themselves they are saved instead of having faith in the one who does save. But these problems can all exist in baptist churches as well. One needs to always be willing to examine ones faith in light of scriptures.

[Manson?]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Now within Christianity there are denominations who teach that Salvation is through an ordinance or sacraments of their particular church. There is also sects who have added works to the free gift of salvation. This can't be done because to do that you are not trusting in the Saviour but rather yourself or church. There are sects which also present a false Christ; Making him an angel or a prophet rather than God. They are in effect trusting in false Christs.

As for the two groups you mentioned: they both present the gospel and the true Christ. Mennonites because of their strict society will struggle with having members who have chosen the life style but never have receive the Saviour. Perhaps being religious they don't see their need. Pentecostals will have members who think that because they came forward in a service and repeated a salvation prayer they are saved. They are trusting in what they experienced at the revival service rather than Christ. Both groups teach you can lose their Salvation which will cause some to work to prove to themselves they are saved instead of having faith in the one who does save. But these problems can all exist in baptist churches as well. One needs to always be willing to examine ones faith in light of scriptures.

Now forgive my obtuseness, but aren't you once again passing judgement on behalf of your interpretation of the bible?? Maybe there is no way around this. I do understand the concept of 'the body of believers, not the building' and I suppose there is really nothing to say to you in regards of your faith. Still the funny thing with religion is that each has the 'ought' and 'is'. The way things ought to be and the way things are. The funniest thing I find with religous beliefs is that if there is only one right way, and so many 'paths to destruction' I suppose you think there will be alot of dissappointed people one day hey???

[Cheese]

The Virus of Faith

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The Virus of Faith

It is really hard to respond with your own thoughts isn't it? Your reliance
on atheist web sites at least equals my reliance on the scriptures.

I suggest you take a step back and test the spirit that motivates these sites. Their hatred supersedes mere reason. It is not rational to hate someone you don't believe exists. Neither is it reasonable to concentrate so much of their hostility against Christianity. I wonder if some of these Atheists weren't abused by priests or something.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well I don't like the word "belief" for the same reasons you dislike the word "know": It can be misinterpreted. A ten year old boy can express a belief in Santa Claus because the concept is pleasing to him. Yet he knows that someone could prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Many folks believe that there is a God and a heaven because it is a comfort too them. Yet these people wouldn't want you or I to try to convince them that their belief is true or false. You would rob them of their comfort by planting doubts in their minds. I would show them a God that they are accountable too. Both of us would take them from their happy place and probably not be invited back to their dinner party.

How about the word "confident". I'm confident that there is a God and a judgment and a heaven and a hell. You are confident that these things don't exist. Agreed?

Fair enough, and probably true enough that we wouldn't be invited back. Finding the right single word is difficult I realize.

I would agree with confident on your side, but I wouldn't say I'm confident at all though. While I usually debate from the one side, often it's not because I'm totally confident in the position, but a lot of times the position poses the same questions that I myself have developed over the years. I wouldn't say I've got my fleece out, but I've got my fleece out of storage. EDIT: But someone who is stronger on that position would be confident yes.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I suggest you take a step back and test the spirit that motivates these sites. Their hatred supersedes mere reason. It is not rational to hate someone you don't believe exists. Neither is it reasonable to concentrate so much of their hostility against Christianity. I wonder if some of these Atheists weren't abused by priests or something.

Okay, I've taken a step back and tested the spirit that motivates atheists and haven't been able to come up with any spirit at all. Do you have any suggestions? Maybe it's the devil?

In other news, if I were you, I'd leave words like "rational" and "reasonable" out of the argument. Someone might be so bold as to use them against you. For example, someone might say "you believe in things that are not rational or reasonable or even remotely plausible, and I've never even met a priest".